Autobiography of George T. Ashley

0342

0342f

Autobiography of George T. Ashley

FROM BONDAGE TO

LIBERTY IN RELIGION


A SPIRITUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY


BY

GEORGE T. ASHLEY




THE BEACON PRESS

BOSTON




Copyright, 1919

BY THE BEACON PRESS, INC.


All rights reserved




FOREWORD

The substance of what is written in this book has been given on several
occasions during the past five years in the form of sermons or
lectures.  On each occasion they met with such hearty commendation, and
so many requests that they be written and published in book form that
they might have a wider circulation, that I have been induced to
undertake it.  This volume is the result.

It is in no sense a treatise on controverted theological questions;
altho some of these are incidentally treated, but only as they entered
as factors into my own religious life and experience.  This book is
simply the story of my own religious life from my early childhood to
the present time, in its various transitions from the narrowest
orthodoxy to a broad, liberal, rational religious faith.  It
necessarily deals to some extent with certain theological problems that
from time to time confronted me, the way in which I solved them, the
conclusions I finally reached, and why I reached them.  But these have
been treated in mere outline only.  The temptation has been very great
to treat, some of these at least, more elaborately; but I have been
compelled to content myself often with the bare statement of my views,
with few or no detailed arguments to support them.  But as my object
has been, not so much to try to solve these problems for others, as to
point the way thereto, and stimulate the reader to further inquiry and
deeper investigation of the subjects treated, if I have succeeded in
this, my main object has been accomplished.

No one is more sensible of the many defects in this work than I am.  It
makes no pretension to any literary merit, nor to any scholarly
erudition.  I am not a "professional writer."  I have simply tried to
tell my story in a simple way and make it "readable" if possible.  My
sole purpose in writing these pages has been to try to help others who
may still be in the fetters of ecclesiastical bondage, or wandering in
the quagmires of agnosticism--and I know there are many such--to find
the way to light and liberty in a rational religious faith.  If I can
accomplish this, even in a small degree, I shall feel abundantly repaid
for the time and labor spent in reviewing the story of my own religious
evolution.




INTRODUCTION

When the traveller, bent on some important quest, makes a prolonged and
perilous journey and returns in safety to his friends and neighbors,
instinctively those who have known him in former years realize that he
is, and he is not, the same person who had dwelt among them.  He has
seen unfamiliar peoples, traversed strange lands, encountered
unexpected dangers.  Old prepossessions have been effaced, erroneous
opinions have been corrected, new habits of thought have taken the
place of old ones and the narrow world of youth has expanded on every
side.  Naturally, what has happened to him becomes a matter of
curiosity and enquiry, and the hero of a great achievement is expected
to relate the story of his adventures.

The man who, in these revolutionary days, takes religion
seriously--there are many who do not--must make a journey which is
fraught with as many surprises and filled with as many
anxieties--especially if it be a pilgrimage from orthodoxy to personal
independence--as that which the explorer encounters in a voyage to the
North Pole or the jungles of Africa.  At every turning of the way he
must be prepared for disillusions and the discovery of facts and errors
which call for unlimited courage and boundless faith.  Religion is not
simply a matter of the emotions, its very perpetuity depends upon that
sane and persistent activity of the intellect without which the
emotions are tyrannous and fateful.  Emotion in religion is the driving
force by which religion may be applied to human welfare, but if emotion
be not governed and directed by the well-trained intellect, informed by
patient thought and the use of all the evidence available from those
who are entitled to be summoned as witnesses, the result inevitably is
merely a matter of superstition, or a spineless acquiescence in old and
futile beliefs.  To continue all the while to believe in _religion_
while one is pursuing a course of reasoning which is bound to shatter
many of the interpretations of it which one has previously accepted,
requires the kind of intellectual endurance and the quality of faith
which characterize the inventor, or the scientific explorer.

When the author of this volume, as an unquestioning disciple of his
ancestral fellowship, earnestly sought to pledge all that he was and
all that he hoped to become to the salvation of those who he believed
stood in peril of everlasting torment, it was the unadulterated spirit
of religion which prompted him.  But he was at that time unaware of
that fact.  Religion was with him when it moved him to give himself for
others, but to him religion was itself something entirely different.
He was urged and commanded by a force, old as mankind, and it took him,
as the reader of these pages will see, many years of heart-breaking
endeavor, to learn that what most he desired was what most he
possessed.  His quest was a long and weary one, and the reality of it
and the importance of it to him are proven by the thoroughness and the
eloquence with which his spiritual experience is recalled and set down
in these pages.  Only one who had begun in earnest, proceeded in
anxiety and continued to the end, as if he absolutely believed in the
integrity of the human reason and the intimate friendliness of a
supreme Guidance, could have emerged at last triumphantly and with the
ability to tell the tale.

To him who thinks of religion only as a matter of course, or as an
affair of the church, or as a medium of social advantage; or to him who
identifies religion with the ravings of half-witted fanatics and
regards it with patronizing contempt, this book will make no appeal.
But to the man or woman who has learned that religion is one thing and
theology another, and at whatever cost, is willing to share with the
author in his struggle to know the truth about it and be at peace,
these pages will command undivided attention; for they relate not only
the story of mental perplexity ending in a great personal solution, but
they likewise have the charm of a real romance of the soul.

LEWIS G. WILSON.




CONTENTS


CHAPTER

    I  MY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND EDUCATION
   II  SEEKING LIBERTY
  III  NEW VISIONS AND DISTURBANCES
   IV  NEARER THE CRISIS
    V  THE CRISIS
   VI  THE REACTION: A NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH
  VII  A NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION
 VIII  JESUS OF NAZARETH




FROM BONDAGE TO LIBERTY IN RELIGION

A RELIGIOUS AUTOBIOGRAPHY


CHAPTER I

MY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND EDUCATION

Practically all people inherit their first religious opinions from
their parents, their early environment or both, as I did mine.  The
trouble with most of us is that we never get beyond that stage.  We
take it for granted that these opinions, whether about religion,
politics or anything else, are correct, because we have been told so,
and never go out of our way or trouble ourselves for a moment to
investigate their truth or error.  And thus we go on from generation to
generation, traveling in the same old ruts, thinking the same old
thoughts, in the same old way, each of us assuming that our particular
ancestors could not possibly have been wrong about anything; and
although Christianity is divided into several hundred different
denominations and creeds, each believes his creed to be absolutely
correct and all the others partly or wholly wrong.

Like Saul of Tarsus, I belonged to the Pharisees of the strictest sect.
I was taught from infancy that the church of my parents was the one and
only true, scriptural and orthodox church on earth, with an unbroken
organic succession from Jesus Christ himself down to the present time;
that it was the only true exponent of apostolic faith and practice; the
only true and lawful custodian of the word of God, and the only
authority for the administration of the ordinances of the gospel; that
all other organizations claiming to be churches were not churches in
fact, but merely religious societies; and that while some of these
societies might do some little good in the world, and some of their
members might ultimately be saved, they could never reach those sublime
heights of glory reserved exclusively for the truly baptized members of
the true and only church.  Just when and how these ideas first took
concrete form in my mind it is impossible for me now to remember.  As
above intimated, in the plastic condition of my youthful mind, I
naturally absorbed them from the very atmosphere in which I lived, from
the common talk I heard around me, as well as from the direct
instruction given me.

As far back as I can remember, I understood the Bible to be the word of
God, every word of it, from the first word in Genesis to the last
"Amen" of Revelation; that it was all divinely inspired, _verbatim et
literatim_, just as it appeared in the old King James version; that it
was God's revelation to mankind, beside and outside of which there
never was, and never would be any other; that every word of it was
literally, and infallibly true, just as it read.  Such a thing as
figurative, or allegorical interpretations I never heard of until I was
a grown man, as we shall see later.

This, of course, meant a literal six-day Creation, an anthropomorphic
God, a literal physical heaven, and likewise a literal, physical hell,
a personal devil, the absolute, literal, truth of the story of Eden,
the original perfection and fall of man, total depravity of the race,
vicarious atonement and the eternal damnation of all mankind,
individually and collectively, who did not accept the prescribed creed
of the church of my parents, as the only means of escape.

My first conception of God was that of a great big good man sitting
high up in heaven on a great white throne, whence He would judge the
world; that heaven was a great city somewhere up in the skies, with
streets of gold and walls of jasper; that hell was a literal burning
lake of fire and brimstone somewhere down under the world, and that it
was presided over by the devil and was made to burn people in who were
not good, or who had not believed in Christ as a personal Savior.  As a
little child I was taught that if I was not a good boy, when I died,
the devil, usually spoken of as "the bad man," would get me and burn me
in this hell forever and ever; and that I never could burn up or die,
and if I called for water he would pour melted lead down my throat.
Many a time I would think over this horrible torture that I might
inadvertently fall into by doing some bad thing when at heart I really
meant to be good, and sincerely wish I had never been born.

In my night visions I could see the devil with his tea-kettle of melted
lead, pouring it down the throats of the helpless little ones, writhing
in the tortures of the never ending fire!

On the day that I was twelve years old a little incident occurred that
so indelibly stamped itself on my mind, and so changed the course of my
thoughts thereafter, that it is necessary to mention it.  I was proud I
had reached that stage of life.  I was boasting of it to a hired man,
with whom I was doing an errand, informing him that I was now "more
than half a man," and that in nine more years I would be a man, when "I
could do as I pleased."  He informed me that, after all, it was not a
thing to be so proud of; that I had that day reached "the age of
accountability"; that on that day I became personally responsible to
God for my sins; that if I had died before that day I would have been
saved from hell by God's free grace, because of my infancy; but that
_from that day on_, I must account to God for myself; and that it would
be necessary for me to repent, and pray daily for the forgiveness of my
sins, lest I die and fall into the "bottomless pit" for all eternity.
This was news to me.  I had never heard of before.  It produced a
profound sensation in my thought; and to say it seriously troubled me
is to put it mildly.  As soon as my errand was done I went to my mother
with it.  She confirmed it.  Then I sincerely wished I had died before
I reached that fateful day.

Another serious trouble confronted me.  When told I must repent of my
sins and pray for forgiveness, I could not comprehend just what it
meant to "repent."  I was told that it was "to be sorry" for my sins.

To be frank, I was not conscious of any sin.  I had tried to be a good
boy; I was obedient to my parents, and did no evil to any one that I
was aware of.  True, I made childish mistakes every day, as all
children do.  But I could not recognize that I had been personally
sinful against God.  I knew I had not meant to be.  Then they told me
that I was _born_ a sinner!  That when Adam ate the "forbidden fruit"
it made every person that was ever born into the world thereafter, a
sinner by nature; and I would have to repent of this sin, as well as
all that I ever committed, if I ever expected to escape the lake of
fire and brimstone "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not
quenched."  My whole nature, even as a child, revolted against the
injustice of thus making me responsible for, and punishing me for
something some one else did thousands of years ago; but I had no remedy
and had to take it and prepare to repent of Adam's sin.

What a monstrous doctrine to teach a child!  Can any mortal in this age
of the world believe such nonsense, or perpetrate such a caricature of
God?  I wondered how the "Good Man" up in the skies on his great white
throne in his beautiful city of gold, could be just and plunge a little
child into hell and burn it for ever and ever because Adam ate fruit
from the wrong tree!  But I believed it then, because I was told so,
and knew no better.  I don't believe it now, and how any human being
with the instincts of justice pertaining to the common brute creation
can believe such a thing is a mystery to me.

As time went on I learned more about repentance, faith, conversion,
baptism and the current theology of my time and environment.  But I was
ever anxious to escape from that dreaded hell that ever yawned before
me in daytime and disturbed my dreams at night.  The thought of it was
a veritable nightmare to me.  It destroyed the happiness of my early
life.  As a child I could not reconcile it with any conception of God's
goodness or justice.  I was often, in the silence of my heart, tempted
to rebel against God and defy him.  But I was afraid.  My thought was
to make the best I could of a bad situation, and at the earliest
possible moment make good my escape.  Perhaps this is as good a place
as any to state the fact that my parents were members of the Baptist
Church, and that in this faith I was brought up.  However, I am glad to
be able to state that they were much broader and more liberal in their
views than many of their brethren.  I do not wish to be unjust to this
great organization; but it is necessary here to make some statements
concerning its doctrine and practice, in order that my future relations
to it may be the better understood--statements, the truth of which, all
intelligent Baptists will testify to.

First, the Baptist Church is just as exclusive in its claim to being
the only true, scriptural, orthodox, apostolic Church as are the
Catholics, Episcopalians, or any other Christian body.  But this
applies _only_ to their ecclesiastical organization, and _not_ to the
character of its membership.

Second, it _does not_ hold that baptism is essential to salvation, but
that it _is_ to church membership.  They do not baptize people _to
make_ them Christians; but because they recognize them as already being
Christians, thru repentance, faith in Christ, and the regeneration of
the Holy Spirit.  Thus, they _recognize_ the true Christian character
of any and all others who furnish evidence of these fundamental
characteristics of a Christian life, tho they do not recognize them as
"church members," no matter to what other ecclesiastical organization
they may belong.  These statements are necessary to understand what
follows.

Now in the country where I was brought up, in the time of my boyhood,
there were but two churches,--Baptists and Methodists.  In fact I was
nearly grown before I knew there were any others at all.  These
churches were generally friendly--in a way.  While there was occasional
criticism of each by the other, and some controversy over doctrinal
differences, there was no open warfare; and often members of each would
attend and worship with the other.

As above said, I was anxious to make terms with God by repenting, being
baptized, or anything else that would relieve me of that constant dread
of eternal damnation that overshadowed my life.

Perhaps the reader has already surmised that I was brought up in the
country districts.  Our churches usually held services but once a
month.  But in the summer, when the "crops were laid-by," we usually
had our "protracted meetings," usually lasting a week--from Sunday to
Sunday--having two services a day at the church, with dinner on the
ground "for all who came."  This was the annual revival season, when
sinners were "snatched from the eternal burning," back-sliders
reclaimed and the cold and indifferent warmed up and aroused.

Well, the summer after I was twelve years old and had reached that
fateful period of "personal accountability," at our protracted meeting,
I wanted to go to the "mourner's bench," repent, join the church and be
baptized, and thus make good my escape and my "calling and election
sure."  At this time I had no clear conception of the meaning of
conversion.  Somehow I identified it with joining the church and being
baptized.  Contrary to the teachings of my church--which at that time I
did not understand,--to me, baptism was the main thing.  I wanted to be
baptized.  But they told me I was too young,--and too small to go down
into the deep water.  This was a great disappointment.  But I saw a ray
of hope.

The next week the Methodist Church near our home had its protracted
meeting and we attended.  There I saw children, younger and smaller
than myself go to the mourner's bench, join the church and be
baptized,--by sprinkling.  They even sprinkled babies.  While I clearly
understood that this was not _true baptism_, I also knew that many of
the Methodists were considered truly good people, good Christians, and
sure of heaven at death, notwithstanding their lack of true baptism.  I
therefore conceived the idea that after all, this sprinkling might
possess some merit, at least provisionally; and I therefore insisted on
being permitted to join the Methodist Church and be sprinkled for the
time being, as a sort of emergency measure, until I should grow up to
that age--and size--where I might join the Baptist Church and be
baptized right.  But this pleasure was denied me.

During the next two years I learned much; for I was a close student,
altho only a child.  My mind also underwent a considerable change.
That constant and tormenting fear and dread of hell gradually weakened.
In fact I was consciously growing more and more indifferent toward it.
Yet I was not altogether uninterested.  I had learned much more about
the meaning of "conversion" as I saw it manifested in many, and
sometimes violent, forms of demonstration.  As I saw these I fancied
that this was the kind of conversion I would like to have.  I wanted to
"get happy and shout" as some of the others did.

The time came for the annual protracted meeting at the church of my
parents.  At this meeting I found myself the object of considerable
solicitude.  I was now old enough to be converted, join the church and
be baptized.  They were all anxious that I be "saved."  Of course I had
to repent of my sins,--and also of Adam's.  I was not so self-conscious
of innocence now as I was a few years before.  I really felt that I had
something to repent of.

The preacher, and a good honest, sincere man he was, pictured the
flames of hell and the torments of the damned with such power that I
almost felt the warmth of its fires and smelled its fumes of sulphur.

I set out in earnest to repent of my own sins as well as Adam's.
Repenting was very easy.  I cried until the tears refused to flow
longer.  Believing was easy, for I believed it all.  Being baptized was
easy.  But I had not yet been "converted."  There was no miraculous
transformation in me.  I had not yet "got happy and shouted."  I waited
for it.  My tears dried up.  I still went to the "mourners' bench," but
nothing came of it.  I could not even cry.  One day the preacher,
noting my condition, had a talk with me.  I told him my feelings, and
he said I was converted.  But I told him that no such change had come
over me as the others told about, and that seemed manifest in their
emotions and actions.  Then he told me that as I was young and had
never been a great sinner I could not expect that wonderful
"experience" that often comes to the old and hardened cases.  I was
truly glad to hear it.  I really felt saved.  I had now escaped the
devil.  I had already learned the doctrine of "once in grace always in
grace," and I felt supremely happy to think that after all I had now
escaped from the "eternal burning" and was entirely out of danger.  I
joined the church and was baptized.

I have thus referred at some length to my childhood for two reasons: It
will be seen later how some of these experiences affected my
after-life; and also because I feel that in some measure I am only
repeating in substance the experiences of millions of others who have
passed through similar conditions of life.  Also to say to you, who
were brought up in the light of a liberal faith and free from these
dogmas of dread, despair and damnation, that you ought to be sincerely
thankful that you have escaped at least this much of hell, no matter
how much the orthodox may have in store for you in the future; and
further, to exonerate my parents from any blame in the premises.  They
taught me only as they had been taught and firmly believed, and did it
all for what they honestly believed, to be for my best interests.  Like
millions of others, they did the best they knew at the time.

THE CALL TO PREACH.--It was a part of the orthodox belief at that time,
and is very largely so even now, that after the fall of Adam,
practically all the human race was lost except now and then a worthy
patriarch like Abel, Enoch and Noah, down to the call of Abraham; and
after that only the pious and faithful of the seed of Abraham, thru
Isaac, were saved, down to the coming of Christ.  All the balance of
mankind were utterly and irretrievably lost, both wicked and apostate
Jews and _all_ Gentiles.  And since the death of Christ those only are
saved who repent and believe in him as a personal savior, and accept
the prescribed creed of the particular church presenting it.  All the
balance of mankind, including all Jews and nine-tenths of the balance
of mankind are irretrievably lost.

This being the case, the sole end and aim in life is to escape hell
hereafter.  Nine-tenths of the preaching in my boyhood was to warn men
to "flee from the wrath to come."  But little was said about the love
of God or the brotherhood of man, the nobility of character, human
helpfulness, the promotion of happiness here, and the general uplift
and advancement of civilization and mankind.

It was wonderful the way they did ring the changes on hell and
damnation, and fire and brimstone!  It thundered from every pulpit like
the traditional thunders from Mt. Sinai.

Taking this view of the world, of life and mankind, I felt that the
greatest thing in the world a man could do would be to devote his life
to warning men of their danger and pointing the way to safety.  I
wanted to sound my voice in warning men to "flee from the wrath to
come."  Believing that all men were lost if they did not follow the
prescribed course laid down by my church, I felt that if I did not do
all in my power to direct them in the way of eternal life their blood
would be on my hands.  While I did not feel that I would be "lost" if I
failed in this--for the doctrine of my church was, that once being
converted all the devils in hell could not keep one ultimately from
heaven--yet I felt that my future happiness in heaven would be
diminished just in proportion as I failed to do my best in this behalf.
This was interpreted to be a "divine call to preach."  I accepted it
with profound earnestness and deep conviction, and began early to
exercise my gifts.

In due course of events I went to college to "prepare for the
ministry."  I was in love with the work and happy in its prospects.  I
was ambitious to be thoroly efficient in my work in the future and
pursued my studies with diligence accordingly.  Incidentally I learned
much that was not in the books, as most college students do.

I little knew what was before me.  Here in a "school of the prophets,"
where I was supposed to be thoroly trained, rooted and grounded in the
faith of my church, I was to learn the first lessons that ultimately
led me entirely out of the orthodox faith, into a broad, rational
liberalism!  A few of these it will be necessary to state here, not so
much because of any immediate effect they produced, as to show the
working of the leaven that years afterward "leavened the whole lump."

The first shock I got was in the study of Geology.  When I began it I
saw at once that it was out of harmony with the Bible account of
Creation, the origin of the earth, and organic life upon it.  While no
one told me so, I somehow conceived the idea that we were not studying
it because it was recognized as truth, but just the opposite.  Being
rooted and grounded from my infancy in the belief in the absolute
literalness, and infallible truth of the Bible; and supposing that I
was in college only to be more thoroly instructed in this divine truth,
I conceived the idea that this book we were studying was merely the
"guess-work" of some modern infidel, and that our real purpose in
studying it was to be the more able to refute it when we got out into
our life work; all of which would fully appear before we finished the
book.

One day when we were perhaps half thru, the professor, himself a
Baptist minister, catechised the class individually, as to their
opinions as to the length of time the earth was in process of
formation, previous to the appearance of life upon it.  I noticed, with
surprise, that the answers varied from a few millions to hundreds of
billions of years, until the question came to me, when I answered
promptly, "Six days!"  Everybody laughed, professor and all.  Of course
I felt "cheap"; but insisted on the correctness of my answer "because
the Bible said so," notwithstanding Lyell and Dana to the contrary.

The professor complimented me on my "loyalty to the Scriptures," but
explained that the story of creation in Genesis was to be interpreted
"figuratively"; that it referred to six great geological epochs in
terms of days; and that what we were studying was to be accepted as
scientific truth in its general principles, subject, however, to
possible revision in some of its details as further geological
discoveries were made.

This was a revelation to me.  I know the intelligent reader of today
will be provoked to laugh at my native, inherent "greenness." But it
must not be forgotten that this was thirty-six years ago; and besides
this, there are still, in this year of grace 1919, literally millions
of men and women, long past the age of student life, who still hold
substantially the same views concerning the relations of science to
religion and the Bible that I held then.  The simplicity of faith is
often sublime.  And I am not sure that it is not often the truth that,
"Ignorance is bliss where it is folly to be wise"; especially where the
"wisdom" is just sufficient to disturb the mind but not enough to
settle it.  But I had a revelation,--two of them.

First, that modern science is to be taken seriously; and second, that
much of the Bible must be interpreted figuratively.  The latter was the
most disturbing to me.  The question that confronted me was this: If
the Bible is partly literal and partly figurative, when I get out into
my life work as a minister, how am I to be able to always determine
correctly just what parts are literal and what figurative; and how to
interpret the figures?  But the answer came as quickly as the question:
This is just what I am here to learn, and before I am thru I will
doubtless know it all!  Some time after this a discussion arose among
the divinity students, about the doctrines of inspiration--as to
whether the Bible was literally and verbally inspired, word for word,
or was merely an inspiration of ideas, the writers being left to write
their "inspirations" in their own language and manner.  My idea had
always been that of the former, that the Bible was inspired word for
word, just as it reads.  But I found the more progressive and better
educated class among both students and professors had abandoned this
idea, and accepted the doctrine of the inspiration of ideas only.  It
was strange to me that God could not have dictated the words as easily
as the ideas, and thus have made sure of their correctness.  But it set
me to thinking.  I had never had any doubt about the inspiration of the
Bible, yet I could give no reason for it, except that I had always been
told so.  Now as progress and education were going to compel me to
revise my opinions about the _manner_ of inspiration, I began to wonder
what evidence we really had that the Bible was inspired at all.  I
really had no doubts about the fact.  I supposed, of course, the
evidence existed _somewhere_, but that they had never been specifically
pointed out to me; and I wanted to know just _what_ and _where_ they
were.  I confided my inquiries to a senior student in whom I had great
confidence.  He told me the devil was whispering doubts in my ear and I
should not listen to him!  That there could be no possible doubt about
the _fact_ of inspiration; that this question had been definitely and
finally settled over eighteen hundred years ago by the wisest and best
men of the world, and there had never been a shadow of a doubt about it
since; that the evidences of inspiration of ideas instead of verbal
inspiration were found in the many different styles and manner of
writing found in the Bible itself as represented by the different
writers.  But as to the fundamental fact of divine inspiration itself,
there had never been a shadow of a doubt!  So I accepted the new idea
of inspiration and said "Get thee behind me, Satan," and after that for
many years I did not permit myself to doubt the fact of inspiration.
Yet occasionally I could not keep from thinking, and many years later
this question arose again in my mind with tragic force and effect.




CHAPTER II

SEEKING LIBERTY

Other questions now began to arise that were soon to materially affect
my church relations, without, however, any material change in my
fundamental theology.  As before stated, my sole ambition in life was
to warn sinners to "flee from the wrath to come."  To this one purpose
all other things must be made subordinate.  For this one purpose I was
pursuing my studies in college that I might become the more efficient
in its accomplishment.  Impressed as I was with the awful truth of
man's total depravity and natural alienation from God, and the
certainty of his eternal damnation in the never-ending flames, unless
he accepted fully, and followed implicitly the prescribed course which
I had been taught was the only means of escape, I felt that "Woe is me,
if I preach not the gospel."  I felt that any deflection on my part,
from the full performance of my duty in this particular, up to the full
extent of my power and opportunity, would not only entail eternal
torments upon all who might have been thus saved thru my efforts, but
would also detract from my own eternal glory in heaven in exactly the
same ratio.

I began to look upon the church as being at most but a means, or agency
to this end; the channel thru which I might work to accomplish this
central purpose.  Leaving other churches out of consideration, as not
being germane to the purpose of this narrative, while yet in school I
had become more fully informed as to the fundamental theology of the
Methodist Church; and somewhat to my surprise, I found there was no
substantial difference between it and the Baptist Church, to which I
belonged.  They both appealed to the same infallible revelation; both
taught the same doctrine of the fall of man, total depravity and
inherited sin; both taught the same doctrines concerning the
personality and character of Christ, and the vicarious atonement in his
death; the same doctrines concerning heaven and hell; and the same
doctrines of salvation by repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, and
regeneration by the Holy Spirit.  I perceived that the only substantial
difference between the two was purely one of ecclesiastical
organization and polity.  As before noted, the Baptist Church did not
hold that either baptism or church membership was necessary to
salvation; but that "salvation" was first necessary before one was
scripturally entitled to either baptism or church membership.  It was
also freely admitted that a truly repentant and converted Methodist was
just as truly "saved" and as sure of heaven as any Baptist,--and that
there were many such there could be no doubt,--true members of the
kingdom of God and the Church Universal; true heirs of glory and fit
subjects for the heavenly kingdom,--yet not fit for membership in the
earthly church, admittedly imperfect at its best, solely because they
had not been dipped under the water, an ordinance admitted to be
secondary, and wholly unnecessary to the main object!

I began to wonder from whence came the authority to bar the doors of
God's earthly church against those who were clearly admitted to be
members of the Church Universal, and of God's spiritual kingdom.  Thus
my faith in the exclusive claims of my church to be the _only true
church_ on earth, was very much weakened; tho I still firmly believed
it to be the best church, and by far the most scriptural, orthodox and
apostolic.  Yet, I could not see why we might not affiliate with, and
co-operate more with our Methodist brethren, imperfect and unscriptural
(?) as their ecclesiastical organization was, especially in carrying
forward the great central object we both had in view, the salvation of
souls from hell; and more especially, since there was no substantial
disagreement between us as to the means and processes of accomplishing
this object; our real differences beginning only _after_ this was
accomplished.  The Methodists were always willing to co-operate with us
to the fullest extent we would permit them; but we, never, with them.

During the summer that followed the close of my sophomore year in
college (which, as subsequent events will show, proved to be my last),
an event occurred that so affected my future ecclesiastical relations
that it needs to be told in some detail.

As is generally well known, one of the principal differences between
the Baptist and Methodist churches is their difference of view in
regard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as well as that of the
mode of baptism.  The Methodists, as liberal evangelicals, offer it to
all Christians present when it is celebrated, leaving it to each
individual to judge for himself as to his fitness to partake of it;
while the Baptists limit it to "members in good and regular standing"
in their own "faith and order."  The Baptists generally disclaim being
"close communionists," but "close baptists."  That is, they insist that
no person is eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper until after
baptism _by immersion_; and that by a regularly ordained Baptist
minister, upon the authority of a Baptist church, expressed by a vote
of its members.  I do not know that I ever saw the ordinance celebrated
in a Baptist church, that some explanation along this line was not
made, by way of apology.

The event that so influenced my future thought was this: At a Baptist
church, some six miles from my father's residence, their annual
protracted meeting had been going on a week,--from Sunday to Sunday.
Some eight or ten persons had joined the church during the week and
were to be baptized at 10 A.M. on this last Sunday, after which was to
follow the regular church services at 11 A.M.; and then the celebration
of the Lord's Supper.  A half mile away was a Methodist church, and the
place of baptism was the ford of a creek about half way between the two.

The Methodist Sunday School usually met at 9.30 A.M.  But on this
occasion superintendent, teachers and pupils, came in a body down to
the ford to see the baptising.  After it was over the Methodist
superintendent, with several of his teachers and older pupils, remained
for the services at the Baptist church.  At the close of the sermon two
persons presented themselves for membership, and were accepted, by vote
of the members, subject to baptism, at the next regular monthly
meeting; after which Brother Crawford, the Methodist Sunday School
Superintendent, was called on to lead in prayer, a function in which he
was earnest, able and eloquent, as well as being universally recognized
as a man of unblemished character, sincere and deep piety.

The minister then proceeded to administer the Lord's Supper, prefacing
it with the usual apologies and explanations about "close baptism"
instead of "close communion"; and to illustrate this point, he referred
to the fact that two persons had just presented themselves for church
membership, and had been accepted, subject to baptism, concerning whose
conversion and sincere Christian character, there was just as sure
confidence as there was of any that had been baptized that morning; yet
these two could not partake of the Lord's Supper because they had not
yet been baptized.

Just at this point there suddenly darted into my mind, almost with the
force of a "clap of thunder from a clear sky," the question, "Where is
the scriptural authority for this?"  I had heard it perhaps a hundred
times.  I was as familiar with it as I was with the alphabet, but for
the first time in life the thought came to me with the suddenness of
lightning, "Where is the scriptural authority for it?"  I could not
remember that I had ever heard a single passage of scripture quoted in
its support, or defense.  (The reader must keep in mind that up to this
time, and for several years thereafter, to me, the Bible was
infallible, inerrant, and the sole and final authority in all matters
pertaining to religion and the church.)  The shock was so great, and my
mental agitation so intense, that it threw me into a fever.  I went
home sick.

During the following week I read the New Testament thru in special
search for some passage to support the doctrine that baptism, in any
form, was a necessary prerequisite to a proper participation in the
Lord's Supper.  _And I did not find it_.  In fact I did not find any
direct evidence in the Gospel record that any of the twelve to whom
Jesus first administered this supper were ever baptized at all! and if
they were,--which is only an inference, or a reading into the record,
not what actually is there, but what somebody thinks ought to be
there,--it was not Christian baptism, but the baptism of John, which,
according to the teachings of the Baptist Church, was an entirely
different thing in meaning and purpose, tho the same in form.

John's baptism, according to the teachings of my church, was a "baptism
unto repentance," _in preparation_ for the appearance of Christ; while
Christian baptism, "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost" was not instituted until _after_ the descent of the Holy
Ghost, according to the promise of Jesus, on the Day of Pentecost.
Then for the first time, and not until then, did Christian baptism in
the name of the Trinity, have any existence or meaning.  It was
therefore quite clear to me, that this institution that we call the
Lord's Supper, being instituted, and first administered to persons who,
so far as we have any specific knowledge, were not baptized at all; and
who in the very nature of the case _could not_ have been baptized under
that formula commonly known as Christian baptism; therefore, whatever
meaning may be attached to the Lord's Supper, it has absolutely no
connection with, or relation to any kind, or form of baptism whatsoever.

It is one of my misfortunes that I have never had sense enough to "keep
my counsel to myself."  I have always had a habit of "thinking out
loud."  And when I thus began to express myself, my position in the
Baptist Church began to grow "shaky," not to say precarious.  Yet, I
still held rigidly to the doctrine that immersion alone was baptism,
and that with all its defects, the Baptist Church was the most
scriptural and orthodox in its doctrines and practices of any church in
existence.

The upshot of this whole matter was, that I was soon cited before my
"church conference" to answer a charge of heresy, in holding to the
doctrine of "open communion."  I appeared and wanted to make a defense
of my position before the church.  I was vain and silly enough at that
time to think if I could only make my argument before the church I
would be able to convert a majority of the members to my views, and
thus save myself and "reform" the church.  But this I was not permitted
to do.  I was told I might answer either "guilty" or "not guilty," and
no more.  I refused to answer either way, unless I was further
permitted to explain my answer.  This was denied me.  Whereupon, a
motion was made to "withdraw fellowship from Brother Ashley"; and
without debate or further ceremony, the motion was put, four persons
voting Aye, and three, No, altho about forty members were present.  And
thus I went out of the Baptist Church, whereby my education for the
ministry became automatically "finished," and all hope of my
ministerial career blasted.

Strange as it may seem there was a sort of personal satisfaction in
this.  I had not entered the ministry as a pure matter of choice.
While I did not shrink from it, but rather took it up joyously, it was
because I felt it to be a duty divinely imposed upon me, and therefore
an honor of which I was proud; and because it was the means thru which
I might gratify my personal desire to be of some real use to God and
humanity, in saving souls from the eternal burning.

But now I felt that I had fulfilled my part as far as I possibly could,
and was denied the privilege of going further by the action of the
church; and that thereafter the church, and not I, was responsible for
any failure on my part to go on with the work of warning sinners to
"flee from the wrath to come."  I was a little like Jonah fleeing to
Tarshish.  I was rather secretly glad I had gotten away, and shifted
the responsibility somewhere else.

But these impressions did not last long.  My fundamental theology had
not changed.  The Bible was still an infallible divine revelation.
Humanity was still lost, totally depraved, abiding under the "wrath of
God"; hell was a reality towards which all humanity was bound; and the
only means of escape was to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ"
according to the prescribed formula.  The burden of my personal
responsibility soon returned.  I could not escape it.  True, I was out
of the church--the Baptist Church; but it seemed quite evident that God
was using other agencies, outside the Baptist Church, for the salvation
of souls, and seemed to be doing it quite successfully.  If God could
so use the Methodist Church for this purpose, why might not I?  What
did baptism amount to anyway?  I was never taught that it was necessary
to salvation.  And if not, why make such a fuss about it?  If a person
was already saved, and it was only "an outward sign of an inward
grace," what difference could it make how it was administered, who
administered it, or whether it was administered at all?

These were some of the questions that ran thru my mind.  I also began
to note that there were at least a few places in the New Testament that
might be fairly interpreted to imply that baptism was, at least, _not
always_ by immersion.

For example, the baptism of so many thousands on the Day of Pentecost
in Jerusalem, where the supply of water was very limited, and this all
under the control of the enemies of the new religion.  The immersion of
so many, in so short a time and under such circumstances and conditions
was next to a physical impossibility, while easily probable if done by
sprinkling.

By these processes of reasoning, in the course of some two years, I
found a congenial home in the Methodist Church, at first with some
trepidation, but soon afterwards with perfect satisfaction.  While this
change in church relations involved quite a radical change in matters
of ecclesiastical organization and polity, it must be kept in mind that
it _did not_ involve any material change in matters of fundamental
theology.  But let it be noted here that during all this time I was
striving for some degree of religious liberty; and in passing from the
Baptist to the Methodist Church, I was at least making some progress
towards it, however small it might be.  To shorten my story, in a few
months I found myself a "circuit rider" in the Louisiana Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South--(I was born and reared in the
"pine hills" of Mississippi).

It is not necessary to go into any lengthy details concerning my work
at this time, beyond the fact that I was fairly successful in it, and
for the time being, I found it eminently satisfactory and fairly
pleasant to myself.  However, under the workings of the itinerant
system, in a few years I found myself located in the state of Missouri,
where I transferred my church relations to the St. Louis Conference of
the M. E. Church.  This change involved nothing but a matter of
personal choice and convenience.




CHAPTER III

NEW VISIONS AND DISTURBANCES

Having thus changed my church relations, and feeling that I had a
greater field of usefulness open to me, my zeal for efficiency and
success increased.  I had a sincere and consuming desire to "save men's
souls."  And believing my creed to be as infallible as the Bible upon
which it was based, I studied to make myself efficient and able in its
defense.  By following the ordinary methods of interpretation, I soon
found no trouble in doing this.  Does the reader inquire here what are
the "ordinary methods of interpretation"?  Taking a chapter, or verse,
or paragraph of the Bible here and there, thru the whole book, from
Genesis to Revelation, and weaving them together as a connected whole,
regardless of whether there is any natural connection between them or
not; then disposing of all contradictory passages as either
"figurative,"--with unlimited latitude on the interpretation of the
"figures,"--or as pertaining to those "great and mysterious, unknowable
things of God's divine revelation,"--mysteries too great for man to
know!  This method of interpretation is the common practice, to a
greater or less extent, of every church in Christendom that accepts the
doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, and looks to it as its sole
and final source of authority in religion.  There is not a creed in
Christendom today, and never has been, that cannot be supported and
proved to be conclusively correct from the Bible by this method of
interpretation.  By the same method the Bible can be made the
defense--and it often has been--of war, murder, slavery, polygamy,
adultery, and the foulest crimes known to humanity, and these all made
the divine institutions of God.  And these are exactly the leading
methods of interpretation of the Bible that are being followed today,
and have been since Christianity first began to divide into sects and
parties.

But this is a digression.  While I recognized some merit in nearly all
the creeds, I firmly believed mine the best.  My faith in, and devotion
to the Methodist Church had become so intense that I believed the sum
total of all theological knowledge was concentrated and embodied in
John Wesley.  There could be no more progress, no more discovery.  It
was a finished science, and John Wesley finished it.  There are
thousands who still think so, even to this day!  I looked back over
history to the days of apostolic purity, followed the trend of
theological thought in its decline into error and superstition, thru
the dark ages, to the first glimmer of light in Wickliffe, followed by
Huss, until the flame of the Reformation sprang up in Luther, Zwingli
and Calvin, followed by Knox and Arminius; but Wesley was the end of
knowledge, and wisdom died with him.

Yes, I was soon able to defend and prove my creed to the satisfaction
of myself and my superiors.  But now I wanted to go further.  I wanted
to _prove_ the _proof_.  As I grew older and my mind broadened I
desired to drink deeper from the fountains of knowledge.  I started out
with the best materials available to me to make a critical study of the
Bible.  Up to this time I had studied the Bible only superficially.  I
had accepted it as truth, as divine, as inspired, as infallible, except
the doubts of my school days before described, and these I had long
since cast aside.  I had studied the Bible as the great mass of
Christians study it today--to support and defend preconceived opinions,
most of which I had inherited.  Now I was to seek for basic principles.
I wanted to know just who wrote each book of the Bible, when he wrote
it and why, and just what the specific proofs were as to these facts
and of its divine inspiration.

In looking back over the period of years that have since intervened, I
am still unable to perceive any selfish, egotistical motive in these my
ambitions.  My unquenchable thirst for knowledge was inspired solely by
my desire to increase my efficiency in that vocation to which I
sincerely believed I was divinely called.

I never had the opportunity of taking a Divinity Course in a Divinity
School.  But both the great branches of the Methodist Church require
all its ministers, before final ordination, to take a prescribed course
of study, somewhat after the correspondence method, covering four
years,--and longer if necessary to cover the full prescribed
course,--that is practically equal to the curriculum of the average
Divinity School, minus the advantages of class room instruction and
class lectures.  It was this course of study that I pursued, prescribed
by the bishops of the M. E. Church.  And it was here in these orthodox
books, prescribed by the bishops of my church as necessary for me, not
only to read, but to study, learn and digest, to fully equip me for the
ministry, that I learned the lessons that completely upset my faith,
and finally led me to abandon the church and religion entirely!  I
might add that it was perhaps as much what I _failed_ to learn from
these books, things that I was looking for and could not find because
it was not in them, that led me to this course, as it was from the
affirmative facts I did learn.

Up to this time, and long afterwards, I had never read a book that
might be called at all liberal in theology, much less anything of a
sceptical character.  In fact I had read nothing, outside of school
text books, except such books as were authoritatively published by some
Baptist or Methodist publishing house.  Robert G. Ingersoll was then at
the height of his fame, and I would not even read a political speech of
his, because he was an "infidel."  The strange anomaly of the whole
thing is that I was led, or rather driven, clear out of the church into
practical agnosticism thru and by my earnest and intense efforts to
more strongly fortify and establish myself in my preconceived beliefs
about the Bible and religion.  This will appear more fully as we
proceed.

First of all, all orthodox Christianity is based upon the doctrine that
the Bible is the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God.  Upon
this Bible as the sole authority, every doctrine, creed, dogma and
ecclesiastical practice is based.  Take away this doctrine of Biblical
infallibility, and orthodoxy crumbles to dust.  As long as it is held
to be infallible truth, every creed in Christendom can find abundant
material in it to prove every point it claims.  Every one knows that
among the many Christian denominations which fully agree with each
other the Bible is an infallible revelation from God; yet the doctrines
and conclusions they deduce from it are as diametrically opposed to
each other as midnight and noon.

As I have already said, I never had any doubt, up to this time, of the
divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, except a very slight
one about the method of inspiration, which I have already detailed of
my student days.  As a Methodist I had become fairly proficient in my
ability to defend every detail of my church doctrine.  I could repeat
almost every passage of scripture from Genesis to Revelation in support
of each of the Twenty-five Articles.  My only trouble was when I would
occasionally run across some sceptic who would question my
authority,--the Bible.  Of course I would tell him the Bible was the
word of God; and he would demand proof, "_detailed facts_," in support
of my assertion.  While perfectly satisfied in my own mind, these
"detailed facts" were not in my possession.  But now I was going to get
them.

In the last year of my conference course of study, one of the books
prescribed was "Harman's Introduction to the Study of the Holy
Scriptures."  Dr. Harman was Professor of Greek and Hebrew in Dickinson
College.  I was told that in this book I would find "completely
detailed, uncontrovertible proofs of the divine authenticity,
inspiration, and infallible truth of the Bible."  This was just what I
had long been looking for, and just how I found it will soon appear.


APPROACHING THE CRISIS

The first one-third of this book of 770 pages is devoted to proving the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, its inspiration and infallible
truth.  On the subject of inspiration generally the author follows the
_ideal_ rather than the _verbal_ theory.  His theory of the _necessity_
of inspiration is based upon the idea that the Bible contains records
that could not otherwise have been known at the time they were written;
for example, the account of Creation "must have been divinely revealed
to Moses, as he could not otherwise have known it."  The _extent_ of
inspiration he limits to those matters that were "not otherwise known"
to the writers.  Things of which they had personal knowledge were
therefore not the subjects of inspiration.  For example, the advice of
Jethro, concerning the division in the burdens of the government, was
_not_ inspired, because Moses got it directly from the mouth of Jethro
himself.  Nevertheless the author was "divinely guided" in writing of
matters of his personal knowledge, in order that the "sacred record"
might be preserved from error.  As to the _proofs_ of inspiration, I
quote verbatim: "The inspiration of the Bible is evident from its
sublime doctrines concerning God, the purity of its moral precepts, and
from the wonderful fulfillment of its prophecies."  When I read this I
confess I felt a little disappointed.  I had understood this before.  I
wanted something more specific, material, tangible.

Then follows a lengthy treatise on the Hebrew language, the original
characters in which the Pentateuch was written, without vowels or
punctuation marks; how it was preserved by copying from generation to
generation; how errors crept into various copies; an account of the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint; how these all differ the one
from the other in many details; of the ancient manuscripts that are
still extant, and how these all differ more or less from each
other,--not in anything fundamental, but in many minor details; and
finally winds up with the statement that "the original text is
uncertain"!

This was all new to me.  I had naturally supposed that not only the
original text was divinely inspired and infallibly correct, but that by
some sort of divine supervision, it had been so preserved and kept down
thru the ages.  And now I was not only disappointed, but alarmed.  I
wondered what would come next.  And I soon learned.

Before this I had never discovered, nor had any one pointed them out to
me, the many discrepancies and contradictions in the early Biblical
records,--the two stories of creation, the two accounts of the flood
that are so intricately woven together, the changes in the law in
Deuteronomy from those in Exodus and Leviticus; and others.  My simple,
blind faith had completely obscured all these until now.  It is true
the author pointed them out only to explain or reconcile them.  But in
practically every instance, the explanation failed to explain, or
reconcile, and was only an apology or an excuse; and I was left with a
clear vision of the discrepancy, and with no adequate explanation.  The
differences between some parts of the law, as recorded in Deuteronomy
and in the earlier books, was explained as a "progressive development
according to the changing conditions and needs of the Hebrews."  From a
purely human viewpoint, I considered this explanation satisfactory.
But from that of "divine revelation," I wondered why God did not reveal
it correctly at the first; or why he found it necessary to change his
own law.

Concerning the ritual law of the tabernacle and the priesthood, the
author confesses that, in all probability, Moses was educated at
Heliopolis, in Egypt, for the Egyptian priesthood, and was therefore
perfectly familiar with all the priestly regulations of the religion of
Egypt; and that _the tabernacle service, its priesthood, their dress,
sacred utensils, etc., were doubtless all patterned after Egyptian
models, but devoted to Jehovah instead of the gods of Egypt; and he
cites this as a proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch_.

And in support of this view, he quotes the opinion of the Abbé Victor
Ancessi!  And I had always been taught that the tabernacle, the
priesthood, and all that pertained to both, were divinely revealed to
Moses on Mt. Sinai!  "According to the pattern shown thee in the mount."

Then on the question of interpolations, our author confesses that there
are many of them in the Pentateuch, most of them showing that they
belong to a much later age than Moses; yet he denies that any of them
are material, or in any way change the original meaning or sense of the
text.

Thus I went thru over 250 pages, devoted, not so much to the questions
of divine inspiration and supernatural revelation, as these seemed to
be very largely taken for granted; but to the defense of the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch upon which seemed to hinge the whole
question of its authenticity and infallible authority.  As the author
puts it, "If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses it is a forgery."
To do this he quotes quite elaborately from the higher critics, Bauer,
Davidson, Bleek, Ewald, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, for the
ostensible purpose of answering and refuting them.

Now I had, up to this time, never read a line of such Biblical
criticism, except that quoted by this author.  Naturally, I not only
had no sympathy with it, but was strongly prejudiced against it.  But I
could not fail to note that the refutations and explanations of my
author very often failed to either refute or explain.

To sum the whole thing up, when I had gone thus far, I could not avoid
the impression that from the standpoint of logical argument, based upon
any _known facts_, the whole thing was a failure.  It was simply a
continued series of apologetics; in legal parlance, a sort of
"confession and avoidance."  I began in the firm _belief_ that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch, and that he was divinely inspired in doing it.  I
expected to find the definite proofs that this was true.  When I got
thru I didn't know who wrote it.  I was equally certain the author I
was reading didn't know; and I doubted if any one else did.  I felt the
incipient doubts of my school days returning, only in much larger
volume and greater force.  If the reader will pardon the phrase: "I
felt myself slipping."

Then followed a study of the authorship, origin, character, and purpose
of the remaining canonical books of the Old Testament.  These may all
be grouped into two or three divisions.  Of the historical books of
Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings and
First and Second Chronicles, I found to my surprise, that nobody knows
who wrote any of them; nor anything definite about the time, or
circumstances under which they were written.  Joshua was merely
_believed_ to have been written not later than twenty-five years after
the death of Joshua, by some person or persons who were personally
familiar with the events therein narrated.  As the book is clearly
divided into two distinct parts, the first ending with the twelfth
chapter and the second beginning with the thirteenth, it is _supposed_
that it was written by Eleazar and Phinehas.  But this is admitted to
be mere conjecture.

The Book of Judges is placed after that of Joshua, because it takes up
the narrative where Joshua closes.  It is assumed that it _must have
been written_ sometime before the close of David's reign.  "Respecting
the Authorship of Judges, nothing is known."  The date of both books of
Samuel--originally one book--is wholly unknown, as is also that of the
Kings and Chronicles.  It is conjectured from internal evidence, that
Chronicles was _probably_ compiled by Ezra, from Samuel, Kings, and
possibly other documents, sometime after the return from the exile.

As to the Book of Ezra, it was shown that it is probably one of the
most authentic books of the Old Testament, and written by the man whose
name it bears.  Nehemiah was also placed in the thoroly authentic
class, with the admission that about one-fourth of the total contents
of the book, appearing in the middle of it, is _very probably_ an
interpolation by a later, and unknown author.  But this, he insists,
does not detract from the divine inspiration and authenticity of the
book as a whole.

Ruth and Esther also belong to the class of the unknown.  Nobody knows
who wrote either, nor when, nor where.  Ruth is placed "probably
sometime during the reign of David."  Esther is much later; in fact it
is one of the latest books in the Old Testament Canon, from which it
was long excluded because the name of God nowhere appears in it.  The
historical events narrated in it are admitted to be of very doubtful
authenticity, as they are nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, and are
wholly unknown to secular history; and such events, if they occurred at
all, were of such transcendent importance to the Jewish nation, that
mention of them in the Chronicles, or by some of the prophets, could
hardly have been omitted.  But our author gets around all these
difficulties by the Feast of Purim.  He insists that such a memorial as
this, that has been and still is celebrated annually by the Jews in all
parts of the world, "since the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary," could not possibly have originated in a mere fiction, and
been perpetuated so long.  Therefore, the Book of Esther must be true,
and divinely inspired!

When I had read thus far, in spite of my former simple faith in the
divine inspiration and infallible truth of the Bible, I found myself
clearly on the toboggan; and I was deeply disturbed in mind.  I was
studying a thoroly orthodox author, a distinguished professor in one of
our leading colleges, whose book was approved by the bishops of my
church; a book clearly written for the purpose of defending the
traditional position of the church concerning the Bible, on almost
every page of which that I had thus far read, I found a series of
apologetics rather than arguments; with constant admissions of the
world's total ignorance of the origin, authorship and date of most of
the books of the Bible thus far reviewed.  I began to wonder, if this
was what I was getting from such a source, inspired by such a motive,
what might I expect from a Biblical scholar and critic who was in
search only of abstract truth, with no preconceived opinions to support
or defend?  I felt an incipient revolution brewing in my mind.  But I
was yet to learn more.

Concerning the poetical books, I found that the Book of Job was not
written by Job; that nobody knows who wrote it, nor when nor where.  I
found that conjecture by different scholars placed it all the way from
"before Moses" to after the exile.  Nobody knows whether it purports to
record, in poetic form, a series of actual historic facts and events;
or whether it is merely a dramatic allegory, entirely fictitious, or
founded upon some substratum of fact.  We do not know who Job was,
whether a Hebrew, an Arab, or Chaldean;--nor just where "the land of
Uz" was.

Concerning the Psalms, which I had always been taught were written by
David, "the sweet singer of Israel," I found to be the Jewish hymn
book, compiled by an unknown hand, or hands, at an unknown date; but in
its present form, perhaps as late as the third century B.C.; that the
authorship of very few of them is known; that David wrote but few of
them, if any; but that they were written by various authors, mostly
unknown, ranging all the way from the time of Moses to that of Ezra, or
later; that collections and revisions were probably made from time to
time as new compositions appeared; until its present form was attained.

I found that the "Book of Proverbs" was not written by Solomon, but
that it was probably compiled in the time of King Hezekiah, by unknown
persons.  However, our author insists that most of the proverbs in the
collection are Solomonic in origin; and therefore we may very correctly
speak of the collection as the "Proverbs of Solomon."

The Book of Ecclesiastes, from the superscription in Chapter I, verses
1 and 12, always attributed to Solomon, I found was not written by
Solomon, at all, nor until more than five hundred years after his
death.  Our author concedes it to be the "latest book of the Canon";
that it could not have been written before Malachi, and possibly much
later, and who wrote it, nobody knows.

Likewise I found that the "Song of Solomon" was not written by Solomon,
nor by anyone else until centuries after his death; and nobody knows
who wrote it, nor what its real meaning or purport is, whether fact or
fiction, spiritual or sensual.  It is admitted that its real meaning
and purport is the most obscure and mysterious of any book in the Old
Testament, yet, as it is in the Bible it must be the divinely inspired,
infallible word of God!  So our author thinks.

Coming now to the Prophetic Books, I learned from our author that the
Book of Isaiah, as it now appears, is a collection and compilation of
various writings of this great prophet, written piece-meal over a
period of some fifty years, and after his death collected and arranged
in its present form by some unknown hand; and that the present
arrangement was made without any reference to the chronological order
of the original writings, or the subject matter treated.  He admits the
radical difference in style, manner and subject matter of the two parts
of this book, upon which modern critics have based their theory of two
Isaiahs, one living before and the other during the captivity, and
reconciles these discrepancies by asserting the power of God to
miraculously change the literary style of his servants at will.

About the same thing is said of the Book of Jeremiah what was said of
Isaiah; that it is a collection of the writings of the prophet, made
after his death, by some unknown person, but more probably by Baruch;
and that like Isaiah the contents of this book are arranged without
reference to their chronological order.  Great differences are admitted
to exist between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions of this book, which
our author does not try to explain or reconcile.  He frankly admits
that the last chapter of this book, which is identical with 2 Kings
xxiv, 18, and xxv, was added by a later, and unknown hand.

The Book of Ezekiel is treated briefly and considered one of the most
authentic and unquestioned of any book in the Canon.  But the author
devotes twenty-six pages to the Book of Daniel, almost entirely to
prove that the book was written by the prophet of that name in Babylon,
during the exile.  He quotes elaborately from the critics who hold to a
later date and a different author, and tries to refute them.  About the
only effect produced on my mind was that neither party knew anything
definite about it; and of course my faith in the authenticity of the
book was greatly weakened.

Coming to the Minor Prophets, twelve in number, the author holds that
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Haggai, Zephaniah and Zechariah were well
known prophets, concerning the date and authorship of whose books there
is no grave doubt.  Yet, he admits that there are manifest
interpolations and additions to the Book of Zechariah.  Of Nahum,
Habakkuk, Malachi and Obadiah he admits that we know absolutely
nothing, except what is written in their respective books, and the
dates they were written can only be conjectured from their contents.
Obadiah is composed of but one chapter of twenty-one verses, and almost
identically the same thing is contained in Jeremiah xlix, 7-22.  The
identity is so great that our author assumes that one of them copied
from the other, but which, he does not say.  Of the Book of Jonah, he
admits that it was not written by the prophet of that name mentioned in
2 Kings xiv, 25, nor for at least three hundred years after his time,
notwithstanding he is evidently the same as that in the book.  He
insists, however, that no matter who wrote it, or when, the book is
authentic and the story true; and as one of the principal proofs of
this fact, he quotes Matt, xii, 39, 40.

Thus I finished the Old Testament, considerably shaken in faith; but as
the Old Testament belonged to a long past dispensation, I considered it
of little value anyway, and approached the study of the New with the
hope that all difficulties would be removed and all doubts made clear.
If the New Testament was truly inspired of God and infallibly true,
what difference did it make if the Old was doubtful and uncertain?  It
was "out of date" anyway.




CHAPTER IV

NEARER THE CRISIS

Our author begins his "Introduction to the Study of the New Testament"
with an account of the language and characters in which most of it was
originally written, as he did the Old.  These were Greek Uncials, all
capital letters, without any space divisions between the words, and
neither accent nor punctuation marks; that from these original
manuscripts, down to the invention of printing, all copies were made by
hand copying.  The oldest existing manuscripts were made in the fourth
and fifth centuries of the Christian era, and no two of these are
exactly alike.  During the succeeding centuries several thousand
manuscript copies of all or parts of the New Testament were made that
are still extant, _and no two exactly alike_!

I also learned that there are still extant quite a number of ancient
Versions of the New Testament, translated into different languages, all
of which are more or less different from each other, not alone in the
text, _but in the books recognized as authentic and canonical_.

Here the author gives a brief history of the formation of the New
Testament Canon, which so surprised, and even startled me, that I must
make some mention of it.  (In his treatment of the Old Testament the
author gives but a few pages to the formation of the Old Testament
Canon.)  In the fifth Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline
it says: "In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments of whose authority _was
never any doubt in the Church_."  (Italics mine.)  But here I was to
learn that for over three hundred years there was more or less
controversy, and sometimes very bitter, over what books of the New
Testament were, or were not, authentic and authoritative; that as a
matter of fact there never was complete agreement among the Church
Fathers; and that there never was any authoritative declaration on the
subject by any Church Council until the Council of Trent (Roman
Catholic) in 1545, which included in its canon all of our present
recognized books of both the Old and New Testaments, and in addition
thereto, included as canonical the Old Testament Apocrypha, which is
universally excluded from the Protestant Bibles.

As this work is designed, at least partly, to stimulate additional
study in others it may be well to cite a few examples, as I learned
them from this book, designed to prove conclusively the authenticity,
divine inspiration and infallible truth of the Holy Scriptures.

The canon of Muratori, about A.D. 160, omits Hebrews, both epistles of
Peter, James and Jude, as uncanonical, and expresses doubts as to the
Revelation.

The Peshito Syriac, about A.D. 200, omits Second Peter, Jude, Second
and Third John and Revelation.

The Latin Version Itala, about the middle of the second century, omits
James and Second Peter.

The Version of Clemens, about A.D. 202, omits Second Peter, James,
Second and Third John and Philemon.

That of Cyprian of Carthage, about A.D. 250, omits Hebrews, Second
Peter, Second and Third John, and Jude.

Eusebius, the great church historian, about A.D. 340, disputes the
authenticity of James, and omits Jude, Second Peter, second and Third
John, and doubts the Revelation.  He also gives a list of "Spurious
writings" at that time, a number of which are still extant.  (It was
years after this before I saw The Apocryphal New Testament.)

Ambrose of Milan, late in the fourth century, rejects Hebrews, Second
and Third John, Jude, James, and Philemon.

Chrysostom, of Antioch, about A.D. 400, omits Second Peter, Jude,
Second and Third John, and Revelation.

Jerome, about A.D. 420, rejects Hebrews, doubts James and Jude, and
attributes Second and Third John to John, a Presbyter of Ephesus, and
not the Apostle John.

I have only cited the names of those who _did not_ accept the present
canon.  That many of the Church Fathers, perhaps a majority of them,
did accept it is not questioned.  I have cited these instances--and not
near all our author gives--to show that opinion on this subject was by
no means unanimous in this early day; nor was all the intelligence,
ability and character on one side.  I quote it also to show that the
teachings of my church concerning those books, that there "was never
any doubt in the church" was not correct.

It must however be said in all fairness, according to our author, that
from about the close of the second or the beginning of the third
century, there was practical unanimity in the church as to the
authenticity of all the books in our present New Testament except these
seven: Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third John, James and
Revelation.  Over these the controversy continued until the Roman
Hierarchy overshadowed the Church and suppressed all liberty of thought
or expression.

We now come to the detailed study of the origin, authorship, date and
character of the different books of the New Testament.

The first shock I got was learning that "The Gospel According to
Matthew," was not written in its present form by the Apostle of that
name.  Nor is the author or date definitely known.  The substance of a
long article on the subject is to the effect that Matthew the Apostle,
about A.D. 68, wrote an account of the doings and sayings of Jesus, in
the Syro-Chaldee language, the vernacular of Palestine at the time, for
the benefit of the Hebrew Christians.  From this basis some later hand,
unknown, translated into Greek, and elaborated it into substantially
our present version.  The earliest known Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldee
version was that used by the Ebionites, which materially differed from
our present Greek version; but which is the original and which the
recession has never been settled.  The early Ebionite version did not
contain the first two chapters, giving the account of the miraculous
birth; but our author insists that these were cut off from the
original, rather than added on, tho nobody knows which.

Concerning the Gospel of Mark, he insists that it was also written as
was the original of Matthew, before the destruction of Jerusalem, but
after Matthew; that the material in it was learned from Peter, whose
companion Mark was (how does this comport with divine inspiration?) as
Mark was not an apostle and could not have known these facts at first
hand.  He admits the last twelve verses to be spurious and added by a
later hand.

Concerning Luke he says that he derived his information from Paul
(another case of doubtful inspiration), admits the date and place he
wrote are unknown; admits the discrepancies between him and Matthew, in
regard to the circumstances of the miraculous birth and the genealogy
of Jesus--something I had never noticed before!--and undertakes to
reconcile them.  When I turned to the records and read them in this new
light, his attempted reconciliation, to my mind, was an utter failure.
Like every attempted reconciliation I have ever read since, it was done
by "reading into the record," not only what was not there, but what was
wholly inconsistent with the record that is there.  If any candid
reader will first read carefully the first two chapters of Matthew,
noting all the details, and then likewise the first two chapters of
Luke, he will see that they are wholly irreconcilable in their details.
They agree in but two points: That Jesus was miraculously begotten, and
born at Bethlehem.  But in every detail of what went before and after,
they are wholly at variance.

My belief in divine and infallible inspiration was here materially
weakened.  How could the Holy Spirit "inspire" in two different men,
writing upon the same subject, such varying and irreconcilable accounts
of the same event?  Besides, our author had practically abandoned the
idea of inspiration by attributing Mark's knowledge of the life of
Jesus to Peter and Luke's to Paul.  But, on the other hand, as I
learned a little later, in all the writings attributed to Paul, there
is not a single reference, even most remotely, to the miraculous birth
of Jesus; but on the other hand there is much evidence in his writings
to lead to the conclusion that he knew nothing about it.  Then where
did Luke get this information?

Concerning the Gospel according to John, our author devotes forty-eight
pages to an effort to support its authorship in the Apostle John, and
to try to reconcile it with the other Gospels.  Like the differences
between Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus, this was the
first knowledge I had that there were any discrepancies between them,
or that there was any doubt about its authorship.  He quotes
elaborately from the Church Fathers in its favor, as well as from the
modern critics both for and against.  He admits that chapter xxi is a
later addition to the book, but insists that John wrote it himself,
except the last two verses, which were "added by the church at
Ephesus."  He also admits that v, 2, 3, and viii, 1-11, are both
spurious and added by a later and unknown hand.

When I had read it all I knew less about the authorship of the book
than when I began.  But the discrepancies between it and the synoptics
loomed large and menacing.  I will not go into details concerning
these.  The reader can easily see them for himself.  But on the
question of inspiration I was about at my wits' end.  Here I was at the
very vital part of the Christian religion, as I had been taught it and
was trying to teach it to others.  I have already told how I passed up
the matter of the inspiration of the Old Testament as being of little
importance under the Christian dispensation.  And now every prop was
falling from under me in regard to the inspiration of the New.  If the
very records of the life and teachings of the Christ himself, upon
which the whole fabric of Christianity rested, were now shown to be
discordant and irreconcilable in their contents, and some of them very
doubtful in their authorship; with it the whole doctrine of a divine
and infallible revelation would have to go.

I was dumfounded.  Was it possible that all this upon which I had
staked my whole life, and had been preaching for years, was a mere
fiction?  It seemed to be so, if the Bible was not divinely inspired, a
true revelation from God, and infallibly correct.  But how could it
_all_ be true, when it told so many different and conflicting stories
about the same thing?  Was not God the very essence of truth?  Then how
could He miraculously reveal one thing to Matthew, another and entirely
different one to Luke, and still another and different one to John, all
about the same thing?  And yet, that in many instances this was true, I
could no longer doubt.  Even tho these discrepancies might not go to
the essence of Christianity as a system of religion; nor materially
affect its fundamental doctrines; yet they did go to the very
foundations upon which it was based,--a divine and infallible
revelation from heaven.  Take this away and orthodox Christianity is
not left a leg to stand on; and I knew it.

But we will hurry on thru this subject.  The authorship of the Acts of
the Apostles was attributed without serious question to Luke.  All the
Epistles usually attributed to Paul are conceded to him by our author,
except that to the Hebrews, while some critics reject the Pauline
authorship of any of the Pastoral Epistles,--those to Timothy, Titus
and Philemon.  The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is admitted to
be unknown, and its date uncertain, tho it existed in the church quite
early.

The Epistle of James is admitted to be doubtful; and especially as to
which of several men of this name might have written it.  It is
admitted that it could not have been written by the Apostle James, as
he was put to death at Jerusalem long before the epistle was known.  As
has already been seen, it was rejected by many of the Fathers; and even
Martin Luther dubbed it "an epistle of straw."

First Peter is considered genuine, and written by the Apostle; but
Second Peter is admitted to have been unknown in the church before the
third century, and consequently spurious.

The First Epistle of John is believed by our author to have been
written by the same hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Apostle
John.  Second and Third John are admitted to be doubtful, probably
written by some other John, and by later tradition, because of the
identity of the names, attributed to the Apostle.  Third John was
unknown in the church before the third century.

The Epistle of Jude is admitted to be a mystery.  Nobody knows even who
Jude was, or what he was, or when the epistle was written.  It was
known to exist early in the second century.  It was generally rejected
by the early church, but somehow got into the canon.

The Book of Revelation is admitted to be the most mysterious book in
the whole Bible.  By whom and when written are both unknown.  Tradition
and its internal content is the only evidence that the Apostle John
wrote it, and this would apply to any other John as well.  It is
evident that the same person did not write it and the Fourth Gospel.
It was unknown in the church until near the middle of the second
century; tho it bears internal evidence of having been written before
the fall of Jerusalem.  Most of the early Church Fathers rejected it,
but it got into the canon;--and is therefore divinely inspired!

My study of "Harman's Introduction of the Study of the Holy Scriptures"
was here finished.  I have elaborated somewhat on these studies for two
reasons: First, because the results that these studies produced in me,
that I shall presently sum up, were the results of the whole, rather
than any particular part of it, except those portions which I have
already specially noted.  Second, I desire to arouse a similar spirit
of study and investigation in my readers; and I thus give this outline
of study in detail, as a sort of basis from or upon which to work.

I have already indicated in part my feelings at this time.  I summed
the whole thing up briefly.  The one great question around which it all
hinged was this: If the authorship of the books of the greater portion
of the Old Testament are wholly unknown, as well as the dates when they
were written, and the same is true of several of the books of the New
Testament, how are we to know these same books are divinely inspired,
the infallible truth, the word of God?  This is a fair question and a
reasonable one.

I had set out in earnest and good faith to find the proofs of
inspiration, in which I had always believed, and only found them
wanting.  Add to this the manifold discrepancies and direct
contradictions which I now began to discover running thru the whole
Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and I found them wholly
irreconcilable with any idea of divine revelation and infallible truth.

I here recalled a small book I had read some years before on
Inspiration,--the author I have forgotten,--but I remember the three
leading reasons for the inspiration of the Bible which he gave, and
which, with my limited knowledge at the time, seemed satisfactory.
These were: Tradition, Necessity and Success.  The tradition of the
Jews as to the authenticity and inspiration of the books of the Old
Testament: it was argued, that whatever may at this time be the limits
of our knowledge concerning these books, the ancient Jewish Rabbis
_knew_ just what they were, and if they had not every one been the word
of God, these Rabbis would have known it, and they never would have
been in the canon.  The same doctrine of tradition was applied to the
Church Fathers concerning the books of the New Testament.  But I had
here learned that these Church Fathers were by no means agreed as to
these books.  I began to see now that the same argument might be
applied with equal force to the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, or the Koran.

The argument from necessity was based upon the assumption that man in
his fallen and sinful state was by nature wholly unable to discover
anything about God, or the means of his redemption.  Therefore a divine
revelation was necessary to meet man's needs in this case; and the
Bible meets this necessity.  Therefore the Bible is a divine
revelation.  But I here recalled that the only evidence we have of
man's original perfection and fall is in the Bible itself; and that
this line of argument must ultimately drive us back to the mere
_assumption_ of the facts upon which this supposed "divine necessity"
was based.

The argument based upon success was that Christ and Christianity were
not only the fulfillment of Old Testament promise and prophecy; but
that it never could have made the success in the world that it has _if
it had not been of divine origin, the result of divine revelation_.  I
was prepared at this time to look with some favor on the argument drawn
from "promise and prophecy"; but if success was a true test I wondered
if the same argument would not apply with equal force to Buddhism, with
a third more followers than Christianity, or to Mohammedanism with half
as many in a much shorter time.

These arguments could satisfy me no longer, in the light of the new
facts I had learned.  But I was not yet ready to give up religion and
Christianity.  I began to look for some new basis of interpretation.  I
asked myself the questions: May not Christianity be substantially true
after all?  Is not man a sinner?  And as such does he not need a
Savior?  Does not Christianity meet this necessity?  Is not the Bible
after all, tho of purely human origin as I now conceived, a valuable
book?  May we not yet find much valuable truth in it, tho neither
inspired nor infallible?  May not the "great plan of salvation" be true
after all?  Is it not of vital importance to know?  But if the Bible in
which we find it cannot be relied upon infallibly, _how_ are we to know?

In thus questioning myself I took into consideration my own personal
experiences, those emotional impressions and manifestation which I had
always been taught were the supernatural manifestations of the Holy
Spirit on my life and consciousness.  I could not deny them, nor get
away from them.  They were real.  It was years later before I learned
to interpret them from the scientific standpoint of psychology.  I
determined to take a new course--a course I had never taken before.  I
had heretofore taken my religion on authority.  This authority had now
failed.  I determined to apply the test of _reason_, with a firm
conviction that in doing so God would guide me aright.  "If any man
will do his will he shall know of the doctrine."

I may say just here that I have never yet met a person who undertook to
defend the "Christian System," or doctrine of sin and salvation, from
the standpoint _of its own intrinsic reasonableness_.  The only manner
in which reason has been applied to its defence is, that it is _a
reasonable deduction_ from the _divine revelation_ upon which it is
based; which revelation _must be accepted_ as true without question or
equivocation.  To doubt is to be damned.  In fact, its
_unreasonableness_, from any natural human viewpoint, was quite freely
admitted.  But it was argued that man in his fallen state was quite
incapable of perceiving, or understanding, any of the great mysteries
of God.  "Great is the mystery of Godliness" was often quoted to me; as
well as, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
my ways," saith Jehovah.  "For as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts."  This was the court of last resort and must be accepted, and
to ask further questions was to blaspheme.

Perhaps it may be well to give here a quotation which I came across
years afterwards, as illustrating this process of reasoning from the
assumed hypothesis of a divine and infallible revelation, that _must be
taken_ as the starting point.  It is from Dr. Albert Barnes, a
distinguished Presbyterian minister of Philadelphia, about the middle
of the last century.  I quote him because of his high character and
representative position; and his dilemma is substantially the same with
practically all others with whom I have conversed on the subject.  Here
is what he says:

"That the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite
welfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from God
and virtue and heaven; that any should suffer forever,--lingering on in
hopeless despair and rolling amidst infinite torments, without the
possibility of alleviation and without end; that since God _can_ save
men, and _will_ save a part, He has not purposed to save _all_; that,
on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of
Christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to
all; that, in a word, a God who claims to be worthy of the confidence
of the universe, and to be a being of infinite benevolence, should make
such a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers; and that, when an
atonement had been made, He did not save _all_ the race, and put an end
to sin and woe forever,--these, and kindred difficulties, meet the mind
when we think on this great subject; and they meet us when we endeavor
to urge our fellow-sinners to be reconciled to God, and to put
confidence in him.  On this ground they hesitate.  These are _real_,
not imaginary difficulties.  They are probably felt by every mind that
has ever reflected on the subject; and they are _unexplained,
unmitigated, unremoved_.  I confess, for one, that I feel them more
sensibly and powerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live.
I do not understand these facts; and I make no advances towards
understanding them.  I do not know that I have a ray of light on the
subject, which I had not when the subject first flashed across my soul.

"I have read, to some extent, what wise and good men have written; I
have looked at their theories and explanations; I have endeavored to
weigh their arguments; for my whole soul pants for light and relief on
these questions.  But I get neither; and, in the distress and anguish
of my own spirit, I confess that I see no light whatever, I see not one
ray to disclose to me the _reason_ why sin came into the world, why the
earth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer
to all eternity.

"I have never yet seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects
that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind; but I confess, when
I look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon death-beds and
graveyards, upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever;
when I see my parents, my friends, my family, my people, my
fellow-citizens,--when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this
sin and danger; and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he
_does not_ do it,--I am struck dumb.  It is all _dark, dark, dark_ to
my soul, and I cannot disguise it."

I think the conclusions Dr. Barnes reached are about the only
conclusions any honest, intelligent _man_ can reach, starting from his
hypothesis, that a certain book is a divine and infallible revelation
from God, which no one dare question, or go behind.  But, as has been
seen, this foundation had now entirely slipped from under me.  My only
course was to proceed just as tho no such book were known; or at least,
that it was completely shorn of all claim to being a divine revelation,
or infallible truth.  I proposed to analyze every element that entered
into the whole Christian system, creation, sin, redemption, atonement,
salvation, immortality, heaven and hell, going back to original sources
so far as possible, without any preconceived hypothesis whatever, in
search of abstract truth.  I felt that since God had left me without
any conclusive and indisputable proofs of the truth of those things
which I had always believed to be of the most supreme importance to
mankind for time and eternity, that this supreme, distinguishing
feature of man that lifts him above all known forms of creation could,
and should be, appealed to as the final authority and last test in all
things.  And since reason was universally recognized as the court of
last resort in all other things outside of religion, why should it not
be applied to this also?  I felt that if I thus honestly and sincerely
followed the last and only light I had, that God could not be just and
everlastingly damn me for some possible error in my conclusions.  The
process I followed and the results I reached will be told in the next
chapter.




CHAPTER V

THE CRISIS

I went back to the beginning.  God was certainly good.  He was
all-wise, infinite.  He must have known all things---the end from the
beginning.  If He thus knew all things He must have known the whole
destiny of man before He created him.  He must have known that he would
yield to temptation and fall, and that all the direful consequences
would follow it that orthodoxy has pictured for centuries.  I began to
wonder how God could be just and make a creature, whom He knew in
advance would do what Adam is alleged to have done, and knew in advance
the dreadful consequences that would follow it, not only to Adam
himself, but to all the unborn generations yet to people the world.
Especially was I perplexed to understand how God could be just and
visit all the consequences of Adam's sin on his entire posterity for
uncounted generations when they were and could be in no way responsible
for it and could not help it.  Yet I believed God to be just.  He could
not be God and be otherwise.

Since the whole purpose of religion, and Christianity in particular,
was to save mankind from hell hereafter, I first directed my inquiries
to the question of hell.  Who made hell? and whence came the devil?
The Bible is silent as to their origin, except the vague reference in
the Book of Revelation to the war in heaven and the casting out of
Lucifer with a third part of the angels with him into the bottomless
pit so graphically portrayed by Milton in Paradise Lost.  But this only
carried me back farther.  Who created the angels, or were they
co-eternal with God?  If they are co-eternal with God then there are
other eternal beings in the universe over whom God has little or no
control.  If so God is not omnipotent.  The devil is his rival in the
spiritual world and, according to the current doctrine, his equal in
omniscience and omnipresence, and a close and terrible antagonist in
the contest for omnipotence.

Take the other horn of the dilemma.  Then angels and the devil are
created beings, creatures of God, and not eternal.  Then God must have
made the devil.  If He created him a holy angel, yea, an archangel, as
is claimed, God certainly knew in advance that this archangel would
sometime lead a rebellion in heaven and lead one-third of the angels
into the conspiracy!  Would an all-wise, a just and good God create
such beings, knowing in advance what they would do and what the
consequences of it would be?  This forced God to create a hell in which
to put and punish these rebellious angels whom He knew before He
created them would rebel against him and thus have to be punished.  If
God needed angels to glorify him was it not just as easy to create good
ones, that would not rebel against him!  He created some that way, why
not all?  And if rebellious angels had to be punished why not do it by
annihilation instead of making this burning hell for them?  If
annihilation be considered too merciful and this hell the only adequate
punishment, all very well for rebellious and sinful angels; but why
should this yawning gulf of eternal woe open its throat to receive the
future being to be made in God's own image and called man?

We are told that hell was not created for man, but for the devil and
his angels.  Nevertheless, if the story of Eden and the doctrines of
modern orthodoxy be true, it is now and will ultimately become the
eternal abode of about ninety-eight per cent of the entire human race.
I could never again reconcile the old views of hell with any rational
conception of a just and merciful God.  The story of Eden itself I took
up for analysis.  Man was alleged to have been framed up out of dust,
yet made "in the image and likeness" of God,--and consequently perfect.
At least this is the universal teaching.  He was alone.  A companion
was made for him from a rib.  They are happy in a garden.  God walks
and talks with them like a man.  Everything is going smoothly until one
day God comes in and points out a certain tree, hitherto unnoticed and
unknown, and informs Adam that he must not eat of the fruit of this
particular tree on penalty of death.  Then comes the serpent, talking
like a man, and tells the woman that what God said was not true; but if
they would eat of the fruit of that tree they would "be as Gods,
knowing good and evil."  "And when the woman saw that the tree was good
for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be
desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,
and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."  Gen. iii, 6.

Now, was the first sin that eternally damned the whole human race a
mere matter of eating from a forbidden tree?  It seems so from the
natural import of the language used.  "When the woman saw that the tree
was _good for food_ ..."  Could a just God inflict such an awful
punishment as orthodox Christianity teaches, not only upon this simple,
ignorant couple, but upon the entire human race for all time and
eternity for such a trifling incident?  I trow not.  Besides, I have
often thought that if that particular tree had not been specifically
pointed out and forbidden, probably neither Adam nor Eve would ever
have had any desire to eat of it.  It is the forbidden that always
draws the strongest.

Let us examine this story closely and see whether the serpent or God
told the truth.  Don't be alarmed and accuse me of blasphemy or
sacrilege.  We set out in search of truth; let us try to find it.  God
is alleged to have said, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for _in the day_ that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die."  Gen. ii, 17.  But he _did not_ die,
according to the subsequent story, for over nine hundred years
thereafter.  The fact that the penalty: "For dust thou art and unto
dust thou shalt return," was pronounced _after_ the transgression, does
not fulfill the statement "in the _day_ thou eatest thereof."  But we
shall refer to this again.

The serpent is alleged to have said: "Ye shall not surely die: for God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
opened and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."  Gen. iii, 4, 5.
And verse 7 says: "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew
that they were naked."  And verse 22 says: "And Jehovah God said,
'Behold, the man is become as _one of us_, to know good and evil.'"
Does not this confirm that what the serpent said was true?

The temptation is very great here to digress far enough to offer a
rational interpretation of this beautiful poetic allegory of the "Fall
of Man."  But it is outside the scope and purpose of this work, and I
leave it with the simple question: Was not that which we call the first
sin only the expression of man's natural aspirations onward and upward,
in search of knowledge and a higher and better and broader and larger
life, that always entails its penalties of trial, suffering, toil, and
more or less disappointment?

When God comes to call them to account, Adam puts the blame on his
wife, and she shifts it to the serpent.  Note what follows: The serpent
is cursed to crawl upon his belly, just as we see him now.  Did he walk
uprightly before, and did he have legs and feet?  "And dust shalt thou
eat all the days of thy life."  What did he eat before?  As a matter of
fact, serpents do not eat dust now.  Remember, this sentence was
pronounced _to the serpent_ himself: "And Jehovah God said unto the
serpent,"--not to Adam and Eve.  We shall have occasion to recall this
again.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy
conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children..."  This was the
penalty pronounced upon Eve for her part in the tragedy.  The question
arises: Was Eve never to be a mother but for this transaction?  This,
if not the only, is at least the most natural inference.  Then how was
the race to be propagated? or was it to be propagated at all?

Adam for his part was condemned to hard labor, and altho creation was
supposed to have been finished and complete, the ground was cursed so
as to make it produce thorns and thistles to annoy and tantalize him
and increase his labor.  Were none of these things on the earth before?
Were the rose bushes in the Garden of Eden "thornless"?  "In the sweat
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for
out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return."

Several questions arise here.  Was Adam to be immortal in the flesh if
he had not eaten of the forbidden fruit?  Did death enter the world, as
we have always been taught, because of this sin?  And if Adam had not
sinned would he and Eve still be living in the Garden of Eden, without
the knowledge of good and evil, naked and unashamed to this day?  If
Eve was never to become a mother if she had not sinned, would she and
Adam still be there alone, with nothing but the animal world about them
for companions?

And if death only entered the world because of sin, why does all nature
die?  Man alone was capable of sin, and according to the story, man
alone sinned,--unless we include the serpent.  Yet, not a beast of the
field, a fowl of the air, a fish of the deep, nor a reptile or creeping
thing of all the earth has ever lived but that it died, or will die.
Not a tree has ever grown, not a plant has ever opened its leaves,
blades or petals to the sun; not a seed has ever germinated, nor a
flower ever bloomed that was not doomed to die.  Did all this come upon
all nature because Adam ate an apple?  Would all the beasts of the
field and the birds of the air, paraded before Adam that he might name
them, be still living with him in the Garden of Eden, if he had not
sinned?  Would all the plants and trees and flowers that grew and
bloomed in the Garden of Eden in the days of Adam and Eve's innocence
be still there, with the same leaves and blooms, just as they were, if
man had not sinned?

These questions I know look silly.  But if we are forced to accept the
premise, we must be prepared to accept the natural conclusion to which
it leads.  And if death--physical death--as orthodoxy has always
taught, entered the world only because of Adam's sin, it naturally and
inevitably leads to the conclusions I have indicated.

Another question presents itself.  Can perfection, or that which is
perfect, fall?  If either man or angels were created pure, perfect,
holy, and in the image and likeness of God, how can such a being fall?
It seems to me that it would be just as possible for God himself to
fall.  The very fact of the fall,--if such a fact exists or ever
existed,--of either man or angel, is in itself conclusive proof of some
moral imperfection or weakness somewhere.  That man is morally
imperfect is freely conceded.  In plain words, he is a sinner.  But was
he ever otherwise?  The farther back we trace him the worse he appears
on the general average.  All the Bible outside of this one story in
Genesis, as well as all history attests this fact.  Then may it not be
a fact, that while man is a sinner, he always has been so; that he
never fell, for he had been nowhere (morally) to fall from but always
has been and still is morally imperfect and incomplete, but ever
striving onward and upward?

But supposing this story of the fall to be true, what was the penalty
for it,--physical death, as we have seen, or eternal spiritual death,
or both?  After all the preaching and writing about eternal death,
damnation, hell-fire and brimstone as a result of Adam's sin, I could
not find any such doctrine taught in the story of the fall, nor
anywhere else in the Old Testament, and but very vaguely, if at all, in
the New.

The story in Genesis cannot be construed by any reasonable rules of
interpretation to mean or involve any other punishment on Adam or his
posterity, for his sin, beyond physical death.  "Dust thou art and unto
dust shalt thou return" is the final climax of the penalty.  There is
no hint, so far as I can understand it, of immortality or any future
life.  There is not the remotest hint of it in this story.  All the
punishments for sin from Adam to Noah, and long afterwards, culminated
and ended, so far as Genesis is concerned, in physical death.  The
Hebrew Hades, Sheol and Gehena, were creations of a much later period.

And who, or what was the serpent?  A real snake, or the devil?  I know
the current belief is that the serpent is a mere figure for the devil,
or that at least the spirit of the devil was incarnated in the serpent.
But there is not a line of Scripture to support either assumption.  In
the story itself it is stated only that the serpent was "more subtle
than all the beasts of the field."  He is classed with them, not above
them, except in subtlety.  The whole fabric upon which this idea of the
identity of the serpent of Eden and the devil is based seems to be a
single verse in Revelation (xii, 9): "And the great dragon was cast
down, the old serpent, he that is called the devil and Satan, the
deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his
angels were cast down with him."  There are one or two other passages
in the same book that speak of "that old serpent, which is the devil
and Satan," but they have no more connection with or relation to the
story of Eden, than Homer's "Iliad" has to the nebular hypothesis.  And
yet upon these few passages is built up the whole fabric of the
identity of the serpent of Eden and the temptation, with the devil,
Satan or Lucifer, that is so graphically portrayed in "Paradise Lost."
This whole story of the serpent in Eden is very likely but an
adaptation, in another form, of the old Babylonian myth of "Marduk and
the Dragon."

All this shifting of the penalty for Adam's sin from physical to
spiritual death and identifying the serpent with Satan, was an
after-invention, to try to make it harmonize with later developed
doctrines of immortality.  Any candid reader can see that no such
interpretation can be placed upon the natural and simple language of
the story itself.  In fact immortality for man, according to the story,
is forever inhibited, according to verses 22-24.  After eating the
forbidden fruit the only way to immortality was to "eat of the tree of
life."  And to keep Adam from the "tree of life," of which he might
"eat and live forever," God drove him out of the garden and placed the
cherubim over it with a "flaming sword which turned every way, to keep
the way of the tree of life."  According to this story, man is not
immortal at all, and the only way to attain it is to get by the
cherubim, or scale the walls of the garden of Eden and get to that tree.

I was now ready to determine for myself that this whole story of the
Garden of Eden was a myth, legend, or some oriental allegory, the true
purport and meaning of which is now wholly unknown; beyond the
reasonable conjecture that it originated with some very ancient
oriental philosopher, in the childhood of the human race, and is an
allegorical portrayal of his attempt to solve the problem of the origin
of evil, of suffering and death in the human race.


THE FLOOD

But I pursued my course of reasoning and investigation further.  I
approached the period of the flood.  The infinite and omniscient God is
revealed as disappointed with this creature that He had made "in his
own image and likeness."  He gets angry with him for his perversity,
declares He is sorry He made him, and resolves to destroy the whole
race, except one family whom He proposes to preserve for seed for a new
start; together with every beast, fowl and creeping thing of the earth,
except one pair of each for seed.  Think of an infinite and omniscient
God, who knew all things from the beginning, all that man would ever
do, before He created him, now looking down from heaven on his work,
confessing it to be a stupendous failure, getting angry and repenting
that He had made man or beast; and now resolving to take vengeance by
drowning the whole outfit!  If man was so perverse that he needed to be
destroyed, why wreak vengeance also on the animal creation that had not
sinned?  And if the animal creation must be included in the universal
destruction, why do it by a process thru which all marine life
naturally escaped, while all terrestrial life was destroyed?  Then why
save any seed of such perverse stock?  Was not God acquainted with the
laws of heredity that had worked so perfectly in transmitting the sin
of Adam down thru all the generations thus far; and did He not know the
same thing would continue in the "seed of the race" after the flood?
If He really desired to correct the mistake He had made, why did He not
destroy the whole race, root and branch, while He was at it, renovate
the earth and start with a new creation of better stock?

This flood story must be noticed a little closer.  Noah is commanded to
build an ark, as his family is chosen especially to preserve the race
for a new start.  He is also to save in pairs, male and female,
specimens of every beast of the field, fowl of the air, and creeping
things of all the earth to preserve the species.  And now when the ark
was ready, these beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and creeping
things of all the earth, polar bears, moose, reindeer, and the thousand
varieties of fur-bearing animals from the arctic north, together with
those of the torrid deserts and jungles of the south, lions, tigers,
hyenas, elephants, leopards, antelope, giraffes, ants, mice, hawks,
doves, wolves, lambs, serpents of all varieties, of birds, beetles,
flies, bugs and insects, all came of their own accord, in the exact
number prescribed, quietly walked into the ark and lay down to rest
until the deluge was over!

The deluge over, the new race started was as bad as ever.  Even
righteous Noah got drunk from the first crop of grapes he raised, and
cursed one of his son's posterity to perpetual servitude.  The race
soon tried to outwit God by building a tower by which to reach heaven,
and God's only way to prevent its success was to confuse their tongues
so they could no longer work together, and the scheme had to be
abandoned.  The race grew continually worse, drifted into idolatry, and
God resolved to try a new scheme to ultimately save the race.  We come
now to:


THE CALL OF ABRAHAM

Abraham is called to leave the land of his fathers, go to a new country
and start a new race, through whom God would yet save the world, as all
his previous efforts had proven failures.  Here we have the beginning
of the Jewish nation, whose history I have not space to even outline,
much less to follow in detail.  Study it for yourself in its fullness,
because it has a vital relation to modern orthodoxy as now represented
and taught in most of the churches.  A few points, however, must be
noted.  The story tells us that the great God of the universe selects
this one man, one family and one nation to be supremely blessed above
all the balance of mankind, and to whom He committed his revelation and
plans for their ultimate salvation, and denied these blessings to all
the rest of his creatures.  Could such a God be just?  When the
Israelites were trying to get out of Egypt, while Moses and Aaron were
to go and beg Pharaoh to let them go, God is said to have hardened
Pharaoh's heart not to do so, only to have an excuse to plague Egypt,
kill the first born in every house and then overwhelm Pharaoh and his
whole army in the Red Sea!  Can a just God do that?  When they finally
arrive at the borders of the promised land they are commanded to
literally exterminate the inhabitants and neighboring tribes, root and
branch, men, women and children indiscriminately and unsparingly.  God
is described as resorting to lying, deceit and intrigue to lure the
enemies of Israel to their destruction.  Time fails me to pursue this
horrible record in its details.  It begins with Abraham and ends only
with the close of the Old Testament Canon.  Study it for yourself.
Could a just God be guilty of such outrageous conduct?  I think not.

As is well known, the doctrine is that God thus called Abraham and the
Jewish nation apart from all the balance of the human race, that thru
them He might ultimately send his son into the world to save the race
from sin and hell.  To this end promises and prophecies are said to
point, thruout the entire Old Testament from Abraham to its close, and
even as far back as the Garden of Eden and the first sin.

When Jesus of Nazareth appeared he was accepted by his followers as
this promised Savior, the Messiah of promise and prophecy, and has been
so accepted by the Christian world ever since.  To him was attributed a
miraculous birth as the Son of God; and in the opinion of his followers
he was soon considered, not only the Son of God, but God Himself
incarnated bodily in the son.  In other words, that God Himself came
down from heaven in the form of human flesh, to save the world by
making an atoning sacrifice of Himself for the sins of humanity.  And
when Jesus came, suffered and died on the Cross, we are told that "the
scheme of redemption was completed."  And what is this "scheme" of
redemption, or "plan" of salvation?  This was the crucial point to me.
I thought man was certainly a sinner and needed a Redeemer.  I looked
it over with scrutinizing care.  Here is one God who is three Gods.  A
part of God left heaven, came to earth as a man, died on the Cross to
satisfy the other part of himself for sins somebody else committed!  I
know this sounds to the orthodox like sacrilege, but I mean it
seriously.  Think of it for a moment!  God dividing himself, one part
in heaven, one part on earth and the third part, the Holy Ghost, a
go-between!  Boil it down to its last analysis and this is what it
means.  Either this, or three separate gods, one of whom comes to earth
to die in order to appease the wrath of the other, the third remaining
in heaven with the first until the second returns, when He would come
to earth to continue the work begun by the second.  There would thus be
always two gods in heaven and one on earth.  This is, in a nutshell,
the sum and substance of Trinitarian orthodox Christianity.

We are told seriously that "there is no other name given under heaven,
nor among men, whereby we may be saved except Jesus Christ."  And that
in order to be saved, we must believe in him as the only begotten Son
of God, and in the atoning sacrifice of his death for our sins.  Here I
seriously inquired: If the salvation of the human race is entirely and
exclusively dependent upon faith in the merits of the death of Jesus as
an atoning sacrifice, what became of all the people who died before his
coming?  Orthodoxy answers that they were saved by faith in the
_Promised Savior to come_, as given to Abraham, Moses, and the
prophets.  If so, how many were saved?  The Jewish nation never looked
for a spiritual Messiah.  It was always a temporal one.  There is no
evidence that they ever had the remotest conception of a Messiah that
was to make a vicarious atoning sacrifice of himself for them.  Hence
their faith in this promise was in vain.  It was not the kind that
saves, according to orthodoxy.  An occasional prophet, like Isaiah or
Jeremiah, or some others, _might_ have so understood and believed it.
But very few, if any, others did.  Then the great mass of "God's chosen
people" are now in hell; for they did not believe _rightly_; and all
the balance of the world is there because they never heard of such a
promise and hence did not believe at all!

But the question here arises, If salvation from Abraham to Christ was
secured by faith in the promised Messiah _to come_; and which, as we
have just seen, according to orthodox definitions, was practically a
complete failure; how were they saved from the time of Adam until the
promise made to Abraham?

The answer of orthodoxy is, By the promise made to Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden, that "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head."  This is not the exact language of Genesis, but of the creed.
The substance is correct.  But according to Genesis this was not a
promise to Adam and Eve at all; but a part of the curse pronounced on
the serpent!  There is nothing in the record to indicate that either
Adam or Eve even heard it, or ever knew anything about it.  There is
nothing in the record to indicate that the serpent was present when God
accosted Adam and Eve about their transgression.  Besides, the incident
is never referred to again in the whole Bible, by either prophet,
priest, Christ or apostle.  It is simply an example of that far-fetched
method of interpretation I have before referred to, to establish a
preconceived opinion and satisfy the demands of such a necessity.
There is not a single line in the whole Bible to justify such an
interpretation of this incident.  The only possible cross reference
that might indicate it is in Rom. xvi, 20: "And the God of peace shall
bruise Satan under your feet shortly."  And this can have no reference
to the incident in Eden.  Besides, if this sentence on the serpent was
a promise of the victory of Christ over him, it was _already
accomplished_ before Paul wrote these words.

And if such a promise had been made, with the meaning attached to it
that is claimed, God certainly knew that the race would soon forget it,
and thus render it futile and give him additional excuse to vent his
wrath and wreak his vengeance against his helpless creatures.  If faith
in such a promise was the only way of salvation from Adam to Abraham
then practically all the world up to that time is now in hell!  Who can
believe such a caricature of God?

But after all, what about the salvation of the race since the death of
Christ?  If salvation since his coming is only attainable thru personal
faith in him as the miraculously begotten Son of God, and in his death
as a vicarious atonement for sin; and that all are lost except those
who have thus believed, how many are saved?  Certainly very few.  Take
a mere glance at the world since the time of Christ.  Leaving out of
consideration the countless millions who never heard of him, and
confining ourselves to those who have, how many of them fully met
exactly these conditions?  If such a doctrine is true, there are but
few people in heaven except infants; and it is only in recent years
that some of the orthodox have admitted infants indiscriminately into
heaven!

I could comprehend to some extent how, if God had offered salvation and
a home in heaven forever to all mankind on such easy terms as faith in
the merits of the death of Jesus, He could visit condign punishment on
such as knew it and wilfully rejected it.  But I could not see the
justice of such a punishment being inflicted on the countless millions
of people who never heard of it, had no means of knowing it, and could
not be justly blamed for not knowing it.  Another thing that I now put
the test of reason to, was the doctrine of salvation by faith itself.
Was faith the only thing that could merit the favor of God?  Was
character of no avail?  Was all moral purity, goodness and brotherly
love but "filthy rags in the sight of God," unless buttressed by belief
in the Deity of Jesus and the vicarious atonement?  Was salvation after
all as arbitrary as that described in "Holy Willie's Prayer"?

  "O, Thou who in the heavens dost dwell,
  Who as it pleases best thysel'
  Sends one to heaven and ten to hell,
    A' for Thy glory,
  And not for any good or ill
    They've done afore Thee."


I thought of such moralists and philosophers as Zoroaster, Buddha,
Confucius, Socrates, Plato, and thousands of others who have lived in
the past, and left a lasting impression in the world for the good of
mankind that continues to this day, some of them but little less than
Jesus himself, in the moral sublimity of their lives and teachings, and
wondered if these men were all in hell to roast and fry and burn
forever because they had not "exercised faith" in the merits of a dying
God of whom they had never known or even heard!  And every nobler
sentiment of my human nature rebelled against such an idea.  To
attribute such a character and proceeding to God is to make him, in
cruelty and injustice, below the level of the most ferocious beast of
the jungle.  This was not all.  I beheld the divisions in the church
itself.  Some hundreds of different denominations, all bearing the name
Christian, each claiming to be right and all the balance wrong, each
claiming to expound the only truth, and all the balance error; each
claiming to direct to the only true and infallible way of eternal life
and all the balance only deadly heresies.  I found the history of the
Christian Church written in blood.  For fifteen hundred years Christian
had slain Christian as a part of his religious duty.  Fire and fagot,
sword and rack and all the instruments of torture known to the
ingenuity of mankind were employed for the torture and death of
heretics--all in the name of Christ and for the salvation of the world.
Catholics tortured and burned Protestants and Protestants murdered each
other.  Calvin consented to the burning of Servetus and the New England
Puritans hung witches and persecuted Quakers and Baptists by burning
holes in their tongues with hot irons, and driving them from their
midst as they would the pestilence.  I wondered how, if God ever takes
any interest in affairs on earth and hears the prayers of his children,
he could sit supinely by on his throne and permit such things to be
done in his name and for his glory!  If his spirit could enter into the
hearts of men and direct their thoughts and minds, why did He not do it
and stop this useless slaughter?  Again I turned back to the beginning
of things.  If God foresaw what Adam would do and the dreadful
consequences of it, why did He not make him different so he would not
fall?  Was it not just as easy?  But if God can be better glorified by
saving a fallen creature than by keeping him from falling, then why did
He not make this "plan of salvation" so plain and clear that there
could be no possibility of misunderstanding or misconstruing it?  If
God was to be ultimately glorified in the sacrifice of his son as a
means of salvation for the world, and this salvation was to come simply
by faith in this promise, why did He not make this promise so specific
and clear that the most ignorant and benighted could not misunderstand
and fail to accept it?  Why did not God reveal this promise to all
mankind alike, so that all might be saved, instead of to one family and
one nation?  And when this son came and "died for the world" why did
not God make it known to the entire world instead of a handful of Jews
in an obscure corner of the earth?  And when this "plan" was completed,
why was it not heralded in every nook and corner of the earth, wherever
man was found, instead of being confined for centuries around the
shores of the Mediterranean?  Then again, I say, why was not this
"plan" made so plain and unequivocal that no man, however ignorant,
could possibly fail to comprehend it, and all men understand it exactly
alike, and thus live in the bonds of a true brotherhood, the sons of
the one great God, instead of butchering each other for fifteen hundred
years in the name of religion, each sect claiming to be the only true
followers of the Son of God, and all the balance reprobates and devils?

But the most inconsistent and unreasonable phase of the whole thing is
yet to come.  If salvation is attainable only through the merits of the
"death on the Cross" of Jesus Christ, then Jesus _had to be crucified_.
It was a part of the "eternal plan."  No other death would do.  If
Jesus had died a natural death there could have been no salvation.  He
must needs be punished, killed for the sins of Adam and all mankind.
He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."  To carry out
this "divine purpose" somebody had to crucify him.  Every actor in this
great "drama of redemption" was a necessary factor.  No one was either
unnecessary or unimportant.  Judas was necessary to betray him into the
hands of his enemies.  He and the part he performed were necessarily as
much a fore-ordained and eternally predestinated factor in the "scheme
of redemption" as that of Jesus himself.  The Jewish priests who
prosecuted him before Pilate were as equally necessary as the subject
of the prosecution.  The Jewish nation whom they represented, or some
other nation, was equally necessary as a background for this
prosecution, in whose name it was conducted.  Pilate or some other was
necessary as the judge to hear the trial and pronounce the sentence of
death before it could be carried out.  And finally, the Roman soldiers
were necessary to execute the sentence.  All these, Jesus, Judas, the
priests, the Jewish nation, Pilate and the Roman soldiers, were
necessary links in the one great chain of the "scheme of redemption,"
or "plan of salvation" by the vicarious atonement of the Son of God on
the Cross.  If either one of them had failed, the chain would have been
broken, God's eternal plans and purposes thwarted, and man left without
redemption to eternally perish!

And yet poor Judas was driven by remorse to a suicide's grave, and
according to the doctrines of the Church, for these nineteen hundred
years has been justly writhing, frying and burning in the bottomless
pit of eternal torments, and will continue so to suffer forever,--and
for what?  For faithfully performing and fulfilling that part in the
scheme of redemption which he was, by the eternal decrees of God,
foreordained and predestinated from before the foundation of the world
to perform; and which he could neither escape nor avoid, without
breaking the chain, and thus defeating the eternal purposes of God in
the redemption of mankind!  For nineteen hundred years the Church has
thus execrated and anathematised Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the
High Priests, the whole Jewish nation and the Roman Empire, and
consigned them to eternal perdition, the tormenting flames of an
eternal hell, and scattered the Jews to the four quarters of the earth,
never ceasing its horrid persecutions, in many places even to this day;
and all for what?  For crucifying Christ; for carrying out the divine
purpose planned from before the foundation of the world; for obeying
the Eternal Will; for doing only what they were _compelled_ by the
eternal fates to do in order that mankind might be saved from the
eternal burning!

Our author that I had been studying says on page 257, "No man can read
the Bible with any faith in its teachings, and deny that this terrible
calamity (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation) overtook
the Jews on account of their great sins, _especially their rejection of
the Son of God_."  (Italics mine.)  Suppose they had not rejected him.
Suppose they had accepted him as the Messiah of prophecy, as the Church
insists he was, and had set about to make him their king and succeeded;
and he had lived on a normal life and died a natural death, what would
have become of the "scheme of redemption" by vicarious atonement?  What
about the "plan of salvation," the remission of sins only thru the
"power of the blood"?  "Apart from the shedding of blood there is no
remission."  Then if the Jews _had not_ rejected Jesus and thereby
caused his blood to be shed, what would have been the eternal destiny
of the whole human race?  According to orthodox Christianity, the whole
plan would have failed, and the whole human race would have been
irretrievably lost and plunged forever and ever into eternal torments,
"where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"!

I had now reached the crisis.  After pursuing this course of study and
this line of reasoning for a period of about three years after
finishing the book I have herein described, does any one wonder that I
threw the whole thing overboard, Bible, inspiration, revelation, church
and religion, into the scrap heap of superstition, legend, fable and
mythology?  I gave up the whole thing as a farce and a delusion, as
"sounding brass and tinkling cymbals."  I could no longer honestly
preach such a gospel; I could not be a hypocrite.  I withdrew from the
church and ministry and turned my attention to secular pursuits.  And
having nowhere else to go, I naturally drifted into that state of mind
which the world calls agnosticism.




CHAPTER VI

THE REACTION: A NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH

At this time I knew nothing of a liberal church.  If I had, I doubt if
I was in a condition of mind to consider it.  I was so utterly
disgusted with ecclesiasticism as I knew it that I was but little
prepared if at all, to give anything of the kind fair consideration.
The pendulum had swung to the opposite extreme.  I abandoned everything
but God.  I never doubted for a moment the existence of a Supreme
Being.  Nature and instinct taught me this.  But who, or what, or
where, this Supreme Being was, or what his attributes or
characteristics were, I did not pretend to know, or care.  I relegated
it all to the realm of the unknown and unknowable.

For a while I went to church occasionally, merely for the sake of
respectability, and not because I took any interest in common with it.
I listened to the preaching with such patience and fortitude as I could
command.  I heard only the same old platitudes about a dying Christ and
the flames of perdition I had heard all my life and preached for eight
years myself.  I often felt as if I would like to help the preacher out
in his struggle to "divest himself of his thoughts."  I finally quit
going to church altogether, until I located where I had an opportunity
to attend a Reformed Jewish synagogue, which I did quite often, and
always heard broad-gauged, intellectual discourses.

As I have before said, up to this time, and for years thereafter, I had
never read a distinctively "infidel" book, nor even a liberal religious
one.  My change of opinions had all come from an honest effort to seek
proofs for the faith of my fathers, which I inherited.  But I never
ceased to be a student.  My temporary antagonism to the church soon
vanished.  I simply viewed it with utter indifference, and somewhat of
sympathy.  I had no more creed to defend, and none to condemn.  I had
no desire whatever to propagate my own ideas or disturb any one else in
theirs.  I felt that if any one got any satisfaction out of his
religious beliefs he was welcome to it.  I would not disturb him for
anything.  I looked upon it as a harmless delusion, and if it made one
any better, society was so much the gainer.  But to me it was as
"sounding brass and tinkling cymbals."  But I cannot say that I was
satisfied with my position.  Man is a social as well as an emotional
animal.  Agnosticism is neither social nor emotional.  It is
cold-blooded and indifferent at its best.  It is simply a bundle of
doubts and negations.  Men are bound together in social and fraternal
ties by what they affirm and believe in common.  But they care nothing
for what they deny.

But having no creed to defend and no preconceived opinions to prove,
and being of studious habits, I was now prepared to study in search of
abstract truth for truth's own sake, ready to accept it from whatever
source it might come, and follow it wherever it might lead.

Without arrogating to myself any special merit or credit for taking
this course, I wish that all people would do the same.  As I said in
the very beginning of this book, most people inherit their religious
beliefs, and there they stop.  We are Baptists, or Methodists, or
Presbyterians, or Catholics, because we were born so.  We transmit our
beliefs to our children, from generation to generation, each following
the faith of his ancestors, without ever stopping to inquire why, or
seek a reason.  And if a thought is ever given to it, or any search
made, it is but rarely for abstract truth, but for the proofs that
support the inherited faith, the preconceived opinion.  It is like one
going into his house and bolting the door on the inside.  Nothing is
ever given out and nothing ever permitted to come in.  This is exactly
why for centuries the world was drenched in Christian blood, shed by
Christian hands.  Each had its infallible creed, to which all the world
must bow--or take the consequences.

It took me several years to get myself settled with anything like a
definite "creed of my own," tho I was never in the least disturbed
about it, and only gave it such time as I could spare from a busy
business and professional life.  By this time I had reached such
definite conclusions as satisfied my own mind, tho I never,--after my
"crisis,"--held any opinion, and do not now, that I am not willing to
change at any time that evidence is furnished to justify it.  In my
search for truth I found myself confronted with certain facts that
Agnosticism did not satisfactorily explain.  These were facts of
Nature, of Man as a part of it, of man's nature, habits, history,
thoughts, conduct, and social relations,--in fact, all that pertains to
the phenomena of Nature and Human Life and Relations.  The conclusions
I reached constitute.


MY NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH

_THE UNIVERSE AND GOD_

The first of these was the physical universe.  I had accepted the
theory of evolution in a general way; yet I could not account for the
marvelous organism of millions of worlds and suns and systems, of which
our earth is but a mere atom, filling the infinity of space, beyond all
human comprehension, revolving and whirling thru space, each in its
alloted orbit, with such perfect order and regularity, and all in the
most perfect harmony, governed by such immutable, perfect and universal
law, upon the theory of the operation of blind, unintelligent force
upon inert matter.  Here was an effect.  There must be a cause.  The
effect cannot be greater than the cause.  Here is an infinite universe;
there must be an infinite cause; and that cause cannot be less than
Infinite Eternal Intelligence.  This cause, for the want of a better
name, we call God.  I could thus easily account for the universe thru
the processes of evolution, directed by eternal, intelligent will,
operating thru eternal immutable and perfect law, upon eternal and
indestructible matter.  Whether correct or not, this satisfied my mind
as to God and the universe.

I could sing with the Psalmist:

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his
handiwork.  Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth
knowledge.  Their line is gone out thru all the earth and their words
to the end of the world.  There is no speech nor language where their
voice is not heard."

As I have before said, I never had any doubt about the existence of a
Supreme Being, and that the universe was in some way the product of his
creative energy.  I think the doctrine of evolution satisfactorily
solves the "riddle of the universe," if it recognizes Infinite Spirit
as well as Eternal Matter; and that this Infinite Spirit is in some
way, tho beyond our comprehension, the real Force or Energy, both the
Intelligence and Life, the Great Uncaused First Cause behind all
phenomena, who, for the want of a better name we call God.

Perhaps it is impossible for any one to think of God without at the
same time conceiving some sort of definition of him.  Yet, God cannot
be defined.  He is infinite.  And infinity cannot be defined in terms
of the finite.  Any attempt to define God is to limit Him.  Our
conceptions of God are at best limited, tho God himself is not.  The
finite mind cannot conceive unlimited space, nor eternal duration.  We
can conceive of them as _existing_; but we cannot conceive what they
are.  We can conceive of God as infinite; but we cannot conceive what
infinity is.  If we could, it would not be infinite, unless we are
infinite.  So all attempts to define God in terms of the finite are
futile.  And yet, when we look back over the past history of the human
race and see what ruin has been wrought by this very thing it becomes
appalling!  All religious controversies, wars and bloodshed have had
their ultimate source just here.  Certain men have formed certain
conceptions of God, of his character, his attributes, his will, and his
purposes concerning mankind.  These they have labelled, patented,
copyrighted, and declared to the world to be correct, final and
infallible, and demanded that all the world accept them on penalty of
death!

To quote, in substance, from a recent author, we might as well try to
make a meal of the stars and contain them all in our stomach at once as
to comprehend God in his fullness.  God _is what He is_, no matter what
our opinions may be of him.  But what any one of us _thinks God is_,
that is what _God is to him_.  This is all the definition of God that
need be given.  God is his own revelation.  "The heavens declare the
glory of God."  Nature reveals God in greater power and splendor than
any book.

What is _my_ conception of God?  Only this: God is the Life of the
universe; and this includes the ALL.  As what we call the spirit is the
life in my body, and permeates the whole of it from the most central
vital organs to the utmost extremities of nails and hair; so God--and
He is Spirit--permeates the _whole universe_, and is the life of, or in
it, as you please.

  "'All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
  Whose body Nature is, and God the Soul.'"


He is manifest in the majesty of the universe and is seen in the
beauties of the flowers.  He is reflected in the painted wings of the
birds, in the rippling leaf, in the blade of grass, in the dewdrop, in
the snowflake, in all nature; and above all in man himself, in whom He
dwells and lives.  How noble and inspiring the thought that I, even I,
am a part of the life of the infinite, eternal God!  All this I take on
trust--_by faith_--and confess freely that, while believing it I cannot
comprehend it.  But such a God must be eternally good.  He could not be
the monster that Jewish tradition and orthodox Christianity paint him,
eternally hating his enemies, all of whom were his own creatures, and
plunging into an eternal hell of fire and brimstone the larger part of
his own children, created in his own image and likeness.  While I
cannot understand the "problems of his providence," I am sure that "the
Judge of all the earth will do right."  As to the perplexities that
have grown out of the ideas of God's _foreknowledge, foreordination_,
etc., my view is that no such a thing as _foreknowledge_ can be
attributed to God.  To do so is to attribute to him time limitations.
To the Infinite God there can be no such thing as past or future.  All
is the "_eternal present_" in which God is still at work, as much as
ever before.  I confess I cannot comprehend _how_ this is; but I can
comprehend _that_ it is.

  "Deep in unfathomable mines
  Of never failing skill,
  He treasures up his bright designs,
  And works his sovereign will."


_MAN_

"What is man that thou art mindful of him?"  So far as we know, as a
pure animal, he is the highest product, the climax of the processes of
organic evolution.  In addition to this, he is the only known creature
on earth, or elsewhere, endowed with those God-like faculties of mind,
thought, reason, will,--_soul_.  As far as man's moral character and
destiny are concerned, it matters as little how he came to be here, as
it does who Cain's wife was.  We are confronted with the serious fact
that _we are here_; and that we are endowed with these supreme
faculties that differentiate us from the lower forms of life about us,
and consequently entail upon us, not thru some supernatural revelation,
but by natural instinct, certain moral and social responsibilities and
obligations, not only to our own kind, but to all those myriad forms of
life below us,--obligations and responsibilities which we cannot avoid
or escape, except at our peril.

And as to these responsibilities, it is not material whether man is
immortal or not.  I once had serious doubts of this.  But while I now
believe it with a firm conviction that in my own mind amounts to moral
certainty, yet I recognize that it is beyond the pale of ocular proof
or physical demonstration.  It pertains exclusively to the realm of
faith.

  "Strange is it not? that of the myriads who,
  Before us passed the door of darkness thru,
  Not one returns, to tell us of the road,
  Which to discover, we must travel too?"

And yet this faith is one of the most comforting and inspiring of all
the objects of faith known to man.  But he that is governed in his life
and conduct, solely by the fear of some dire punishment in the
after-life, or some hope of bribing the Infinite to give him a
comfortable berth in heaven, is at best but a little and weak soul.

No need to go into any argument here upon the question of whether, "If
a man die shall he live again?"  Our social and moral obligations to
live right with our fellowmen are none the less, whether there is an
after-life or not.  In fact no man can be right with God,--a part of
whose life he is,--while wrong with his fellow-man.


_THE PROBLEM OF EVIL_

This brings us to a consideration of the problem of evil.  "Ever since
human intelligence became enlightened enough to grope for a meaning and
purpose in human life, this problem of the existence of evil has been
the burden of man." (John Fiske.)  Out of some attempt to solve it,
every religion on earth was born.  I do not offer to solve this
problem; but to try to take a rational view of it.

Good and evil are relative terms.  How could we know anything about the
one but thru its contrast with the other?  If there were no such thing
as evil, how could we be conscious of the good?  How could we know that
it was good?  We cannot know anything except by its contrast with
something else.  Some element of unlikeness must appear before we can
distinguish anything from something else.  To quote again from Fiske:
"If there were no color but red, it would be exactly the same thing as
if there were no color at all."  There could be no music except for
variety and contrasts in sounds.  If we had never tasted anything but
sugar, could we know what bitterness is?  But having tasted the bitter
we then know what sweetness means.  Likewise, if there was no such
thing as moral evil in the world, we could not possibly know what moral
goodness is.  We could not know what happiness is if we did not have
some knowledge of sorrow and pain.  Just why this is so, I do not
pretend to know.  I am only stating facts as they are; and the great
Creator, who is the author of both, if of either, knows; and we may
know in proper time.  Another pertinent question from Fiske may be
asked here: "What would have been the worth of that primitive innocence
portrayed in the myth of the garden of Eden?  What would have been the
moral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of evil,
and doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than
the deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and
turns out some finished product at the other?  Clearly for strong and
resolute men and women an Eden would be but a fool's paradise.  How
could anything fit to be called _character_ ever have been produced
there?  But for tasting the forbidden fruit, in what respect could man
have become a being of higher order than the beast of the field?"

The point is that the same law of evolution applies in the moral world
as it does in the material.  As the highest types of life have been
developed only thru the processes of struggle with adverse elements, in
which only the fittest, strongest and best adapted to its environment
survived, so moral character is only developed thru the struggle with
moral evil.  Just as one cannot learn to swim on a parlor sofa, but
must get in the water and struggle, so one must come in contact with,
combat, struggle with, and overcome moral evil in order to develop the
highest and strongest type of moral character.

  "Heaven is not reached by a single bound;
    But we build the ladder by which we rise
    From the lowly earth to the vaulted skies,
  And rise to its summit round by round."

The rise from a bestial to a moral plane involves the acquirement of a
knowledge of both good and evil.  The moral conscience thus developed
plays the same role in the moral world that the consciousness of pain
does in the physical.  As this consciousness of pain is a monitor to
warn us from physical danger, so the moral conscience is our monitor to
keep us from moral evil.  And the higher this moral conscience is
developed, the more sensitive it becomes, the higher will its possessor
rise in the moral scale.  This is the law which Paul tells us is
written in the hearts of all men, "their consciences meanwhile accusing
or excusing them."  This may seem a strange philosophy.  But it
comports with the facts of nature and life.  The mystery of evil is not
solved.  But at least we have a rational, working hypothesis upon which
to deal with it, as will further appear as we proceed.


_SIN_

Evil, at least in the physical world, exists separate and apart from
sin.  We will not speculate upon the metaphysical differences that may,
or may not, exist between moral evil and personal guilt.  But I wish to
record briefly the views I ultimately arrived at concerning the nature
and consequences of sin.

According to the orthodox doctrine, altho sin is defined in the New
Testament as the "transgression of the law," it is something _more_
than this;--a direct personal offence against God; and that therefore
its penalties are punitive and vindictive, designed to vindicate the
person of God against insult and injury by disobedience to his law.
Punishment was therefore believed to be administered judicially,
according to the extent of the offense, that the sinner might be made
to suffer _purely for suffering's sake_, measure for measure.  I long
ago abandoned this doctrine.  I accept fully the New Testament teaching
that "sin is the transgression of the law,"--not the law of Moses or
any other penal code,--but the great universal, immutable law of Nature
in the moral world.  That God is the author of this law does not make
its violation any more a personal offense against God than the
violation of a State statute is a personal offense against the
Governor, or legislature, or the judge that administers it.  God cannot
be personally sinned against.  If so He is neither infinite nor
immutable.  To constitute a personal offense the person offended must
take cognizance of it, which necessarily involves _a change of mind_
toward the offender,--otherwise it is not an offense.  The same
condition would be involved in a second change of mind toward the
offender, upon his repentance and forgiveness.  Neither is consistent
with any idea of infinity or immutability.  Neither does God ever
punish sin.  Sin is its own punishment, and it operates automatically.
No sin was ever committed that the sinner did not pay the penalty in
full.  From this there is no more escape than there is from the law of
gravitation.  If I put my hand into the fire I cannot avoid being
burned.  If I take poison I cannot avoid the consequences.  The fact
that there may be an antidote for the poison in no way destroys the
truth of this fundamental law.

  "The moving finger writes, and having writ
  Moves on; Nor all your piety nor wit
  Can lure it back to cancel half a line,
  Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."


Jesus illustrated this law fully and beautifully in the parable of the
Prodigal Son, and I can do no better than quote its substance here.
This young man left his father's house.  This was not a personal
offence against his father, altho the father may well have conjectured
what would be the result.  He was of age and had a right to go.  He
spent his funds in riotous living, and as a consequence was reduced to
want and suffering, his punishment for his sin.  To thus waste his
funds was sin, _He punished himself_ by his own conduct.  His
sufferings became so intense and severe that he resolved to abandon his
present surroundings and return home at any cost, even to becoming a
menial servant in his father's house.  Here we get a clear view of the
_purpose_ of punishment, not as vindictive, but remedial and
corrective.  The young man suffered until his sufferings accomplished
their end in correcting and changing his life.  As soon as this was
done his punishment ended.  Just so with all punishment for sin.  It
will continue until its remedial and corrective purpose is completed
and no longer, whether in this life or some other.  When the young man
returned home his father received him, not as a servant, but a son.
But remember, _his wasted fortune was not restored_.  "Was he not
freely forgiven?"  Yes; but forgiveness does not blot out nor restore
the past; nor absolve one from the natural consequences of his own acts
already committed.  It simply means a new opportunity and a new start,
but with the handicap of the consequences of the past life.  The
returned prodigal was forgiven.  He had the opportunity to begin life
anew as a son, just as he was before.  But his material resources
represented in his squandered fortune, and the time he lost while
squandering it, were lost forever!  Be as diligent and frugal as he
might, he could never, thru time or eternity, reach that attainment
_which he might have reached_, had he used the same diligence and
frugality from the start, in the use of his natural inheritance as his
operating capital.

Hence, one sins, not against God, but most of all _against himself_, by
violating the law of his own being, and of humanity.  And the
_consequences_ of sins committed can never be escaped, in this world or
any other.  If this kind of gospel had been preached to humanity during
all these past centuries of Christianity,--instead of a gospel that
teaches that no matter how vile, wicked and sinful one may be, nor how
long he may thus live in sin, if, in the last hour of life he will only
"believe in Jesus," at death he will go sweeping thru the gates of
heaven into eternal glory on a complete equality with the noblest
saints and purest characters that ever lived on earth,--this world
would now be much better than it is.

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," whether divinely
inspired or not, is as eternally true, certain, and unescapable in the
moral world as are the stars in their courses.  Man sins against
society in transgressing those natural laws of social relations that
bind society together.  But even in this, while society suffers from
his sins, the sinner himself must ultimately suffer for his own sins
above all others.

The question has often been asked me, "If a man cannot sin against God,
but only against himself and society, by what standard, gauge, or
measure am I to determine what is right or wrong?"  I think the Golden
Rule answers that question completely.  All sins are either personal or
social or both.  A man may, by some sort of self-indulgence or abuse or
by his own secret thoughts sin against himself _only_, from which he
alone must suffer.  He may also sin against society by doing some evil
to or against some one else or against society as a whole, from which
both he and others may suffer.  A simple rule of conduct may be this:
In view of any proposed course of conduct, word or act, these questions
may be asked: "What may be the result?  Will it in any way injure me,
or any one else?  Is any possible evil consequence, either to myself or
any one else, likely to come of it?"  If the answer is in the
affirmative, it is wrong; otherwise not.  These are my simple views of
sin.


_SALVATION_

What is salvation?  Almost the universal answer of Christendom has been
for eighteen centuries, escape from hell hereafter and the assurance of
heaven.  Yet, according to the record we have of him, Jesus never
taught any such doctrine.  It is true that he refers several times to
the Gehena of the Jews, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not
quenched," but always as a natural consequence of some failure to do,
or perform certain things that they should do; but never does he appeal
to any one to do or perform anything _for the purpose of escaping it_.

Did the reader ever notice that in all the record we have of the
sayings of Jesus, he is nowhere quoted as having ever said one word
about the great, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, over which
pagans and Christians wrangled for four centuries; and over which
Christians have wrangled and fought with each other for fourteen
centuries?  Do we find where Jesus ever said one word about the Garden
of Eden, the fall of Adam, original sin, total depravity, vicarious
atonement, the mode of baptism, the Trinity, the possession of the Holy
Spirit, or any form of ecclesiastical organization or church polity?

Salvation, and Jesus so taught, pertains to this life exclusively.  It
simply means _to save this life_,--not from physical death, nor hell
hereafter,--but to its proper function, use and purpose, according to
the will of God, as revealed in nature and human experience.  In
simpler words, it is to save this life from sin, wrong doing of every
kind, and making of it the highest, noblest and best it is capable of.

This is what Jesus taught; and Jesus is the savior of mankind _only_ in
that he has taught mankind _how to live_,--not by dying for it.  Thus
to save this life to the highest, noblest and best of which it is
capable, is to save it from sin unto righteousness; and this is to save
it both here and hereafter.  He that _continually lives right_ cannot
die wrong.  And whatever the next life may be, it is but a
continuation, a larger unfolding and fruition of this.  Salvation is
here, not hereafter.


_HEAVEN AND HELL_

But do I not believe in heaven and hell?  Yes, and no.  I believe in
both, and neither.  I do not believe in either the kind of heaven or
hell I was taught in the church.  Yet, I have already said that I did
not believe any sin ever committed by man ever went unpunished, either
here or hereafter, until the full penalty was paid, and the punishment
had completed its remedial and corrective purpose.  And I will say here
that I do not believe any good deed or word ever performed or said by
man ever went unrewarded up to the full value of its merit, either here
or hereafter.  But I believe both heaven and hell to be
_conditions_,--not places,--and we have them both here in this life,
and will have them hereafter.  Each individual makes his own heaven, or
his own hell, and carries it with him when he leaves this life.  To
quote from Omar Khayyam:

  "I sent my Soul thru the invisible
  Some letter of that After-life to spell;
    And by and by my Soul returned to me
  And answered: I myself am Heaven and Hell;
  Heaven's but the vision of fulfilled desire,
  And Hell the shadow of a Soul on fire."


The idea of a literal lake of fire and brimstone to be the eternal
abode of by far the larger part of the human race, according to the
orthodox doctrine of Christianity, is not only unreasonable, but
unthinkable.  If it exists God must have made it; and such a thought is
a caricature of God.  Such a view of hell practically involves the
necessity of the personal devil that has always been associated with
it; and this is also both unreasonable and unthinkable.  If such a
being exists he is either co-eternal with God--which is
unreasonable--or God created him--which is unthinkable.  The idea that
there is in this universe two co-eternal antagonistic spirits in
eternal warfare with each other challenges human credulity.  If the
Bible story of creation and the fall of man is true, as interpreted by
orthodox Christianity, the devil got the best of God right from the
start, and has held it ever since; and according to the current
doctrines of the plan and means of salvation, will hold it eternally.
This leads us inevitably to one of two conclusions: God is neither
Infinite, Omniscient, nor Omnipotent, else He would not have permitted
such a condition to come about, and permit Himself to be thus defeated
in his plans and purposes, and lose eternally ninety percent of the
highest product of his own creation, Man, whom He made in his own image
and likeness.  If we still insist that God is Infinite, Omniscient, and
therefore knew in advance all that ever would take place, including the
fall of Adam and its consequences, Omnipotent, and therefore able to
prevent it, but did not, it only makes the matter worse.

But to take the other horn of the dilemma, that God _created_ the devil
first an angel in heaven, who afterwards led a rebellion in heaven and
had to be cast out, and that hell was then created as a place in which
to put him, but where it proved afterwards that he could not be kept,
but got out and robbed God of the noblest product of his creative
genius at the very threshold of creation, corrupting the very fountain
of human life itself, whereby he became the ultimate possessor of
nine-tenths of all the race forever, is only to make the matter still
worse than before.  He certainly was not Omniscient, and therefore able
to foreknow what this newly created angel would ultimately do, else He
would not have made him; nor was He Omnipotent, else He would have
prevented it.  But if it still be insisted--and unfortunately it is by
far the greater part of Christianity--that God is, nevertheless and
notwithstanding, Infinite, Omniscient and Omnipotent, and either
deliberately planned or supinely sat by and permitted these things to
take place, _then He is not_ a God of goodness, love, justice, truth,
mercy and benevolence, but an unthinkable monster, more diabolical and
cruel than the wildest savage ever known to the earth, or the most
ferocious beast of prey in the jungle.  I might naturally fear such a
God, but never love or respect, but eternally hate him.

I have already given my views of the story of Eden and the fall of man;
that man never fell, but is still incomplete, but progressing onward
and upward forever; that he was never, on the general average, higher
or better than now; and as the years and ages go on he will continue
thus to grow better and nobler, making his own heaven as he goes along,
and destroying his own hell by learning his lessons of suffering for
wrong doing, and leaving it behind him.  No, God did not make man in
his own image, implant in his very nature that eternal aspiration
upward that is possessed by every normal human being, and then make a
devil to tempt and ruin him, and a hell in which to eternally torment
him.

I quote again from Omar Khayyam:

  "Oh, Thou who didst with pitfall and with gin
  Beset the road I was to wander in,
    Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
  Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin.
  ... "Ne'er a peevish boy
  Would break the bowl from which he drank in joy;
    And he that with his hand the vessel made
  Will not in after wrath destroy."


_REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT_

It is hardly necessary to the purpose of this work, to say anything at
all on these subjects.  If man was never lost, kidnapped or stolen from
God, he needed no _redeemer_, to _buy him back_ with a price.  If man
never "fell" from the favor of God by disobedience, and thereby
incurred his anger, illwill and wrath that sought vengeance on his
life, he needed no one to mediate, propitiate or atone for him by
shedding his own blood as a substitute.  The whole doctrine of
redemption and atonement falls flat when the doctrine of the fall of
man is removed from under it.  But as this is the very crux of the
whole orthodox Christian system, the reader may be interested to know
what conclusions I reached concerning it, after some years of study, as
to both its origin and meaning.  These conclusions I reached, not only
from the study of the Bible, but from the study of history generally;
and especially the history of religion, in other races as well as the
Jews.  It must be remembered that this doctrine of atonement by the
shedding of blood, is--or rather was,--in one form or another, common
to many ancient religions and nations.  It was by no means exclusively
Jewish or Christian.  It probably had a common origin and purpose in
all.

I have already intimated that all religious doctrine and practice had
their origin in man's attempt to solve the problem of evil, sin,
suffering and death; and to remedy it.  I will treat this more fully
when I come to consider the subject of religion specifically.

The general solution of this problem, if not the almost universal one,
was, that men had offended the gods and incurred their anger and
illwill; and for this reason the gods continually afflicted them thru
life and ultimately destroyed them.  Thus death was the final penalty
for sin.  The gods could be finally satisfied only with the life,--the
blood,--of the transgressor.  "For the blood is the life."  This
doctrine is not confined to Genesis and the Jews.  In fact, the best
Biblical scholars of today are of the opinion that this story of Eden
and the fall were not originally Jewish at all; but that the tradition
was learned during the exile in Babylonia and Persia, where, it has
been learned from recent excavations, the tradition existed centuries
before the time of the captivity.  It is believed that this tradition
so fitted into the Jewish history and gave them such a satisfactory
solution of their own sufferings and misery that it was brought back by
them, and, with some adaptations, incorporated into their own sacred
literature as a part of their own history.  Thus, Genesis is now
believed by the best scholars and most competent critics, not to be the
first book of the Bible written, but in its present form, one of the
last written of the Old Testament.  But this is a digression.

Quite early, however, tho the time and the exact reason why are both
unknown, it is evident that man conceived the idea that, tho he could
not escape ultimate death, yet, he might in some way appease the wrath
of the gods, and thus at least mitigate his afflictions in this life,
by offering them the life--the blood--of a substitute.  Thus originated
the practice of offering burnt offerings to the gods, so common among
so many ancient tribes and nations besides Israel.  It was believed
that the gods would be satisfied, at least for the time being, with the
blood of an innocent victim, especially if it was the best, or the most
precious the offerer had.  And from this grew the offering of human
sacrifices, especially one's own children, as Abraham offering Isaac,
Jephtha his daughter, and the practice in Israel so severely condemned
by some of the earlier prophets, of making "their children pass the
fire unto Moloch."

Other offerings in the course of time grew up, such as fruits,
vegetables, incense, etc.; but no offering was acceptable as an
_atonement for sin_, except the offering of blood.  Thus Cain brought
an offering "of the fruit of the ground" and Jehovah rejected it.  But
Abel came with "the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and unto his offering."

The later Levitical ritual with its organized priesthood, tabernacle,
temple, etc., was by no means the beginning of this idea of appeasing
the wrath of Jehovah by blood atonement; but was only the more perfect
and systematic organization and administration of it.  Blood was
considered so precious, because it was the life, that the children of
Israel were forbidden to eat it on penalty of death.  "For the life of
the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make atonement for your sins: for it is the blood that maketh atonement
by reason of the life."  Lev. xvii, 11.

I shall assume here that the reader is already sufficiently familiar
with the practices of the Jews, as recorded thruout the Old Testament,
concerning this matter of blood atonement, to render it unnecessary to
go into further details.  If he is not already familiar with it, he can
easily become so.

The question has been asked, why _burn_ the offering?  Why was it not
sufficient simply to shed the blood?  Perhaps in the beginning this was
the practice.  There is nothing said about burning the offerings of
either Cain or Abel.  It is highly probable they were not burnt.
Jehovah was satisfied with the mere _sight_ of blood, the destruction
of a life.  But this, Cain did not offer.  There was no _blood_ in his
fruit-offering; hence Jehovah was not only unappeased, but insulted.
The first mention of "burnt-offerings" in the Bible is the offering
made by Noah after the flood.  From this on they are common.  The
purpose of burning the offering was simply to cook it,--to roast it.
The offering was nearly always eaten.  Sometimes only the fat,
considered the choicest part, was burnt as an offering to the god;
while the people and priests ate the balance, either roasted or boiled.
See a full account of this in 1 Sam. ii, 12f.  As man has always made
his gods in his own image he imagined the gods, like himself, loved to
eat.  Therefore, in addition to appeasing the wrath of the god by the
sight of the blood of the victim, his favor was supposed to be further
obtained by feeding him.  As the good host always sets the best he has
before his guest, so the best part of the sacrificed victim was placed
on the altar for the god.  Altho invisible, it was firmly believed that
the god consumed the burning flesh or fat, as it was reduced to smoke
and ascended to heaven.  The parties making the offering,--sometimes
only an individual, or a family, but often the whole tribe,--ate the
balance.  They were therefore, "eating with the god," and consequently
on good terms with him, just as eating together today is an indication
of friendship, or the taking of salt together among certain savage
tribes is a token of peace and friendship, or the smoking from the
common pipe among the early American Indians.  Later in Israel, the
whole offering was burnt.  Jehovah was entitled to it all.  Men had
outgrown the idea of "eating with Jehovah."

We now come back more specifically to the _purpose_ of this blood
atonement.  We have no account in all the Old Testament where it was
ever offered with direct reference to a future life,--for the purpose
of escaping hell.  We have already seen that there is absolutely
nothing in the story of Eden and the fall of man, upon which to
predicate any thought of immortality after physical death, either a
heaven or hell.  We now come to note that there is nowhere any _direct_
reference to a life after death, in any book of the Old Testament,
written _before_ the exile.  The account of Saul having the witch of
Endor call up Samuel after his death; and David's faith that he could
go to his dead child, indeed indicate some belief at this time in an
after-life; but nowhere is there the remotest reference to a hell, a
separate place of torment for the wicked.  In the case of Samuel being
recalled to converse with Saul, he says, that altho Jehovah had
departed from Saul, and notwithstanding Saul's great wickedness,
"Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,"--the saintly Samuel, all
in the same place.  There are a few direct references to a future life,
_in a few places only_, in some of the books written _during_ or
_after_ the exile.  But nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a
single reference to the offering of the sacrifice of atonement with any
reference whatever to a future life.  To ancient Israel, Jehovah was a
God of the present,--not the future.  He did things _then_,--in the
present tense.  He was the God of the _living_,--not of the dead.  And
Jesus affirmed the same thing.

He was exclusively a God for this world and this life.  The atoning
sacrifice was offered to appease his wrath against them for their past
sins, not the sin of the individual only, but the sins of the whole
nation.  The benefits they expected to receive from this remission of
sins thru the blood of the atonement were _here_ and _now_,--not in
some future life.

We pass rapidly now to the time of the Christ.  Altho the canonical
books of the Old Testament give us no clue to any definite, fixed
beliefs among the Jews concerning a future life, heaven, hell or the
resurrection of the dead, yet, according to the New Testament
literature, these views were all quite clearly defined, and generally
believed among all the Jews, except the party of the Sadducees,
relatively a very small party.  Whence came these beliefs?  If they had
come by some divine revelation they would certainly have been recorded
in some of their sacred books.  But they were not.  The only rational
answer is that they learned all these things from their Eastern masters
during the captivity, where all these beliefs are now known to have
been current centuries before the captivity, and brought them back on
their return; and with some modifications incorporated them into their
own system.  Yet there is no indication in the New Testament, nor any
contemporary literature now extant, that the atoning sacrifice that was
continually offered in the temple, even down to the destruction of
Jerusalem, was ever offered with any view, or reference to a future
life; much less as a means of escaping hell.

We turn now to the Christ.  It has already been said that he nowhere
makes the least reference to a vicarious atonement to be made by
himself for the sins of world.  True, he warns his disciples that he
must needs go up to Jerusalem, there to suffer and be put to death; but
nowhere does he say that this death is to _redeem back_ mankind from
the devil; nor appease the wrath of God against mankind by the sight of
his blood; nor to vindicate the majesty of a broken law, for the
benefit of mankind.  It is all but universally acknowledged that his
disciples had no such conception of his mission, but followed him up to
Jerusalem expecting to see him made King, sit on the "throne of David"
and restore Israel to her pristine glory, according to the universal
interpretation of the Messianic prophecies.  After his tragic death,
and alleged resurrection and ascension,--in which his disciples
certainly implicitly believed, no matter what the actual facts may
be,--we still hear not a word about his death being a vicarious
atonement for sin.  When Peter preached that great sermon on the day of
Pentecost he says not one word about a vicarious atonement in the death
of Christ, but lays the whole emphasis on his resurrection and
ascension.  Let the reader turn here to that sermon in the second
chapter of Acts and read it; and he will find that the whole burden of
Peter's sermon is to the effect, that since the Jews had put Jesus to
death, he had broken the bonds of death and hades, they being powerless
to hold him, and had ascended to the right hand of God, whereby he had
conquered both death and hades, and for which "God hath made him both
Lord and Christ."  Note, that because of this resurrection and
ascension he had _been made_ both Lord and Christ,--and not by any
virtue in his death itself.  Not the remotest hint of vicarious
atonement!  The natural inference is--tho Peter is not quoted as saying
so in so many words,--that men are to be saved from death and hades
hereafter, because Jesus had escaped from both, and thus not only paved
the way, but himself thereby became able to save others also.

As is well known, for half a century or more, the followers of the new
faith, who for fifteen years were all Jews, or Jewish proselytes,
looked with anxious expectancy for the return of this Jesus, with the
power and glory of heaven, to set up his earthly kingdom on the throne
of David in Jerusalem.  Not a word yet about saving men's soul's from
hell thru vicarious atonement.  No need for a vicarious atonement to
save men from hell hereafter, if they were soon to live on this earth
forever--those who died before his return to be raised from the dead as
he was, while those that remained were to be "caught up in the clouds
to meet him in the air and live forever,"--under the benign reign of
the Messiah of God.

But we are approaching its development.  There appears upon the scene
one Saul of Tarsus, afterwards known as Paul the Apostle.  It is
generally conceded that he never saw Jesus in his lifetime; in fact
knew nothing of him while he lived.  He early became a violent
persecutor of the new sect, which for years was only another Jewish
sect, as exclusively Jewish in its views and outlook as were the
priests and Rabbis.  But Paul was a well educated man, a scholar in his
day,--and a philosopher.  He was a Jew to the core, and lived and died
one.  We need not consider the story of his trip to Damascus, the
supposed miracle on the way, and his conversion to the new faith.  He
soon became the greatest leader and exponent it had thus far produced;
and he put a new interpretation on it, _entirely unchristian_, if we
are to take the recorded teachings of the Christ himself as our
standard for Christianity.  And the Christianity of the world today is
much more Pauline than Christian, judged by this standard.

This Paul operated independent of the other Apostles.  He was a "free
lance" and launched forth, both in a field, and with a doctrine all his
own.  He was thoroly familiar with the whole Jewish system.  He knew
all about the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice of atonement.  Yet
he was too wise not to know that there was no _intrinsic merit_ in the
blood of bulls and goats to cleanse from sin, or appease the divine
wrath.  Yet as a loyal Jew he certainly _believed_ these to be of
divine origin,--and that they must have a meaning deeper than the
physical fact itself.  He was a believer in the coming of the
long-promised Messiah--to restore Israel.  A man of his knowledge and
foresight might well be able to read "the signs of the times," and see
that the Jewish nation could but little longer maintain its separate
identity against the overwhelming power of the growing Roman Empire.
It must soon be swallowed up and its separate identity lost in the
greater whole.  No power in Israel seemed to be able to stem the tide
of events.  Remember that this was now some years after the
crucifixion; and after Paul had changed his course towards the new
sect, because of the events about Damascus,--no matter what they may
have been.  At any rate, it is quite clear, no matter what the reasons
may have been that induced him to do so, that he had accepted in good
faith, as a veritable truth, the belief in the physical resurrection of
the crucified Jesus.  Paul tells us himself that after his escape from
Damascus he went into Arabia for three years,--perhaps to try to think
out some rational interpretation of the meaning of the events that he
had felt himself forced to accept as true.

After this we find him passing thru Jerusalem, stopping a few weeks
with Peter and the other Apostles to learn from them all he could; and
then going on to his native city, Tarsus, where we lose sight of him
for several years before we find him starting on his first great
missionary journey from Antioch, in which we begin to get our first
glimpses of the doctrine of vicarious atonement made for the sins of
the world by the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

During these years of Paul's obscurity, both in Arabia and at Tarsus,
what was he probably doing?  We do not know.  But is it unreasonable to
conjecture that he must have spent at least a good portion of his time
in profound study, to try to reconcile these new views with the past
history, traditions and beliefs of his own people?  If this new
teaching meant only a new ethical standard of life; that men are saved
by what they _are_ and _do_, without any reference to _belief_, then
the whole Jewish system of sacrifices had no meaning at all, and never
did have.  We can hardly conceive of Paul, educated as he was in all
the lore and traditions of his people, accepting such a view as this.
To him all the traditions and practices of his people were at least of
divine origin; and hence must have a meaning of eternal significance.
Yet, it must have been plain to him that in the natural course of
events, as they were then clearly tending, it could not be long until
the elaborate temple ritual, with _all_ its sacrifices, oblation,
burning bullocks and incense, must soon cease forever!

And now for the interpretation.  All the ceremonial of Israel had a
meaning; but it was symbolic, typical of some reality to come.  The
blood of bulls and lambs and goats could not in themselves atone for
sin; but they could _point_ to the "Lamb of Calvary," slain for the
sins of the world.  He that was without sin,--"the lamb without spot or
blemish,"--was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of others.  The law
had its purpose, but it was now fulfilled, all its symbolic meaning was
consummated in the death of Jesus, and now it must go.  It was only a
school master, to keep us in the way until the Christ should come.
When this "lamb" was slain, God saw his shed blood, and was satisfied.
His anger relented, his wrath cooled and the hand of mercy was
extended, on the simple condition,--_of faith_.  What was the meaning,
intent and purpose of this vicarious atonement?  According to the
belief of the time, that Jesus would soon return in the power and glory
of heaven to set up his everlasting kingdom here on earth, it was to
prepare a people for this kingdom.  This kingdom was to be composed
only of those who had been thus prepared for it, by the remission of
their sins, thru this blood atonement.  The earliest Christians, all of
whom were Jews, led by Peter, held that this new kingdom was to be
forever limited to Jews and Jewish proselytes.  If any Gentile wanted
to have any part or lot in this new kingdom, he must first become a
Jew.  But Paul took a broader view.  To him the whole Jewish system was
purely preliminary to a greater dispensation, which was now fulfilled;
symbolic and typical of a greater reality which was now here; and had
therefore fulfilled its purpose and was ended.  All symbolic ceremonial
was now past forever.  There was no longer any distinction between Jew
and Gentile as far as God's grace was concerned.  The New Kingdom was
open to all upon the same terms,--faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God,
and this particular interpretation of his mission.

This opening of the gates to all the world on equal terms produced a
bitter controversy between Peter and Paul and led to a sharp and well
defined division in the early church, which continues to this day.  The
Roman Church is Petrine, narrow, exclusive and given to much elaborate
ceremonial, as were the ancient Jews; while Protestantism is generally
Pauline, much broader, generally freer from ceremonial, and as a rule
much more truly Catholic; yet often narrow enough.

As time went on, and Jesus did not return as expected, faith in his
early coming waned; and the idea began to grow that his real Kingdom
was not for this world at all, but a heavenly one hereafter.  By this
time the Apostle Paul was dead and the Fourth Gospel had appeared,
supposed to be written by the Apostle John, in which the Master was
quoted as saying, "My kingdom is not of this world."  Thus the idea
took form, grew and developed that the real mission of the Messiah,
after all, was not the establishment of a kingdom here on earth, but a
heavenly kingdom hereafter; and hence that his death was a vicarious
atonement made by the shedding of his blood, to satisfy the divine
vengeance against sin, and save souls from hell hereafter; and thus fit
them for this heavenly kingdom.

And ever since this doctrine became thus established, by the middle of
the second century, almost the whole emphasis and entire energies of
the church, Catholic and Protestant, have been directed, not towards
making this a better world by making mankind better, building up,
developing, purifying and uplifting human character; but toward saving
them from a hell hereafter.  And what little energy the church had left
after this, has been spent, and is still being spent, in never-ending
controversy among themselves over _just how to do it_.

Thus the doctrine of vicarious atonement, thru blood, and blood alone,
had its origin in the lowest paganism, away back in the infancy of the
human race, was transmitted down thru Judaism, and transplanted from it
into Christianity.

But I cannot leave this subject without a few remarks on the various
meanings that have been attached to the idea of vicarious atonement,
since it became an integral part of the Christian system.  We have
already seen that the original pagan meaning of blood atonement was
based upon the idea that the gods were angry and out for vengeance, and
nothing but blood would appease them; but that the blood of a proper
substitute would answer this purpose.  But the earliest Christian
doctrine of the atonement made by Christ was in the nature of
redemption.  In fact the term became so deeply rooted and grounded in
early Christian nomenclature that it has never been fully eliminated.
But its use is much less now than formerly.  The theory was based upon
tradition, partly scriptural and partly not, that in the affair of Eden
the devil fairly outwitted God and became rightfully entitled to the
souls of all mankind forever; but that on account of the great war in
heaven, in which the devil and his angels were cast out by the "Eternal
Son" of God (see Milton's "Paradise Lost"), the devil held a bitter
grudge against this son, and offered to bargain with God and give him
back all the souls of mankind for the soul of this son.  So God,
knowing the power of his son to break the bands of death and
hell,--which the devil did not know,--accepted the bargain; and in due
time, as agreed upon, the Son of God came into the world, died on the
cross and went to hell, in fulfillment of this contract; and thus
liberated all the souls already there, and obtained a conditional
release of all the balance of mankind,---the condition of faith,--and
then suddenly broke the bands of death and hell and escaped back to
heaven.  But he literally fulfilled his contract as originally made.
Thus we find the old church creeds reciting--and still reciting--that
"he was crucified, dead, buried and descended into hell, and the third
day rose," etc.  This idea may look strange to present day Christians;
but all they have to do is to consult the early church literature to
find that it was almost the universal belief as to the meaning of the
atonement during the first few centuries of Christianity.

The next view that gradually developed as the older one waned, was the
old Jewish idea of _substituted suffering_ and to which was added that
of imputed righteousness.  That is to say, that in order to save
mankind and yet appease the divine wrath, and satisfy the vengeance of
an offended God, God sent his son into the world to bear the brunt of
his wrath instead of mankind, and tho innocent, to suffer as tho
guilty; and finally to die as a malefactor, tho innocent of sin; and
because of the dignity and character of the victim and the intensity of
his sufferings in both life and death, they were sufficient in both
quality and quantity to satisfy the divine vengeance against all
mankind; _provided_ man would avail himself of these provisions for his
release by accepting by faith the Son of God as his suffering
substitute; whereupon, God would forgive the sins of the faithful and
_impute_ to them the benefits of the righteousness of Christ.  This
doctrine of the atonement dominated the Middle Ages.  Upon it was based
the doctrine of supererogation, whereby the surplus stock of good works
of the holy saints might be laid up for the benefit of the less worthy,
who might receive the benefits of them thru the process of indulgences,
sold by the church for a money consideration.  It is still held in a
somewhat modified form in a large part of Christendom to this day.

The more modern doctrine of the atonement is that called the
Governmental Theory.  That is to say, that God was not so mad with
mankind after all; but having once ordained the law that "the soul that
sinneth, it shall die," the law could neither be abrogated nor
suspended, but must have its penalty.  As no mortal man could fulfill
it for any one but himself, and that only by his eternal death, only
the Son of God could satisfy it for mankind.  Therefore the Eternal Son
of God became incarnate in human flesh, but still remained "Very God of
Very God," in order that he might meet the demands of this divine law
for all mankind, by not being amenable to it himself, being without
sin; and yet by his sufferings and death paying its penalty in full for
the whole human race; subject, however, to the appropriation of its
benefits by the individual, thru faith.  In a measure this is the same
as that of the substitution theory; but it does not go to the extent of
the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

The only exception to it is in the Roman church, and here the exception
is apparent rather than real.  In the Roman church salvation is _by
faith in the church_, the benefits of which are transmitted to the
individual thru the sacraments of the church; but in the ancient
church, and in practically all modern Protestant churches, saving faith
is held to be individual and personal; and must be not only faith in
the atoning sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on the cross for all
mankind; but it must be faith _in the correct view of the atonement_.
Hence, no matter which of the views I have herein outlined may be
correct, those who have held to either of the others are all lost.
This is the only logical conclusion any one can reach who insists that
salvation is impossible except by accepting any prescribed creed.  Only
those who possess and accept the _right creed_ can be saved.  All the
balance of mankind must be lost forever.  To take either of these views
of the atonement, or all of them together, as the only means by which
mankind can be saved from hell is to make God a complete failure from
beginning to end.  As we have already seen, the orthodox view of
creation makes God either a failure or a monster.  The attempt to
reform man thru the process of elimination by the flood proved a
failure.  And now if the success of God's last attempt to save mankind
thru the death of his son, is limited to any interpretation orthodox
Christianity has ever placed upon it, it is the most stupendous failure
of all.

There is but one rational interpretation of any doctrine of salvation
by vicarious atonement; and that is that the atonement must be
automatically as far-reaching and comprehensive in its results as the
sin it is designed to remedy.  If sin entered into the world because of
the offence of Adam, the head of the race, and thus passed upon all
men, without their knowledge or consent, simply because they were
descendants of Adam, any scheme of redemption, atonement, or salvation
that purports in any way to remedy, or obviate the consequences of this
original sin, in order to be just must be equally as broad and
comprehensive, and operate as automatically and unconditionally in its
remedial effects, as did Adam's sin in its consequences.

I have thus gone at some length into this doctrine of atonement and
redemption.  Perhaps I have wearied the reader.  But as it is the most
fundamental doctrine of the whole orthodox Christian system, and has
been such a bone of contention in all the ages of the Christian church,
and was such a stumbling block to me for so long a time, I felt that my
"Confession of Faith" would be incomplete if I did not go into it in
some detail.

My final conclusion is, that man never fell, but always has been and
still is imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving upward.  As man
was never lost or stolen from God, he needed no redeemer to buy him
back.  As he was never an enemy to God, but always his child, God was
never angry with him; hence he needed neither mediator, nor any one to
make any atonement for him.




CHAPTER VII

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION

What is religion?  This over which men have waged the fiercest
controversies known to human history; that has been the source of more
strife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and
perhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined,
previous to the recent World War.  It will be remembered that I said
after finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship,
history and character of the Bible and the processes of reasoning which
it inspired, "that I gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation,
church and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding brass and
tinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the scrap-heap of superstition,
legend, fable and mythology."  But after several years of study and
observation I changed my mind again.  I found that what I had always
been taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but
only a _form of religious expression_.  Creeds and beliefs I found were
not religion, but the products of religion.  That subtle emotional
experience which I had always been taught was religion, I found was
itself but a form of religious expression.  I learned that religion was
not something one could "get," by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as I
had been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal
human being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of.

Then what is religion?  While it is the simplest thing on earth, it is
yet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for
another.  Its very simplicity eludes definition.  In trying to define
it I shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are
more expressive than any words of my own that I can frame: "Religion
essentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an
invisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he
is necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions
which this apprehension calls forth."  Another definition that is
perhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: "Religion is an
impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive
upward.  It is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own
narrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where
it may become identified with the noble, the lofty, the divine."
Another has said that "Religion is simply the zest of life."  To these
I will add that I understand religion to be that _inner urge_ in all
humanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the
desire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve
his condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the
lowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement
and culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to
heights yet invisible and undreamed of.

This _inner urge_ is common to all humanity, different only in degree,
and not in kind.  It is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in
latent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and
action, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some
form of missionary effort.  From the time that man first emerged above
the brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about
him, thought, and recognized that _somehow_ and _somewhere_ there was a
Power above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own
mind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve
and better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been
such ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind.

All religion is therefore one and the same.  There may be many
religions.  But back of all these is religion.  Religion is one in its
origin.  It is a part of the fundamental essence of human character.
It is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will.  It
is one and the same with these.  Man without these faculties of
thought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute.  So
without this _inner urge_, and the faculty of _aspiration upward_,
which I have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man
would still only be a brute.  He would not be man at all.  Religion is
one in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all
human nature.

All religion is one in that it recognizes SOMETHING above man.  I use
this word advisedly.  If I had said, "Because all men recognize the
existence of God, or a Supreme Being," I would have been misunderstood
and the statement challenged.  Men have become so habituated to calling
all other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of
God, that I omit the word entirely until I can further define my
meaning.  Because Voltaire did not believe in the God of Moses and the
Pope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man,
and built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it
"to the worship of God."  Man instinctively recognizes _something_
above him.  It is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether
Jehovah, Elohim, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, or Jove; nor what attributes
we give it, whether we call it Person or Principle, the Great Unknown
or the Ultimate Cause; or whether it be a mere abstract Ideal, the
creation of one's own fancy; it is still that "_Something_" which man
recognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain.

Man also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of
personal relationship to this "Something," that for want of a better
name, we call God.  It is necessary in this connection to repeat what
we have already said: That very early in the history of the human race
man was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and
obligation to God, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem
of evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death.  The
only possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn
from his own nature and experience.  He knew himself as being alive, as
a conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force.
Thus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating
overhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of
the wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and
life about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering,
and the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these
things in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual,
or individuals behind, and directing it all.  These became man's first
gods.

Man also interpreted his own relation to the gods, and theirs to him,
in the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen.  He
recognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an
injury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or
injury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in
kind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or
seriously offended him.  Man made his gods in his own image.  He
believed these gods to be like himself.  Thus, man interpreted his own
sufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the gods;
that he had personally offended them,--or, one or more of them in some
way, according to the source from which he conceived some particular
affliction to come.  When the individual was conscious of his own
innocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously
offended the god, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted
on them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor.  Hence the
doctrine of inherited or original Sin.  Man then set about to devise
some means to appease the wrath of the gods, and thus restore
harmonious relations with them.  A volume might be written here, but we
_must_ proceed with the next proposition.

All religion is therefore one in its ultimate purpose, and objective
end: To attain to its ideal, or harmonize with its objective.  In other
words: To attain unto right relations with God.  Lest I be
misunderstood, I will repeat: It is immaterial what this God may be,
Jehovah, Allah, Nirvana or Jove; Person, Principle, or Abstract Ideal.
It is that which man _in his mind_ sets before him, toward which he
aspires and strives to attain.  Remember that what we _think_ God to
be, that is what God is to us.

We have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion
branches out into religions.  "Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,
and bow myself before the high God?  Shall I come before him with
burnt-offerings, with calves a year old?  Will Jehovah be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?  Shall I
give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the
sin of my soul?"

"What must I do to be saved?"  This has, in one form or another, at one
time or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men.  How
can man attain unto right relations with his God?  This is the great
question of the ages.  _Keep in mind_ that it is immaterial who or what
this god may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to
the highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever
the same: How shall man get right with his God?  What must man do to be
saved?

To answer this question has been the purpose of every system of
religion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known
to every system.  And here is where confusion begins.  Some one evolves
a formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case.  Some
others are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows.  In the mean time
some other person has evolved another; and some other still another,
and so on, and on, and on, _ad infinitum_; all having the same purpose
in view, and each claiming to be the _only right one_, or at least, the
_best one_.  And it is immaterial how erroneous, crude, or even
barbarous one may look to the devotees of the other; in fundamental
purpose they are all the same.  The Hindu mother who casts her babe
into the Ganges as food for the crocodiles, as a sacrifice to her gods,
does it with as sublime a motive as any Christian mother ever bowed
before the altar of her own church,--and for the same purpose: To get
right with her God.  The Parsee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon
the funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: To
get right with her God.  The devotee who throws his body before the
wheels of the Juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does
it for the same purpose: To get right with his God.  The devout
Mohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his
prayers with his face towards Mecca, does it for the same purpose: To
get right with Allah.  The savage who repeats his incantations to his
fetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the
same purpose: To get right with God as he conceives him.  The Chinese
that burns his sticks before the image in his Joss-house, does it for
the same purpose: To get right with his God.  And so on _ad infinitum_,
the same central purpose running thru it all, whether Hindu or Parsee,
Buddist or Janist, Confucian or Shintoist, Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan
or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Baptist,
Presbyterian or Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian, Unitarian or
Trinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: To get
into right relations with God, each according to his own conception of
God, and what he understands to be his will concerning him.  However,
in the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times,
the element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not
entirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest,
noblest, purest, and best possible life in this world, for _its own
intrinsic worth_, and without any reference to any future life, resting
firmly in the faith that he who lives right cannot die wrong.

Hence, religion does not consist in creeds, dogmas, or beliefs; nor in
forms, ordinances, ceremonies, or sacraments, as I was early taught to
believe.  But these are, one and all, but so many varying _forms of
expression_ which religion takes.  They are all only so many different
ways, means and methods religion takes to attain to its ultimate
purpose and aim.  They are only so many different paths which different
men take in their search for God.

And is there but _one_ true path to God, while all the others only lead
to hell?  And if so, _which_ is the right one?  Ah, herein lies the
fruitful source of most of the world's tragedies and sufferings!  It
was this that burned John Huss, Savonarola and Bruno.  It was this that
lighted the fires of Smithfield and hung helpless, silly women in New
England, as witches.  But thank God, it is abating and the dawn of a
better day is in sight.

I have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and
diligently seek God will ultimately find him, in some way, at some
time, when God sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may
be pursued.  I do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not
by any means.  The quest for God may be helped or hindered, advanced or
delayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or
erroneous.  But I do mean to say that I do not believe the Infinite
God, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by
this standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose
heart He sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive,
because in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually
determine just which was the right, or best way;--and this, whether the
searcher be Hindu, Chinese, Pagan or Parsee; Hottentot or Arab, savage
or philosopher; Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist; or any one else on
earth.  "Man looketh upon the outward appearance; but God looketh upon
the heart." And they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after
him will find him,--somewhere, somehow--in this life or some other, And
when found, it will not be "in far-off realms of space," but in one's
own heart.

  "The outward God he findeth not,
  Who finds not God within."


THE BIBLE

From the foregoing it is quite clear that religion is not something
miraculously revealed from heaven, handed down in a package already
bound up, complete and finished, ready for use; but that in its origin,
essence and purpose it is natural and common to all humanity alike.
Its present status is but the result of its progressive development,
from its crudest forms in early humanity, to the present day.  While
forever remaining one and the same in its origin, essence and purpose,
it has undergone changes in its forms of expression, its means and
methods, in all ages as mankind has progressively developed upward.
What we call the great systems of religion, such as Buddhism,
Christianity, Mohammedanism, and others are but so many different forms
of expression thru which religion manifests itself in human life; and
the various sects and denominations in all these systems are but
further subdivisions in these forms of expression, according to
different desires, tastes and opinions among different people.  Hence,
religion was not produced by the Bible, nor is it in any way dependent
upon the Bible as a source of authority, but just the opposite.
Religion was long before the Bible and itself produced the Bible; and
the Bible derives its sole authority from religion.

Here is perhaps as good a place as any to answer the question that has
often been asked me: "If the Bible is not the ultimate source of
authority in religion, what and where is it?"  Just the same to you and
me today that it was to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, apostles,
and all others in all ages.  "But were not these men divinely
inspired?"  No more than you or I _may be_, even if we are not in fact.
This subject will be fully elucidated when I come to treat specifically
of inspiration and revelation in the next subdivision.  The answer to
this question about the source of authority in religion is clearly
indicated in the very definition I have given of religion, and I only
make it more specific here to avoid any misunderstanding of my position
on it.  If "religion is a natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man
which compels him to strive upward"; if it is the "zest of Life"; if it
is "that _inner urge_ in all humanity that ever pushes it onward and
upward"; these natural impulses themselves constitute the sole source
of authority in religion.  Thomas Paine once said: "All religions are
good that teach men to be good."  To which might well be added: That
religion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives.  Life,
not creed, is the final test of religion.  To perceive what is right
and what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the
highest, noblest and best expression of religion.  Now, there is no
single universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the
same in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and
under all circumstances and conditions.  Life is progressive; and as it
moves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems
present themselves, and new and changing standards come with them.  For
example, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, and for centuries
afterwards; and according to the Bible, with the divine sanction and
approval.  The simple facts are, that according to the standards of
those ages, according to the social development of the race at that
time there was no moral turpitude in those practices.  But who would
dare defend them now?  And yet these, or most of them--and I say it
reverently and sincerely--were doubtless _good men_, judged by the
standards of their time; and devoutly religious.

Coming directly now to the answer to the question: The ultimate, final
authority in all matters of religion is the _individual conscience_,
the inner light, that law written in the hearts of all men, aided and
assisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the
light of the past that has come down to us, both in the Bible and from
all other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences
generally interpreted and applied by human reason.  That "natural
impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive
upward"; that "inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward," will
not only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him
and guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice,
interpreted by reason.

The reader will recall the opinion I reached concerning the Bible after
my special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed
it.  But after fifteen years of continued study I changed my opinion
about it again.  When I took a different perspective I got a different
view.  First, I was confronted with the fact that _the Bible is here_.
And while all my inherited opinions as to its origin, meaning and
purpose were gone forever, the second question remained unanswered:
_How came it here_?  After all these years of study and investigation I
found an answer to this question satisfactory to myself, which I have
already indicated above, but will here more fully elaborate as a part
of my New Confession of Faith.

The Old Testament is but a record preserved and handed down to us,
first of events, legends, opinions and beliefs that existed in crude
form as traditions, long before a line of it was written; and
thereafter, for a period covering approximately a thousand years, it is
a record, tho evidently imperfect, of the progressive development of
the Jewish race, nation and religion, which are so inseparably bound
together that they cannot be separated.  Let us go a little more into
detail.  No one claims that a line of the Old Testament was written
before Moses.  (And it is here immaterial whether Moses wrote the
Pentateuch or not.  The Jews believed he did.)  Yet the Jewish system
of religion, at least in its fundamental features, had been in
existence since Abraham, some five hundred years before, to say nothing
of previous peoples back to Noah, or even to Adam and his sons.  Yet
none of these had any Bible whatever.  If it is claimed by any one that
Moses was the originator of the Jewish system, it leaves Abraham and
all his posterity, down to the time of Moses, but pious pagans.  But
according to the record, Moses added nothing to the _principles_ of
religious worship as practiced by Abraham and the other patriarchs.  He
simply reorganized, systematized, refined and somewhat elaborated the
ancient system of worship, and at most reduced it to regularity and
order.

It was quite natural that Moses should then reduce to writing the
traditions and practices of his people, and make a more or less
complete record of their laws, regulations, and civil and religious
institutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which
he had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more
perfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of
the people thereafter.  This was the beginning of the sacred literature
of the Jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the
Bible--meaning simply, The Books.

After this, tho the Jewish system of religion, according to the Jews
themselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of
written scripture,--the Pentateuch.  Yet thirty-four additional books
were afterwards written and added to these.  Can these later books be
quoted as _authority_ for that which existed, in some instances, a
thousand years before they were written?  Certainly not.  But the facts
are plain.  The system of religion already existing, but continually
progressing, gave rise to these subsequent books, which are merely a
record of the progress, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, practices, etc.,
of this peculiar and intensely religious people.

Thus we see that the Old Testament is a _growth_ produced by, and
recording the historic development of the Jewish race, nation and
religion.  It is simply the _literature_ of a people.  Its various
parts were written by representatives of the people themselves, many of
whose names are unknown, at various times covering a period of a
thousand years, under many varying conditions and circumstances.  It
records in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their
beliefs, superstitions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the
legendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the
literature of ancient Greece, Rome, England or Scandinavia.  It
contains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters,
sermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and
biography.  No literature on earth is more multifarious in its
contents.  That it contains many contradictions, errors,
inconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit
from this viewpoint of its origin.  The wonder is that there are not
more.  But that it contains only what the various writers of its
different parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought and
_believed_ to be true, may be freely admitted without in the least
derogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanctity to it.
The Old Testament considered simply as a collection of ancient Jewish
literature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national,
racial and religious evolution of ancient Israel, just as the
literature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning
them,--no more and no less.

Turning now for a moment to the New Testament: Is it the source and
authority for Christianity?  Or just the reverse?  Which was first of
the two?  That which goes before is the cause of that which comes
after,--not the reverse.  If Christianity is to be considered as a
separate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority,
the system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and
ascension of Christ--for the argument's sake, admitting these to be
facts.  Hence Christianity would have existed as a fact just the same,
whether a line of the New Testament had ever been written or not.  As a
matter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty
years after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years
thereafter.  Therefore the New Testament did not produce Christianity;
nor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite.
Christianity produced the New Testament and is the authority upon which
it is based.

So the New Testament, like the Old, is just literature,--no more.  It
records what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their
time, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible,
mortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed
was the truth.  It gives us the only historical sketch we have of the
origin and early development of that system of religion that in one
form or another now dominates a third part of the human race.  And as
such it is the most valuable book the world possesses today.  But it is
no more the "infallible Word of God" than the Old Testament, Herodotus,
Josephus, Plato or Plutarch.

The conclusion of the whole matter is: The Bible is not the
supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God, given by him as the
source and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its
close there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men
of like passions with ourselves, who wrote,--not as they were
infallibly and inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, but--as they were
moved by the same impulses, passions and motives that have moved men in
all ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears,
aspirations and views of life.  Thus, as has already been said, the
Bible is a _product_ of religion instead of being its source and
authority.  Thus the literature of the Jewish race and the early
Christians _grew_.  In course of time the thirty-nine books containing
our present Old Testament were brought together in one collection.  We
do not know just when.  Afterwards the twenty-seven books of our New
Testament were collected in the same way.  Age and tradition first
embalmed them in an air of sanctity; and then superstition made of them
a fetish.  Until this "spell" is broken there can be no hope of
anything like unity in the religious world.  Until this fetish of a
"once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed
down from heaven" is abandoned, there will continue to be "diversities
of interpretation," and consequently divisions, controversies,
bickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among
mankind, and wars will continue among nations.

It may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world,
the Bibles of other systems of religion, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas,
the Upanishads, the Koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the
same source and manner as did our Bible; and attained sanctity and
authority among their respective followers in exactly the same way.
But we need not go into it in detail.

But when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its
origin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and
the same, but is _natural_ and common to all humanity; that its
processes are a continual revelation in nature and human experience in
man's continuous progress onward and upward in the scale of human
attainment; and that the Bible, and all other literature of its kind,
merely records a part of these processes and revelations in nature and
experience, by which we are able to read the footprints of human
progress in the past, and that these various writers, mostly unknown,
merely recorded what they saw, felt, believed or understood at that
time to be the truth; then all these difficulties of interpretation and
sources of division vanish, and these books take on a new value and
importance that they never otherwise attain.

With this view of its origin and purpose the Bible readily takes and
holds its place as the most remarkable and invaluable book the world
has ever known, or perhaps ever will know.  It becomes at once an
inexhaustible treasure-house of knowledge indispensable to the world's
highest thought and progress,--knowledge which cannot be obtained
anywhere else.  In this view its many contradictions, discrepancies,
errors of fact, and incredible statements become at once of little
force and easily accounted for; and when we consider the various ages
in which its parts were written, the many different authors of its
different parts, the standards of human knowledge and attainment in
these times, the wonder is that there are not more.  The Bible is thus
the greatest book of _religious instruction_ that the world knows, or
ever has known.  It contains inexhaustible treasures of religious
thought, feeling, emotion and experience, of every conceivable type and
variety, which makes it indeed "profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."  It is an
inexhaustible mine of the richest and purest gold, fused in the fires
of human experience in many ages.  But the gold is mixed with the sand
and dirt and rocks and rubbish of the human frailties and weaknesses of
the ages in which it was accumulated in this mine.  The pure gold must
be separated from this dross in the crucible of _present day_ human
intelligence, reason and experience.  It is like a great river that has
wound its course thru many countries and as many different kinds of
soil, receiving tributaries from many different sources and directions.
It contains much pure water; but it is impregnated with the sand and
dirt and mud of the channels thru which it has passed.  It must be
filtered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its
highest and best use.  As a great book of religious instruction it
contains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and
all may draw something to fit their particular case and need.  But to
get the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the
pure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and
need.  Used in this way and for this purpose, the Bible will doubtless
remain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and
inspiration.  But to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day
knowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally
given from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate
confusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among
them to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done.
But to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious
evolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great
race that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than
any other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one.  To enshrine it
in superstition, and make it a fetish, is idolatry.


INSPIRATION AND REVELATION

I am a strong believer in inspiration.  But I believe it to be, like
religion, natural, in a greater or less degree, to all peoples, in all
ages and at all times; and _not_ something miraculous and supernatural,
limited to a select few, of a single race, in a long past age, and
since then has forever ceased.  It is perhaps hard to define
inspiration according to this view of it.  Like religion, its very
simplicity and universality eludes any exact definition; especially by
one person for another.  That it has often been manifest in much
greater degree in some persons than in others; and in these much
stronger at some times than at others, is not to be doubted for a
moment.  It is no more a uniform condition than human attainment in
intelligence and character are uniform.

The simple dictionary definition will perhaps be adequate for our
purpose,--at least as a starting point: "The inbreathing or imparting
of an idea, emotion, or mental or spiritual influence; the elevating,
creative influence of genius; also, that which is so inbreathed or
imparted."  It is that elevation of mental conception usually produced
by intense concentration of mind, deep earnestness of thought, intense
interest and zeal in a special subject or cause, or by some objective
environment.  A few simple illustrations will convey my meaning better
than any lengthy metaphysical analysis.  One night a long time ago,
some sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating
the beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory.  These _inspired_
a train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth
Psalm: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth
his handiwork...."  This is inspiration if there ever was such a thing;
and yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it.  It is as
natural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds.

On another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at
the same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune,
beheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and
water, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength,
leading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains,
amidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all.  And
this sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found
expression in that sublime and beautiful Twenty-third Psalm:

  "The Lord is _my_ shepherd; I shall not want.
  He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
  He leadeth me beside still waters;
  He restoreth my soul."

What is there in all the world's literature more inspired and more
inspiring than this?  And yet it is no more miraculous nor supernatural
in its origin than the shepherd caring for his sheep.

Inspiration is simply a condition or state of mind.  It is purely
psychological in its nature, and may be produced by a great variety of
causes; but is not supernatural.  To some extent, and in some degree,
but by no means always equal, it has been common among all peoples of
the past; and at all periods of their history.  Specimens of it have
come down to us in this age, enshrined and preserved in the literature,
music and art of these peoples.  It is as common among men today as it
ever was in any past age.  It is embodied in some degree, in most, if
not all the literature, art and music of all ages; but by no means to
the same extent in all.  There are passages in Dante, Goethe,
Shakespeare, Milton, Browning, Emerson, Carlyle, Bryant, Longfellow,
Lowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as
much the products of inspiration as the Twenty-third Psalm or the
Sermon on the Mount.  But no one would pretend to say that _all_ that
these men wrote was equally inspired, or of equal value.

What then is to be the test of inspiration?  How are we to know what is
inspired from what is not?  There is no absolute and infallible test.
The rule I have generally followed is what may be termed, the test of
reproduction.  The test of the perfect life of an oak is the production
of an acorn that will produce another oak.  The test of all complete
and perfect animal life is its power to reproduce itself in the
perpetuation of its own species.  The test of inspiration is whether or
not it reproduces its kind:--Does it inspire?  Who can read the
Twenty-third Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Lost
Sheep, or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians without feeling
the spirit of inspiration in his own soul?  Therefore these must be
inspired, because they inspire others.  Who can read Emerson's essay on
Spiritual Laws, or The Over-Soul, and not be inspired? or Longfellow's
Resignation? or Bryant's Lines to a Water-fowl, or Thanatopsis, and not
be inspired?  Then these must have been inspired, or they could not
inspire.  Who today can sing the Star Spangled Banner, Geo. F. Root's
Battle Cry of Freedom, or Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the
Republic, without feeling a thrill of inspiration that stirs the very
depths of the soul?  Then, these must have been inspired.  Time and
space fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from
Demosthenes to Woodrow Wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have
been able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of
empires and the destiny of nations.  The secret of all this is that
these men were themselves inspired,--not by some miraculous
supernatural influence,--but by the natural intensity of their own
earnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the
cause they espoused, until they _lost themselves_ in their cause, and
became thus inspired, and inspired others.

Yes, inspiration is as common and potent in the world today as it ever
has been in any age of the past.  Its spirit still "enters into holy
souls, making them friends of God and prophets."

Just a few words about Revelation will suffice.  Revelation has been
generally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with
inspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be
separated.  What might be distinctively called revelation was the
product, or out-put of inspiration.  Whatever truth may still remain as
to these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not
something miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural,
there can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or
supernatural sense.  And yet, all that man has ever learned,
accomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation.  Man, with all
his boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all
that man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize
things and forces that are as old as the universe itself.  All the
discoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all
that he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a
continuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present
day; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to
his own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or
another, eternally--all of which is a revelation, divine, but not
miraculous.

A few centuries ago Copernicus gave us a new view of the universe.
This was revelation.  But the universe had existed in exactly the same
form and relations since "the morning stars sang together."  A little
later Newton revealed to us the law of gravitation.  This was the first
man ever knew of it.  But the law had existed just the same since the
chaos was first reduced to cosmos.  The potential power of steam as a
mechanical force was just as great in the days of Noah or Abraham as it
is today.  But it remained for Robert Fulton, but a little over a
century ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a
divine revelation as the call of Abraham, or the vision of Moses on the
Mount.  The same is true of electricity.  All the multifarious uses to
which it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of
Shalmanezer or Solomon as they are today.  Every discovery and new use
to which it has been applied since the day that Franklin drew it from
the clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new
divine revelations; as much so as the vision of Paul before the gate of
Damascus, or John on the Isle of Patmos.  In fact more so.

And on _ad infinitum_.  All the progress man has ever made or ever will
make is only the result of this divine revelation ever unfolding itself
to him, just as fast, and no faster than he is able to appropriate and
use it.  Thus God reveals himself to man, not miraculously, but
naturally and _thru nature itself_, just in proportion to man's ability
to understand, receive and appropriate it.  Jesus is quoted as saying:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into
all the truth."  Did that spirit of truth ever come?  And if so when,
if ever, was it withdrawn?  He said in another place that it should
remain forever.  Yes, I believe that same spirit of truth is still in
the world today and has been ever since man has been here, guiding men
into the way of truth just in proportion to their ability to receive
it.  And also, all truth is divine, because all truth comes from the
same source--God.  The truth concerning the universe, the laws of
nature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral
laws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his
relations to God.  And the great store-house of Nature has not yet
revealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's
use and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward
and upward.  Instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries
and achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet
passed the dawn.  The heavens still declare the glory of God; but the
scientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them
than does the savage, or did the author of the Nineteenth Psalm.  And
as man goes on he will see more and more of God in Nature, and
understand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith
is reached.  Inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities,
as much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while
mankind continues to inhabit this planet.

All the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made,
from the days of the Cave Man and the Stone Age to the present time,
are but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and
revelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward.
I firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social
status, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this
planet, as far above the present as this is above that of the Cave Man;
and as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be
but the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of
inspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is
today.




CHAPTER VIII

JESUS OF NAZARETH

We have now reached the most interesting, if not the most vital part of
this Confession of Faith.  Thus far I have said almost nothing about
the Man of Nazareth.  "What then shall I do unto Jesus, who is called
Christ?"  The temptation is very great here to elaborate at some length
upon my views of this, the most unique character in all history.  I
would like to give my views in full, with all the arguments, pro and
con, as to his personality, character and mission.  But this would
extend this work to an undue length.  Some day I may write it more
fully in another book.  I must be content now to give as briefly as
possible the conclusions I have reached, without going into any very
detailed arguments to support them.

What do we know about Jesus anyway?  He never wrote a line that we have
any record of, except a few words in the sand when the Jews brought a
sinful woman before him to accuse her; and we know not what these words
were.  We have no record that he ever authorized any one else to write
anything for, or about him.  We have three short biographies of him
that were written anywhere from fifty to eighty years after his death,
the exact date of neither being known.  The authors of two of
these--Mark and Luke--it is admitted were not Apostles; and there is no
evidence that either of them ever knew Jesus in his lifetime.  It is
admitted that each of them got all his information from another, and
that one of them got his information from a person--Paul--who himself
never knew Jesus in the flesh.  It is admitted that the
other--Matthew--as we now have it, is not the original writing of the
Apostle of that name; that the original is entirely lost, and no one
knows what additions or eliminations it underwent in its translation
and transcription into another language.  Years later a fourth
biography appeared by an unknown author,--tradition being the only
evidence that it was written by the Apostle John--so entirely different
in its general make-up and contents, that but for the _name_ of its
subject and a very few passages in it, no one would ever take it to be
about the same person that formed the subject of the other three.

When these four are taken together, and all repetitions and
duplications are eliminated, it would leave us with a small pamphlet of
some sixty or seventy pages as our only record of this most remarkable
character of all history.  None of the epistolary writings throw any
light on the life, doings, sayings or personality of Jesus.  They only
deal with deductions drawn from or based upon it.  When we add to this
the fact that at least fifty years had elapsed, after the events
described had happened, before a line of it--at least in its present
form--was written; and that in an age when few people could write and
no accurate records were preserved, and when those that did then write,
wrote only from memory or tradition; and when we further consider the
varying and often very different accounts given by the different
writers of the events they describe, differences in both the doings and
sayings of Jesus, altho these are mostly only matters of minor detail,
yet we become more and more convinced that we have no means of knowing
for certain just what Jesus did; nor whether or not he uttered the
exact words that the writers put into his mouth.  Compare today the
memory of any individual as to the exact details of some event, even
that he personally witnessed, fifty years ago; especially as to the
exact words used on any particular occasion, and we will have more than
a fair example of the imperfection of human memory.  Add to this the
fact that this was in a very superstitious age, when every wonder was
translated into a supernatural miracle, and our perplexity only becomes
the greater.  The doctrine of infallible guidance by divine inspiration
is out of the question.  If there was no other evidence against such an
idea, the internal contents of these books themselves would forever
destroy it.

Then, what do we _know_ about Jesus?  Very little.  I do not accuse
these writers of any deliberate misrepresentation, conscious fraud or
forgery.  They undoubtedly wrote what they honestly and sincerely
believed at the time to be the truth.  But they wrote simply as
fallible men like ourselves.  Their means of information in many cases
was doubtless very meager and uncertain.  They doubtless did the best
they could under the circumstances.  They wrote the truth as they
understood it to be truth, just as any other historian or biographer
would do today.

And what they wrote is all we know.  It is the only basis we have upon
which we can form any judgment as to who or what Jesus of Nazareth was.
What Paul may have thought of him, and the system of theology he built
thereon, is of but little value.  What the Church Fathers may have
thought, in the light of the age in which they lived, and their own
standard of intellectual attainments, is of less.  We have got to fall
back upon the four gospels, and interpret them, not in the light of the
superstitious age in which they were written; not assuming them to be
exact truth; for in view of the fact of their own contradictions of
each other on material and vital points this is impossible; but in the
full light of this age of science and exact knowledge; of a more highly
developed intelligence, and a deeper and more accurate reasoning power.
With these records as a basis, or starting point, we must work out the
problem for ourselves: Who and what was Jesus?

First, he was a Jew,--born, lived and died a Jew.  There is no evidence
that he ever rejected, or abrogated the religion of his fathers.  That
he tried to reform it, inject into it a deeper spiritual life, a more
rational and higher ethical standard, will more fully appear as we
proceed.  He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,--not by
dying on the cross, for the law nowhere says, or even intimates,
anything about anybody dying on a cross or anywhere else.  He came to
fulfill it by living up to its full ethical and spiritual import, and
teaching others to do so.  "Moses had summed up the law in ten
commandments, the Pharisees of the time of Jesus had made of these ten
thousand--to be exact, six hundred and thirteen--and Jesus reduced them
to two,"--and kept them.  This is how he fulfilled the law.

Next, Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by the same process of
natural generation by which all other human beings come into the world.
Paul, the earliest and most elaborate writer of the New Testament,
nowhere gives us the remotest hint that he had ever heard of any such a
thing as the supernatural birth; and it is wholly unthinkable that if
such had been the truth he should have been ignorant of it; or that if
it sustained such a vital relation to the Christian system of religion
to which he devoted his whole life, he should never in the remotest
manner refer to it.

Mark's gospel, written to the best of our knowledge about fifty years
after the death of Jesus, nowhere refers to it.  As we have already
seen, we do not know what the Apostle Matthew may have written, as we
do not have his original writing at all.  The early Ebionite copies of
the Greek translation and transcription did not contain the first two
chapters, and consequently no reference to the supernatural birth.  We
are left to fall back on Luke and we will have to examine his story a
little in detail.  In all of its details, including the genealogy, it
is quite different from that in Matthew.  Luke alone mentions the visit
to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old, and in which he was
missed from the company when they started on the return home.  When
Joseph and Mary found him in the temple, she is quoted as saying, "Son,
why hast thou thus dealt with us?  Behold thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing."  Now, if Jesus was _not_ really the son of Joseph, but
of the Holy Ghost, his mother certainly knew it; and if so her
statement, "_thy father_ and I have sought thee sorrowing," was not
only a deliberate untruth; but if Jesus was God, he also knew it was an
untruth.  Another inconsistency in the story is, that if Jesus was thus
the son of the Holy Ghost, and therefore God, and his mother knew it,
why should she worry about his being missing from the caravan?
Couldn't God take care of himself and find his way back to Nazareth at
any time he wished to go?  On another occasion, mentioned by all the
synoptics, when Jesus was teaching, his mother and brethren are
reported as calling for him, evidently for the purpose of restraining
him in his work, or persuading him to desist,--and this is the
interpretation that has been most generally given to these passages,
and the answer which Jesus gave supports it as correct,--such a course
is entirely inconsistent with any conception that his mother at the
time _knew_ him to be the supernaturally born Son of God.

Turning now to the Fourth Gospel, we have not only an entirely
different character, but an entirely different philosophy as to his
life and mission.  Not a word is said or anywhere hinted about a divine
birth.  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."
To state it in the simplest words I can command, the theory of the
Fourth Gospel is that of the old Alexandrian philosophy of the
incarnation of the Divine Logos, or Word, or message from God, in human
flesh, applied to Jesus of Nazareth.  His pure and simple manhood is
recognized, into which, in some mystical manner, nowhere explained, the
Divine Logos, or Word, or Life, or God Himself, entered into _the man_
Jesus, whereby he became the Son of God and the Messiah,--and not by
the process of miraculous generation in the flesh.  The old Ebionite
doctrine was that this Divine Logos, or Word, or Spirit of God entered
Jesus at his baptism, and that he thereby became the Messiah,
distinctively "the Son of God" by divine selection, and not by
supernatural generation.

There is no evidence that his disciples during his lifetime ever had
the slightest conception that he had a supernatural birth.  When Philip
tells Nathaniel that he has found the Messiah of whom Moses and the
prophets wrote, he also tells him that this Messiah is "Jesus of
Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Even after the death of Jesus the disciples seem to have had no
knowledge of any supernatural birth.  The two on their way to Emmaus,
after the crucifixion, express their disappointment: "We hoped that it
was he who should redeem Israel."  No such expression of disappointment
can possibly be reconciled with any thought that this Jesus who had so
recently been crucified was the "eternal Son of God" incarnated in
human flesh.  On the day of Pentecost Peter speaks of him in no higher
terms than "A man approved of God."

If Jesus was supernaturally born, as a matter of course his mother knew
it all the time; yet during the whole life of Jesus she is nowhere
mentioned as giving the slightest intimation of it; but on the contrary
all the record we have of anything she did do or say would naturally
lead to just the opposite conclusion.  Of course no one else knew
anything about it.  Taking it naturally for granted, that at least at
the beginning, his disciples knew nothing of it, if they ever learned
it afterwards, there must have been some special time, condition or
circumstance under which they came into possession of these remarkable
facts.  Yet, there is not a hint in the New Testament about any such
time, place, circumstance or incident.

How then did the idea of a supernatural birth and the deification of
Jesus come about, if it was not a real fact?  Very simply and quite
naturally.  Any one acquainted with ancient history knows that in that
age of the world, and for centuries before, it had been almost a
universal custom, especially in Greece and the Roman empire, to
attribute some supernatural origin to, and deify their
heroes,--sometimes while they were yet alive, but most certainly after
their death.  Just so, after the death of this remarkable man, and his
cult continued to gather adherents, time and distance lent perspective,
and he naturally grew larger and greater in their estimation, until,
naturally and inevitably, permeated by the universal thought of the age
in which they lived, they gradually came to look more and more upon
their great master as being something more than ordinarily human, until
this thought gradually ripened into his deification; and of course to
be consistent with this he _must have been_, like all other deified
heroes, supernaturally born.  And out of this the legend of Bethlehem,
in both its forms, in Matthew and Luke, somehow grew,--nobody knows
exactly how.  It is just like many other myths of past ages.  The first
we know of them they are full grown and complete; yet, like all other
things, they _must_ have had a natural and gradual growth.

As to where he was born we do not know, nor is it material.  It is by
far the most probable that he was born at Nazareth where his parents
lived.  The legend that he was born at Bethlehem was doubtless a pure
conjecture, made necessary by those who accepted him as the Messiah of
Hebrew prophecy, to make it correspond with the prophetic declaration
that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem of Judah.  This fully
accounts for the Bethlehem story as the place of his birth.  The fact
is they are all purely conjectural, made to fit into some preconceived
notion of his personality or character.  We have no reliable account
whatever of his birth or early life.

We now come to consider the man,--yes, the man Christ Jesus.  We have
already said he was a Jew and lived and died one, with apparently no
thought or purpose other than to reform and correct the abuses into
which his people had lapsed, and revive and intensify the deep
spiritual and ethical meaning of religion.  Born of the most intensely
religious race of all antiquity, he was the most intensely religious of
his race.  He perceived a new conception of God, not as the arbitrary
ruler and vindictive judge of his people, but as the universal Father
of all men, not anthropomorphic, but Infinite Spirit, whose greatest
attributes were love, justice, mercy and truth, expressed in the great
term Fatherhood; and that all men are children of the great Father, and
therefore brothers.  This expresses his fundamental philosophy and
working basis of life.  Upon it he undertook to build up and establish,
not a new system of religion, but a new order of life.  The central
idea in this was man's direct relationship to God.  In his own life he
embodied a perfect example of his ideal.  He thus became not God
incarnate bodily in human flesh, nor the Son of God in any _different_
sense than all are sons of God--except perhaps in degree and not in
kind--but the most complete reflection and interpretation of God in
terms of human life that the world had ever known before his time, has
ever known since, or perhaps ever will know.  But this last statement
is saying more than any man can know for certain.  We know not what God
may yet have to reveal to mankind, nor how He will reveal it.

His course of life and teaching naturally brought him into direct
conflict with the prevailing order of his time.  We need not discuss
that in detail.  It soon led to a violent and tragic death, before he
had fairly begun his work.  We cannot form any guess what _might have
been_ the result if he had been permitted to live out a normal life and
continue his teaching.  He only met the same fate that many prophets
before him had met, and many more since.  If he should appear today
here in America and pursue the same course toward public institutions
and popular beliefs and practices, he would meet with a reception
little different from what he met in Palestine nineteen hundred years
ago.  He might not indeed be crucified on a cross; but he would stand a
good chance to be cast into jail and sent to a penitentiary for a term
of years for sedition and attempting to interfere with the established
order.  And no persons would be more active in his prosecution than
some of the modern Pharisees who occupy high places in that great
institution that bears his name.  If he had appeared in Europe some
four or five hundred years ago, he would have been almost dead certain
to meet the same fate of John Huss, Savonarola and Giordano Bruno.  But
now, as then, the poor, down-trodden and oppressed would doubtless hear
him gladly.

There is no reliable evidence that he ever claimed to be the Messiah of
Hebrew prophecy.  He is quoted on several occasions as having accepted
the appellation when applied to him by others.  On one occasion only is
he quoted as having affirmatively declared himself the Messiah; and
that was to the woman of Samaria, and the whole circumstance of it
renders it incredible.  It would certainly be a very unusual course to
take, for the Jewish Messiah to come and announce himself as such, not
to the Jews themselves, but to a very obscure, not to say disreputable
woman, of the most despised race known to the Jews.

It was however quite natural that, after his followers had universally
accepted him as the Jewish Messiah, they should recall some occasional
remarks that he may have made, upon which to base this belief; and that
these remarks would finally take more concrete form, until when
written, fifty to a hundred years after they were uttered, they were
perhaps entirely different from anything Jesus ever said.  As a matter
of fact there is nothing in the life or teachings of Jesus, as recorded
in the New Testament, that at all corresponds to the personality or
character of the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy.  And may I add here, that
the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy, for whose coming the Jews were looking
at that time, and for which most of the Jews have been looking ever
since, is but a fiction and a myth, born entirely out of the patriotic
devotion and fervid poetic fancy of the Old Hebrew prophets?  In the
days of Israel's adversity, when all the really unquestioned Messianic
prophecies were uttered, the mind of prophet and people turned back to
the golden days of David's glorious reign; and in their intense
patriotism and unfaltering faith in Jehovah, they hoped and _believed_
that he would some day raise up a King of the line and house of David
that would restore the ancient glory of Israel; and so they
prophesied--"the wish being father to the thought."  And this is all
there is to Old Testament Messianic prophecy.  And a great many of the
most intelligent Jews of the Reformed School of today are beginning to
think the same.

But if there was ever a true prophet of God, a man in whom the God-life
in human form was truly manifest, a man supremely divine,--not by
miraculous generation, but by spiritual union with God, whereby God
indeed became manifest in human flesh,--that man was Jesus of Nazareth.
And as such he becomes the eternal example for all mankind after him.
As a man he justly commands the highest homage that the world can give
to man.  But make him God, and the chain that connects him with man is
at once broken.  If Jesus was God, and therefore incapable of
temptation or sin, the temptation and triumph in the wilderness becomes
a farce, without any meaning to mankind whatever.  But as a mortal man
struggling with and overcoming the strongest temptations of life, it
has infinite significance to all mankind.  If he overcame as a man, so
may I.  As a god, the sweat of Gethsemane and the agony of the Cross
are but mockery--not equal to a single pin-prick in a whole mortal
life.  But as a man, struggling with the last enemy, with eternity
before him, a means of escape at hand, but deliberately devoting his
life and his all in the most excruciatingly torturous manner known to
human ingenuity in cruelty, it becomes a spectacle to command the awe
and admiration of angels.

Jesus is indeed the savior of the world, not by having _redeemed_
mankind with the purchase-price of his own blood; but by his life and
words in teaching men how to live, and by his death how to die, if
necessary, for the right.

I know of no more fitting close to this my view of Jesus, than a
quotation from Ernest Renan's Apostrophe to Jesus.  Ernest Renan was
called an infidel because he abandoned the church of his fathers, and
with it the deity of Jesus.  But he found in Jesus the supreme model of
all human life, the most perfect and complete reflection of the
God-life in mankind the world has ever known.

"Repose now in thy glory, noble founder.  Thy work is finished; thy
divinity is established.  Fear no more to see the edifice of thy labors
fall by any fault.  Henceforth beyond the reach of frailty, thou shalt
witness from the heights of divine peace the infinite results of thy
acts.  At the price of a few hours of suffering, which did not even
reach thy grand soul, thou hast brought the most complete immortality.
For thousands of years the world will depend on thee: Banner of our
contests, thou shalt be the standard about which the hottest battle
will be given.  A thousand times more alive, a thousand times more
beloved, since thy death than during thy passage here below, thou shalt
become the cornerstone of humanity so entirely, that to tear thy name
from this world would be to rend it to its foundation.  Complete
conqueror of death, take possession of thy kingdom, whither shall
follow thee, by the royal road which thou hast traced, ages of
followers."


LIBERTY

_MY NEW CHURCH RELATIONS AND SECOND CALL TO THE MINISTRY_

I have thus outlined, perhaps at greater length than was necessary, the
processes thru which I passed in my religious life from my early
childhood to mature middle life.  I have shown how I was born in the
bondage of orthodoxy; and how I was ultimately driven to abandon, not
only it, but religion altogether.  I then outlined the processes thru
which I passed that led me to a satisfactory settlement in my own mind,
of the problems embraced in the general and comprehensive term
Religion, which I have tried to describe as "My New Confession of
Faith."  From the time I left the church and ministry until I reached
the conclusions herein outlined, was about fifteen years.  I reached
them purely by my own investigations, not knowing that there was a
church on earth that would accept me in its fellowship while holding
them.  I could not perjure myself by subscribing to a creed which I not
only did not believe, but despised, merely for the sake of the social
prestige or business advantage such church membership might give me, as
I have known some to do, and was often importuned to do myself.
Whatever other shortcoming may be charged to my account, it can never
be said of me that I was untrue to my own moral convictions in these
matters; altho this tenacity to principle, or as it was often called,
"hard-headed stubbornness," has more than once caused me embarrassment,
and put me at some disadvantage in business.  I could not "let the
tongue say what the heart denied."

My views of the church itself had also necessarily changed with my
changed views of its theology.  I no longer looked upon it as an
institution of supernatural sanctity and authority.  To me it is simply
The Assembly.  Any assembly of people gathered together for the worship
of God is a true church.  It does not depend upon any particular form
of organization, the maintenance and administration of any particular
ordinances, or so-called sacraments.  It does not depend upon
"Succession,"--Apostolic, Baptismal, Ordination, organization or
otherwise.  "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there
am I in the midst of them."  This is all that is essential to a true
church.  It depends upon unity of purpose, rather than uniformity of
belief.  Hence, any assembly of people, anywhere, united together for
the worship of God, striving to live better lives themselves, and to
help others to do the same, and thus make this world better and human
life happier, meets all the essentials of a true church of God,
regardless of any form of organization, ordinance, sacrament, creed,
belief or ecclesiastical pedigree.

But for years,--as will presently appear,--I did not know that any
church existed, that would come any way near meeting this definition.
I naturally supposed that any organization calling itself a church was
based upon belief in the Bible as the infallible word of God, and the
sole source of authority in all matters of religion.  This I had
completely abandoned and could never go back to it.  In fact I did not
trouble myself to inquire for a possible church fellowship.  I supposed
I was forever barred from any church membership whatever, except that I
felt a welcome in attending the Reformed Jewish synagogue, where the
preaching was on a high intellectual plane, sane and rational, dealing
with modern problems instead of ancient creeds and dogmas; and I liked
this.  But I was not a Jew; and I knew I could never accept their
theology.  All I could ever expect was to be a welcome visitor, "a
stranger within the gate."

However, I must go back a little.  Some few years after I left the
ministry of the Methodist Church, and while still living not far from
the last church I served, a friend one day asked why I had left the
Church and ministry.  I told him very briefly a few of my doctrinal
difficulties; to which he replied, "Ashley, you are a Unitarian."  I
thought but little of it.  I was not really interested in churches any
more anyway.  But he handed me a pamphlet to read and told me he was a
Unitarian back in Ohio where he came from.  I read the pamphlet at his
request.  I do not now remember what it was, or just what it was about.
But I was impressed with the fact that the views therein expressed were
very similar to my own; and if that was Unitarianism I was also
probably a Unitarian.  But still it aroused no special interest as
there was no Unitarian church anywhere about.  If there had been, I
might then have been led to investigate further.  But years went by,
and all the perceptible effect was that I would occasionally think how
nearly I must be a Unitarian, until I finally determined that if I ever
had an opportunity I would investigate the matter further.

In the summer of 1912, business relations led me to move to Dallas,
Texas.  Passing on the street one day, I noticed the sign, First
Unitarian Church.  A new inspiration came to me.  I now had an
opportunity to investigate just how near my religious convictions
coincided with those of this church.  When the church opened after the
summer vacation I began to attend its services, only occasionally at
first, reading in the meantime much of its literature kept at the
church for free distribution.  I became intensely interested and by the
spring of 1913 I was a regular attendant.  The more I read the more I
found myself in substantial accord with what I understood to be the
salient points of twentieth century Unitarianism.  I found especially
these points that impressed me very deeply: It had no creed.  It had no
specific statement of beliefs.  It had no doctrinal standard or test of
religious faith as a condition of church membership.  It not only
permitted, but encouraged the greatest freedom of thought and the most
searching investigation of all subjects presented for consideration,
believing firmly that truth had nothing to fear from such a course.  I
found it had no test of membership but that of human character.  I
found a man was judged by what _he is_, and not by what he thinks or
believes.  I found its service to be reverent and dignified, but free
from useless ceremonial.  The preaching by Rev. George Gilmour, its
minister, I found to be profound and scholarly, yet deeply spiritual
and inspiring, dealing primarily with present-day religious and social
problems rather than creeds, dogmas or beliefs.  I was profoundly
surprised and much gratified to find a church and people and minister
so broad, so liberal and so fraternal as I found this First Unitarian
Church in Dallas.  I soon found that whether I agreed with all other
Unitarians or not, I at least had here a free and cordial fellowship
for the worship of God and the service of man, without any
ecclesiastical harness to put on, or any strings to limit me to
prescribed bounds.  A new light dawned upon me.  The bondage of
orthodoxy I had broken years ago.  But I wandered for years in the
desert of agnosticism, famishing and unfed.  I had found in my own
heart the bread of life; but I had no table at which to spread it--and
man being a social animal as well as a religious one, cannot live alone.

My name was soon on the membership roll of this church, where I hope it
will remain until I am translated, no matter where else I may serve and
place it.  It was here that I first found my bearings and placed my
feet on the solid rock of rational religion.  The supreme satisfaction,
the peace of mind, serene content, and supernal joy of this situation I
shall not attempt to describe.  Those that were born in a liberal faith
and have never known anything else can neither understand nor
appreciate it.  It is indeed a new birth, a new light, a new life of
freedom, fellowship and fraternity in a common service for God and
humanity.


THE NEW CALL TO PREACH

I have before described what I once interpreted as a "divine call to
preach."  It was the new-born enthusiasm of one who felt himself "a
brand snatched from the eternal burning" to proclaim the same
deliverance to what he believed to be a lost and ruined world; to warn
sinners to "flee from the wrath to come."  It was then the consuming
passion of a soul on fire with zeal for the salvation of all mankind
from what he believed to be an overwhelming and eternal destruction
that awaited them, and might come upon them at any moment without
warning.

And now, having tasted of the sweets of liberty, I desired "to proclaim
liberty thruout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," the same
liberty to those yet in the bondage of fear from which I had escaped
and to those who were still wandering in the deserts of doubt, looking
for a haven of rest, and not knowing that it was so near.  I knew that
the great masses were inside of the houses in which they were born,
with the doors all bolted and the windows fastened down.  Not a ray of
light is permitted to enter there, because a new thought might explode
their delusions and disturb their repose.  For these there is little
hope.

But I knew there were yet thousands--I had met and talked with many of
them--who, as I was for years, were wandering in the deserts, hungering
for the bread of life, looking for a fellowship where they might have
freedom of thought and conscience, and yet join with others of like
minds in the free worship of Nature's one great God.

I would address myself to these.  I was so long one of them, I thought
my experience might be of benefit.  It would aid me in helping them.  I
would tell my story of bondage, of deliverance, of wandering in the
deserts of doubt, of the dawning light, of the full blaze of the sun of
liberty, of freedom and fellowship in the worship of God and the
service of mankind.

I have now spent five years in this service, the happiest and best
years of my life.  They have been crowned with some degree of success.
I am not yet old.  I hope to be able to devote at least a score of
years yet to this happy service.  Having escaped from Bondage to
Liberty myself, my only ambition now is to carry the message of
deliverance to others, until they shall likewise find freedom in The
Fatherhood of God, The Brotherhood of Man, The Leadership of Jesus,
Salvation by Character instead of Creed, and the hope of the Progress
of Mankind Onward and Upward Forever.  My only regret is that I did not
discover this way of light and liberty long before, so that I might
have had more years to devote to this happy service.


AN AFTERWORD

Dear reader, my story is finished.  I have had but one motive in
writing it: A hope that I may in some way help others who are still in
the meshes of ecclesiastical bondage, or disturbing doubts, to find the
way of light and liberty in a rational religious faith.  To what extent
I have succeeded or failed, only the future and my readers can
determine.  If you have derived any benefit from it; if I have been
able to cast any ray of light along your pathway; if it has helped you
to solve any problem that has perplexed you, I am fully repaid for the
labor of writing it.  I have not said nearly all that is in my heart,
nor all I would like to say, but all the compass of this work would
permit.  But if I have stirred up in the mind of the reader a desire to
know more of the questions so briefly discussed herein, and to press
his investigations further for this purpose, I have little doubt as to
what will be the ultimate result.

And just one more thing, dear reader: If this book has been of any
benefit to you; if it has helped to clear up any doubts in your mind,
and point the way toward light and liberty in your own life and
experience, may it not do as much for others?  It may be the saving of
a life from Bondage to Liberty; to that "peace that passeth
understanding," in a rational religious faith, based, not upon dogma or
creed, but upon man's fundamental nature and need, interpreted and
applied by that highest and best light that man has, ENLIGHTENED
REASON, for the same God who is the Author of Religion is also the
Author of Reason.