Title: In His Image
Author: Bryan, William Jennings, 1860-1925
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "In His Image" ***


IN HIS IMAGE

By

William Jennings Bryan



_In His Image_. James Sprunt Lectures. 12mo, cloth....$1.75

_Heart to Heart Appeals_. 12mo, cloth....$1.25

The cream of Mr. Bryan's public utterances on Prohibition,
Money, Imperialism, Trusts, Labor, Income Tax, Peace, Religion,
Pan-Americanism, etc.

_The Prince of Peace_. 12mo, boards....60c.

_Messages for the Times_. 12mo, boards, each....35c.

_The First Commandment._ In simple, unaffected language, the author
enlarges upon the present-day breaches of the First Commandment.

_The Message from Bethlehem_. A plea for the world-wide adoption of the
spirit of the Angels' song--"Good-will to Men." The context and import
of this great principle has never been more understandingly set forth.

_The Royal Art_. A lucid exposition of Mr. Bryan's views concerning the
aims and ideals of righteous government.

_The Making of a Man_. A faithful tracing of the main lines to be
followed if the crown of manhood is to be attained.

_The Fruits of the Tree_. "Either for the reinvigoration of faith or
for the dissipation of doubt, this little volume is a document of
power."--_Continent_.



In His Image

By WILLIAM JENNINGS RYAN

"_ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him_."--GEN. 1: 27.

1922



_Dedicated to the memory of my beloved parents_

_SILAS LILLARD RYAN_

_and

MARIAH ELIZABETH RYAN_

_to whom I am indebted for a Christian environment in youth, during
which they instilled into my mind and imprinted upon my heart the
religious principles which I have set forth and applied in the lectures
contained in this volume_



THE JAMES SPRUNT LECTURES


In nineteen hundred and eleven, Mr. James Sprunt of Wilmington, North
Carolina, by a gift to the Trustees of Union Theological Seminary in
Virginia, established a lectureship in the Seminary for the purpose of
enabling the institution to secure from time to time the services of
distinguished men as special lecturers on subjects connected with
various departments of Christian thought and Christian work. The
lecturers are chosen by the Faculty and a committee of the Board of
Trustees, and the lectures are published after their delivery
in accordance with a contract between the lecturer and these
representatives of the institution. The lecturers up to the present have
been:

  REV. DAVID JAMES BURRELL, D.D., LL.D.
  SIR WILLIAM M. RAMSAY, D.D., LL.D.
  REV. PROF. JAMES STALKER, D.D.
  REV. A.F. SCHAUFFLER, D.D.
  REV. HARRIS E. KIRK, D.D.
  PROF. C. ALPHONSO SMITH, PH.D., LL.D.
  REV. A.H. MCKINNEY, D.D.
  REV. G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, D.D.
  REV. PROF. J. GRESHAM MACHEN, D.D.
  HON. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.
  The tenth series is presented in this volume.

  W.W. MOORE,
  _President_.



Preface


The invitation extended me by President Moore on behalf of Union
Theological Seminary provided the opportunity for the presentation of an
argument I had had in mind for years--an argument to the heart and mind
of the average man, especially to the young. This purpose originated in
two desires, one of which is to repay the debt of gratitude that I owe
to my revered parents for having brought into my life the Christian
principles upon which their own lives were builded. My appreciation of
the importance of this early training has grown with the years. As those
who brought me into the world, cared for me so tenderly during my early
years and so conscientiously guarded and guided me during the formative
period of my life, have passed to their reward, I know of no way
in which this appreciation can be effectively expressed, except by
transmitting these principles to others.

The second desire is to aid those who are passing from youth to maturity
and grappling with problems incident to this critical age. Having spent
eight years away from home, in academy, college and law school, I have
reason to know the conflicts through which each individual has to pass,
especially those who have the experience incident to college life. I
never can be thankful enough for the fact that I became a member of the
Church before I left home and therefore had the benefit of the Church,
the Sunday School and Christian friends during these trying days.

In these lectures I have had in mind two thoughts, first, the confirming
of the faith of men and women, especially the young, in a Creator,
all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving, in a Bible, as the very Word
of a Living God and in Christ as Son of God and Saviour of the world;
second, the applying of the principles of our religion to every problem
in life. My purpose is to prove, not only the fact of God, but the need
of God, the fact of the Bible and the need of the Bible, and the fact of
Christ and the need of a Saviour.

Therefore, I have chosen "In His Image" as the title of this series of
lectures, because, in my judgment, all depends upon our conception of
our place in God's plan. The Bible tells us that God made us in His
image and placed us here to carry out a divine decree. He gave us the
Scriptures as an authoritative guide and He gave us His Son to reveal
the Father, to redeem man from sin and to furnish in His life and
teachings an inspiring example by the following of which, man may grow
in grace and in the knowledge of God.

"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be
acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer."

W.J.B.

_Miami, Fla._



Contents


I. IN THE BEGINNING--GOD

II. THE BIBLE

III. WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?

IV. THE ORIGIN OF MAN

V. THE LARGER LIFE

VI. THE VALUE OF THE SOUL

VII. THREE PRICELESS GIFTS

VIII. HIS GOVERNMENT AND PEACE

IX. THE SPOKEN WORD



I

"IN THE BEGINNING--GOD"


Religion is the relation between man and his Maker--the most important
relationship into which man enters. Most of the relationships of life
are voluntary; we enter into them or not as we please. Such, for
illustration, are those between business partners, between stockholders
in a corporation, between friends and between husband and wife. Some
relationships, on the other hand, are involuntary; we enter into them
because we must. Such, for illustration, are those between man and his
government, between man and society, and between man and his Maker.

Tolstoy declares that morality is but the outward manifestation of
religion. If this be true, as I believe it is, then religion is the most
practical thing in life and the thought of God the greatest thought that
can enter the human mind or heart. Tolstoy also delivers a severe rebuke
to what he calls the "Cultured crowd"--those who think that religion,
while good enough for the ignorant (to hold in check and restrain
them), is not needed when one reaches a certain stage of intellectual
development. His reply is that religion is not superstition and does not
rest upon a vague fear of the unseen forces of nature, but does rest
upon "man's consciousness of his finiteness amid an infinite universe
and of his sinfulness." This consciousness, Tolstoy adds, man can never
outgrow.

Evidence of the existence of an Infinite Being is to be found in
the Bible, in the facts of human consciousness, and in the physical
universe. Dr. Charles Hodge sets forth as follows the principal
arguments used to maintain the existence of a God:

    I. The _a priori_ argument which seeks to demonstrate the being of a
    God from certain first principles involved in the essential laws of
    human intelligence.

    II. The cosmological argument, or that one which proceeds after the
    _posteriori_ fashion, from the present existence of the world as
    an effect, to the necessary existence of some ultimate and eternal
    first cause.

    III. The teleological argument, or that argument which, from the
    evidence of design in the creation, seeks to establish the fact that
    the great self-existent first cause of all things is an intelligent
    and voluntary personal spirit.

    IV. The moral argument, or that argument which, from a consideration
    of the phenomena of conscience in the human heart, seeks to
    establish the fact that the self-existent Creator is also the
    righteous moral Governor of the world. This argument includes the
    consideration of the universal feeling of dependence common to
    all men, which together with conscience constitutes the religious
    sentiment.

    V. The historical argument, which involves: (1) The evident
    providential presence of God in the history of the human race. (2)
    The evidence afforded by history that the human race is not eternal,
    and therefore not an infinite succession of individuals, but
    created. (3) The universal consent of all men to the fact of His
    existence.

    VI. The Scriptural argument, which includes: (1) The miracles and
    prophecies recorded in Scripture, and confirmed by testimony,
    proving the existence of a God. (2) The Bible itself, self-evidently
    a work of superhuman wisdom. (3) Revelation, developing and
    enlightening conscience, and relieving many of the difficulties
    under which natural theism labours, and thus confirming every other
    line of evidence.

A reasonable person searches for a reason and all reasons point to a
God, all-wise, all-powerful, and all-loving. On no other theory can we
account for what we see about us. It is impossible to conceive of the
universe, illimitable in extent and seemingly measureless in time, as
being the result of chance. The reign of law, universal and eternal,
compels belief in a Law Giver.

We need not give much time to the agnostic. If he is sincere he does not
_know_ and therefore cannot affirm, deny or advise. When I was a young
man I wrote to Colonel Ingersoll, the leading infidel of his day, and
asked his views on God and immortality. His secretary sent me a speech
which quoted Colonel Ingersoll as follows: "I do not say that there is
no God: I simply say I do not know. I do not say that there is no life
beyond the grave: I simply say I do not know!" What pleasure could any
man find in taking from a human, heart a living faith and putting in the
place of it the cold and cheerless doctrine "I do not know"? Many who
call themselves agnostics are really atheists; it is easier to profess
ignorance than to defend atheism.

We give the atheist too much latitude; we allow him to ask all the
questions and we try to answer them. I know of no reason why the
Christian should take upon himself the difficult task of answering all
questions and give to the atheist the easy task of asking them. Any one
can ask questions, but not every question can be answered. If I am to
discuss creation with an atheist it will be on condition that we ask
questions about. He may ask the first one if he wishes, but he shall not
ask a second one until he answers my first.

What is the first question an atheist asks a Christian? There is but one
_first_ question: Where do you begin? I answer: I begin where the Bible
begins. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I
begin with a Creative Cause that is sufficient for anything that can
come thereafter.

Having answered the atheist's first question, it is now my turn, and I
ask my first question of the atheist: "Where do you begin?" And then his
trouble begins. Did you ever hear an atheist explain creation? He cannot
begin with God because he denies the existence of a God. But he must
begin _somewhere_; it is just as necessary for the atheist as for the
Christian to have a beginning point for his philosophy.

Where does the atheist begin? He usually starts with the nebular
hypothesis. And where does that begin? "In the beginning"? No. It begins
by _assuming_ that two things existed, which the theory does not try to
explain. It assumes that matter and force existed, but it does not tell
us how matter and force came into existence, where they came from, or
why they came. The theory begins: "Let us suppose that matter and force
are here," and then, according to the theory, force working on matter,
created a world. I have just as much right as the atheist to begin with
an assumption, and I would rather begin with God and reason down, than
begin with a piece of dirt and reason up. The difference between the
Christian theory and the materialistic theory is that the Christian
begins with God, while the materialist begins with dull, inanimate
matter. _I know of no theory suggested as a substitute for the Bible
theory that is as rational and as easy to believe._

If the atheist asks me if I can understand God, I answer that it is
not necessary that my finite mind shall _comprehend_ the Infinite Mind
before I admit that there _is_ an infinite mind, any more than it is
necessary that I shall understand the sun before I can admit that there
is a sun. We must deal with the facts about us whether we can understand
them or not.

If the atheist tells me that I have no right to believe in God until I
can understand Him, I will take his own logic and drive him to suicide;
for, by that logic, what right has an atheist to live unless he can
understand the mystery of his own life? Does the atheist understand the
mystery of the life he lives? No; bring me the most learned atheist and
when he has gathered all the information that this earth can give, I
will have a little child lead him out and show him the grass upon the
ground, the leaves upon the trees, the birds that fly in the air, and
the fishes in the deep, and the little child will mock him and tell him,
and tell him truly, that he, the little child, knows just as much about
the mystery of life as does the most learned atheist. We have our
thoughts, our hopes, our fears, and yet we know that in a moment a
change may come over any one of us that will convert a living, breathing
human being into a mass of lifeless clay. What is it, that, having, we
live, and, having not, we are as the clod? We know as little of the
mystery of life to-day as they knew in the dawn of creation and yet
behold the civilization that man has wrought.

And love that makes life worth living is also a mystery. Have you ever
read a scientific definition of love? You never will. Why? Because a man
does not know what love is until he gets into it, and then he is not
scientific until he gets out again. And even if we could understand the
mysterious tie that brings two hearts together from out the multitude,
and on a united life builds the home, earth's only paradise, we still
would be unable to understand that larger mystery that manifests itself
when a human heart reaches out and links itself to every other heart.

And patriotism, also, is a mystery--intangible, invisible, and yet
eternal. Because there has been in the past such a thing as patriotism,
millions have given their lives for their country. Patriotism could
command millions of lives to-day. Our country is not lacking in
patriotism; we have as much as can be found anywhere else, and it is
of as high a quality. There ought to be more patriotism here than
elsewhere; as citizenship in the United States carries more benefits
with it than citizenship in any other land, the American citizen should
be willing to sacrifice more than any other citizen to make sure that
the blessings of our government shall descend unimpaired to children
and to children's children. The atheist knows as little about these
mysteries as the Christian does and yet he lives, he loves and he is
patriotic.

But our case is even stronger: Everything with which man deals is full
of mystery. The very food we eat is mysterious; sometimes man-made food
becomes so mysterious that we are compelled to enact pure food laws
in order that we may know what we are eating. And God-made food is as
mysterious as man-made food, though we cannot compel Jehovah to make
known the formula.

We encourage children to raise vegetables; a little child can learn
_how_ to raise vegetables, but no grown person understands the mystery
that is wrapped up in every vegetable that grows. Let me illustrate: I
am fond of radishes; my good wife knows it and keeps me supplied with
them when she can. I eat radishes in the morning; I eat radishes at
noon; I eat radishes at night; I eat radishes between meals; I like
radishes. I plant radish seed--put the little seed into the ground, and
go out in a few days and find a full grown radish. The top is green,
the body of the root is white and almost transparent, and around it I
sometimes find a delicate pink or red. Whose hand caught the hues of a
summer sunset and wrapped them around the radish's root down there in
the darkness in the ground? I cannot understand a radish; can you? If
one refused to eat anything until he could understand the mystery of its
growth, he would die of starvation; but mystery does not bother us in
the dining-room,--it is only in the church that mystery seems to give us
trouble.

In travelling around the world I found that the egg is a universal form
of food. When we reached Asia the cooking was so different from ours
that the boiled egg was sometimes the only home-like thing we could find
on the table. I became so attached to the egg, that, when I returned to
the United States, for weeks I felt like taking my hat off to every hen
I met. What is more mysterious than an egg? Take a fresh egg; it is not
only good food, but an important article of merchandise. But loan a
fresh egg to a hen, after the hen has developed a well-settled tendency
to sit, and let her keep the egg under her for a week, and, as any
housewife will tell you, it loses a large part of its market value. But
be patient with the hen; let her have it for two weeks more and she will
give you back a chicken that you could not find in the egg. No one can
understand the egg, but we all like eggs.

Water is essential to human life, and has been from the beginning, but
it is only a short time ago, relatively speaking, that we learned that
water is composed of gas. Two gases got mixed together and could not get
apart and we call the mixture water, but it was much more important that
man should have had water to drink all these years than it was to find
out that water is composed of gas. And there is one thing about water
that we do not yet understand, viz., why it differs from other things
in this, that other things continue to contract indefinitely under the
influence of cold, while water contracts until it reaches a certain
temperature and then, the rule being reversed, expands under the
influence of more intense cold? It does not make much difference whether
we ever learn _why_ this is true, but it is important to the world to
know that it is so.

Sometimes I go into a community and find a young man who has come in
from the country and obtained a smattering of knowledge; then his head
swells and he begins to swagger around and say that an intelligent man
like himself cannot afford to have anything to do with anything that he
cannot understand. Poor boy, he will be surprised to find out how few
things he will be able to deal with if he adopts that rule. I feel like
suggesting to him that the next time he goes home to show himself off
to his parents on the farm he address himself to the first mystery
that ever came under his observation, and has not yet been solved,
notwithstanding the wonderful progress made by our agricultural
colleges. Let him find out, if he can, why it is that a black cow can
eat green grass and then give white milk with yellow butter in it? Will
the mystery disturb him? No. He will enjoy the milk and the butter
without worrying about the mystery in them.

And so we might take any vegetable or fruit. The blush upon the peach is
in striking contrast to the serried walls of the seed within; who will
explain the mystery of the apple, the queen of the orchard, or the nut
with its meat, its shell, and its outer covering? Who taught the tomato
vine to fling its flaming many-mansioned fruit before the gaze of the
passer-by, while the potato modestly conceals its priceless gifts within
the bosom of the earth?

I learned years ago that it is the mystery in the miracle that makes it
a stumbling block in the way of many. If you will analyze the miracle
you will find just two questions in it: _Can_ God perform a miracle?
And, would He _want_ to? The first question is easily answered. A God
who can make a world can do anything He wants to with it. We cannot deny
that God _can_ perform a miracle, without denying that God is God. But,
would God _want_ to perform a miracle? That is the question that has
given the trouble, but it has only troubled those, mark you, who are
unwilling to admit that the infinite mind of God may have reasons that
the finite mind of man does not comprehend. If, for any reason, God
desires to do so, can He not, with His infinite strength, temporarily
suspend the operation of any of His laws, as man with his feeble arm
overcomes the law of gravitation when he lifts a stone?

If among my readers any one has been presumptuous enough to attempt to
confine the power and purpose of God by man's puny understanding, let
me persuade him to abandon this absurd position by the use of an
illustration which I once found in a watermelon. I was passing through
Columbus, Ohio, some years ago and stopped to eat in the restaurant
in the depot. My attention was called to a slice of watermelon, and I
ordered it and ate it. I was so pleased with the melon that I asked the
waiter to dry some of the seeds that I might take them home and plant
them in my garden. That night a thought came into my mind--I would use
that watermelon as an illustration. So, the next morning when I reached
Chicago, I had enough seeds weighed to learn that it would take about
five thousand watermelon seeds to weigh a pound, and I estimated that
the watermelon weighed about forty pounds. Then I applied mathematics to
the watermelon. A few weeks before some one, I knew not who, had planted
a little watermelon seed in the ground. Under the influence of sunshine
and shower that little seed had taken off its coat and gone to work; it
had gathered from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight,
and forced that enormous weight through a tiny stem and built a
watermelon. On the outside it had put a covering of green, within that
a rind of white and within the white a core of red, and then it had
scattered through the red core little seeds, each one capable of doing
the same work over again. What architect drew the plan? Where did that
little watermelon seed get its tremendous strength? Where did it find
its flavouring extract and its colouring matter? How did it build a
watermelon? Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that
you can set limits to the power of the Almighty, or tell just what He
would do, or how He would do it. The most learned man in the world
cannot _explain_ a watermelon, but the most ignorant man can _eat_ a
watermelon, and enjoy it. God has given us the things that we need, and
He has given us the knowledge necessary to use those things: the truth
that He has revealed to us is infinitely more important for our welfare
than it would be to understand the mysteries that He has seen fit
to conceal from us. So it is with religion. If you ask me whether I
understand everything in the Bible, I frankly answer, No. I understand
some things to-day that I did not understand ten years ago and, if I
live ten years longer, I trust that some things will be clear that are
now obscure. But there is something more important than understanding
everything in the Bible; it is this: If we will embody in our lives that
which we _do_ understand we will be kept so busy doing good that we will
not have time to worry about the things that we do _not_ understand.

In "The Grave Digger," written by Fred Emerson Brooks, there is one
stanza which is in point here:

  "If chance could fashion but a little flower,
    With perfume for each tiny thief,
  And furnish it with sunshine and with shower,
    Then chance would be creator, with the power
  To build a world for unbelief."

But chance cannot fashion even a little flower; chance cannot create a
single thing that grows. Every living thing bears testimony to a living
God and, if there be a God, then every human life is a part of that
God's plan. And, if this be true, then the highest duty of man, as
it should be his greatest pleasure, is to try to find out God's will
concerning himself and to do it. When Job was asked, "Canst thou by
searching find out God?" a negative answer was implied, but we can see
manifestations of God's power everywhere; in the suns and planets that,
revolving, whirl through space, held in position by forces centripetal
and centrifugal; we see it in the mountains rent asunder and upturned
by a force not only superhuman but beyond the power of man to conceive.
Captain Crawford, the poet-scout, in describing the mountains of the
West has used a phrase which often comes into my mind: "Where the hand
of God is seen."

We see manifestation of God's power in the ebb and flow of the tides; in
the mighty "shoreless rivers of the ocean"; in the suspended water in
the clouds--billions of tons, seemingly defying the law of gravitation
while they await the command that sends them down in showers of
blessings. We behold it in the lightning's flash and the thunder's roar,
and in the invisible germ of life that contains within itself the power
to gather its nourishment from the earth and air, fulfill its mission
and propagate its kind.

We see all about us, also, conclusive proofs of the infinite
intelligence and fathomless love of the Heavenly Father. On lofty
mountain summits He builds His mighty reservoirs and piles high the
winter snows, which, melting, furnish the water for singing brooks, for
the hidden veins, and for the springs that pour out their refreshing
flood through the smitten rocks. At His touch the same element that
furnishes ice to cool the fevered brow furnishes also the steam to
move man's commerce on sea and land. He imprisons in roaring cataracts
exhaustless energy for the service of man: He stores away in the bowels
of the earth beds of coal and rivers of oil; He studs the canyon's
frowning walls with precious metals and priceless gems; He extends His
magic wand, and the soil becomes rich with fertility; the early and
the latter rains supply the needed moisture, and the sun, with its
marvellous alchemy, transmutes base clay into golden grain. He gives us
in infinite variety the fruits of the orchard, the vegetables of the
garden and the, berries of the woods. He gives us the sturdy oak, the
fruitful nut-tree and the graceful palm.

In compassion He makes the horse to bear our burdens and the cow to
supply the dairy; and He gives us the faithful hen. He makes the fishes
to scour the sea for food and then yield themselves up to the table; He
sends the bee forth to gather sweets for man and birds to sing his cares
away. He paints the skies with the gray of the morning and the glow of
the sunset; He sets His radiant bow in the clouds and copies its colours
in myriad flowers. He gives to the babe a mother's love, to the child a
father's care, to parents the joy of children, to brothers and sisters
the sweet association of the fireside, and He gives to all the friend.
Well may the Psalmist exclaim, "The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament showeth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night sheweth knowledge." Surely everything that hath
breath should praise the Lord.

It would seem that a knowledge of nature would be sufficient to convince
any unprejudiced mind that there is a designer back of the design, a
Creator back of the creation, but, for a reason which I shall treat
more fully in a future lecture, some of the scientists have become
materialistic. The doctrine of evolution has closed their hearts to
the plainest of spiritual truths and opened their minds to the wildest
guesses made in the name of science. If they find a piece of pottery
in a mound, supposed to be ancient, they will venture to estimate the
degree of civilization of the designer from the rude scratches on its
surface, and yet they cannot discern the evidences of design which
the Creator has written upon every piece of His handiwork. They can
understand how an invisible force, like gravitation, can draw all matter
down to the earth but they cannot comprehend an invisible God who draws
all spirits upward to His throne.

The Bible's proof of God becomes increasingly necessary to meet the
agnosticism and atheism that are the outgrowth of modern mind-worship. I
shall speak of the Bible in my second lecture; I refer to it here merely
for the purpose of pointing out the harmony between the spoken word and
the evidence furnished by God's handiwork throughout the universe. The
wisdom of the Bible writers is more than human; the prophecies proclaim
a Supreme Ruler who, though inhabiting all space, deigns to speak
through the hearts and minds and tongues of His children.

The Christ of whom the Bible tells furnishes the highest evidence of
the power, the wisdom, and the love of Jehovah. He is a living Christ,
present to-day in the increasing influence that He exerts over the hearts
of men and over the history of nations.

We not only have God in the Bible and God in nature but we have God in
life and accessible to all. It is not necessary to spend time in trying
to comprehend God--a task too great for the finite mind; we can "taste
and see that the Lord is good." We can test His grace and prove His
presence. The negative arguments of the atheist and the indecision of
the agnostic will not disturb the faith of one who daily communes with
the Heavenly Father, and, by obedience, lays hold upon His promise.

Belief in God is almost universal and the effect of this belief is so
vast that one is appalled at the thought of what social conditions
would be if reverence for God were erased from every heart. A sense of
responsibility to God for every thought and word and deed is the most
potent influence that acts upon the life--for one man kept in the
straight and narrow way by fear of prison walls a multitude are
restrained by those invisible walls that conscience rears about us,
walls that are stronger than the walls of stone.

At first the fear of God--fear that sin will bring punishment--is
needed; "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." But as one
learns to appreciate the goodness of God and the plenitude of His mercy,
love takes the place of fear and obedience becomes a pleasure; "His
delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day
and night."

The paramount need of the world to-day, as it was nineteen hundred years
ago, is a whole-hearted, whole-souled, whole-minded faith in the Living
God. A hesitating admission that there is a God is not sufficient; Man
must love with _all_ his heart, and with _all_ his soul, and with _all_
his mind, and with _all_ his strength,--and to love he must believe.
Belief in God must be a conviction that controls every nerve and fibre
of his being and dominates every impulse and energy of his life.

Belief in God is necessary to prayer. It is not sufficient to believe
that there is an Intelligence permeating the universe; nothing less than
a _personal_ God--a God interested in each one of His children and ready
to give at any moment the aid that is needed--nothing less than this
can lead one to communion with the Heavenly Father through prayer.
Evolutionists have attempted to retain the form of prayer while denying
that God answers prayer. They argue that prayer has a reflex action
upon the petitioner and reconciles him to his lot. This argument might
justify one in thinking prayer good enough for _others_ who believe,
but it is impossible for one to be fervent in prayer himself if he
is convinced that his pleas do not reach a prayer-hearing and a
prayer-answering God. Prayer becomes a mockery when faith is gone, just
as Christianity becomes a mere form when prayer is gone. If the words of
the Bible have any meaning at all one must believe that God "_is_, and
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Belief in God is necessary to that confidence in His providence which is
the source of the Christian's calmness in hours of trial. We soon reach
the limitations of our strength and would despair but for our confidence
in the infinite wisdom of God. David expresses this when he says, "Unto
the upright there ariseth light in the darkness. He ... shall not be
afraid of evil tidings: his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord" (Ps.
112).

In my youth, my father often had me read to him Bryant's "Ode to a
Waterfowl" and it became my favourite poem. I know of no more comforting
words outside of Holy Writ than those in the last stanza:

  "He who from zone to zone,
    Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight;
  In the long way that I must tread alone,
    Will lead my steps aright."

Belief in God gives courage. The Christian believes that every word
spoken in behalf of truth will have its influence and that every deed
done for the right will weigh in the final account. What matters it to
the believer whether his eyes behold the victory and his voice mingles
in the shouts of triumph, or whether he dies in the midst of the
conflict!

  "Yea, tho' thou lie upon the dust,
    When they who helped thee flee in fear,
  Die full of hope and manly trust,
    Like those who fell in battle here.

  Another hand thy sword shall wield,
    Another hand the standard wave,
  Till from the trumpet's mouth is pealed,
    The blast of triumph o'er thy grave."

Only those who believe attempt the seemingly impossible, and, by
attempting, prove that one, with God, can chase a thousand and two put
ten thousand to flight. I can imagine that the early Christians, who
were carried into the Coliseum to make a spectacle for spectators more
cruel than the beasts, were entreated by their doubting companions not
to endanger their lives. But, kneeling in the center of the arena, they
prayed and sang until they were devoured. How helpless they seemed, and
measured by every human rule, how hopeless was their cause! And yet
within a few decades the power which they invoked proved mightier
than the legions of the emperor and the faith in which they died was
triumphant o'er all the land. It is said that those who went to mock at
their sufferings returned asking themselves: "What is it that can enter
into the heart of man and make him die as these die?" They were greater
conquerors in their death than they could have been had they purchased
life by a surrender of their faith.

What would have been the fate of the Church if the early Christians had
had as little faith as many of our Christians of to-day? And, if the
Christians of to-day had the faith of the martyrs, how long would it
be before the prophecy were fulfilled--"every knee shall bow and every
tongue confess"?

Belief in God is the basis of every moral code. Morality cannot be put
on as a garment and taken off at will. It is a power within; it works
out from the heart as a spring pours forth its flood. It is not safe for
a weak Christian to associate intimately with the world because he may
be influenced by others instead of influencing others. But one need
not fear when his morality derives its energy from connection with the
Heavenly Father. Just as the water from a hose, because it comes from a
reservoir above, will cleanse a muddy pool without danger of a single
drop of pollution entering the hose, so the Christian can go into
infected areas and among those diseased by sin without fear of
contamination so long as he is prompted by a sincere desire to serve and
is filled with a heaven-born longing for souls.

Joseph gives us a splendid illustration of strength inspired by faith.
Reason fails when one is punished for righteousness' sake; only a belief
in God can sustain one in such an hour of trial and make him enter a
dungeon rather than surrender his integrity.

We need this belief in God in our dealings with nations as well as in
the control of our own conduct; it is necessary to the establishment of
justice. Without that belief one cannot understand how sin brings its
own punishment. Among the beasts strength is accompanied by no sense of
responsibility; only man understands--and then only when he believes in
God--that he must restrain his power and respect the rights of others.
Only man understands--and then only when he believes in God--that the
laws of the Almighty protect the innocent by bringing upon the sinner
the effects of his own sin. No nation, however great, and no group of
nations, however strong, can do wrong with impunity. The very doing of
wrong works the ruin of those who are guilty, no matter how powerless
their victims may be to protect or avenge themselves.

Most of the crimes committed by nations are due to an attempt on the
part of those in authority to establish for nations a system of morals
totally different from that which is binding upon the individual.
Nothing but a real belief in God and confidence in the immutability of
His decrees can stay the arm of strength in individual or nation.

Belief in God is the basis of brotherhood; we are brothers because we
are children of one God. We trace through the common parent of all
the tie that unites the offspring in one great family. The spirit of
brotherhood is impossible without faith in God, the Father, and peace,
at home and abroad, is impossible without the spirit of brotherhood.

One must believe in God in order to be interested in the carrying out of
the Creator's plans. In the prayer which Christ suggested as a form for
His followers, interest in the coming of God's kingdom stands first.
The petition begins with adoration of the Supreme Being and in the next
sentence the heart pours out its desire in an appeal for the coming of
that day when the will of God shall be done in earth as it is done in
heaven. It is proof of the supreme importance of this attitude that this
petition comes before the request for daily bread; it comes even before
the appeal for forgiveness. How quickly the prayer would be answered if
all who utter it would rise from their knees and make the hastening of
God's kingdom the uppermost thought in their minds throughout the day!

Finally, belief in God is necessary to belief in immortality. If there
is no God there is no hereafter. When, therefore, one drives God out of
the universe he closes the door of hope upon himself.

A belief in immortality not only consoles the individual, but it exerts
a powerful influence in promoting justice between individuals. If one
actually thinks that man dies as the brute dies, he will yield more
easily to the temptation to do injustice to his neighbour when the
circumstances are such as to promise security from detection. But if
one really expects to meet again, and live eternally with those whom he
knows to-day, he is restrained from evil deeds by the fear of endless
remorse even when not actuated by higher motives. We do not know what
rewards are in store for us or what punishments may be reserved, but
if there were no other it would be no light punishment for one who
deliberately wrongs another to have to live forever in the company of
the person wronged and have his littleness and selfishness laid bare.

The Creator has not left us in doubt on the subject of immortality. He
has given to every created thing a tongue that proclaims a life beyond
the grave.

If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless
heart of the buried acorn and to make it burst forth from its prison
walls, will He leave neglected in the earth the soul of man, made in
the image of his Creator? If He stoops to give to the rose-bush, whose
withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze, the sweet assurance of
another springtime, will He refuse the words of hope to the sons of men
when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, though
changed by the forces of nature into a multitude of forms, can never
die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation when it has
paid a brief visit like a royal guest to this tenement of clay? No, He
who, notwithstanding His apparent prodigality, created nothing without
a purpose, and wasted not a single atom in all His creation, has made
provision for a future life in which man's universal longing for
immortality will find its realization. I am as sure that we shall live
again as I am sure that we live to-day.

In Cairo, I secured a few grains of wheat that had slumbered for more
than thirty centuries in an Egyptian tomb. As I looked at them this
thought came into my mind: If one of those grains had been planted
on the banks of the Nile the year after it grew, and all its lineal
descendants had been planted and replanted from that time until now,
its progeny would to-day be sufficiently numerous to feed the teeming
millions of the world. An unbroken chain of life connects the earliest
grains of wheat with the grains that we sow and reap. There is in the
grain of wheat an invisible something which has power to discard the
body that we see, and from earth and air fashion a new body so much
like the old one that we cannot tell the one from the other. If this
invisible germ of life in the grain of wheat can thus pass unimpaired
through three thousand resurrections, I shall not doubt that my soul has
power to clothe itself with a body suited to its new existence, when
this earthly frame has crumbled into dust.



II

THE BIBLE


Jesus Christ not only endorsed the Old Testament as authoritative, but
bore witness to its eternal truth. "Think not," He said, "that I am come
to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"
(Matt. 5: 17, 18).

When one's belief in God becomes the controlling passion of his life;
when he loves God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his
mind and with all his strength he is anxious to learn God's will and
ready to accept the Bible as the Word of God. All that he asks is
sufficient evidence of its inspiration.

After so many hundreds of millions have adopted the Bible as their guide
for so many centuries, the burden of proof would seem on those who
reject it.

The Bible is either the word of God or the work of man. Those who regard
it as a man-made book should be challenged to put their theory to the
test. If man made the Bible, he is, unless he has degenerated, able to
make as good a book to-day.

Judged by human standards, man is far better prepared to write a Bible
now than he was when our Bible was written. The characters whose words
and deeds are recorded in the Bible were members of a single race; they
lived among the hills of Palestine in a territory scarcely larger than
one of our counties. They did not have printing presses and they lacked
the learning of the schools; they had no great libraries to consult, no
steamships to carry them around the world and make them acquainted with
the various centers of ancient civilization; they had no telegraph wires
to bring them the news from the ends of the earth and no newspapers to
spread before them each morning the doings of the day before. Science
had not unlocked Nature's door and revealed the secrets of rocks below
and stars above. From what a scantily supplied storehouse of knowledge
they had to draw, compared with the unlimited wealth of information at
man's command to-day! And yet these Bible characters grappled with
every problem that confronts mankind, from the creation of the world to
eternal life beyond the tomb. They gave us a diagram of man's existence
from the cradle to the grave and set up warning signs at every dangerous
point.

The Bible gives us the story of the birth, the words, the works, the
crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Him whose coming
was foretold by prophecy, whose arrival was announced by angel voices,
singing Peace and Good-will--the story of Him who gave to the world a
code of morality superior to anything that the world had known before or
has known since.

Let the atheists and the materialists produce a better Bible than ours,
if they can. Let them collect the best of their school to be found among
the graduates of universities--as many as they please and from every
land. Let the members of this selected group travel where they will,
consult such libraries as they like, and employ every modern means of
swift communication. Let them glean in the fields of geology, botany,
astronomy, biology, and zoology, and then roam at will wherever science
has opened a way; let them take advantage of all the progress in art and
in literature, in oratory and in history--let them use to the full every
instrumentality that is employed in modern civilization; and when they
have exhausted every source, let them embody the results of their best
intelligence in a book and offer it to the world as a substitute for
this Bible of ours. Have they the confidence that the prophets of Baal
had in their god? Will they try? If not, what excuse will they give? Has
man so fallen from his high estate, that we cannot rightfully expect as
much of him now as nineteen centuries ago? Or does the Bible come to us
from a source that is higher than man?

But the case is even stronger. The opponents of the Bible cannot take
refuge in the plea that man is retrograding. They loudly proclaim that
man has grown and that he is growing still. They boast of a world-wide
advance and their claim is founded upon fact. In all matters except
in the "science of how to live," man has made wonderful progress. The
mastery of the mind over the forces of nature seems almost complete, so
far do we surpass the ancients in harnessing the water, the wind and the
lightning.

For ages, the rivers plunged down the mountainsides and exhausted their
energies without any appreciable contribution to man's service; now they
are estimated as so many units of horse-power, and we find that their
fretting and foaming was merely a language which they employed to tell
us of their strength and of their willingness to work for us. And, while
falling water is becoming each a day a larger factor in burden-bearing,
water, rising in the form of steam, is revolutionizing the
transportation methods of the world.

The wind, that first whispered its secret of strength to the flapping
sail, is now turning the wheel at the well, and our flying machines have
taken possession of the air.

Lightning, the red demon that, from the dawn of Creation, has been
rushing down its zigzag path through the clouds, as if intent only
upon spreading death, metamorphosed into an errand-boy, brings us
illumination from the sun and carries our messages around the globe.

Inventive genius has multiplied the power of a human arm and supplied
the masses with comforts of which the rich did not dare to dream a few
centuries ago. Science is ferreting out the hidden causes of disease and
teaching us how to prolong life. In every line, except in the line of
character-building, the world seems to have been made over, but these
marvellous changes only emphasize the fact that man, too, must be born
again, while they show how impotent are material things to touch the
soul of man and transform him into a spiritual being. Wherever the moral
standard is being lifted up--wherever life is becoming larger in the
vision that directs it and richer in its fruitage, the improvement is
traceable to the Bible and to the influence of the God and Christ of
whom the Bible tells.

The atheist and the materialist must confess that man should be able to
produce a better book to-day than man, unaided, could have produced in
any previous age. The fact that they have tried, time and time again,
only to fail each time more hopelessly, explains why they will not--why
they cannot--accept the challenge thrown down by the Christian world to
produce a book worthy to take the Bible's place.

They have begged to their God to answer with fire--appealed to inanimate
matter with an earnestness that is pathetic; they have employed in the
worship of blind force a faith greater than religion requires, but their
God is asleep. How long will they allow the search for strata of stone
and fragments of fossil and decaying skeletons that are strewn around
the house to absorb their thoughts to the exclusion of the architect
who planned it all? How long will the agnostic, closing his eyes to
the plainest truths, cry, "Night, night," when the sun in his meridian
splendour announces that noon is here?

Those who reject the Bible ignore its claim to inspiration. This in
itself makes them enemies of the Book of books, because the Bible
characters profess to speak by inspiration, and what they say bears the
stamp of the supernatural. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21).

    Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom
    teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual
    things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things
    of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
    can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor.
    2:13-14).

Those who reject the Bible ignore the spirit that pervades it, the
atmosphere that envelopes it, the harmony of its testimonies and the
unity of its structure, despite the fact that it is the product of many
writers during many centuries. Its parts were not arranged by man, but
prearranged by the Almighty.

Those who reject the Bible also ignore the prophecies and their
fulfillment--"History written in advance"--proof that appeals
irresistibly to the open mind.

Those who reject the Bible even disparage the testimony which the
Saviour bore to the inspiration of the Old Testament, and yet what could
be more explicit than His words? "And beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).

As Canon Liddon says:

    "For Christians, it will be enough to know that our Lord, Jesus
    Christ, set the seal of His infallible sanction on the whole of the
    Old Testament. He found the Hebrew canon as we have it in our
    hands to-day, and He treated it as an authority which was above
    discussion. Nay, more; He went out of His way--if we may reverently
    speak thus,--to sanction not a few portions of it which modern
    scepticism rejects."

Besides open enemies, the Bible has enemies who are less frank--enemies
who, while claiming to be friends of Christianity, spend their time
undermining faith in God, faith in the Bible, and faith in Christ. These
professed friends call themselves higher critics--a title which--though
explained by them as purely technical--smacks of an insufferable
egotism. They assume an air of superior intelligence and look down with
mingled pity and contempt upon what they regard as poor, credulous
humanity. The higher critic is more dangerous than the open enemy. The
atheist approaches you boldly and tries to blow out your light, but, as
you know who he is, what he is trying to do and why, you can protect
yourself. The higher critic, however, comes to you in the guise of a
friend and politely inquires: "Isn't the light too near your eyes? I
fear it will injure your sight." Then he moves the light away, a little
at a time, until it is only a speck and then--invisible.

Some who have used the title "higher critic" have approached their
subject in a reverent spirit and laboured earnestly in the vain hope of
satisfying intellectual doubts, when the real trouble has been with the
hearts of objectors rather than with their heads. Religion is a matter
of the heart, and the impulses of the heart often seem foolish to the
mind. Faith is different from, and superior to, reason. Faith is a
spiritual extension of the vision--a moral sense that reaches out toward
the throne of God and takes hold of verities that the mind cannot grasp.
It is like "the blind leading the blind" for a higher critic, however
honest, to rely on purely intellectual methods to convey truths that are
"spiritually discerned."

As a rule, however, the so-called higher critic is a man without
spiritual vision, without zeal for souls and without any deep interest
in the coming of God's Kingdom. He toils not in the Master's vineyard
and yet "Solomon in all his glory" never laid claim to such wisdom as he
boasts. He does not accept the Bible nor defend it; he mutilates it. He
puts the Bible on the operating table and cuts out the parts that he
thinks are "diseased." When he has finished his work the Bible is no
longer the Book of books: it is simply "a scrap of paper."

The higher critic (I speak now of the rule and not of the exceptions)
begins his investigations with his opinion already formed. After he has
discarded the Bible because he cannot harmonize it with the doctrine
of evolution, he labours to find evidence to support his preconceived
notions. In matters of religion the higher critic is usually a
"dyspeptic." The Bible does not agree with him; he has not the spiritual
fluids in sufficient quantity to enable him to digest the miracle and
the supernatural. He is a doubter and spreads doubts.

Dr. Franklin Johnson, in Volume 2, of "Fundamentals" says (pages 55, 56,
57): "A third fallacy of the higher critics is the doctrine concerning
the Scriptures which they teach. If a consistent hypothesis of evolution
is made the basis of our religious thinking, the Bible will be regarded
as only a product of human nature working in the field of religious
literature. It will be merely a natural book."...

Again: "Yet another fallacy of the higher critics is found in their
teachings concerning the Biblical miracles. If the hypothesis of
evolution is applied to the Scriptures consistently, it will lead us to
deny all the miracles which they record."...

And: "Among the higher critics who accept some of the miracles there is
a notable desire to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord, and their
treatment of this event presents a good example of the fallacies of
reasoning by means of which they would abolish many of the other
miracles."

Professor Reeve, in a strong article in Volume 3 of "Fundamentals"
(pages 98, 99) tells us of his own excursion into the fields of
higher criticism, of his disappointment and of his glad return to the
interpretations of the Bible that are generally accepted. Speaking of
his first impressions, he says:

    "The critics seemed to have the logical things on their side. The
    results at which they had arrived seemed inevitable. But upon closer
    thinking, I saw that the whole movement, with its conclusion, was
    the result of the adoption of the hypothesis of evolution."...

    "It became more and more obvious to me that the great movement was
    entirely intellectual, an attempt in reality to intellectualize all
    religious phenomena. I saw also that it was a partial and one-sided
    intellectualism, with a strong bias against the fundamental tenets
    of Biblical Christianity. Such a movement does not produce that
    intellectual humility which belongs to the Christian mind. On the
    contrary, it is responsible for a vast amount of intellectual pride,
    an aristocracy of intellect with all the snobbery which usually
    accompanies that term. Do they not exactly correspond to Paul's
    word, 'vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind and not holding fast the
    head, etc.' They have a splendid scorn for all opinions which do not
    agree with theirs. Under the spell of this sublime contempt they
    think they can ignore anything that does not square with their
    evolutionary hypothesis. The center of gravity of their thinking is
    in the theoretical, not in the religious; in reason, not in faith.
    Supremely satisfied with its self-constituted authority, the mind
    thinks itself competent to criticize the Bible, the thinking of all
    the centuries, and even Jesus Christ Himself. The followers of this
    cult have their full share of the frailties of human nature. Rarely,
    if ever, can a thoroughgoing critic be an evangelist or even
    evangelistic; he is educational. How is it possible for a preacher
    to be a power of God, whose source of authority is his own reason
    and convictions? The Bible can scarcely contain more than good
    advice for such a man."

In Volume 2 of "Fundamentals" (page 84), Sir Robert Anderson has this to
say:

    "The effect of this 'Higher Criticism' is extremely grave. For it
    has dethroned the Bible in the home, and the good old practice of
    'family worship' is rapidly dying out. And great national interests
    also are involved. For who can doubt that the prosperity and power
    of the nations of the world are due to the influence of the Bible
    upon the character and conduct? Races of men who for generations
    have been taught to think for themselves in matters of the highest
    moment will naturally excel in every sphere of effort or of
    enterprise. And more than this, no one who is trained in the fear of
    God will fail in his duty to his neighbour, but will prove himself a
    good citizen. But the dethronement of the Bible leads practically
    to the dethronement of God; and in Germany and America, and now in
    England, the effects of this are declaring themselves in ways, and
    to an extent, well fitted to cause anxiety for the future."

The experience of Rev. Paul Kanamori, known as the "Japanese Billy
Sunday" furnishes an excellent illustration of the chilling effect of
higher criticism. He was converted when a student and, after a period of
preaching, became a professor in a theological seminary in Japan. Dr.
Robert E. Speer, in a preface to a published sermon of Mr. Kanamori,
thus describes the great evangelist's temporary retirement from the
ministry and its cause:

    "He began to read upon the most recent German theology, with
    the result that he was completely swept off his feet by the
    rationalistic New Theology, Higher Criticism, etc. Not long after
    that he published his new views under the title, 'The present and
    future of Christianity in Japan,' and retired from the ministry....
    He remained in this state of spiritual darkness for twenty years,
    until the death of his wife brought him and his children into great
    trouble, but after passing through these deep waters he came out
    again with a clear and firm belief in the old-fashioned gospel"
    ("The Three-Hour Sermon," page 8).

Since Mr. Kanamori's return to the ministry he has been the means of
leading nearly fifty thousand Japanese to Christ--probably more than the
total number of souls brought into the Church by all the higher critics
combined.

Rev. T. De Witt Talmage, one of the great preachers of the last
generation, thus speaks of the higher critics:

    "When I see ministers of religion finding fault with the Scriptures,
    it makes me think of a fortress terrifically bombarded, and the men
    on the ramparts, instead of swabbing out and loading the guns and
    helping to fetch up the ammunition from the magazine, are trying
    with crowbars to pry out from the wall certain blocks of stone,
    because they did not come from the right quarry. Oh, men on the
    ramparts, better fight back and fight down the common enemy, instead
    of trying to make breaches in the wall."

It is a deserved rebuke. The higher critics throw ink at a Book that
has withstood the assaults of materialists for centuries, and are vain
enough to think that they can blot out its vital truths. Although their
labours against the Bible have consumed years, they expect the public
to accept their conclusions at sight. If they require so much time to
formulate their indictment against Holy Writ, surely the friends of
the Bible should be allowed as much time for the inspection of the
indictment.

The destructive higher critic is, as a rule, opposed to revivals; in
fact, it is one of the tests by which he can be distinguished from other
preachers. He calls the revival a "religious spasm." He understands
how one can have a spasm of anger and become a murderer, or a spasm of
passion and ruin a life, or a spasm of dishonesty and rob a bank, but he
cannot understand how one can be convicted of sin, and, in a spasm of
repentance, be born again. That would be a miracle, and miracles are
inconsistent with evolution. It shocks the higher critic to have the
prodigal son come back so suddenly after going away so deliberately.

Most of the higher critics discard, because contrary to the doctrine of
evolution, the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection, although the
former is no more mysterious than our own birth--only different, and the
latter no more mysterious than the origin of life. The existence of God
makes both possible; and the proof is sufficient to establish both.

If the higher critic will but come into the presence of Christ and learn
of Him he will express himself in the language of the father (whose son
had a dumb spirit), who, as recorded in Mark (9:24), "cried out and said
with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

If he would only mingle with humanity he might catch the spirit of the
Master; if his sympathies were broad enough to take in all of God's
people, he would be so impressed with the religious needs of sinful man
that he would hasten to break to him the "Bread of Life" instead of
offering him a stone. The Bible, _as it is_, has led millions to
repentance and, through forgiveness, into life; the Bible, as the higher
critics would make it, is impotent to save.

Enemies of the Bible have been "blasting at the Rock of Ages" for nearly
two thousand years but in spite of attacks of open and secret foes, God
still lives, and His Book is still precious to His children.

The Bible would be the greatest book ever written if it rested on its
literary merits alone, stripped of the reverence that inspiration
commands; but it becomes infinitely more valuable when it is accepted
as the Word of God. As a man-made book it would compel the intellectual
admiration of the world; as the audible voice of the Heavenly Father it
makes an irresistible appeal to the heart and writes its truths upon our
lives. Its heroes teach us great lessons--they were giants when they
walked by faith, but weak as we ourselves when they relied upon their
own strength.

The Bible starts with a simple story of creation--just a few words, but
it says all that can be said. The scientists have framed hypotheses,
the philosophers have formulated theories and the speculators have
guessed--some of them have darkened "counsel by words without
knowledge"--but when the smoke of controversy rises we find that the
first sentence of Genesis, still unshaken, comprehends the entire
subject: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." No
one has been able to overthrow it, or burrow under it or go around it.

And so when we set out in search of a foundation for statute law; we dig
down through the loose dirt, the mould of centuries, until we strike
solid rock and we find the Tables of Stone on which were written the ten
commandments. All important legislation is but an elaboration of these
few, brief sentences, and the elaborations are often obscuring instead
of clarifying.

If we desire rules to govern our spiritual development we turn back to
the Sermon on the Mount. In our educational system it takes many books
on many subjects to prepare a mind for its work, but three chapters
of the Bible (Matthew 5, 6 and 7) applied to life, would have more
influence than all the learning of the schools in determining the
happiness of the individual and his service to society.

If we want to understand the evils of arbitrary power, we have only to
read Samuel's warning to the children of Israel when they clamoured for
a king (1 Sam. 8: 11, 17).

If we would form an estimate of the influence that faith can exert on
a human life, and, through it, upon a world, we follow the career of
Abraham, "the friend of God," and see how his trust in Jehovah was
rewarded. He founded a race, than which there has never been a greater,
and established the religion through which to-day hundreds of millions
worship God.

David showed us how a shepherd lad could become the "warrior king" and
the "sweet singer of Israel," with virtues so big that, in spite of his
enormous sins, he is described as "a man after God's own heart."

And what varied instruction we draw from the life of Moses! Hidden in
the bulrushes on the banks of the Nile by a mother who, by instinct or
by divine suggestion, previsioned a high calling for her son; found,
under Providential direction, by a daughter of Pharaoh; reared in the
environment of a palace and with the advantages of the most enlightened
court of his day; compelled to flee into the wilderness because of an
outburst of race passion; called to a great work by a Voice that
spoke to him from a bush that "burned but was not consumed"; modestly
distrusting his ability yet dauntless as the spokesman of God--dispenser
of plagues--wonder-working man! Born of an obscure family and buried in
the Land of Moab in a sepulcher which "no man knoweth," and yet between
these two humble events he rose to a higher pinnacle than any uninspired
man has ever reached--leader without comparison--lawgiver without a
peer.

He teaches many lessons that, like all truths, can be applied in every
generation in every land. Race sympathy made it possible for him to lead
his people out of bondage--no one not of their own blood could have
done it. This lesson needs to be heeded to-day. Our part in the
evangelization of the world will be done through native teachers,
educated here or in our missions, rather than directly. The reformer,
too, finds in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart the final assurance of
success; when the "fullness of time" has come and any form of bondage is
ripe for overthrow, the taskmaster's demand for "bricks without straw"
gives the final impulse and opens the way.

Joseph has made the world his schoolroom. He enables us to understand
the words of Solomon; "where there is no vision the people perish." He
shows how, in the hour of trial, faith can triumph over reason--how God
can lead a righteous man through a dungeon to a seat by the side of the
throne--how the dreamer can turn scoffing into reverence when he has the
corn.

Samuel is a standing rebuke to those who think "wild oats" a necessary
crop in the lives of young men. He heard the call of God when he was a
child; was reared for the Father's work and lived a life so blameless
that the people proclaimed him just when his official career came to an
end.

In the Proverbs of Solomon we find a rare collection of truths,
beautifully expressed; in Job we find an inexhaustible patience set to
music and an integrity that even Satan himself could not corrupt.

The Prophets alone would immortalize the Bible--rugged characters who
dared to rebuke wickedness in high places, to reproach a nation for its
sins and to warn of the coming of the wrath of God. See Elijah on Mount
Carmel, mocking the worshippers of Baal; hear him thunder the Almighty's
sentence against a king who, coveting Naboth's vineyard, broke three
commandments to get a little piece of land. And yet Elijah fled from
wicked Jezebel and would have despaired but for the Voice that assured
him of the thousands who were still true to Israel's God--the obscure
hosts who remained loyal even when the conspicuous became faint-hearted.

Elisha was a visible link in the chain of power. He was not ashamed to
wear the mantle of his great predecessor; he was willing to take up an
unfinished work. He bears unimpeachable testimony to the continuity of
the divine current when human conductors can be found to transmit it. It
was Elisha who drew aside the veil that concealed from his affrighted
servant the horses and chariots that, upon the mountain, await the hours
when they are needed to supplement the strength of those who fight upon
the Lord's side; it was Elisha, too, who proved to the warriors of his
day that magnanimity is more potent than violence. He conquered by
self-restraint--and "the bands of Syria came no more into the lands of
Israel."

Daniel is another man in whom faith begat courage and for whom courage
carved a large niche in the temple of imperishable fame. The Daniel who
interpreted to the trembling Belshazzar the fateful handwriting on
the wall; who, unawed by enemies, prayed with his windows open toward
Jerusalem, and who, in the lions' den, waited in patience until Darius
hastened from a sleepless couch to call him forth and join him in
praising Israel's God--this Daniel was the same intrepid servant of the
Most High, who in his youth refused to drink wine from the king's table,
and, demanding a test, proved that water was better--a verdict that
twenty-five centuries have not disturbed.

Passing over many characters who would seem mountainlike but for the
majestic peaks that overshadow them, let us turn to the immortal seer
who, listening heavenward, caught the words of the song that startled
the shepherds at Bethelehem and, peering through the darkness of seven
centuries, saw the light that shone from Calvary. It was Isaiah who
foretold more clearly and more fully than any one else the coming of
the Messiah, suggested the titles which He would earn, described the
sufferings which He would endure and enumerated the blessings He would
bring to mankind. In chapter nine verse six we read, "For unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The
Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

In chapter fifty-three, we learn of His vicarious atonement:

    He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted
    with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was
    despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs,
    and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
    God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he
    was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was
    upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have
    gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord
    hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he
    was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb
    to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he
    opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment:
    and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of
    the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he
    stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich
    in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any
    deceit in his mouth.

In chapter two, verse four, we are told of the glad day, which we are
now trying to hasten, when swords shall be beaten into ploughshares,
and spears into pruning-hooks--when nations shall not lift up the sword
against nations or learn war any more.

If the Old Testament is so fascinating what may we expect of the New? It
is day as compared with dawn; it is the morning light, with which Moses
and the Prophets beat back the darkness of the night, enlarged--until
we have the sun in its meridian glory. "Old things have passed away;
behold, all things are become new."

The Old Testament gave us the law; the New Testament reveals the love
upon which the law rests. John says: "The law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1: 17). The Old Testament
restrained by a multitude of "Thou shalt nots"; the New Testament
awakens the monitor within and supplies a spiritual urge that makes the
individual find satisfaction in service and delight in doing good. David
soothes the dying with sweet assurance: "Though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with
me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me;" Jesus inspires them with a
living hope: "I go to prepare a place for you that where I am ye may be
also."

God is the center of gravity in the New Testament as in the Old, but the
drawing power of Jehovah became visible in Christ; the attributes of the
Father were revealed in the Son--the supreme intelligence, the limitless
power, the boundless love. Divinity surrounded itself with human
associates but spiritual enthusiasm crowded out the selfish element;
His presence purged their souls of dross. The characters of the New
Testament are about their Father's business all the time. If a Judas
is base enough to betray the Saviour, even he is so overwhelmed with
remorse that life becomes unbearable.

We are introduced to a new group of characters, beginning with a Virgin
with a child and ending with her Son upon the cross--a galaxy of men and
women whose words and deeds have travelled into every land. One poor
widow with two mites, wisely invested, purchased more enduring fame than
any rich man was ever able to buy with all his money. Another, Tabitha,
by interpretation called Dorcas, drew forth as eloquent a tribute as was
ever paid. In the goodness of her heart she made garments for the poor,
and the recipients, exhibiting them at her death-bed, expressed their
gratitude in tears. The narrative suggests an epitaph which every
Christian can earn--and who could desire more? viz., the night is darker
because a life has gone out; the world is not so warm because a heart is
cold in death.

In John the Baptist, we have the forerunner--"the voice crying in the
wilderness." The Apostles, chosen from among the busy multitude, carried
their habits of industry into their new calling; some turned from
catching fish to become "fishers of men," while Matthew employed the
accuracy of a collector of customs in chronicling the life of the
Master. Even the weaknesses of men were utilized: Thomas consecrated his
doubts, and John, the disciple, baptized his ambition--each giving the
Great Teacher an opportunity to use a fault for the enlightening of
future generations. The latter became the most intimate companion of the
Saviour--"the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the one who most frequently
used the word love.

Peter and Paul stand out conspicuously among the exponents of early
Christianity. In the case of Peter, Christ brought an impulsive nature
into complete subjection and gave a steadying purpose to an emotional
follower. In Paul, we see a giant intellect aflame with a holy zeal.
Both were bold interpreters of Christ's mission and both urged upon
Christians the full gospel equipment.

In his second Epistle, chapter one, Peter exhorts:

    And besides this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue;
    and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to
    temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness
    brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these
    things be in you, and abound, they make you that you shall neither
    be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the sixth chapter of Ephesians, Paul pleads:

    Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able
    to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand
    therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having
    on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the
    preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of
    faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of
    the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
    Spirit, which is the Word of God: Praying always with all prayer
    and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all
    perseverance and supplication for all saints.

Peter was a rock, hewn into shape and polished by the divine hand; Paul
was a "chosen vessel" to bear the Redeemer's Name before "the Gentiles
and kings and the children of Israel." Paul was an orator with a
purpose; he was a man with a message. He was eloquent because he knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said. No wonder, for he was
called to service by a summons so distinct and unmistakable that he
turned at once from persecuting to preaching. Paul is responsible for
one of the most inspiring sentences in the Bible--"I was not disobedient
unto the heavenly vision." It was the key to his whole life.

Love is not blind, declares Tolstoy; it sees what ought to be done and
does it. So with Paul. His eyes were open to the truth and he saw it;
he was sensitive to the needs of the Church and his epistles are filled
with wise counsel. He encouraged the worthy, admonished the erring and
strengthened the weak. Paul knew well the secret of liberality, as shown
in 2 Corinthians 8: 5. The members of the Macedonian church "first gave
their own selves"; giving was easy after that. Paul's religion could not
be shaken; read his vow as recorded in the eighth chapter of Romans:

    For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
    principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
    nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to
    separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

His sufferings developed patience and deepened devotion. They prepared
him to appreciate love and to define it as no other mortal has done.

His tribute to love, contained in the thirteenth chapter of 1
Corinthians, is not approached by any other utterance on this subject.
(I use the old version with the word charity changed to love.)

    Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
    love, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And though
    I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all
    knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
    mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all
    my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,
    and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and
    is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed
    up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not
    easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
    rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things,
    hopeth all things, endureth all things; Love never faileth: but
    whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be
    tongues they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish
    away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that
    which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
    away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a
    child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away
    childish things; For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then
    face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also
    I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the
    greatest of these is love.

I cannot leave the Book of Books without referring to one of the supreme
moments that it describes. The Bible is full of pictures; the painter
has found it an inexhaustible storehouse of suggestion. All the great
climaxes of sacred history speak to us from the canvas. Moses and
Pharaoh, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel at the Belshazzar Feast and in the
Lions' Den, Elijah at Mt. Carmel and before Ahab, Joseph and his
brethren, David and Goliath, Mary and the Child, Jesus, the Prodigal
Son, the Sower, the Good Samaritan, the Rich Young Man, the Wise and the
Foolish Virgins, Jesus in the Temple, Christ Entering Jerusalem, and in
the Garden of Gethsemane, and The Saviour on the Cross--these are but a
few of the word pictures that have inspired the artist's brush.

But there is another picture, unsurpassed in thrilling power
and permanent interest, namely, that presented by the trial of
Christ--tragedy of tragedies, triumph of triumphs!

Here, face to face, stood Pilate and Christ, the representatives of the
two opposing forces that have ever contended for dominion in the world.
Pilate was the personification of force; behind him was the Roman
government, undisputed ruler of the then known world, supported by
its invincible legions. Before Pilate stood Christ, the embodiment of
love--unarmed, alone. And force triumphed; they nailed Him to the cross,
and the mob that had assembled to witness His sufferings, mocked and
jeered and said: "He is dead." But from that day the power of Caesar
waned and the power of Christ increased. In a few centuries the Roman
government was gone and its legions forgotten, while the Apostle of Love
has become the greatest fact in history and the growing figure of all
time.

Who will estimate the Bible's value to society? It is our only guide. It
contains milk for the young and nourishing food for every year of life's
journey; it is manna for those who travel in the wilderness; and it
provides a staff for those who are weary with age. It satisfies the
heart's longings for a knowledge of God; it gives a meaning to existence
and supplies a working plan to each human being.

It holds up before us ideals that are within sight of the weakest and
the lowliest, and yet so high that the best and the noblest are kept
with their faces turned ever upward. It carries the call of the Saviour
to the remotest corners of the earth; on its pages are written the
assurances of the present and our hopes for the future.

    There are three verses in the first chapter of Genesis which mean
    more to man than all other books outside the Bible. First; the
    verse, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,"
    gives us the only account of the beginning of all things, including
    life. Many substitutes have been proposed for this verse but none
    that can be so easily understood, explained and defended.

    Second: the 24th verse gives us the only law governing the
    continuity of life on earth. If life is to continue, reproduction
    must be according to law or lawless. _Reproduction according to
    kind_ is the basic scientific fact in the world; all the books on
    science combined do not state as much that is of value to man as
    this one verse--it is the foundation of family life and of all human
    calculations. No living thing has ever violated this law; even man
    with all his power has never been able to persuade or compel that
    intangible, invisible thing that we call life to cross the line of
    species.

    Third: the 26th verse--"Let us make man in our image"--gives us the
    only explanation of man's presence on earth. Without revelation no
    one has been able to explain the riddle of life. Man comes into the
    world without his own volition; he has no choice as to the age,
    nation, race, or family environment into which he shall be born. So
    far as he is concerned, he comes by chance; he goes he knows not
    when, and cannot insure himself for a single hour against accident,
    disease or death; and yet, he is supreme above all other things.

    The 26th verse reveals a truth of inestimable value. When man
    knows that he is "the child of a King," with the earth for an
    inheritance--that the Creator, after bringing all other things into
    existence, made him, not as other things were made, but in the
    image of God, and placed him here as commander-in-chief of all that
    is--when he understands that he is part of God's plan and here for a
    purpose he finds himself. To do God's will becomes his highest duty
    as well as his greatest pleasure and he learns that obedience links
    happiness to virtue, success to righteousness, and makes it possible
    for him to rise to the high plane that a loving Heavenly Father has
    put within the reach of man.

    Where in all the books in all the libraries can one find as much
    that affects the welfare of man as is condensed into these three
    verses?



III

WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?


The question, What think ye of Christ? propounded to the Pharisees by
the Saviour Himself, demands an answer from an increasing number as each
year the circle of the Gospel's influence widens. It is a question that
cannot be evaded. In every civilized land an answer is made, by word or
act, by each individual who is confronted by the facts of His life.
It is in the hope that I may be able to assist some in answering this
question that I devote this hour to the inquiry.

Was Christ an impostor? Or was He deluded? Or was He the promised
Messiah, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," as He declared Himself to
be?

Few have dared to accuse Him of attempting a deliberate fraud upon the
public. Impostors sometimes kill others in carrying out their plans, or
to escape detection, but they do not offer themselves as a sacrifice
for others. Christ's whole life gives the lie to the charge that He
practiced deception. One recorded act would be sufficient to establish
His honesty of purpose. In the nineteenth chapter of Matthew we read:

    And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good
    thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto
    him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is,
    God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He
    saith unto him, which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou
    shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
    false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and Thou shalt love
    thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these
    things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said
    unto him. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
    give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come
    and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went
    away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

If Christ had been an adventurer or was interested only in gaining a
following He would have welcomed this young man, who was not only rich,
but, according to Luke, a ruler. And what a splendid recommendation the
young man gave himself; all of the commandments he had kept from his
youth up. How could one ambitious for worldly success afford to reject
such an applicant? But Christ would not lower the standard a hair's
breadth even to secure the support of a rich young ruler who had led
a blameless life. He demanded the _first place_ in the heart--a very
reasonable demand--and, seeing in the young man's heart the first place
occupied by love of money, He demanded the throne. The young
man, unwilling to purchase eternal life at that price, went away
sorrowing--his heart still centered on his great possessions. Of whom
but an honest person could such a story be told?

Was Christ deceived? That is the theory set forth in a little volume
entitled "A Jewish View of Jesus" (published recently by the Macmillan
Company). The author, H.G. Emelow, pays the following high tribute to
"Jesus the Jew" (and it is the most charitable view an orthodox Jew can
hold):

    "Yet, these things apart, who can compute all that Jesus has meant
    to humanity? The love He has inspired, the solace He has given, the
    good He has engendered, the hope and joy He has kindled--all that is
    unequalled in human history. Among the great and good that the human
    race has produced, none has even approached Jesus in universality
    of appeal and sway. He has become the most fascinating figure in
    history. In Him is combined what is best and most enchanting and
    most mysterious in Israel--the eternal people whose child He was.
    The Jew cannot help glorying in what Jesus thus has meant to the
    world; nor can he help hoping that Jesus may yet serve as a bond of
    union between Jew and Christian, once His teaching is better known
    and the bane of misunderstanding is at last removed from His words
    and His ideal."

But could honest delusion produce a character who, in "the love He has
inspired," "the solace He has given," and "the hope and joy He has
kindled" is "unequalled in human history"? Is it not impossible that
under a _delusion_ one could (as Emelow says Jesus did) become "the most
fascinating figure in history"--unapproachable in the "universality of
appeal and sway"? The world has been full of delusions: have any of them
produced a character like Christ? Tolstoy says that the words of Christ
to His friends and pupils have had a hundred thousand times more
influence over the people than all the poems, odes, elegies and elegant
epistles of the authors of that age. Lecky, the historian, says that
"the three short years of the active life of Jesus have done more
to regenerate and soften mankind than all of the disquisitions of
philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists." Could this be said
of a man labouring under a delusion as to his real character?

What Christ _said_ and _did_ and _was_ establishes His claims. In a
conversation with Peter (Matt. 16: 16), He approved that Apostle's
answer which ascribed to Him the title of "Christ" (the Greek equivalent
for Messiah) "the Son of the living God." He not only approved of the
answer bestowing the title but

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is
in heaven." In John 10, verse 30, He declares, "I and my Father are
one"; in verse 36, same chapter, He denies that it was blasphemy to call
Himself the Son of God. In the presence of death He refused to deny the
claim (Matt. 26: 63-64).

The deity of Christ is proven in many ways; some offering one line of
proof and some another. Some are convinced by the prophecies that found
their fulfillment in Christ; some give greatest weight to the manner of
His birth and His resurrection. Still others lay special emphasis upon
the miracles performed by Him. There is no need of comparison; all the
proofs stand together and bear joint testimony to His supernatural
character, but I find myself inclined to use the method of reasoning
adopted by Carnegie Simpson in his book entitled, "The Fact of Christ."
Those who reject Christ reject also the miraculous proofs offered in
support of His divine character, but the _fact_ of Christ cannot be
denied. Christ lived; that is admitted. He taught; we have His words.
He died upon the cross; that we know; and we can trace His blood by its
cleansing power as it flows through the centuries. Judged by His life,
His teachings, and His death, and the impression they have made upon the
human race, we conclude that He was divine and that He has justified the
titles bestowed upon Him. No other explanations can account for Him.
Born in a manger; reared in a carpenter shop; with no access to sages
living and no knowledge of the wisdom of sages dead, except as that
wisdom was recorded in the Old Testament, and yet when only about thirty
years of age He gave to the world a code of morality the like of which
the world had never known before and has not known since. He preached a
short time, gathered around Him a few disciples and was crucified; His
followers were scattered and nearly all of the conspicuous ones put to
death--and yet from this beginning His religion spread until thousands
of millions have taken His name upon them and millions have been ready
to die rather than surrender the faith that He put into their hearts.
How can you explain Christ? It is easier to believe Him to be the Christ
whose coming was foretold, the Jesus who was to save the people from
their sins--the Son of God and Saviour of the World--than to account for
Him in any other way.

To those who try to measure Him by the rules that apply to man He is
incomprehensible; but take Him out of the man class and put Him in the
God class and you can understand Him. He also can be measured by the
work He came to perform; it was more than a man's task. No man aspiring
to be a God could have done what He did; it required a God condescending
to be a man.

When once His divine character is admitted we have an explanation that
clears away all the perplexities. We can believe that He was conceived
of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. We can believe that He
opened the eyes of the blind when among men--we see Him to-day giving a
spiritual vision of life to those who have known only the flesh and the
pleasures that come through the flesh. We can believe that He wrought
miracles when upon earth--we see Him so changing hearts to-day that they
love the things they used to hate and hate the things they used to love.
We can even believe that at His touch life was called back to the body
from which it had taken its flight--we have seen Him take men who had
fallen so low that their own flesh and blood had deserted them, lift
them up, wash them and fill their hearts with a passion for service. A
Christ who can do that _now_ could have broken the bonds of the tomb.

Volumes innumerable have been written on theological distinctions, some
of which have been made the basis of sects. The doctrine of the Trinity
has been one of the storm centers of discussion for centuries. It is not
difficult for me to believe in the Trinity when I see three distinct
entities in each human being--a physical man, a mental man and a moral
man. They are so inseparable that one cannot exist here without the
other, and yet they are so separate and distinct that one can be
developed and the others left undeveloped. Who has not seen a splendidly
developed body with an ignorant brain to think for it and a puny
spiritual life within? A weak body and an impoverished soul are
sometimes linked to a highly trained mind: and an exalted character is
sometimes found in a frail body, and even associated with a neglected
intellect. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three in one, present no
problem that need perplex either the learned or the unlearned. We have
the evidence of the Father on every hand; the proof of the Son's growing
influence is indisputable; the witness of the Holy Ghost is to be found
in the heart of every believer. The three act in unison.

The fall of man is disputed by some who seem to find more satisfaction
in the belief that they have risen from the brute and, therefore, are
superior to their ancestors, than they do in the thought that man has
fallen from a higher estate. But the facts do not support the brute
theory. Even if the "missing links" could be found, it would be as
reasonable--though not so flattering to man's pride--to believe that the
monkey is a degenerate man as that man is an improved monkey.

It has often been pointed out as evidence of man's fall that he is the
only created thing that does not live up to his possibilities. In plant
and bird and beast there is no disobedience--all fulfill the purpose of
their creation, from the flower, that puts forth its bloom as perfectly
when it "wastes its sweetness on the desert air" as when in the garden
its beauty calls forth expressions of delight, to the bird that wakes
the echoes of trackless forests with its melody. Man, only man, mocks
his Maker by prostituting to evil the powers that might lift him within
sight of the throne of God.

If so many men and women fall _now_, in spite of light and love and all
the incentives to noble living, is it incredible that the first pair
should have fallen when the race was young? Possibility becomes
probability when we remember that the conflict that rages between the
mind and the heart is the one real conflict in every life. Reason versus
faith is the great issue to-day as in Eden. Faith says obey; reason
asks, Why? The one looks up confidingly to a Power above; the other
relies on self and rejects even the authority of Jehovah unless the
finite mind can comprehend the plan of the Infinite.

No one will doubt the doctrine of original sin if he will study nature
and then analyze himself. In the plant, in the animal and in the
physical man, the invisible thing which we call life is the only
sustaining force; when it takes its flight, that which remains falls
back to the earth and becomes dust. And so the spiritual in man is the
only force that can give him a moral nature and preserve it from decay;
when his spiritual life departs the mind as well as the body rots.

Some find a stumbling block in the doctrine of the Atonement. That one
should suffer for others, shocks their sense of justice, they say, and
yet that is the law of life. Each generation borrows from generations
past and pays the debt to the generations that follow. A certain
percentage of the mothers die in childbirth--evidence that they are
God's handiwork is found in the fact they so willingly enter the valley
of the shadow of death to attain to motherhood. Many a boy has been won
back to rectitude by the sorrows of a parent; we are not infrequently
healed by the stripes that fall on others. In fact, great wrongs are
seldom righted without the shedding of innocent blood--one dies and a
multitude are saved. These do not always illustrate the voluntary laying
down of life but there are enough cases of noble surrender of self for a
friend or for the public to make it easy for any one to understand how
Christ could take upon Himself the sins of the world and become man's
intercessor with the Father. Winning hearts through love expressed in
sacrifice, is that strange? On the contrary, it is the only way. It is
because the story of Jesus is a natural one that it has touched mankind.
Hearts understand each other. The heart, says Pascal, has reasons that
the mind does not understand because the heart is of an infinitely
higher character.

The sacrificial character of Christ's death and the atoning power of His
blood are the basis of the New Testament. To discard this doctrine is to
reject the plainest teachings of the Apostles and the words of Christ
Himself.

Peter, than whom there is no higher human authority, says (1 Peter
2:24): "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that
we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes
ye were healed."

John, the Beloved, speaks as clearly on this subject (John 3:16-17):
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting
life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved." Paul was equally emphatic;
he says (1 Cor. 2:2): "For I determined not to know anything among you,
save Jesus Christ and him crucified." And again (1 Cor. 1:30): "But
of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdom and
righteousness, and sanctification and redemption."

But we have higher authority still--we have the words of Christ Himself.
At the last supper, with His disciples about Him, He spoke of His blood
being "shed for many for the remission of sins."

It is the story of His sacrifice for others--of His blood shed that the
world might through Him find forgiveness--that has been understood by
the unlettered as well as by scholars and has brought millions to the
foot of the cross. Even those who have not been in position to compare
His code of morals with the teachings of others have been able to
comprehend a plan of salvation by which one died for all and all find
forgiveness in His sacrifice. It is this Gospel that has made it
possible for the forgiven sinner to go forth to begin a new life, no
longer under conviction of sin and remembering his past only as an
incentive to service.

The presence of Judas at the Last Supper has been the cause of much
speculation throughout the centuries. The indignation of Christians
is stirred at the thought of a traitor being present on this solemn
occasion when Christ instituted one of the great sacraments of the
Church. The Saviour not only knew what Judas was about to do but
called attention to it and designated the guilty one, but there was no
appearance of the anger which would be natural in a mortal; He knew the
plan of salvation.

But why should the betrayal have come from one of the twelve? It is not
necessary to find a satisfactory answer to all the questions that may
arise from the reading of the Bible, and the finite mind should not
be discouraged if it fails to fathom the reasons of the Infinite
Intelligence. If there are mysteries in the Bible that we cannot unravel
they are not greater than the mysteries in nature with which we must
deal whether we understand them or not.

But I venture to suggest one _effect_, produced by the fact that one of
the twelve proved a traitor, namely, the scrutiny that it has compelled
millions of Christians to turn upon themselves. "Lord, is it I?" each
of the disciples anxiously inquired. Even Judas himself, coerced by the
action of the others, asked, "Master, is it I?" So, to-day, there is
real betrayal of the Saviour by some who take His name upon them and
before the world profess to be His followers. If Judas had been an
outsider and had sold for money the knowledge he had gained as a
looker-on his name would not have become, as the name of Judas has, a
synonym for all that is base and contemptible; and the Christian world
would have been without the benefit of that glaring act of perfidy that
has sounded its warning through nineteen centuries. Judas sold the
Saviour for money, just as many a professing Christian since then has,
for money, betrayed the Master. Who will calculate the restraint that
that one question, "Lord, is it I?" has exerted upon Christ's followers
in the hour when some great temptation has made the believer hesitate
upon the brink of sin?

I will not attempt to enumerate all the ways in which Christ has and can
bless mankind, but the living spring has taught me one way. The spring
is the best illustration of the Christian life, just as a stagnant pool
is the best illustration of a selfish life. The pool receives but gives
forth nothing in return and, at last, becomes the center of disease and
death. There is nothing more repulsive than the stagnant pool except a
life built upon that plan. The spring, on the other hand, pours forth
constantly of that which refreshes and invigorates and asks for nothing.
There is nothing more inspiring than a living spring except the life
that it resembles.

And why is the spring a spring? Because _it is connected with a source
that is higher than itself_. Christ brings man into such vital, living
contact with God that the goodness of God flows out to the world through
him. The frailest human being can thus become of inestimable value to
society. It is only spiritual power, received from above, that counts
largely. If we measure man in units of physical power he is not much
above the beasts; if we measure him in units of intellectual power
we soon reach his limitations, but when we measure him in units of
spiritual power his strength may be beyond human calculations. If, as
was the case in Wales, the prayer of a little girl could start a revival
that spread over that country, resulting in the conversion of thousands,
what can a life accomplish if one's heart is full of love to God and
man?

The wisdom of Christ could not have been supplied by others; there were
none to supply it. There was no source but the inexhaustible fountain of
the Almighty from which to draw that which He gave forth "as one having
authority." "Who among His Apostles or proselytes," asks John Stuart
Mill, "was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus or of
imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels?"

No person, less than divine, could have carried the message or rendered
the service He did to mankind. How, for instance, could He have
learned from His own experience or from His environment the startling
proposition that He embodied in His interpretation of The Parable of the
Sower? "The care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the
truth," and yet in that short sentence He gave an epitome of all
human history. Reforms come up from the oppressed, not down from the
oppressors--a fact which Christ explains in a word.

He announced the divine order: "Seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and
his righteousness." Duty to God comes _first_--all other things that are
good for us will come in due time.

His parables stand alone in literature; they have no parallel in the
expression of great truths with beauty and simplicity through object
lessons taken from every-day life. These truths covered a wide range and
were embedded in the language of the parable because of the unbelief
of that day. They are increasingly appreciated as their practical
application to all time becomes more and more manifest.

The parable of the Prodigal Son is the most beautiful story of its kind
ever told and is based on an experience through which nearly every
person passes, but few of whom, fortunately, carry the spirit of
rebellion to the point of leaving home. At that period which marks
the transition from youth to maturity--from dependence on others to
self-reliance--rebelliousness is likely to be exhibited to a greater or
less extent even where the parents have done everything possible for the
child. Christ takes an extreme case where the wisdom and experience of
the father were scorned; where a wilful son insisted upon learning for
himself of the things against which the father had warned him. He was of
age; parental authority could no longer be exerted for his protection.
He had his way, and as long as his money lasted he found plenty of
associates willing to help him spend it; the "boys" had what the wicked
call "a good time." Then came the sobering up, the repentance, the
humility, the return, the father's welcome, the very natural complaint
of the other son and the parental rebuke--all so lifelike and all
designed to give emphasis to the love of the Heavenly Father and the joy
in Heaven when a wanderer returns. How many souls it has awakened! The
thought has been beautifully translated into song by Rev. Robt. Lowry,
in "Where Is My Wandering Boy To-night?" which has probably touched more
hearts than any sermon delivered since the song was written in 1877.

In passing, note the contrast between the Rich Young Man and the
Prodigal Son. The former, an exemplary youth, is lost because he put the
love of money first--we see his back as he retires into oblivion. The
latter, a reckless sinner, repentant and forgiven; we leave him at a
banquet, happy with father and friends who rejoice that one who "was
dead is alive again."

The parable of The Talents has shamed a multitude into activity, while
the parable of The Vineyard has been an encouragement to those who have
neglected early calls to service. He used the great preservative, salt,
to illustrate the saving influence His followers would exert on society
and warned them not to lose this quality. He likened them to a city set
on a hill and to the light that illumines the entire house.

Christ gave the world a philosophy that fits into every human need; He
sounded all the depths. In the first and third of the Beatitudes He
exalts humility--a virtue difficult to cultivate, and even to retain
after one has cultivated it. Some one has suggested that pride is
such an insidious sin that the humble sometimes become proud of their
humility. Christ sets two prizes before the humble--the poor in spirit
are to have the Kingdom of Heaven for their recompense while the meek
are to be given the earth for their inheritance.

The mourners are to be comforted and the merciful are to obtain mercy.
Righteousness is to be the reward of those who hunger and thirst
after it, and the peacemakers are to be crowned with one of the most
honourable of appellations, the children of God.

He devotes double space to those who are reviled and persecuted for His
sake, foreseeing the fierce opposition which His Gospel would arouse. In
the study of the Beatitudes one Sunday, I asked the members of an adult
class which they considered first in importance. Although there was
quite a wide difference in preference, the Sixth, "Blessed are the pure
in heart, for they shall see God," received the highest vote. And what
can be more important than the cleansing of the heart of all that
obstructs one's view of God? The Creator is equally near to all His
creatures--He is no respecter of persons. It is man's fault if he allows
anything to come between himself and the Heavenly Father. Surely,
nothing is more to be desired than the unclouded vision. "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me," is the first of the Commandments brought
down from Sinai and its primacy is endorsed by the Saviour: the sixth
Beatitude expresses the same supreme requirement. No false gods, not
even self--the most popular of all the false gods--must be permitted to
come between man and his Maker.

Christ put into simple words some of the great rules for the
interpretation of life. "By their fruits ye shall know them," has become
a part of the language of the civilized world. "Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?" He asks. "A good tree cannot bring forth
evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Here a
great spiritual principle was announced. We must consider the _nature;_
nothing less than a change in the nature can change the fruit. A bad
heart is just as sure to bring forth bad thoughts and bad deeds as the
thistle is to bring forth thorns. And so the good heart is just as sure
to yield good deeds as the grape-vine is to yield grapes or the fig-tree
is to yield figs. Look at the _tree_, therefore; the fruit will take
care of itself.

In the Sermon on the Mount, in which He embodied such a wealth of moral
precept and spiritual counsel, He warned against investments in that
which would divert the affections from the great purpose of life. "Lay
not up for yourselves treasures on earth, but lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven." "For where your treasure is, there will your heart
be also." It was the heart that He dealt with--always the heart, in
which man does his decisive thinking and out of which are "the issues of
life."

The Master dealt with the beginnings of evil. He did not wait until the
sin had been completed or the wrong accomplished. He cut out the bad
purpose at its birth before it had time to develop. He says:

    And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
    thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
    perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if
    thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for
    it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and
    not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matt. 3: 29).

This may seem like a harsh doctrine and yet it is merely an application
to morals of a salutary principle that all understand when applied by
the surgeon. A finger is often removed in order to save the hand; a hand
is removed to save the arm; and an arm is removed to save the body. An
eye, too, is often removed to save the sight of the remaining eye. Is
eye or arm or body more important than the soul?

Christ understood relative values in the spiritual world. He used the
material things in life to illustrate values in the realm of the ideal;
He used the things that are seen to make understandable the eternal
things that the senses cannot comprehend.

And what called forth this powerful illustration--the sacrificing of
the right eye and the right hand to save the body? He was laying the
foundation for a great moral reform, namely, the single standard of
morality. He was attacking a great sin and, as usual, He laid the axe at
the root of the tree. He was dealing with adultery and He traced the sin
to its source. He would purge the heart of the unclean thought; He would
put a ban on the desire before it found vent in accomplishment. He
turned the thought from the body to the heart and to the soul.

And He not only warned men against harbouring the seeds of this sin but
He rebuked them for injustice in dealing more harshly with woman than
they did with themselves. He did not condone sin; He forgave it, and
accompanied forgiveness with the injunction, "Sin no more."

Christ dignified childhood next to womanhood. One of His most beautiful
lessons was woven about a child which He summoned from the crowd. The
child's faith was made the test--"Except ye be converted and become as
little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom." And again, "Suffer
the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is
the kingdom of heaven."

His depth of affection--His longing for souls--is beautifully set forth
in Matthew 23: 37 when He uses the most familiar object in the animal
kingdom to express His solicitude: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that
killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

And yet this gentle spirit who would not break a bruised reed--who went
about doing good--was wont to blaze forth with hot indignation against
sordidness and systematized injustice. Hear His fierce denunciation of
the "scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites" who devoured widows' houses
and for a pretense made long prayers; and behold Him casting the
money-changers out of the temple because they had turned the house of
prayer into a den of thieves.

In a startling paradox He sets forth a great truth: "Whosoever shall
save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my
sake, the same shall save it." When, before or since, has the littleness
of the self-centered been so exposed and the nobility of self-surrender
been so glorified? Wendell Phillips has given a splendid paraphrase of
this wonderful utterance. He says, "How prudently most men sink into
nameless graves, while now and then a few forget themselves into
immortality."

But the one doctrine which more than any other distinguished His
teachings from those of uninspired instructors, is forgiveness. Time
and again He brings it forward and lays emphasis upon it. In the very
beginning of His ministry He drew a contrast between the perverted
morals of that day and the spiritual life into which He would lead them
(Matt. 5):

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
    and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
    them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
    them which despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be
    the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his
    sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the
    just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what
    reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute
    your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the
    publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is
    in heaven is perfect.

A little later, He embodies the thought in the Lord's Prayer--"Forgive
us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." He
follows that with a scathing arraignment of the cruel servant, who,
having been forgiven a debt almost incalculable in amount, refused to
forgive a small debt due to him. Even when in agony upon the cross the
thought of forgiveness was uppermost in the Saviour's heart and He
prayed: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"

He was not thinking of relief to wrong-doers when He made forgiveness a
cardinal principle in the moral code that He promulgated. It was not,
I am persuaded, to shield from just punishment one who does injury to
another, but to save the injured from the paralyzing influence of the
thirst for revenge. It is only rarely that one has an opportunity to
retaliate, but the desire for retaliation is a soul-destroying disease.
Christ would purge the heart of hatred and make love the law of life.

Christianity has been called "The Gospel of the Second Chance"; it is
more than that. There is no limit to the chances that it offers to the
repentant. When Christ was asked whether one should forgive a brother
seven times He answered, "Seventy times seven." Christianity is the only
hope of the discouraged and the despondent. Walter Malone has put into a
poem entitled "Opportunity" the exhaustless mercy that Christ holds out
to men. I quote the concluding stanzas:

  Though deep in mire, wring not your hands and weep:
    I lend my arm to all who say "I can";
  No shamefaced outcast ever sank so deep
    But he might rise and be again a man!

  Dost thou behold thy lost youth all aghast?
    Dost reel from righteous retribution's blow?
  Then turn from blotted archives of the past,
    And find the future's pages white as snow.

  Art thou a mourner? Rouse thee from thy spell;
    Art thou a sinner? Sins may be forgiven.
  Each morning gives thee wings to flee from hell,
    Each night a star to guide thy feet to heaven.

When the Heavenly Father reserved to Himself the right to avenge
injuries He conferred an incalculable benefit upon mankind, just as He
did when He imposed upon the organs of the body the task of keeping
us alive. Not a heart could beat, nor could the lungs expand if their
movement had been left to the voluntary act of man. But God has relieved
His creatures of concern about blood and breath that man, freed from a
labour beyond his strength, may employ his time in the service of his
Maker. And so man is relieved from the impossible task of avenging
wrongs done him that he may devote himself to the public weal.

I shall at another time speak of some of the present-day fruits of this
doctrine taught nineteen centuries ago; I present it now as one of the
most difficult of the Christian virtues to cultivate, but one of the
most prolific in the blessings that it bestows. It contributes largely
to the securing of peace, and Christ is the Prince of Peace.

All the world is in search of peace; every heart that ever beat has
sought for peace and many have been the methods employed to secure it.
Some have thought to purchase it with riches and they have laboured to
secure wealth, hoping to find peace when they were able to go where
they pleased and buy what they liked. Of those who have endeavoured to
purchase peace with money, the large majority have failed to secure
the money. But what has been the experience of those who have been
successful in accumulating money? They all tell the same story, viz.,
that they spent the first half of their lives trying to get money from
others and the last half trying to keep others from getting their money
and that they found peace in neither half. Some have even reached the
point where they find difficulty in getting worthy institutions to
accept their money; and I know of no better indication of the ethical
awakening in this country than the increasing tendency to scrutinize the
methods of money-making. A long step in advance will have been taken
when religious, educational and charitable institutions refuse to
condone immoral methods in business and leave the possessor of
ill-gotten gains to learn the loneliness of life when one prefers money
to morals.

Some have sought peace in social distinctions, but whether they have
been within the charmed circle and fearful lest they might fall out, or
outside and hopeful that they might get in, they have not found peace.

Some have thought, vain thought! to find peace in political prominence;
but whether office comes by birth, as in monarchies, or by election, as
in republics, it does not bring peace. An office is conspicuous only
when few can occupy it. Only when few in a generation can hope to enjoy
an honour do we call it a _great_ honour. I am glad that our Heavenly
Father did not make the peace of the human heart to depend upon the
accumulation of wealth, or upon the securing of social or political
distinction, for in either case but few could have enjoyed it. When He
made peace the reward of a conscience void of offense toward God and
man, He put it within the reach of all. The poor can secure it as easily
as the rich, the social outcast as freely as the leader in society, and
the humblest citizen equally with those who wield political power.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and
lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30).

Here is a call to _all_--to every human being. No one is beyond the
reach of Jesus' love. The yoke is the emblem of service and service
is the price of happiness. We wear many yokes in common--the yoke of
society, the yoke of government, and the yoke of custom, not to speak of
a multitude of yokes that are individual. Wherever the Gospel has been
carried there are two yokes between which a choice must be made--the
devil's yoke and the yoke of the Master.

Let no one be deceived--if the devil would tempt the Saviour Himself,
will he not tempt you? Satan's service is alluring--it begins in
pleasure and ends in sorrow--"the dead are there!" Christ's service
begins in duty and ends in delight--"Blessed is the man who endureth
temptation." The devil's path is like a forest road at eventide; it
grows darker and darker until all is lost in the blackness of the night.
Christ's path leads from darkness into light.

"He is risen!" What inspiration in these words! Nature proclaims a life
beyond the grave, but Christ proves it by His resurrection. Nature gives
circumstantial evidence that would seem conclusive; but Christ is the
living witness whose testimony establishes beyond controversy that the
mortal can put on immortality. He comforts those who mourn; He dispels
the gloom by making death but a narrow, star-lit strip between the
companionship of yesterday and the reunion of to-morrow. Christ not only
gives us assurance of immortality but He adds the promise of His return.
As He ascended in like manner will He come again.

"And, lo, he goeth before you into Galilee." Yes, He is still going on
before--still leading, and His leadership will continue until time shall
be no more.

The growth of Christianity from its beginning on the banks of the
Jordan, until to-day, when its converts are baptized in every part of
the world, is so graphically described by Dr. Charles Edward Jefferson,
in his book entitled "Things Fundamental," that I take the liberty of
giving the following extracts:

    "Christ in history! There is a fact--face it. According to the New
    Testament, Jesus walked along the shores of a little sea known as
    the Sea of Galilee. And there He called Peter and Andrew and James
    and John and several others to be His followers, and they left all
    and followed Him. After they had followed Him they revered Him, and
    later on adored and worshipped Him. He left them on their faces,
    each man saying, 'My Lord and my God!' All that is in the New
    Testament.

    "But put the New Testament away. Time passes; history widens; an
    unseen Presence walks up and down the shores of a larger sea, the
    sea called the Mediterranean--and this unseen Presence calls men to
    follow Him ...--another twelve--and these all followed Him and cast
    themselves at His feet, saying, in the words of the earlier twelve,
    'My Lord and my God!'

    "Time passes; history advances; humanity lives its life around the
    circle of a larger sea--the Atlantic Ocean. An unseen Presence walks
    up and down the shores calling men to follow Him .... --another
    twelve--and these leave all and follow Him. We find them on their
    faces, each one saying, '_My_ Lord and my God!'

    "Time passes; history is widening; humanity is building its
    civilization around a still wider sea--we call it the Pacific Ocean.
    An unknown Presence moves up and down the shores calling men to
    follow Him, and they are doing it. Another company of twelve is
    forming. And what took place in Palestine nineteen centuries ago is
    taking place again in our own day and under our own eyes."

    I conclude by calling attention to the comprehensiveness of Christ's
    authority. After His crucifixion and resurrection--in His last
    conference with His followers--He announces His boldest claim to
    power universal and perpetual (Matt. 28):

    ... _All_ power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
    therefore, and teach _all_ nations, baptizing them in the name of
    the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to
    observe _all_ things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
    with you _alway_, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Here is a Gospel intended for _every_ human being; here is a code of
morals that is to endure for _all time;_ here is a solution for _every_
problem that can vex a heart or perplex a world, and back of these is
_all power in Heaven and in Earth_.

The word _all_ is used four times in a few sentences. There is nothing
in reserve. We have the final word in religion--Jesus Christ for all,
and for all time--"The same yesterday, and to-day and forever."



IV

THE ORIGIN OF MAN


When the mainspring is broken a watch ceases to be useful as a
timekeeper. A handsome case may make it still an ornament and the parts
may have a market value, but it cannot serve the purpose of a watch.
There is that in each human life that corresponds to the mainspring of a
watch--that which is absolutely necessary if the life is to be what it
should be, a real life and not a mere existence. That necessary thing is
_a belief in God_. Religion is defined as the relation between God and
man, and Tolstoy has described morality as the outward expression of
this inward relationship.

If it be true, as I believe it is, that morality is dependent upon
religion, then religion is not only the most practical thing in the
world, but the first essential. Without religion, viz., a sense of
dependence upon God and reverence for Him, one can play a part in both
the physical and the intellectual world, but he cannot live up to the
possibilities which God has placed within the reach of each human being.

A belief in God is fundamental; upon it rest the influences that control
life.

First, the consciousness of God's presence in the life gives one a sense
of responsibility to the Creator for every thought and word and deed.

Second, prayer rests upon a belief in God; communion with the Creator
in the expression of gratitude and in pleas for guidance powerfully
influences man.

Third, belief in a personal immortality rests upon faith in God; the
inward restraint that one finds in a faith that looks forward to a
future life with its rewards and punishments, makes outward restraint
less necessary. Man is weak enough in hours of temptation, even when he
is fortified by the conviction that this life is but a small arc of
an infinite circle; his power of resistance is greatly impaired if he
accepts the doctrine that conscious existence terminates with death.

Fourth, the spirit of brotherhood rests on a belief in God. We trace our
relationship to our fellowmen through the Creator, the Common Parent of
us all.

Fifth, belief in the Bible depends upon a belief in God. Jehovah comes
first; His word comes afterward. There can be no inspiration without a
Heavenly Father to inspire.

Sixth, belief in God is also necessary to a belief in Christ; the Son
could not have revealed the Father to man according to any atheistic
theory. And so with all other Christian doctrines: they rest upon a
belief in God.

If belief in God is necessary to the beliefs enumerated, then it follows
logically that anything that weakens belief in God weakens man, and, to
the extent that it impairs belief in God, reduces his power to measure
up to his opportunities and responsibilities. If there is at work in the
world to-day anything that tends to break this mainspring, it is the
duty of the moral, as well as the Christian, world to combat this
influence in every possible way.

I believe there is such a menace to fundamental morality. The hypothesis
to which the name of Darwin has been given--the hypothesis that links
man to the lower forms of life and makes him a lineal descendant of the
brute--is obscuring God and weakening all the virtues that rest upon the
religious tie between God and man. Passing over, for the present, all
other phases of evolution and considering only that part of the system
which robs man of the dignity conferred upon him by separate creation,
when God breathed into him the breath of life and he became the first
man, I venture to call attention to the demoralizing influence exerted
by this doctrine.

If we accept the Bible as true we have no difficulty in determining the
origin of man. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God, after
creating all other things, said, "Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness; and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
and female created he them."

The materialist has always rejected the Bible account of Creation and,
during the last half century, the Darwinian doctrine has been the means
of shaking the faith of millions. It is important that man should have
a correct understanding of his line of descent. Huxley calls it the
"question of questions" for mankind. He says: "The problem which
underlies all others, and is more interesting than any other--is the
ascertainment of the place which man occupies in nature and of his
relation to the universe of things. Whence our race has come, what are
the limits of our power over nature, and of nature's power over us, to
what goal are we tending, are the problems which present themselves anew
with undiminished interest to every man born in the world."

The materialists deny the existence of God and seek to explain man's
presence upon the earth without a creative act. They go back from man to
the animals, and from one form of life to another until they come to the
first germ of life; there they divide into two schools, some believing
that the first germ of life came from another planet, others holding
that it was the result of spontaneous generation. One school answers
the arguments advanced by the other and, as they cannot agree with each
other, I am not compelled to agree with either.

If it were necessary to accept one of these theories I would prefer the
first; for, if we can chase the germ of life off of this planet and out
into space, we can guess the rest of the way and no one can contradict
us. But, if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation we will
have to spend our time explaining why spontaneous generation ceased to
act after the first germ of life was created. It is not necessary to pay
much attention to any theory that boldly eliminates God; it does not
deceive many. The mind revolts at the idea of spontaneous generation; in
all the researches of the ages no scientist has found a single instance
of life that was not begotten by life. The materialist has nothing but
imagination to build upon; he cannot hope for company or encouragement.

But the Darwinian doctrine is more dangerous because more deceptive. It
_permits_ one to believe in a God, but puts the creative act so far away
that reverence for the Creator--even belief in Him--is likely to be
lost.

Before commenting on the Darwinian hypothesis let me refer you to the
language of its author as it applies to man. On page 180 of "Descent of
Man" (Hurst & Company, Edition 1874), Darwin says: "Our most ancient
progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to
obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine
animals, resembling the larvae of the existing Ascidians." Then he
suggests a line of descent leading to the monkey. And he does not even
permit us to indulge in a patriotic pride of ancestry; instead of
letting us descend from American monkeys, he connects us with the
European branch of the monkey family.

It will be noted, first, that he begins the summary with the word
"apparently," which the Standard Dictionary defines: "as judged by
appearances, without passing upon its reality." His second sentence
(following the sentence quoted) turns upon the word "probably," which is
defined: "as far as the evidence shows, presumably, likely." His works
are full of words indicating uncertainty. The phrase "we may; well
suppose," occurs over eight hundred times in his two principal works.
(See _Herald & Presbyter_, November 22, 1914.) The eminent scientist is
guessing.

After locating our gorilla and chimpanzee ancestors in Africa, he
concludes that "it is useless to speculate on this subject." If the
uselessness of speculation had occurred to him at the beginning of his
investigation he might have escaped responsibility for shaking the faith
of two generations by his guessing on the whole subject of biology.

If we could divide the human race into two distinct groups we might
allow evolutionists to worship brutes as ancestors but they insist on
connecting all mankind with the jungle. We have a right to protect our
family tree.

Having given Darwin's conclusions as to man's ancestry, I shall quote
him to prove that his hypothesis is not only groundless, but absurd and
harmful to society. It is groundless because there is not a single fact
in the universe that can be cited to prove that man is descended from
the lower animals. Darwin does not use facts; he uses conclusions drawn
from similarities. He builds upon presumptions, probabilities and
inferences, and asks the acceptance of his hypothesis "notwithstanding
the fact that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered" (page
162). He advances an hypothesis which, if true, would find support on
every foot of the earth's surface, but which, as a matter of fact, finds
support nowhere. There are myriads of living creatures about us, from
insects too small to be seen with the naked eye to the largest mammals,
and, yet, not one is in transition from one species to another; every
one is perfect. It is strange that slight similarities could make him
ignore gigantic differences. The remains of nearly one hundred species
of vertebrate life have been found in the rocks, of which more than
one-half are found living to-day, and none of the survivors show
material change. The word hypothesis is a synonym used by scientists for
the word guess; it is more dignified in sound and more imposing to the
sight, but it has the same meaning as the old-fashioned, every-day
word, guess. If Darwin had described his doctrine as a guess instead of
calling it an hypothesis, it would not have lived a year.[1]

[Footnote 1: Dr. Etheridge, Fossiologist of the British Museum, says:
"Nine-tenths of the talk of Evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded
on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of
proofs of the utter falsity of their views."

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, says: "In support of all
naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not at this
time a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof. Fleischmann, of Erlangen, says: "The Darwinian theory has in the
realms of Nature not a single fact to confirm it. It is not the result
of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."

The January issue of "Science," 1922, contains a speech delivered at
Toronto last December by Prof. William Bateson of London before the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. He says that
science has faith in evolution but doubts as to the origin of species.]

Probably nothing impresses Darwin more than the fact that at an early
stage the foetus of a child cannot be distinguished from the foetus of
an ape, but why should such a similarity in the beginning impress him
more than the difference at birth and the immeasurable gulf between the
two at forty? If science cannot detect a difference, _known to exist_,
between the foetus of an ape and the foetus of a child, it should
not ask us to substitute the inferences, the presumptions and the
probabilities of science for the word of God.

Science has rendered invaluable service to society; her achievements are
innumerable--and the hypotheses of scientists should be considered with
an open mind. Their theories should be carefully examined and their
arguments fairly weighed, but the scientist cannot compel acceptance
of any argument he advances, except as, judged upon its merits, it is
convincing. Man is infinitely more than science; science, as well as
the Sabbath, was made for man. It must be remembered, also, that all
sciences are not of equal importance. Tolstoy insists that the science
of "How to Live" is more important than any other science, and is this
not true? It is better to trust in the Rock of Ages, than to know the
age of the rocks; it is better for one to know that he is close to the
Heavenly Father, than to know how far the stars in the heavens are
apart. And is it not just as important that the scientists who deal with
matter should respect the scientists who deal with spiritual things,
as that the latter should respect the former? If it be true, as Paul
declares, that "the things that are seen are temporal" while "the things
that are unseen are eternal," why should those who deal with temporal
things think themselves superior to those who deal with the things that
are eternal? Why should the Bible, which the centuries have not been
able to shake, be discarded for scientific works that have to be revised
and corrected every few years? The preference should be given to the
Bible.

The two lines of work are parallel. There should be no conflict between
the discoverers of _real_ truths, because real truths do not conflict.
Every truth harmonizes with every other truth, but why should an
hypothesis, suggested by a scientist, be accepted as true until its
truth is established? Science should be the last to make such a demand
because science to be truly science is classified knowledge; it is
the explanation of facts. Tested by this definition, Darwinism is not
science at all; it is guesses strung together. There is more science in
the twenty-fourth verse of the first chapter of Genesis (And God said,
let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and
creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so.)
than in all that Darwin wrote.

It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in
order to accept, not a truth--not even a theory--but a mere hypothesis.
Professor Huxley says, "There is no fault to be found with Darwin's
method, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the
conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily proved that
species may be originated by selection? That none of the phenomena
exhibited by the species are inconsistent with the origin of the species
in this way? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative,
Mr. Darwin's view steps out of the ranks of hypothesis into that of
theories; but so long as the evidence adduced falls short of enforcing
that affirmative, so long, to our minds, the new doctrine must be
content to remain among the former--an extremely valuable, and in the
highest degree probable, doctrine; indeed the only extant hypothesis
which is worth anything in a scientific point of view; but still a
hypothesis, and not a theory of species." "After much consideration,"
he adds, "and assuredly with no bias against Darwin's views, it is our
clear conviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely
proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited
by species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether
artificial or natural."

But Darwin is absurd as well as groundless. He announces two laws,
which, in his judgment, explain the development of man from the lowest
form of animal life, viz., natural selection and sexual selection. The
latter has been abandoned by the modern believers in evolution, but
two illustrations, taken from Darwin's "Descent of Man," will show his
unreliability as a guide to the young. On page 587 of the 1874 edition,
he tries to explain man's superior mental strength (a proposition more
difficult to defend to-day than in Darwin's time). His theory is that,
"the struggle between the males for the possession of the females"
helped to develop the male mind and that this superior strength was
transmitted by males to their male offspring.

After having shown, to his own satisfaction, how sexual selection would
account for the (supposed) greater strength of the male mind, he turns
his attention to another question, namely, how did man become a hairless
animal? This he accounts for also by sexual selection--the females
preferred the males with the least hair (page 624). In a footnote on
page 625 he says that this view has been harshly criticized. "Hardly any
view advanced in this work," he says, "has met with so much disfavour."
A comment and a question: First, Unless the brute females were very
different from the females as we know them, they would not have agreed
in taste. Some would "probably" have preferred males with less hair,
others, "we may well suppose," would have preferred males with more
hair. Those with more hair would naturally be the stronger because
better able to resist the weather. But, second, how could the males have
strengthened their minds by fighting for the females if, at the same
time, the females were breeding the hair off by selecting the males? Or,
did the males select for three years and then allow the females to do
the selecting during leap year?

But, worse yet, in a later edition published by L.A. Burt Company, a
"supplemental note" is added to discuss two letters which he thought
supported the idea that sexual selection transformed the hairy animal
into the hairless man. Darwin's correspondent (page 710) reports that
a mandril seemed to be proud of a bare spot. Can anything be less
scientific than trying to guess what an animal is thinking about? It
would seem that this also was a subject about which it was "useless to
speculate."

While on this subject it may be worth while to call your attention to
other fantastic imaginings of which those are guilty who reject the
Bible and enter the field of speculation--fiction surpassing anything to
be found in the Arabian Nights. If one accepts the Scriptural account of
the creation, he can credit God with the working of miracles and with
the doing of many things that man cannot understand. The evolutionist,
however, having substituted what he imagines to be a universal law for
separate acts of creation must explain everything. The evolutionist,
not to go back farther than life just now, begins with one or a few
invisible germs of life on the planet and imagines that these invisible
germs have, by the operation of what they call "resident forces,"
unaided from without, developed into all that we see to-day. They cannot
in a lifetime explain the things that have to be explained, if their
hypothesis is accepted--a useless waste of time even if explanation were
possible.

Take the eye, for instance; believing in the Mosaic account, I believe
that God made the eyes when He made man--not only made the eyes but
carved out the caverns in the skull in which they hang. It is easy for
the believer in the Bible to explain the eyes, because he believes in a
God who can do all things and, according to the Bible, did create man as
a part of a divine plan.

But how does the evolutionist explain the eye when he leaves God out?
Here is the only guess that I have seen--if you find any others I
shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting the guesses of the
evolutionists. The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes
were unknown--that is a necessary part of the hypothesis. And since
the eye is a universal possession among living things the evolutionist
guesses that it came into being--not by design or by act of God--but
just happened, and how did it happen? I will give you the guess--a piece
of pigment, or, as some say, a freckle appeared upon the skin of an
animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the
rays of the sun upon that spot and when the little animal felt the
heat on that spot it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. The
increased heat irritated the skin--so the evolutionists guess, and a
nerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye! Can you beat it? But
this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece of
pigment or freckle soon afterward and just in the right place in order
to give the animal two eyes.

And, according to the evolutionist, there was a time when animals had no
legs, and so the leg came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a
little animal without legs was wiggling along on its belly one day when
it discovered a wart--it just happened so--and it was in the right place
to be used to aid it in locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart,
and use finally developed it into a leg. And then another wart and
another leg, at the proper time--by accident--and accidentally in the
proper place. Is it not astonishing that any person intelligent enough
to teach school would talk such tommyrot to students and look serious
while doing so?

And yet I read only a few weeks ago, on page 124 of a little book
recently issued by a prominent New York minister, the following:

"Man has grown up in this universe gradually developing his powers and
functions as responses to his environment. If he has _eyes_, so the
_biologists_ assure us, it is because _light waves played upon the skin_
and eyes came out in answer; if he has _ears_ it is because the _air
waves_ were there first and the ears came out to hear. Man never yet,
_according to the evolutionist_, has developed any power save as a
reality called it into being. There would be no fins if there were no
water, no wings if there were no air, no legs if there were no land."

You see I only called your attention to forty per cent. of the
absurdities; he speaks of eyes, ears, fins, wings and legs--five. I only
called attention to eyes and legs--two. The evolutionist guesses himself
away from God, but he only makes matters worse. How long did the
"light waves" have to play on the skin before the eyes came out? The
evolutionist is very deliberate; he is long on time. He would certainly
give the eye thousands of years, if not millions, in which to develop;
but how could he be sure that the light waves played all the time in one
place or played in the same place generation after generation until the
development was complete? And why did the light waves quit playing when
two eyes were perfected? Why did they not keep on playing until there
were eyes all over the body? Why do they not play to-day, so that we may
see eyes in process of development? And if the light waves created the
eyes, why did they not create them strong enough to bear the light? Why
did the light waves make eyes and then make eyelids to keep the light
out of the eyes?

And so with the ears. They must have gone _in_ "to hear" instead of
_out_, and wasn't it lucky that they happened to go in on opposite sides
of the head instead of cater-cornered or at random? Is it not easier to
believe in a God who can make the eye, the ear, the fin, the wing, and
the leg, as well as the light, the sound, the air, the water and the
land?

There is such an abundance of ludicrous material that it is hard to
resist the temptation to continue illustrations indefinitely, but a few
more will be sufficient. In order that you may be prepared to ridicule
these pseudo-scientists who come to you with guesses instead of facts,
let me give you three recent bits of evolutionary lore.

Last November I was passing through Philadelphia and read in an
afternoon paper a report of an address delivered in that city by a
college professor employed in extension work. Here is an extract from
the paper's account of the speech: "Evidence that early men climbed
trees with their feet lies in the way we wear the heels of our
shoes--more at the outside. A baby can wiggle its big toe without
wiggling its other toes--an indication that it once used its big toe in
climbing trees." What a consolation it must be to mothers to know that
the baby is not to be blamed for wiggling the big toe without wiggling
the other toes. It cannot help it, poor little thing; it is an
inheritance from "the tree man," so the evolutionists tell us.

And here is another extract: "We often dream of falling. Those who fell
out of the trees some fifty thousand years ago and were killed, of
course, had no descendants. So those who fell and were _not_ hurt, of
course, lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling." Of
course, if we were actually descended from the inhabitants of trees, it
would seem quite likely that we descended from those that were _not_
killed in falling. But they must have been badly frightened if the
impression made upon their feeble minds could have lasted for fifty
thousand years and still be vivid enough to scare us.

If the Bible said anything so idiotic as these guessers put forth in
the name of science, scientists would have a great time ridiculing the
sacred pages, but men who scoff at the recorded interpretation of
dreams by Joseph and Daniel seem to be able to swallow the amusing
interpretations offered by the Pennsylvania professor.

A few months ago the _Sunday School Times_ quoted a professor in an
Illinois University as saying that the great day in history was the day
when a water puppy crawled up on the land and, deciding to be a land
animal, became man's progenitor. If these scientific speculators
can agree upon the day they will probably insist on our abandoning
Washington's birthday, the Fourth of July, and even Christmas, in order
to join with the whole world in celebrating "Water Puppy Day."

Within the last few weeks the papers published a dispatch from Paris
to the effect that an "eminent scientist" announced that he had
communicated with the spirit of a dog and learned from the dog that it
was happy. Must we believe this, too?

But is the law of "natural selection" a sufficient explanation, or a
more satisfactory explanation, than sexual selection? It is based on the
theory that where there is an advantage in any characteristic, animals
that possess this characteristic survive and propagate their kind. This,
according to Darwin's argument, leads to progress through the "survival
of the fittest." This law or principle (natural selection), so carefully
worked out by Darwin, is being given less and less weight by scientists.
Darwin himself admits that he "perhaps attributed too much to the action
of natural selection and the survival of the fittest" (page 76). John
Burroughs, the naturalist, rejects it in a recent magazine article. The
followers of Darwin are trying to retain evolution while rejecting the
arguments that led Darwin to accept it as an explanation of the varied
life on the planet. Some evolutionists reject Darwin's line of descent
and believe that man, instead of coming from the ape, branched off from
a common ancestor farther back, but "cousin" ape is as objectionable as
"grandpa" ape.

While "survival of the fittest" may seem plausible when applied to
individuals of the same species, it affords no explanation whatever,
of the almost infinite number of creatures that have come under man's
observation. To believe that natural selection, sexual selection or any
other kind of selection can account for the countless differences we see
about us requires more faith in _chance_ than a Christian is required to
have in God.

Is it conceivable that the hawk and the hummingbird, the spider and the
honey bee, the turkey gobbler and the mocking-bird, the butterfly and
the eagle, the ostrich and the wren, the tree toad and the elephant,
the giraffe and the kangaroo, the wolf and the lamb should all be the
descendants of a common ancestor? Yet these and all other creatures must
be blood relatives if man is next of kin to the monkey.

If the evolutionists are correct; if it is true that all that we see is
the result of development from one or a few invisible germs of life,
then, in plants as well as in animals there must be a line of descent
connecting all the trees and vegetables and flowers with a common
ancestry. Does it not strain the imagination to the breaking point to
believe that the oak, the cedar, the pine and the palm are all the
progeny of one ancient seed and that this seed was also the ancestor
of wheat and corn, potato and tomato, onion and sugar beet, rose and
violet, orchid and daisy, mountain flower and magnolia? Is it not more
rational to believe in _God_ and explain the varieties of life in terms
of divine power than to waste our lives in ridiculous attempts to
explain the unexplainable? There is no mortification in admitting that
there are insoluble mysteries; but it is shameful to spend the time that
God has given for nobler use in vain attempts to exclude God from His
own universe and to find in chance a substitute for God's power and
wisdom and love.

While evolution in plant life and in animal life _up to the highest form
of animal_ might, if there were proof of it, be admitted without raising
a presumption that would compel us to give a brute origin to man, why
should we admit a thing of which there is no proof? Why should we
encourage the guesses of these speculators and thus weaken our power
to protest when they attempt the leap from the monkey to man? Let the
evolutionist furnish his proof.

Although our chief concern is in protecting man from the demoralization
involved in accepting a brute ancestry, it is better to put the
advocates of evolution upon the defensive and challenge them to produce
proof in support of their hypothesis in plant life and in the animal
world. They will be kept so busy trying to find support for their
hypothesis in the kingdoms below man that they will have little time
left to combat the Word of God in respect to man's origin. Evolution
joins issue with the Mosaic account of creation. God's law, as stated
in Genesis, is _reproduction according to kind_; evolution implies
reproduction _not_ according to kind. While the process of change
implied in evolution is covered up in endless eons of time it is
_change_ nevertheless. The Bible does not say that reproduction shall
be _nearly_ according to kind or _seemingly_ according to kind. The
statement is positive that it is _according to kind_, and that does not
leave any room for the _changes_ however gradual or imperceptible that
are necessary to support the evolutionary hypothesis.

We see about us everywhere and always proof of the Bible law, viz.,
reproduction according to kind; we find nothing in the universe to
support Darwin's doctrine of reproduction other than of kind.

If you question the possibility of such changes as the Darwinian
doctrine supposes you are reminded that the scientific speculators have
raised the time limit. "If ten million years are not sufficient, take
twenty," they say: "If fifty million years are not enough take one or
two hundred millions." That accuracy is not essential in such guessing
may be inferred from the fact that the estimates of the time that has
elapsed since life began on the earth, vary from less than twenty-five
million years to more than three hundred million. Darwin estimated this
period at two hundred million years while Darwin's son estimated it at
fifty-seven million.

It requires more than millions of years to account for the varieties of
life that inhabit the earth; it requires a Creator, unlimited in power,
unlimited intelligence, and unlimited love.

But the doctrine of evolution is sometimes carried farther than that.
A short while ago Canon Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, startled his
congregation by an interpretation of evolution that ran like this: "It
now seems highly probable (probability again) that from some fundamental
stuff in the universe the electrons arose. From them came matter.
From matter, life emerged. From life came mind. From mind, spiritual
consciousness was developing. There was a time when matter, life and
mind, and the soul of man were not, but now they are. Each has arisen as
a part of the vast scheme planned by God." (An American professor in a
Christian college has recently expressed himself along substantially the
same lines.)

But what has God been doing since the "stuff" began to develop? The
verbs used by Canon Barnes indicate an internal development unaided from
above. "Arose, came, emerged, etc.," all exclude the idea that God is
within reach or call in man's extremity.

When I was a boy in college the materialists began with matter separated
into infinitely small particles and every particle separated from every
other particle by distance infinitely great. But now they say that it
takes 1,740 electrons to make an atom of infinite fineness. God, they
insist, has not had anything to do with this universe since 1,740
electrons formed a chorus and sang, "We'll be an atom by and by."

It requires measureless credulity to enable one to believe that all that
we see about us came by chance, by a series of happy-go-lucky accidents.
If only an infinite God could have formed hydrogen and oxygen and united
them in just the right proportions to produce water--the daily need of
every living thing--scattered among the flowers all the colours of the
rainbow and every variety of perfume, adjusted the mocking-bird's throat
to its musical scale, and fashioned a soul for man, why should we want
to imprison such a God in an impenetrable past? This is a living world;
why not a _living_ God upon the throne? Why not allow Him to work _now_?

Darwin is so sure that his theory is correct that he is ready to accuse
the Creator of trying to deceive man if the theory is not sound. On page
41 he says: "To take any other view is to admit that our structure and
that of all animals about us, is a mere snare to entrap our judgment;"
as if the Almighty were in duty bound to make each species so
separate from every other that _no one_ could possibly be confused by
resemblances. There would seem to be differences enough. To put man in a
class with the chimpanzee because of any resemblances that may be found
is so unreasonable that the masses have never accepted it.

If we see houses of different size, from one room to one hundred, we
do not say that the large houses grew out of small ones, but that the
architect that could plan one could plan all.

But a groundless hypothesis--even an absurd one--would be unworthy of
notice if it did no harm. This hypothesis, however, does incalculable
harm. It teaches that Christianity impairs the race physically. That
was the first implication at which I revolted. It led me to review
the doctrine and reject it entirely. If hatred is the law of man's
development; that is, if man has reached his present perfection by a
cruel law under which the strong kill off the weak--then, if there is
any logic that can bind the human mind, we must turn backward toward the
brute if we dare to substitute the law of love for the law of hate. That
is the conclusion that I reached and it is the conclusion that Darwin
himself reached. On pages 149-50 he says: "With savages the weak in body
or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a
vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the progress of elimination. We build asylums for the
imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; our medical
experts exert their utmost skill to save the lives of every one to the
last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands who from weak constitutions would have succumbed to smallpox.
Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No
one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man."

This confession deserves analysis. First, he commends, by implication,
the savage method of eliminating the weak, while, by implication, he
condemns "civilized men" for prolonging the life of the weak. He
even blames vaccination because it has preserved thousands who might
otherwise have succumbed (for the benefit of the race?). Can you imagine
anything more brutal? And then note the low level of the argument. "No
one who has attended the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man." All on a brute basis.

His hypothesis breaks down here. The minds which, according to Darwin,
are developed by natural selection and sexual selection, use their power
to suspend the law by which they have reached their high positions.
Medicine is one of the greatest of the sciences and its chief object is
to save life and strengthen the weak. That, Darwin complains, interferes
with "the survival of the fittest." If he complains of vaccination, what
would he say of the more recent discovery of remedies for typhoid fever,
yellow fever and the black plague? And what would he think of saving
weak babies by pasteurizing milk and of the efforts to find a specific
for tuberculosis and cancer? Can such a barbarous doctrine be sound?

But Darwin's doctrine is even more destructive. His heart rebels against
the "hard reason" upon which his heartless hypothesis is built. He says:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly the
result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as a
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner
indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our
sympathy even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in
the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself while
performing an operation, for he knows he is acting for the good of
his patient; but if we were to intentionally neglect the weak and the
helpless, it could be only for a contingent benefit, with overwhelming
present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubted bad effects of the
weak surviving and propagating their kind."

The moral nature which, according to Darwin, is also developed by
natural selection and sexual selection, repudiates the brutal law
to which, if his reasoning is correct, it owes its origin. Can that
doctrine be accepted as scientific when its author admits that we cannot
apply it "without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature"? On
the contrary, civilization is measured by the moral revolt against the
cruel doctrine developed by Darwin.

Darwin rightly decided to suspend his doctrine, even at the risk of
impairing the race. But some of his followers are more hardened. A few
years ago I read a book in which the author defended the use of alcohol
on the ground that it rendered a service to society by killing off the
degenerates. And this argument was advanced by a scientist in the fall
of 1920 at a congress against alcohol.

The language which I have quoted proves that Darwinism is directly
antagonistic to Christianity, which boasts of its eleemosynary
institutions and of the care it bestows on the weak and the helpless.
Darwin, by putting man on a brute basis and ignoring spiritual values,
attacks the very foundations of Christianity.

Those who accept Darwin's views are in the habit of saying that it need
not lessen their reverence for God to believe that the Creator fashioned
a germ of life and endowed it with power to develop into what we see
to-day. It is true that a God who could make man as he is, could have
made him by the long-drawn-out process suggested by Darwin. To do either
would require infinite power, beyond the ability of man to comprehend.
But what is the _natural tendency_ of Darwin's doctrine?

Will man's attitude toward Darwin's God be the same as it would be
toward the God of Moses? Will the believer in Darwin's God be as
conscious of God's presence in his daily life? Will he be as sensitive
to God's will and as anxious to find out what God wants him to do?

Will the believer in Darwin's God be as fervent in prayer and as open to
the reception of divine suggestions?

I shall later trace the influence of Darwinism on world peace when the
doctrine is espoused by one bold enough to carry it to its logical
conclusion, but I must now point out its natural and logical effect upon
young Christians.

A boy is born in a Christian family; as soon as he is able to join words
together into sentences his mother teaches him to lisp the child's
prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep; I pray the Lord my soul to keep; if
I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." A little
later the boy is taught the Lord's Prayer and each day he lays his
petition before the Heavenly Father: "Give us this day our daily bread";
"Lead us not into temptation"; "Deliver us from evil"; "Forgive our
trespasses"; etc.

He talks with God. He goes to Sunday school and learns that the Heavenly
Father is even more kind than earthly parents; he hears the preacher
tell how precious our lives are in the sight of God--how even a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without His notice. All his faith is built
upon the Book that informs him that he is made in the image of God; that
Christ came to reveal God to man and to be man's Saviour.

Then he goes to college and a learned professor leads him through a book
600 pages thick, largely devoted to resemblances between man and the
beasts about him. His attention is called to a point in the ear that is
like a point in the ear of the ourang, to canine teeth, to muscles like
those by which a horse moves his ears.

He is then told that everything found in a human brain is found in
miniature in a brute brain.

And how about morals? He is assured that the development of the moral
sense can be explained on a brute basis without any act of, or aid from,
God. (See pages 113-114.)

No mention of religion, the only basis for morality; not a suggestion of
a sense of responsibility to God--nothing but cold, clammy materialism!
Darwinism transforms the Bible into a story book and reduces Christ to
man's level. It gives him an ape for an ancestor on His mother's side at
least and, as many evolutionists believe, on His Father's side also.

The instructor gives the student a new family tree millions of years
long, with its roots in the water (marine animals) and then sets him
adrift, with infinite capacity for good or evil but with no light to
guide him, no compass to direct him and no chart of the sea of life!

No wonder so large a percentage of the boys and girls who go from Sunday
schools and churches to colleges (sometimes as high as seventy-five per
cent.) never return to religious work. How can one feel God's presence
in his daily life if Darwin's reasoning is sound? This restraining
influence, more potent than any external force, is paralyzed when God
is put so far away. How can one believe in prayer if, for millions of
years, God has never touched a human life or laid His hand upon the
destiny of the human race? What mockery to petition or implore, if God
neither hears nor answers. Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal
when their god failed to answer with fire; "Cry aloud," he said,
"peradventure he sleepeth." Darwin mocks the Christians even more
cruelly; he tells us that our God has been asleep for millions of years.
Even worse, he does not affirm that Jehovah was ever awake. Nowhere does
he collect for the reader the evidences of a Creative Power and call
upon man to worship and obey God. The great scientist is, if I may
borrow a phrase, "too much absorbed in the things infinitely small to
consider the things infinitely great." Darwinism chills the spiritual
nature and quenches the fires of religious enthusiasm. If the proof in
support of Darwinism does not compel acceptance--and it does not--why
substitute it for an account of the Creation that links man directly
with the Creator and holds before him an example to be imitated? As the
eminent theologian, Charles Hodge, says: "The Scriptural doctrine (of
Creation) accounts for the spiritual nature of man, and meets all his
spiritual necessities. It gives him an object of adoration, love and
confidence. It reveals the Being on whom his indestructible sense of
responsibility terminates. The truth of this doctrine, therefore,
rests not only upon the authority of the Scriptures but on the very
constitution of our nature."

I have spoken of what would seem to be the natural and logical effect of
the Darwin hypothesis on the minds of the young. This view is confirmed
by its _actual_ effect on Darwin himself. In his "Life and Letters," he
says: "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot
spare time to answer your questions fully--nor indeed can they be
answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the
habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence.
For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As
for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting
vague probabilities." It will be seen that science, according to Darwin,
has nothing to do with Christ (except to discredit _revelation_ which
makes Christ's mission known to men). Darwin himself does not believe
that there has ever been _any revelation_, which, of course, excludes
Christ. It will be seen also that he has no definite views on the
_future life_--"every man," he says, "must judge for himself between
_conflicting vague probabilities_."

It is fair to conclude that it was _his own doctrine_ that led him
astray, for in the same connection (in "Life and Letters") he says
that when aboard the _Beagle_ he was called "orthodox and was heartily
laughed at by several of the officers for quoting the Bible as an
unanswerable authority on some point of morality." In the same
connection he thus describes his change and his final attitude: "When
thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause, having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve
to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the
time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species';
and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many
fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt: _Can_ the mind
of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low
as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such
grand conclusions?

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for
one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

A careful reading of the above discloses the gradual transition wrought
in Darwin himself by the unsupported hypothesis which he launched upon
the world, or which he endorsed with such earnestness and industry as
to impress his name upon it He was regarded as "_orthodox_" when he was
young; he was even laughed at for quoting the Bible "_as an unanswerable
authority on some point of morality_." In the beginning he regarded
himself as a Theist and felt compelled "to look to a First Cause, having
an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man."

This conclusion, he says, was strong in his mind when he wrote "The
Origin of Species," but he observes that since that time this conclusion
very gradually became _weaker_, and then he unconsciously brings a
telling indictment against his own hypothesis. He says, "_Can the mind
of man_ (which, according to his belief, has been _developed from a mind
as low as that possessed by the lowest animals) be trusted when it draws
such grand conclusions_?" He first links man with the animals, and then,
because of this _supposed_ connection, estimates man's mind by brute
standards. Agnosticism is the natural attitude of the evolutionist. How
can a brute mind comprehend spiritual things? It makes a tremendous
difference what a man thinks about his origin whether he looks up or
down. Who will say, after reading these words, that it is immaterial
what man thinks about his origin? Who will deny that the acceptance of
the Darwinian hypothesis shuts out the higher reasonings and the larger
conceptions of man?

On the very brink of the grave, after he had extracted from his
hypothesis all the good that there was in it and all the benefit that it
could confer, he is helplessly in the dark, and "cannot pretend to throw
the least light on such abstruse problems." When he believed in God, in
the Bible, in Christ and in a future life there were no mysteries that
disturbed him, but a _guess_ with nothing in the universe to support
it swept him away from his moorings and left him in his old age in the
midst of mysteries that he thought _insoluble_. He must content himself
with _Agnosticism_. What can Darwinism ever do to compensate any one for
the destruction of faith in God, in His Word, in His Son, and of hope of
immortality?

It would seem sufficient to quote Darwin against himself and to cite the
confessed effect of the doctrine as a sufficient reason for rejecting
it, but the situation is a very serious one and there is other evidence
that should be presented.

James H. Leuba, a professor of Psychology in Bryn Mawr College,
Pennsylvania, wrote a book five years ago, entitled "Belief in God and
Immortality." It was published by Sherman French & Co., of Boston, and
republished by The Open Court Publishing Company of Chicago. Every
Christian preacher should procure a copy of this book and it should be
in the hands of every Christian layman who is anxious to aid in the
defense of the Bible against its enemies. Leuba has discarded belief in
a personal God and in personal immortality. He asserts that belief in a
personal God and personal immortality is declining in the United States,
and he furnishes proof, which, as long as it is unchallenged, seems
conclusive. He takes a book containing the names of fifty-five hundred
scientists--the names of practically all American scientists of
prominence, he affirms--and sends them questions. Upon the answers
received he asserts that _more than one-half_ of the prominent
scientists of the United States, those teaching Biology, Psychology,
Geology and History especially, have discarded belief in a personal God
and in personal immortality.

This is what the doctrine of evolution is doing for those who teach our
children. They first discard the Mosaic account of man's creation, and
they do it on the ground that there are no miracles. This in itself
constitutes a practical repudiation of the Bible; the miracles of the
Old and New Testament cannot be cut out without a mutilation that is
equivalent to rejection. They reject the supernatural along with the
miracle, and with the supernatural the inspiration of the Bible and the
authority that rests upon inspiration. If these believers in evolution
are consistent and have the courage to carry their doctrine to its
logical conclusion, they reject the virgin birth of Christ and the
resurrection. They may still regard Christ as an unusual man, but they
will not make much headway in converting people to Christianity, if they
declare Jesus to be nothing more than a man and either a deliberate
impostor or a deluded enthusiast.

The evil influence of these Materialistic, Atheistic or Agnostic
professors is disclosed by further investigation made by Leuba. He
questioned the students of nine representative colleges, and upon their
answers declares that, while only fifteen per cent. of the freshmen have
discarded the Christian religion, thirty per cent. of the juniors and
that forty to forty-five per cent, of the men _graduates_ have abandoned
the cardinal principles of the Christian faith. Can Christians be
indifferent to such statistics? Is it an immaterial thing that so
large a percentage of the young men who go from Christian homes into
institutions of learning should go out from these institutions with the
spiritual element eliminated from their lives? What shall it profit a
man if he shall gain all the learning of the schools and lose his faith
in God?

To show how these evolutionists undermine the faith of students let me
give you an illustration that recently came to my attention: A student
in one of the largest State universities of the nation recently gave me
a printed speech delivered by the president of the university, a year
ago this month, to 3,500 students, and printed and circulated by the
Student Christian Association of the institution. The student who gave
me the speech marked the following paragraph: "And, again, religion must
not be thought of as something that is inconsistent with reasonable,
scientific thinking in regard to the nature of the universe. I go so far
as to say that, if you cannot reconcile religion with the things taught
in biology, in psychology, or in the other fields of study in this
university, then you should throw your religion away. Scientific truth
is here to stay." What about the Bible, is it not here to stay? If he
had stopped with the first sentence, his language might not have
been construed to the injury of religion, because religion is not
"inconsistent with reasonable, scientific thinking in regard to
the nature of the universe." There is nothing _unreasonable_ about
Christianity, and there is nothing _unscientific_ about Christianity.
No scientific _fact_--no _fact_ of any other kind can disturb religion,
because _facts are not in conflict with each other_. It is _guessing_ by
scientists and so-called scientists that is doing the harm. And it is
_guessing_ that is endorsed by this distinguished college president (a
D.D., too, as well as an LL.D. and a Ph.D.) when he says, "I go so far
as to say that, if you cannot reconcile religion with the things taught
in biology, in psychology, or in the other fields of study in this
university, then you should throw your religion away." What does this
mean, except that the books on biology and on other scientific subjects
used in that university are to be preferred to the Bible in case of
conflict? The student is told, "throw your religion away," if he cannot
reconcile it (the Bible, of course,) with the things taught in biology,
psychology, etc. Books on biology change constantly, likewise books
on psychology, and yet they are held before the students as better
authority than the unchanging Word of God.

Is any other proof needed to show the irreligious influence exerted by
Darwinism applied to man? At the University of Wisconsin (so a Methodist
preacher told me) a teacher told his class that the Bible was a
collection of myths. When I brought the matter to the attention of the
President of the University, he criticized me but avoided all reference
to the professor. At Ann Arbor a professor argued with students against
religion and asserted that no thinking man could believe in God or the
Bible. At Columbia (I learned this from a Baptist preacher) a professor
began his course in geology by telling his class to throw away all that
they had learned in the Sunday school. There is a professor in Yale of
whom it is said that no one leaves his class a believer in God. (This
came from a young man who told me that his brother was being led away
from the Christian faith by this professor.) A father (a Congressman)
tells me that a daughter on her return from Wellesley told him that
nobody believed in the Bible stories now. Another father (a Congressman)
tells me of a son whose faith was undermined by this doctrine in a
Divinity School. Three preachers told me of having their interest in the
subject aroused by the return of their children from college with their
faith shaken. The Northern Baptists have recently, after a spirited
contest, secured the adoption of a Confession of Faith; it was opposed
by the evolutionists.

In Kentucky the fight is on among the Disciples, and it is becoming
more and more acute in the Northern branches of the Methodist and
Presbyterian Churches. A young preacher, just out of a theological
seminary, who did not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, was
recently ordained in Western New York. Last April I met a young man who
was made an atheist by two teachers in a Christian college.

These are only a few illustrations that have come under my own
observation--nearly all of them within a year. What is to be done? Are
the members of the various Christian churches willing to have the power
of the pulpit paralyzed by a false, absurd and ridiculous doctrine which
is without support in the written Word of God and without support also
in nature? Is "thus saith the Lord" to be supplanted by guesses and
speculations and assumptions? I submit three propositions for the
consideration of the Christians of the nation:

First, the preachers who are to break the bread of life to the lay
members should believe that man has in him the breath of the Almighty,
as the Bible declares, and not the blood of the brute, as the
evolutionists affirm. He should also believe in the virgin birth of the
Saviour.

Second, none but Christians in good standing and with a spiritual
conception of life should be allowed to teach in Christian schools.
Church schools are worse than useless if they bring students under the
influence of those who do not believe in the religion upon which the
Church and church schools are built. Atheism and Agnosticism are more
dangerous when hidden under the cloak of religion than when they are
exposed to view.

Third, in schools supported by taxation we should have a real neutrality
wherever neutrality in religion is desired. If the Bible cannot be
defended in these schools it should not be attacked, either directly or
under the guise of philosophy or science. The neutrality which we now
have is often but a sham; it carefully excludes the Christian religion
but permits the use of the schoolrooms for the destruction of faith and
for the teaching of materialistic doctrines.

It is not sufficient to say that _some_ believers in Darwinism retain
their belief in Christianity; some survive smallpox. As we avoid
smallpox because _many_ die of it, so we should avoid Darwinism because
it _leads many astray_.

If it is contended that an instructor has a right to teach anything
he likes, I reply that the parents who pay the salary have a right to
decide what shall be taught. To continue the illustration used above, a
person can expose himself to the smallpox if he desires to do so, but he
has no right to communicate it to others. So a man can believe anything
he pleases but he has no right to teach it against the protest of his
employers.

Acceptance of Darwin's doctrine tends to destroy one's belief in
immortality as taught by the Bible. If there has been no break in the
line between man and the beasts--no time when by the act of the Heavenly
Father man became "a living Soul," at what period in man's development
was he endowed with the hope of a future life? And, if the brute theory
leads to the abandonment of belief in a future life with its rewards and
punishments, what stimulus to righteous living is offered in its place?

Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its
logical conclusion and it made him the most extreme of anti-Christians.
I had read extracts from his writings--enough to acquaint me with his
sweeping denial of God and of the Saviour--but not enough to make me
familiar with his philosophy.

As the war progressed I became more and more impressed with the
conviction that the German propaganda rested upon a materialistic
foundation. I secured the writings of Nietzsche and found in them a
defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced
by the militarists of Germany. Nietzsche tried to substitute the worship
of the "Superman" for the worship of God. He not only rejected the
Creator, but he rejected all moral standards. He praised war and
eulogized hatred because it led to war. He denounced sympathy and pity
as attributes unworthy of man. He believed that the teachings of Christ
made degenerates and, logical to the end, he regarded Democracy as the
refuge of weaklings. He saw in man nothing but an animal and in that
animal the highest virtue he recognized was "The Will to Power"--a will
which should know no let or hindrance, no restraint or limitation.

Nietzsche's philosophy would convert the world into a ferocious conflict
between beasts, each brute trampling ruthlessly on everything in his
way. In his book entitled "Joyful Wisdom," Nietzsche ascribes to
Napoleon the very same dream of power--Europe under one sovereign and
that sovereign the master of the world--that lured the Kaiser into a sea
of blood from which he emerged an exile seeking security under a foreign
flag. Nietzsche names Darwin as one of the three great men of his
century, but tries to deprive him of credit (?) for the doctrine that
bears his name by saying that Hegel made an earlier announcement of it.
Nietzsche died hopelessly insane, but his philosophy has wrought the
moral ruin of a multitude, if it is not actually responsible for
bringing upon the world its greatest war.

His philosophy, if it is worthy the name of philosophy, is the ripened
fruit of Darwinism--and a tree is known by its fruit.

In 1900--over twenty years ago--while an International Peace Congress
was in session in Paris the following editorial appeared in _L'Univers_:

"The spirit of peace has fled the earth because evolution has taken
possession of it. The plea for peace in past years has been inspired by
faith in the divine nature and the divine origin of man; men were
then looked upon as children of one Father and war, therefore, was
fratricide. But now that men are looked upon as children of apes, what
matters it whether they are slaughtered or not?"

I have given you above the words of a French writer published twenty
years ago. I have just found in a book recently published by a prominent
English writer words along the same line, only more comprehensive. The
corroding influence of Darwinism has spread as the doctrine has been
increasingly accepted. In the American preface to "The Glass of
Fashion" these words are to be found: "Darwinism not only justifies
the sensualist at the trough and Fashion at her glass; it justifies
Prussianism at the cannon's mouth and Bolshevism at the prison-door.
If Darwinism be true, if Mind is to be driven out of the universe and
accident accepted as a sufficient cause for all the majesty and glory of
physical nature, then there is no crime or violence, however abominable
in its circumstances and however cruel in its execution, which cannot be
justified by success, and no triviality, no absurdity of Fashion which
deserves a censure: more--there is no act of disinterested love and
tenderness, no deed of self-sacrifice and mercy, no aspiration after
beauty and excellence, for which a single reason can be adduced in
logic."

To destroy the faith of Christians and lay the foundation for the
bloodiest war in history would seem enough to condemn Darwinism, but
there are still two other indictments to bring against it. First, that
it is the basis of the gigantic class struggle that is now shaking
society throughout the world. Both the capitalist and the labourer
are increasingly class conscious. Why? Because the doctrine of the
"Individual efficient for himself"--the brute doctrine of the "survival
of the fittest"--is driving men into a life-and-death struggle from
which sympathy and the spirit of brotherhood are eliminated. It is
transforming the industrial world into a slaughter-house.

Benjamin Kidd, in a masterful work, entitled, "The Science of Power,"
points out how Darwinism furnished Nietzsche with a scientific basis for
his godless system of philosophy and is demoralizing industry.

He also quotes eminent English scientists to support the last charge in
the indictment, namely, that Darwinism robs the reformer of hope. Its
plan of operation is to improve the race by "scientific breeding" on a
purely physical basis. A few hundred years may be required--possibly a
few thousand--but what is time to one who carries eons in his quiver and
envelopes his opponents in the "Mist of Ages"?

Kidd would substitute the "Emotion of the Ideal" for scientific breeding
and thus shorten the time necessary for the triumph of a social reform.
He counts one or two generations as sufficient. This is an enormous
advance over Darwin's doctrine, but Christ's plan is still more
encouraging. A man can be born again; the springs of life can be
cleansed instantly so that the heart loves the things that it formerly
hated and hates the things that it once loved. If this is true of _one_,
it can be true of _any number_. Thus, a nation can be born in a day if
the ideals of the people can be changed.

Many have tried to harmonize Darwinism with the Bible, but these
efforts, while honest and sometimes even agonizing, have not been
successful. How could they be when the natural and inevitable tendency
of Darwinism is to exalt the mind at the expense of the heart, to
overestimate the reliability of the reason as compared with faith and to
impair confidence in the Bible. The mind is a machine; it has no morals.
It obeys its owner as willingly when he plots to kill as when he plans
for service.

The Theistic evolutionist who tries to occupy a middle ground between
those who accept the Bible account of creation and those who reject God
entirely reminds one of a traveller in the mountains, who, having fallen
half-way down a steep slope, catches hold of a frail bush. It takes so
much of his strength to keep from going lower that he is useless as an
aid to others. Those who have accepted evolution in the belief that it
was not anti-Christian may well revise their conclusions in view of the
accumulating evidence of its baneful influence.

Darwinism discredits the things that are supernatural and encourages the
worship of the intellect--an idolatry as deadly to spiritual progress as
the worship of images made by human hands. The injury that it does would
be even greater than it is but for the moral momentum acquired by the
student before he comes under the blighting influence of the doctrine.

Many instances could be cited to show how the theory that man descended
from the brute has, when deliberately adopted, driven reverence from
the heart and made young Christians agnostics and sometimes
atheists--depriving them of the joy, and society of the service, that
come from altruistic effort inspired by religion.

I have recently read of a pathetic case in point. In the Encyclopaedia
Americana you will find a sketch of the life of George John Romanes,
from which the following extract is taken: "Romanes, George John,
English scientist. In 1879 he was elected fellow of the Royal Society
and in 1878 published, under the pseudonym 'Physicus,' a work entitled,
'A Candid Examination of Theism,' in which he took up a somewhat defiant
atheistic position. Subsequently his views underwent considerable
change; he revised the 'Candid Examination,' and, toward the close of
his life, was engaged on 'A Candid Examination of Religion,' in which
he returned to theistic beliefs. His notes for this work were published
after his death, under the title 'Thoughts on Religion,' edited by Canon
Gore. Romanes was an ardent supporter of Darwin and the evolutionists
and in various works sought to extend evolutionary principles to mind,
both in the lower animals and in the man. He wrote very extensively on
modern biological theories."

Let me use Romanes' own language to describe the disappointing
experiences of this intellectual "prodigal son." On page 180 of
"Thoughts on Religion" (written, as above stated, just before his death
but not published until after his demise) he says, "The views that I
entertained on this subject (Plan in Revelation) when an undergraduate
(_i.e._, the ordinary orthodox views) were abandoned in the presence of
the theory of Evolution."

It was the doctrine of Evolution that led him astray. He attempted to
employ reason to the exclusion of faith--with the usual result. He
abandoned prayer, as he explains on pages 142 and 143: "Even the
simplest act of will in regard to religion--that of prayer--has not been
performed by me for at least a quarter of a century, simply because it
has seemed impossible to pray, as it were, hypothetically, that, much as
I have always desired to be able to pray, I cannot will the attempt.
To justify myself for what my better judgment has often seemed to be
essentially irrational, I have ever made sundry excuses." "Others have
doubtless other difficulties, but mine is chiefly, I think, that of an
undue regard to reason as against heart and will--undue, I mean, if so
it be that Christianity is true, and the conditions to faith in it have
been of divine ordination."

In time he tired of the husks of materialism and started back to his
Father's house. It was a weary journey but as he plodded along, his
appreciation of the heart's part increased until, on pages 152 and 153,
he says, "It is a fact that we all feel the intellectual part of man to
be 'higher' than the animal, whatever our theory of his origin. It is
a fact that we all feel the moral part of man to be 'higher' than the
intellectual, whatever our theory of either may be. It is also a fact
that we all similarly feel the spiritual to be 'higher' than the moral,
whatever our theory of religion may be. It is what we understand
by man's moral, and still more his spiritual, qualities that go to
constitute character. And it is astonishing how in all walks of life it
is character that tells in the long run."

On page 150 he answered Huxley's attack on faith. He says, "Huxley,
in 'Lay Sermons,' says that faith has been proved a 'cardinal sin' by
science. Now this is true enough of credulity, superstition, etc., and
science has done no end of good in developing our ideas of method,
evidence, etc. But this is all on the side of intellect. 'Faith' is
not touched by such facts or considerations. And what a terrible hell
science would have made of the world, if she had abolished the 'spirit
of faith,' even in human relations."

In the days of his apostasy he "took it for granted," he says on page
164, "that Christianity was played out." When once his eyes were
reopened he vied with Paul himself in recognizing the superior quality
of love. On page 163 he quoted the eloquent lines of Bourdillon:

  The night has a thousand eyes,
    And the day but one;
  Yet the light of a whole world dies
    With the setting sun.

  The mind has a thousand eyes,
    And the heart but one;
  Yet the light of a whole life dies
    When love is done.

Having quoted this noble sentiment he adds: "Love is known to be all
this. How great then, is Christianity, as being the religion of love,
and causing men to believe both in the cause of love's supremacy and the
infinity of God's love to man."

But Romanes still clung to Evolution and, so far as his book discloses,
his mind would never allow his heart to commune with Darwin's far-away
God, whose creative power Romanes could not doubt but whose daily
presence he could not admit without abandoning his theory.

His is a typical case, but many of the wanderers never return to the
fold; they are lost sheep. If the doctrine were demonstrated to be true
its acceptance would, of course, be obligatory, but how can one bring
himself to assent to a series of assumptions when such a course is
accompanied by such a tremendous risk of spiritual loss?

If, as it does in so many instances, it causes the student to choose
Darwinism, with its intellectual delusions, and reject the Bible, with
the incalculable blessings that its heart-culture brings, what minister
of the Gospel or Christian professor can justify himself before the bar
of conscience if, by impairing confidence in the Word of God, he wrecks
human souls? All the intellectual satisfaction that Darwinism ever
brought to those who have accepted it will not offset the sorrow that
darkens a single life from which the brute theory of descent has shut
out the sunshine of God's presence and the companionship of Christ.
Here, too, we have the testimony of the distinguished scientist from
whom I have been quoting. In his first book--the attack on Theism--he
says: (page 29, "Thoughts on Religion") "I am not ashamed to confess
that with this virtual negation of God the universe to me has lost its
soul of loveliness; and, although from henceforth the precept to 'Work
while it is day' will doubtless gain an intensified force from the
terribly intensified meaning of the words that 'the night cometh when no
man can work,' yet when at times I think, as think at times I must, of
the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which
once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as now I find it,--at
such times I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of
which my nature is susceptible."

Romanes, during his college days, came under the influence of those
who worshipped the reason and this worship led him out into a starless
night. Have we not a right to demand something more than _guesses,
surmises,_ and _hypotheses_ before we exchange the "hallowed glory" of
the Christian creed for "the lonely mystery of existence" as Romanes
found it? Shall we at the behest of those who put the intellect
above the heart endorse an unproved doctrine of descent and share
responsibility for the wreckage of all that is spiritual in the lives of
our young people? I refuse to have any part in such responsibility. For
nearly twenty years I have gone from college to college and talked to
students. Wherever I could do so I have pointed out the demoralizing
influence of Darwinism. I have received thanks from many students who
were perplexed by the materialistic teachings of their instructors and I
have been encouraged by the approval of parents who were distressed by
the visible effects of these teachings on their children.

As many believers in Darwinism are led to reject the Bible let me, by
way of recapitulation, contrast that doctrine with the Bible:

Darwinism deals with nothing but life; the Bible deals with the entire
universe--with its masses of inanimate matter and with its myriads of
living things, all obedient to the will of the great Law Giver.

Darwin concerns himself with only that part of man's existence which is
spent on earth--while the Bible's teachings cover all of life, both here
and hereafter.

Darwin begins by assuming life upon the earth; the Bible reveals the
source of life and chronicles its creation.

Darwin devotes nearly all his time to man's body and to the points at
which the human frame approaches in structure--though vastly different
from--the brute; the Bible emphasizes man's godlike qualities and the
virtues which reflect the goodness of the Heavenly Father.

Darwinism ends in self-destruction. As heretofore shown, its progress is
suspended, and even defeated, by the very genius which it is supposed
to develop; the Bible invites us to enter fields of inexhaustible
opportunity wherein each achievement can be made a stepping-stone to
greater achievements still.

Darwin's doctrine is so brutal that it shocks the moral sense--the heart
recoils from it and refuses to apply the "hard reason" upon which it
rests; the Bible points us to the path that grows brighter with the
years.

Darwin's doctrine leads logically to war and to the worship of
Nietzsche's "Superman"; the Bible tells us of the Prince of Peace and
heralds the coming of the glad day when swords shall be beaten into
ploughshares and when nations shall learn war no more.

Darwin's teachings drag industry down to the brute level and excite a
savage struggle for selfish advantage; the Bible presents the claims of
an universal brotherhood in which men will unite their efforts in the
spirit of friendship.

As hope deferred maketh the heart sick, so the doctrine of Darwin
benumbs altruistic effort by prolonging indefinitely the time needed for
reforms; the Bible assures us of the triumph of every righteous cause,
reveals to the eye of faith the invisible hosts that fight on the side
of Jehovah and proclaims the swift fulfillment of God's decrees.

Darwinism puts God far away; the Bible brings God near and establishes
the prayer-line of communication between the Heavenly Father and His
children.

Darwinism enthrones selfishness; the Bible crowns love as the greatest
force in the world.

Darwinism offers no reason for existence and presents no philosophy of
life; the Bible explains why man is here and gives us a code of morals
that fits into every human need.

The great need of the world to-day is to get back to God--back to a real
belief in a living God--to a belief in God as Creator, Preserver
and loving Heavenly Father. When one believes in a personal God and
considers himself a part of God's plan he will be anxious to know God's
will and to do it, seeking direction through prayer and made obedient
through faith.

Man was made in the Father's image; he enters upon the stage, the climax
of Jehovah's plan. He is superior to the beasts of the field, greater
than any other created thing--but a little lower than the angels. God
made him for a purpose, placed before him infinite possibilities and
revealed to him responsibilities commensurate with the possibilities.
God beckons man upward and the Bible points the way; man can obey and
travel toward perfection by the path that Christ revealed, or man can
disobey and fall to a level lower, in some respects, than that of the
brutes about him. Looking heavenward man can find inspiration in his
lineage; looking about him he is impelled to kindness by a sense of
kinship which binds him to his brothers. Mighty problems demand his
attention; a world's destiny is to be determined by him. What time
has he to waste in hunting for "missing links" or in searching for
resemblances between his forefathers and the ape? In His Image--in this
sign we conquer.

We are not progeny of the brute; we have not been forced upward by a
blind pushing-power; neither have we tumbled upward by chance. It is a
drawing-power--not a pushing-power--that rules the world--a power which
finds its highest expression in Christ who promised: "I, if I be lifted
up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."



V

THE LARGER LIFE


I have chosen this subject because I have found some young men, and even
some young women, who seem to misunderstand the invitation extended
by the Master. The call of the Gospel falls, at times, upon deaf ears
because religion is regarded as a thing that is necessary only when one
comes to prepare himself for the life beyond. In earlier times many
Christians misinterpreted the Christian religion and, withdrawing
themselves from companionship with their fellows, devoted their time
wholly to preparation of themselves for heaven. _Christ went about doing
good_.

I present my appeal to the young to accept Christ and to enter upon the
life He prescribes, not because they may _die_ soon but because they may
_live_. They need Christ as their Saviour _now_ and they need Him
as their guide throughout life. Some complain of the Parable of the
Vineyard because the man who began work at the eleventh hour received
the same pay as those who toiled all day. Surely, those who complain
have not tasted the joys of a Christian life. No one who follows the
teachings of Christ will begrudge the reward promised to those who
repent at the last moment and are saved. The eleventh-hour Christians
are the ones to mourn because they have lost the happiness that they
would have found in service during the livelong day.

Young people sometimes postpone becoming Christians on the ground that
they want to have a good time for a while longer. Who can be happier
than the Christian? Our religion fits into the needs of all of every
age. If there are any amusements enjoyed by the world from which members
of the church feel it a duty to abstain it is because more wholesome
amusements crowd out the objectionable ones. It ought not to be
necessary to forbid a Christian to do harmful things; he ought to avoid
them because he has no taste for them--because he finds more real
pleasure and more enduring satisfaction in the things that are innocent
and helpful.

There is another class to which I desire to address myself to-day,
namely, those who call themselves more liberal than Christians--who look
upon our religion as narrowing in its influence. Christianity is the
broadest of creeds because it takes in everything that touches human
life, here and hereafter. The Christian life is the most comprehensive
life known; it is as deep as the heart; it is as wide as the world; and
it is as high as heaven.

Paul, the great Apostle, tells us that Christ came to "bring life and
immortality to light"--not immortality alone, but life also, and the
word Life comes before the word Immortality.

But we have higher authority even than Paul. Christ, in explaining His
mission, said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might
have it more abundantly." It is to the _more abundant_ life that Christ
calls us. He was the master of mathematics, yet He used only addition
and multiplication; subtraction has no place in His philosophy.

Let me illustrate, as I see it, the gift that Christ brings to man. Let
us suppose that the people living in an agricultural section had, by
intelligent cultivation, brought from the soil all that it could yield
in material wealth. If a stranger came into the community and announced
that the people, by sinking a shaft one hundred feet deep, could find
a vein of coal, they would, if they believed the statement true,
immediately sink a shaft; and, if they found the coal, they would add
it to the wealth that they derived from the surface of the ground. They
would be grateful to the person who told them of the additional riches
which they possessed but of which they were not aware. They might not
think to thank him immediately--they might be too busy acquiring money
to express their gratitude. But after the man was dead, if not before,
they would pause long enough to erect a monument to testify to their
appreciation of the service he had rendered.

And, to complete the illustration, suppose after the people had adjusted
themselves to the added income, another stranger appeared and assured
them that, if they would sink the shaft one hundred feet deeper, they
would find a vein of precious metals from which to draw money enough to
purchase everything everywhere that the heart could wish. They would,
if they gave credit to his statement, dig down and find gold and silver
and, with still greater joy, add this new possession to those that
they already had. Again they would be grateful. They might not express
themselves during the benefactor's life, but after a while visitors to
the community would see two monuments reared by grateful hands to those
who had brought blessings to the neighbourhood.

This illustration presents the idea that I would impress upon you,
namely, that Christ came to _add_ to all the good things man possessed
without requiring the surrender of any good thing in exchange. Long
before the coming of Christ man had taken possession of the body and had
gathered from it all the joys that the flesh can yield. Man had also
explored the farther reaches of the mind and possessed himself of the
delights of the intellect. Christ not only brought redemption but opened
to man the vision of a spiritual world and showed him what infinite
greatness the Father has placed within the reach of one made in His
image, if he will only use the powers that he has--powers unknown to him
until revealed by the Spirit.

Every human being is travelling every day in one direction or the
other--either upward toward the highest plane that man can reach, or
downward toward the lowest level to which man can fall; Christ gives us
a vision of our possibilities and the strength to realize them.

If Christ had demanded something in return for the great gifts that
He came to bestow man might be justified in asking for time for
investigation. He would want to weigh the value of that which is
offered against the value of that which must be given up. To do this
intelligently would require a long period of training and ample time for
comparison. The difficulty is even greater, for it would be impossible
for one to weigh or calculate in advance the value of those things which
are spiritually discerned. He could see the body; he could comprehend
the mind; but he could not know the inestimable value of the things
that Christ offers. But how can he hesitate when Christ demands not one
single sacrifice, but gives, as the spring gives, desiring nothing in
return except appreciation which it is pleasant to manifest?

The Saviour not only gives without reducing the other enjoyments, but
His gift increases the value of that which we have. The body without
control will exhaust itself--actually wear itself out in the very riot
of pleasure. It is only when the body is the servant of a spiritual
master that it can develop its greatest strength and prolong its vigour.

Two illustrations suggest themselves. The use of intoxicants has wrought
disaster since man came upon the earth. Drink is not only ruinous when
used continuously and in large quantities, but it is injurious even when
used moderately. The life insurance tables show that a young man who, at
the age of twenty-one, begins the regular use of intoxicating liquors,
reduces his expectancy by more than ten per cent., or more than four
years in forty. That is the average. In proportion as the body is left
to its own control the appetite becomes destructive of the body itself
as well as of the body's value to others. Just in proportion as the body
is under spiritual control is it in position to enjoy itself and to
extend the period of enjoyment.

Reference need hardly be made to the diseases that follow in the wake of
immorality. The wages of sin is death--death to the body, death to the
mind and death to the soul. Races have rotted and passed into oblivion
because the body was put in command of the life. Both drunkenness and
unchastity curse the generations that follow as well as the generations
that are guilty--the sins of the fathers and mothers being visited upon
the children and children's children.

And so, too, with the mind; it would run wild but for the sovereign
soul of man. There are temptations that come through the
intellect--temptations that are as destructive as those that come
through the body. Only when the mind is guided and directed by a
spiritual conception of life is it capable of its highest and noblest
work.

The soul is greater than the mind as it is greater than the body. Would
you have proof? Recall the days of the martyrs. What is it in man that
can take the body and hold it in the fire until the flames consume the
quivering flesh? The soul of man that can coerce the body to its death
is greater than the body itself. And the soul is likewise greater than
the mind. It can take the imperial mind of man, purge it of vanity and
egotism and infuse into it the spirit of humility and a passion for
service. The soul that can thus harness the mind and make it bear the
burdens of the World is greater than the mind itself.

Remember, also, that the spiritual gifts which Jesus bestows are vastly
richer than all that man possessed before. Who can measure the value
of salvation--the peace that comes with sins forgiven and the joy of
constant communion with the Heavenly Father whom Christ reveals? And,
then, consider the moral code that is revolutionizing the world. I only
have time to mention a few of the fundamental teachings of Christ.

Christ gave the world a new definition of love. Husbands had loved their
wives and wives their husbands; parents had loved their children,
and children their parents; and friend had loved friend, but Christ
proclaimed a love as boundless as the sea.

Christ founded a religion and built a Church on love--on love, the
greatest force in the world. Love furnishes an armour which no weapon
can pierce. When physical warfare is forgotten, love will still call its
hosts to battle; the effort then will be, not to kill one another but to
excel in doing good.

Christ has been called "_visionary"_--that is a favourite word with
those who pride themselves upon being practical. But as a matter of
fact, one of the great virtues of Christ's teachings is that they are
_practical_. He deals with the every-day things of ordinary life and in
His quiet way irons out difficulties and makes rough paths smooth. His
philosophy is easily comprehended and readily applied. His words need no
interpretation; they are the words of the people, the language of the
masses. If He were a teacher of rhetoric He would surpass all other
teachers because the art of discourse reaches its maximum in His
sentences. The learned sometimes speak over the heads of their hearers,
using words that are unusual and long-drawn-out. Jesus talked to the
multitude and they not only understood Him but "_the common people heard
him gladly."_

Let me recall to your minds just a few illustrations of the simplicity
of His thought and language. Take, for instance, the supreme virtue,
love, upon which He always places emphasis. Note how He weaves it into
human experience.

    "Therefore," He says (Matt. 5:23), "if thou bring thy gift to the
    altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against
    thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be
    reconciled to thy brother."

Reconciliation is preferred to sacrifice. The gift upon the altar can
wait; but enmity between brothers must have attention at once. What
infinite woe and heartache will be prevented when this lesson is learned
and applied throughout the world. What untold blessings will be realized
when even among those who profess the name of Christ it is always
employed. A word spoken in anger has often cost a life because neither
party to the quarrel was big enough to obey the best promptings of the
heart and beg pardon. Families have been rent asunder; communities have
been divided; nations have gone to war, just because some one lacked
the spirit of the Saviour and refused the plain and easy road to
reconciliation. Well may religious rites be suspended for the moment
while love removes offense and binds together hearts that were
estranged. We know that "To err is human," and we believe that "To
forgive is divine;" to _ask_ forgiveness requires as much grace as to
forgive.

In his first epistle (chapter 4:2) John makes a striking application of
Christ's doctrine of love: "If a man say 'I love God' and hateth his
brother, he is a liar."

These are harsh words but the Apostle was dealing with a very serious
subject, viz., the glaring inconsistency between love of God and hatred
of a brother.

There are many ways in which one can manifest hatred of his brother, and
it must be remembered that hatred is a sin that is proven by acts rather
than admitted. First, there is indifference--a wide-spread sin--and
it is to be found inside the church as well as outside. As love is a
positive virtue, a failure to love is a violation of obligations. A
participation in the services of the church, even communion at the
Lord's Table--does not always awaken in Christians the interest they
should feel in each other.

If I may be permitted to illustrate my thought, allow me to call
attention to the fact that church members are sometimes compelled to pay
cut-throat rates for short-time loans when there are within the same
congregation members who are loaning at lawful rates to non-church
members. Does it not seem incredible that the money of Christians is
available for the outside world and yet not within reach of needy
brethren? It would be easy for each church to organize within its
membership a loan society and use the money supplied by the well-to-do
for the accommodation of those temporarily embarrassed. Sometimes the
chattel mortgage sharks collect one hundred per cent, or more and the
banks, which are established for the purpose of making small short-time
loans, usually collect twenty to thirty per cent. Why should a church
member be driven to these extremities when the loanable money in the
church is sufficient for all needs? Surely church membership ought to
be better security for a small amount than either a chattel or a real
estate mortgage.

Another illustration; the fraternities are splendid organizations and
are founded on high principles, but the church might be expected to do
for its members some of the work left to fraternities. They care for the
sick and bury the dead! Is it not a reflection on the church that its
members should ever be compelled to go outside for assistance in such
emergencies?

There are many other forms of indifference, but indifference is the
least harmful of the manifestations of the lack of brotherhood. We have
cases of positive and deliberate injury practiced against those who
stand in the relation of brothers. We have had a riot of exploitation in
this country; profiteering has been carried on on an appalling scale:
men have been thrusting their larcenous hands into the pockets of their
church brethren, as well as into the pockets of the public.

We have also the unequal combat between the tax-eater and the taxpayer,
and we have the perennial conflict between the different groups of
taxpayers, each trying to shift the burden onto the other, not to speak
of that very considerable company who, for profit, cultivate vice as the
farmer cultivates his crops. All conscious and deliberate injustice is
proof of hatred and to such as engage in such wrong-doing the language
of John ought to come as a stinging rebuke. It would work a revolution
in society as well as in the Church if all the members proved their love
of God by fair dealing with their fellowmen.

Christ confines Himself usually to the laying down of broad, fundamental
principles instead of supplying rules and formulae. He cleanses the
heart and then gives to life the law of love which should pervade all
human relationships, as the law of gravitation pervades the universe.
But the Master at times went from generalities into details, making the
path of duty so plain that no one can excuse himself if he strays there
form.

An illustration is found in Matthew's Gospel, chapter 25:34-46.

    Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
    blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
    foundation of the world:

    For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
    gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

    Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
    prison, and ye came unto me.

    Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
    an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

    When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed
    thee?

    Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

    And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto
    you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
    brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
    ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
    angels:

    For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye
    gave me no drink:

    I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
    not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

    Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
    an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
    prison, and did not minister unto thee?

    Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
    as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me.

    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
    righteous into life eternal.

No one should waste time in waiting for some great opportunity for
service; there are opportunities everywhere. It is impossible for man to
render any service to Jehovah Himself. There is nothing that we can do
for Him except to love Him with heart and mind and soul and strength. It
is _to the neighbour_ that we pay the debt that we owe to the Heavenly
Father; it is _through the neighbour_ that we publish to the world our
real selves. This is, like music, an universal language that all can
understand.

Nietzsche, the atheistic philosopher, gave to one of his books the title
"Joyful Wisdom"--an absurd misnomer. That which he mistook for joy was
the delirium of an unbalanced mind. The philosophy of _Christ_ might
with propriety be called Joyful Wisdom; it leads one into the path of
happiness that is real and permanent.

Carl Hilty, a Swiss writer, has published a book entitled "Happiness,"
in which he points out that, as those have the poorest health who spend
their time travelling from one health resort to another looking for
it, so those are least happy who do nothing but hunt for pleasure. He
insists that to be happy one must have employment for the hands, the
head and the heart. The hands must be busy, the mind must be occupied,
and the heart must be satisfied.

Christ leads His followers into happiness through this route. No one
who partakes of His spirit can be an idler. The world is full of work
awaiting labourers; the harvest is ripe. Those who try to imitate Christ
will be planning for the extension of His Kingdom and for the comfort
of God's creatures. The heart of the Christian--the center of life and
love--will find satisfaction in being in sympathetic touch with all that
is good and noble.

I have dwelt upon this point because the worldly are in the habit of
picturing the Christian life as gloomy and forbidding. It is a libel; a
long-faced Christian is a poor Christian, if a Christian at all. "Be of
good cheer," is a Christian salutation; Christ used it repeatedly. In
Matthew 9:2 He said to the man sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good
cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee."

In Matthew 14:27 He quieted the fears of His disciples, "Be of good
cheer; it is I; be not afraid." In John 16:33 He inspired the Apostles,
"Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

Here we have three of the greatest sources of happiness--Forgiveness of
sins: the presence of the Saviour and triumph over the world.

In Acts we find Him using the same words in addressing Paul and later
Paul uses them in encouraging his companions.

Religion--real, heartfelt religion--transforms its possessor. It moulds
the disposition and disposition determines expression. No beauty doctor
can make a face as winsome as the face of one whose heart overflows with
loving kindness; just as no face specialist can impose from without such
lines of strength and intelligence as can be written upon it by the
thoughts that pass through the brain.

The Christian life is the simple life. Charles Wagner sounded a note
that echoed around the world when, some two decades ago, he issued his
eloquent protest against the burdensome complexities of modern life. He
made a plea for the natural life in which each individual will be his
own master instead of being the servant of his possessions. Wagner's
book, though first published in Paris, had a larger circulation in the
United States than in any other nation--not because our people have
wandered farther than others into artificial social forms, but because
they are sensitive to high ideals and free to reject harmful customs.

Social intercourse should be an expression of friendship, and friendship
is both embarrassed and obscured by vulgar display. The home should be a
place of rest, where congenial spirits can gather for communion. There
is nothing edifying or satisfying in the mere comparing of apparel.
The aim of entertainment should be to refresh the guest and stimulate
friendship; the end is defeated by a rivalry in extravagance that
awakens concern as to one's ability to return courtesies extended. The
increasing costliness of social functions not only robs entertainment
of the enjoyment that it is intended to bring, but it leads many
young couples to ruin themselves financially in an effort to keep up
appearances and pay their social debts. It is impossible to calculate
the benefit which would be brought to the social world if Christ's
spirit could pervade it and infuse into it a wholesome sincerity and
frankness. Christ put the accent on the things that are worthy and
banished the shallow pretenses upon which so much time is wasted and so
much money squandered.

Christ gave the world a balm for that worry that is more wearing than
work. He condemned the petty vanities and irritating anxieties. He
taught a perfect trust that leads one to do his best and then leave the
result with the Heavenly Father who is ever near and always ready to
give good gifts to His children.

In Matthew 6, we find this soothing rebuke:

    Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
    shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
    shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
    raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do
    they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feedeth
    them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking
    thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought
    for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they
    toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That
    even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
    Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is,
    and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe
    you, O ye of little faith?

Reasoning unanswerable. He argues from the less to the greater and with
incomparable beauty woos man away from the distracting thoughts that
dissipate his strength without yielding him any advantage. The Creator
who cares for the birds will not forget man made in His image; He
who clothes the fields in the beauty of the flower and gives to the
trembling blade of grass the nourishment that it needs for its fleeting
day, will not desert man, His supreme handiwork.

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," is a rebuke aimed at
those who borrow trouble. Let not the past distress you--it has gone
beyond recall; let not the morrow intrude upon you--it will bring its
cargo of cares when it comes. Man lives in the present and can claim
only the moment as it passes, but Christ teaches him how to so use each
hour as to make the days that are gone an echoing delight and the days
that are yet to come a radiant hope.

Christ has been called a sentimentalist. Let it be admitted; it is no
reproach. He is the inexhaustible source of sentiment, and sentiment
rules the world. "The dreamer lives forever; the toiler dies in a day."

A striking illustration of the emphasis that Christ placed upon
sentiment is found in Matthew 26:7-13:

    There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious
    ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. But when his
    disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is
    this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and
    given to the poor. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why
    trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For
    ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. For in
    that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my
    burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be
    preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman
    hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Eight verses devoted to an alabaster box of ointment! This is more space
than was given to many incidents seemingly more important, and at the
very crisis of His career, too. But who will estimate the value of this
narrative?

Judas complained that it was an inexcusable waste of money--Judas, the
thief, as Mark calls him, pretended concern about the poor. The poor
have received immeasurably more from the use made of this ointment than
they would have received had it been sold and the proceeds distributed
then. It was an expression of love, and love is the treasury box from
which the poor can always draw. That box of ointment has spread its
fragrance over nineteen hundred years. Give a man bread and he hungers
again; give him clothing and his clothing will wear out; but give him
an ideal--something to look up to through life--and it will be with him
through every waking hour lifting him to a higher plane and filling his
life with the beauty and the bounty of service. The money spent for a
loaf of bread may stay the pangs of hunger for a few brief hours,
but the same amount invested in the "bread of life" will give one an
inexhaustible feast. A drink of water refreshes for the moment; the
same amount invested in the "water of life" may make of one a spring
overflowing with blessings.

A Bible costs a few cents and yet upon it may be built a life that is
worth millions to the human race. It was a Bible that made William Ewart
Gladstone for a generation the world's greatest Christian statesman;
it was a Bible that made José Rodrigues for a quarter of a century the
greatest moral force in Brazil. The Bible has given us great leaders in
the United States. It is the Bible that has sent missionaries throughout
the world to plant in little communities everywhere the teachings of the
greatest of sentimentalists--and, at the same time, the most practical
of philosophers. Christ has taught us the true value of those things
which touch the heart and, through the heart, move the world.

"Suffer little children to come unto me;" Christ used the child to
admonish those older grown. The Church is following in His footsteps
when it makes the child the subject of constant thought and solicitude.
It is when we deal with the child that we get the clearest conception of
the superiority of faith over reason. The foundations of character are
laid in faith and not in reason; they are laid before the reason can be
accepted as a guide. No one who exalts reason above faith can lead a
child to God, but a child can understand the love of the Saviour and the
tender care of the Heavenly Father. For this reason the Sunday school
increases in importance. Its lessons build character; its songs echo
throughout our lives.

The law arbitrarily fixes the age of twenty-one as the age of legal
maturity. No matter how precocious a young man be, the presumption of
law is against his intelligence until he is twenty-one. He cannot vote;
he cannot make a valid deed to a piece of land. Why? His reason is not
mature, and yet the moral principles that control his life are implanted
before he reaches that age. His ideals come into his life long before
the reason can be regarded as a safe guide. Before the reason is mature
he believes in God or has rejected God. If he lives in a Christian
community he has accepted the Bible as the Word of God or rejected it
as the work of man; if he is acquainted with Christ he has accepted or
rejected Him. A child's heart cannot remain a vacuum. It is filled with
reverence or irreverence. Those who think that the mind can remain
unbiassed until one becomes of age and then be able to render impartial
decisions, know little of human experience. Love comes first, reason
afterward; the child obeys and later learns why it should obey. Morality
rests upon religion and religion, taking hold upon the heart, exercises
a control far greater than any logic can exercise over the mind.

Look back over your lives and see how much of real moral principle you
have added since you became of age. You can better explain your faith;
your will is more firm, your determination more deeply rooted, but what
new seed of morality has been sown since you reached the age when the
reason is presumed to be mature?

While Christianity builds upon the affirmations of the New Testament and
the positive virtues taught by the Saviour it is loyal, as Christ was,
to the Commandments which God gave to the people through Moses. Most of
these commandments--those relative to man's duty to man--are written
unto the statutes of state and nation; they form the basis of our laws.
Those which relate to man's duty to God and which are not, therefore,
legally binding are binding on the conscience of Christians.

The Christian Church from its earliest beginnings has enforced respect
for parents. Parental authority is not only essential to the child's
welfare during youth but it is necessary as a foundation upon which to
build respect for government and for laws. The Christian home is the
nursery of the State as well as of the Church. Loyalty to God and
loyalty to government are easily learned by those who from infancy are
taught obedience to those who have the right to instruct and direct.

The Christian Church stands also for Sabbath observance. The right
to worship God according to the dictates of one's conscience is an
inalienable right and any attempt to interfere with the full and free
exercise of this right would and should arouse universal protest. Those
who do not worship at all have no fear of molestation, but freedom of
conscience is not interfered with by laws that provide opportunity for
rest and guarantee leisure for worship.

Man's body needs relaxation from toil and man's mind needs leisure as
well. These needs are so obvious that they are universally admitted.
The spiritual nature requires refreshment also and this need is as
imperative as the needs of body and brain. As the spiritual man is the
dominant force in life and the measure of the individual's usefulness,
the nation cannot be less concerned about the people's spiritual growth
and welfare than about their health and intellectual strength.

It is both natural and proper that the day which is observed religiously
by the general public should be selected as the day of rest also,
respect being shown to those who conscientiously observe another day.
Differences of opinion may exist in different localities as to what
should be permitted on the Sabbath day, but experience has supported two
propositions: first, that every citizen should be guaranteed _time_
for rest and for worship, and, second, that every citizen should be
guaranteed the _peace_ and _quiet_ necessary for both rest and worship.

Here, as in nearly every other issue that concerns human welfare, the
controversy is not between those who differ in opinions as to what
is right and proper but between those, on the one side, who have a
pecuniary interest in the promotion of things which are objectionable,
and those, on the other, who seek to promote the common good. In
other words, it is the old conflict between money and morals: between
selfishness and the public weal.

While Christ was all love and all compassion and all tenderness He never
hesitated to draw the line and draw it rigidly against folly as well as
against sin. The parable of the Ten Virgins is a case in point. Five
were wise and five were foolish, the evidence of the difference being
found in the fact that five were prudent enough to supply themselves
with oil sufficient for an emergency. The other five, lacking wisdom,
took only the oil that they could carry in their lamps. When the need
came the foolish turned to the wise and said, "Give us of your oil," but
the wise refused lest they should not have enough for themselves and
the others. Were they censured? No. The parable teaches one of the most
important lessons to be learned in life, namely, that the foolish cannot
be saved from punishment. It is punishment that converts folly into
wisdom and saves the world from a race of fools.

The parable has wide-spread application. The foolish parent cannot be
saved from the sorrow inflicted by a spoiled child; the idle cannot be
saved from hunger and want; the lazy cannot be given the rewards of the
diligent. The success that attends effort and rewards character cannot
be awarded to the undeserving without paralyzing all the incentives to
virtue and industry. Christ came not to destroy the law--either that
revealed in the Word of God or that which was written on nature--He came
to fulfill. In the brief years that He taught His disciples and the
multitude He quoted the law and illustrated it. He did not come to
relieve men of responsibility--He came to light the way--"That they
might have life and that they might have it more abundantly."

Christ's doctrines are not limited in time or to numbers. They apply to
everybody and last for all time. Paul, in Romans 12: 20, interprets the
Master's teachings and applies them. "Therefore, if thine enemy hunger,
feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap
coals of fire on his head." How different this way of dealing from the
way the carnal man acts, and yet who can question the wisdom of the
Saviour's plan? Hatred begets hatred; retaliation invites retaliation
and the feud grows. The mountains of Kentucky have furnished numerous
illustrations of the futility of revenge. Families were arrayed against
families and sons took up inherited hatreds and died violent deaths
bequeathing the spirit of revenge to their descendants.

We see the same false philosophy at work among nations. One war lays the
foundation for another; generation after generation is sworn to avenge
the crimes of preceding generations; and much of it is done in the name
of patriotism and glorified as if it were service to the country.

Paul gives us the remedy and it is based upon the injunction that Jesus
gave, namely, Love your enemies. Feeding an enemy is more effective than
threats of punishment. It is a manifestation of love, and love is the
weapon for which there is no shield. The philosophy that Paul applies
to the individual is just as effective when applied to larger groups.
Nations that have been at war cannot be reconciled by the methods of
war. They can be suppressed by force but unless won by friendship there
can be no reunion.

Paul concludes this chapter with a command "Be not overcome of evil, but
overcome evil with good." There never was a time in the world's history
when this kind of doctrine was more imperatively needed for the healing
of the wounds of the unprecedented conflict through which the world has
passed. Christ has a remedy: Let the wrongs of the past be forgiven
and forgotten; let the world be invited to build on friendship and
cooperation. Let the rivalry be in the showing of magnanimity. Who dares
to say that the plan will fail? The alternative policy has failed and
failed miserably. Why not employ the only untried remedy for the ills
which afflict civilization?

And the gifts of the Man of Galilee are permanent; they survive the
tomb. As one nears the end of life he becomes conscious of an inner
longing to attach himself to institutions that will outlive him. His
affections having gone out to his fellows, and his heart having entwined
itself with the causes that embrace all humankind, he does not like to
drop out and be forgotten. His sympathies expand and sympathy is the
real blood of the heart, forced by the pulsations of that major organ
through all the arteries of society. Have you thought how few of each
generation are remembered after death by any one outside of a small
circle of friends? We have an hundred millions of people living in the
largest republic in history--one of the greatest nations the world has
ever known--and yet how many names will survive for a century after
those who bore the names are buried? The vanity of man is rebuked by a
visit to any old, neglected cemetery. As Bryant puts it

  "The world will laugh when thou art gone
  And solemn brood of care plod on
  And each one as before will chase his favourite
      phantom."

It is partly to escape this dread oblivion that men and women, blessed
with means, endow hospitals and colleges and charitable institutions.
They yearn for an immortality on earth as well as in the world beyond,
and nothing but the spiritual has promise of the life everlasting.

If we examine our expense accounts we will be ashamed to note how large
a proportion of our money we spend on the _body_. We buy it the food
that it most enjoys, and the raiment that most adorns it; we give it
habitations of comfort and beauty, and yet the body is responsible for
most of our easily besetting sins and its aches and pains fill life with
much of its misery. We spend the first twenty years of life in an effort
to develop the body, the second twenty years of life in an effort to
keep it in a state of health and twenty more trying to preserve it from
decline, and then the threescore years have passed. And, no matter how
successful we may be in lifting the body toward physical perfection, we
have no assurance that any physical perfection can be made use of in the
world above. I believe in the resurrection of but I have not spent much
time during the later years in worrying about what particular body I
shall have over there. According to the scientists the body changes
every seven years. If that be true, I have done little more than
exchange an old body for a new one during the more than sixty years that
I have lived. I had a baby body and a boy's body, then the body of a
young man, and so on until I am now well along with my ninth body. I do
not know which one of these will be best for me in the next world, but
I know that the God who made this world and gave me an existence in
it will give me, in the land beyond, the body that will best serve me
there.

Neither have we any assurance that the perfections of the mind survive
the day of death. We spend a great deal of time on the mind, for this is
an age of intellectual enthusiasm. My experience has not been different
from the experience of others. My mother taught me at home until I was
ten; then my parents sent me to the public school until I was fifteen;
then I spent two years in an academy preparing for college; then four
years in college and then two years in a law school. After nearly twenty
years of schooling I took part in my last "Commencement," and then I
began to learn, and have been learning ever since. I have accumulated
something of history, something of science, a bit of poetry and
philosophy, and I have read speeches without number. I have accumulated
a large amount of information on politics and politicians that I know I
shall not need in Heaven, if Heaven is half as good a place as I
expect it to be. How much of the intellectual wealth that we have so
laboriously acquired can we carry with us? We do not know.

But we know that that which is spiritual does not die--that the heart
virtues will accompany us when we enter the future life. In the parable
of the Tares, Christ explains that, just as the tares and the wheat grow
together until the harvest, so the righteous and the unrighteous live
together in this world, but that on the day of judgment they shall be
separated. Then shall the righteous "shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father." We have no promise that the body will shine
even as a star, or that the mind will shine even as one of the planets,
but the sun in its splendour is used to illustrate the brightness with
which those will shine who are counted righteous in that day.

I esteem it a privilege to be permitted to present the claims of the
Larger Life to which Jesus, the Christ, calls all of the children of
men. Why will one choose a life that is small and contracted, when there
is within his reach the life that is full and complete--the Larger Life?
Why will he be content with the pleasures of the body and the joys of
the mind when he can have added to them the delights of the spirit? How
can he delay acceptance of Christ's offer to ennoble that which he has,
and to add to it the things that are highest and best and most enduring?
This is the life that Christ brought to light when He came that men
might have _life_ and have it more _abundantly_.



VI

THE VALUE OF THE SOUL


The fact that Christ dealt with this subject is proof conclusive that
it is important, for He never dealt with trivial things. When Christ
focused attention upon a theme it was because it was worthy of
consideration--and Christ weighed the soul. He presented the subject,
too, with surpassing force; no one will ever add to what He said. Christ
used the question to give emphasis to the thought which He presented in
regard to the soul's value.

On one side He put the world and all that the world can contain--all the
wealth that one can accumulate, all the fame to which one can aspire,
and all the happiness that one can covet; and on the other side He
put the soul, and asked the question that has come ringing down the
centuries: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and
lose his own soul?"

There is no compromise here--no partial statement of the matter. He
leaves us to write one term of the equation ourselves. He gives us all
the time we desire, and allows the imagination to work to the limit, and
when we have gathered together into one sum all things but the soul, He
asks--What if you gain it all--ALL--ALL, and lose the soul? What is the
profit?

Some have thought the soul question a question of the next world only,
but it is a question of this world also; some have thought the soul
question a Sabbath-day question only, but it is a week-day question as
well; some have thought the soul question a question for the ministers
alone, but it is a question which we all must meet. Every day and every
week, every month and every year, from the time we reach the period of
accountability until we die, we--each of us--all of us, weigh the soul;
and just in proportion as we put the soul above all things else we
build character; the moment we allow the soul to become a matter of
merchandise, we start on the downward way.

Tolstoy says that if you would investigate the career of a criminal it
is not sufficient to begin with the commission of a crime; that you must
go back to that day in his life when he deliberately trampled upon his
conscience and did that which he knew to be wrong. And so with all of
us, the turning point in the life is the day when we surrender the soul
for something that for the time being seems more desirable.

Most of the temptations that come to us to sell the soul come in
connection with the getting of money. The Bible says, "The love of money
is the root of all evil." Or, as the Revised Version gives it, "A root
of all kinds of evil."

Because so many of our temptations come through the love of money and
the effort to obtain it, it is worth while to consider the laws of
accumulation. We must all have money; we need food and clothing and
shelter, and money is necessary for the purchase of these things. Money
is not an evil in itself--money is, in fact, a very useful servant. It
is bad only when it becomes the master, and the love of it is hurtful
only because it can, and often does, crowd out the love of nobler
things.

But since we must all use money and must in our active days store up
money for the days when our strength fails, let us see if we can agree
upon God's law of rewards. (See lecture on "His Government and Peace.")

How much money can a man rightfully collect from society? Surely, there
can be no disagreement here. He cannot rightfully collect more than he
honestly earns. If a man collects more than he earns, he collects what
somebody else has earned, and we call it stealing if a man takes that
which belongs to another. Not only is a man limited in his collection of
what he honestly earns, but will an honest man _desire_ to collect more
than he earns?

If a man cannot rightfully collect more than he honestly earns, it is
then a matter of the utmost importance to know how much money a man can
honestly earn. I venture an answer to this, namely, that a man cannot
honestly earn more than fairly measures the value of the service which
he renders to society. I cannot conceive of any way of earning money
except to give to society a service equivalent in value to the money
collected. This is a fundamental proposition and it is important that it
should be clearly understood, for if one desires to collect largely from
society he must be prepared to render a large service to society; and
our schools and colleges, our churches and all other organizations
for the improvement of man have for one of their chief objects the
enlargement of the capacity for service.

There is an apparent exception in the case of an inheritance, but it is
not a real exception, for if the man who leaves the money has honestly
earned it, he has already given society a service of equivalent value
and, therefore, has a right to distribute it. And money received by
inheritance is either payment for service already rendered, or payment
in advance for service to be rendered. No right-minded person will
accept money, even by inheritance, without recognizing the obligation
it imposes to render a service in return. This service is not always
rendered to the one from whom this money is received, but often to
society in general. In fact, most of the blessings which we receive come
to us in such a way that we cannot distinguish the donors and must make
our return to the whole public. If one is not compelled to work for
himself he has the larger pleasure of working for the public.

But I need not dwell upon this, because in this country more than
anywhere else in the world we appreciate the dignity of labour and
understand that it is honourable to serve. And yet there is room for
improvement, for all over our land there are, scattered here and there,
young men and young women--and even parents--who still think that it is
more respectable for a young man to spend in idleness the money some one
else has earned than to be himself a producer of wealth. As long as this
sentiment is to be found anywhere there is educational work to be done,
for public opinion will never be what it ought to be until it puts the
badge of disgrace upon the idler, no matter how rich he may be, rather
than upon the man who with brain or muscle contributes to the Nation's
wealth, the Nation's strength and the Nation's progress.

But, as I said, the inheritance is an apparent, not an actual,
exception, and we will return to the original proposition--that one's
earnings must be measured by the service rendered. This is so vital a
proposition that I beg leave to dwell upon it a moment longer, to ask
whether it is possible to fix in dollars and cents a maximum limit to
the amount one can earn in a lifetime.

Let us begin with one hundred thousand dollars. If we estimate a working
life at thirty-three and one-third years--and I think this is a fair
estimate--a man must earn _three_ thousand dollars per year on an
average for thirty-three and one-third years to earn one hundred
thousand dollars in a lifetime. I take it for granted that no one will
deny that it is possible for one to earn this sum by rendering a service
equal to it in value, but what shall we say of a million dollars? Can a
man earn that much? To do so he must earn _thirty_ thousand dollars a
year for thirty-three and one-third years. Is it possible for one to
render so large a service? I believe it is. Well, what shall we say
of ten millions? To earn that much one must earn on an average _three
hundred_ thousand dollars a year for thirty-three and one-third years.
Is it possible for one to render a service so large as to earn so vast
a sum? At the risk of shocking some of my radical friends I am going to
affirm that it is possible.

But can one earn an _hundred million_? Yes, I believe that it is even
possible to serve society to such an extent as to earn a hundred million
in the span of a human life, or an average of _three million_ a year for
thirty-three and one-third years. We have one man in this country who is
said to be worth five hundred million. To earn five hundred million one
must earn on an average _fifteen_ million a year for thirty-three and
one-third years. Is this within the range of human possibility? I
believe that it is. Now, I have gone as high as any one has yet gone
in collecting, but if there is any young man here with an ambition to
render a larger service to the world, I will raise it another notch, if
necessary, to encourage him. So almost limitless are the possibilities
of service in this age that I am not willing to fix a maximum to the sum
a man can honestly and legitimately earn.

Not only do I believe that one _can_ earn five hundred million, but I
believe that men _have_ earned it.

In this and other countries many in public life might be mentioned,
for even in politics men have great opportunities, which, if rightly
improved, enable them to render incalculable service to their fellowmen.

But let us go outside of politics. What shall we say of the man who gave
to the world a knowledge of the use of steam and revolutionized the
transportation of the globe? How much did he earn? And the man who
brought down lightning from the clouds and imprisoned it in a slender
wire so that it lights our homes, draws our traffic across the land and
carries our messages under the sea; what did he earn? And what of the
man who showed us how to hurl our messages thousands of miles through
space without the aid of wire? And how much did the man earn who taught
us how to wrap the human voice around a little cylinder so that it can
be laid away and echo throughout the ages?

Take a very recent invention, the gasolene engine. It has already given
us the automobile and the flying machine, and heaven only knows what yet
may come with that gasolene engine. My first ride in an automobile was
taken in the campaign of 1896; since then something like seventeen
million automobiles have been brought into use.

Have you thought of the value of the ice machine? In Apalachicola,
Florida, they have erected a little monument to a former citizen, Dr.
John Gorry. A statue of him will be found in the capitol at Tallahassee,
and the state of Florida has put another in the Hall of Fame at
Washington. Out of his brain came the idea that made it possible for the
world to have ice to-day without regard to the temperature outside. What
did Gorry earn when he gave the world the ice machine?

When I first visited the Patent Office at Washington I saw a model of
the first sewing machine. On it was a card on which was written:

  "Mine are sinews superhuman,
    Ribs of brass and nerves of steel;
  I'm the iron needle woman,
    Born to toil but not to feel."

What did the man earn who gave the world a sewing machine?

These are only a few of the great inventions. Let us take up another
group. To show how wide is the field of measureless endeavour, I call
attention to the work of scientists. Who will measure the value of
anesthetics in the treatment of disease and injury? What of vaccination
and the labours of Pasteur? Who will estimate the value of the service
rendered by the man who gave us a remedy for typhoid? In 1898 hundreds
died of typhoid fever in the little army that was raised for the war
with Spain--twenty-seven of my regiment died of that disease. Now we
have a remedy so complete that of the nearly a million men who reached
the battle-line in France not one died of typhoid, and only one hundred
and twenty-five of the four millions called to the colours.

Have you tried to estimate the service rendered by Reed, who, in finding
a remedy for yellow fever, made the tropics habitable and made it
possible for the United States to add the Panama Canal to our great
achievements?

But the field is larger still. Raikes established a Sunday school and
now we have Sunday schools all over the world; Williams organized a
Young Men's Christian Association and now there are nine thousand
associations and more than a million and a half members march under the
banners of that organization, half of them in the United States. Forty
years ago a young preacher in Portland, Maine, gathered a few young
people about him and formed a Christian Endeavour Society; now it
numbers more than four million members. That young preacher, Dr. Francis
E. Clark, is now one of the great religious leaders of the world and is
Commander-in-Chief of this militant organization which is larger than
the army that did our part in the World War. What has he earned?

Near Rochester, New York, there is a little town that has the proud
distinction of being the birthplace of Frances Willard. There was
nothing to distinguish her from other little girls when she was in
school, but when she reached womanhood she gave her heart to a great
cause; she became president of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union,
probably the greatest of the organizations among women ever formed.
Under her leadership that organization brought into the schools of the
land instruction as to the effect of alcohol upon the system and
that did more than any other one thing, I think, to bring National
Prohibition. The state of Illinois has placed the statue of this great
woman in the Hall of Fame in the National Capitol; she is the first
woman to be thus honoured. What has she earned?

And so I might continue, for the name of the world's great benefactors
is legion. And besides those whose services were of incalculable value
a multitude have earned lesser sums ranging down to a modest fortune.
Every one can earn enough to supply all needs. Every time I speak to
the students of a college, high school, or primary grade I cannot help
thinking that within the room there may be a boy or girl who will catch
a vision of great achievement and, consecrating a life of service, do a
work so valuable that all the arithmetics will not compute its worth.

But if I could furnish you a list containing the names of all who since
time began rendered a service worth five hundred millions, one thing
would be true of every one of them; namely, that never in a single case
did the person collect the full amount earned. Those who have earned
five hundred millions have been so busy earning it that they have not
had time to collect it, and those who have collected five hundred
millions have been so busy collecting it that they have not had time
to earn it. Then, too, it must be remembered that those who render the
greatest service serve more than their own generation--some serve all
who live afterward so that it is never possible to compute what they
have earned.

And what is more, those who render the largest service do not care to
collect the full amount earned. What could they do with the sum that
they actually earn? Or, what is more important, what would so great a
sum _do with them_?

In that wonderful parable of the Sower, Christ speaks of the seeds that
fell and of the thorns that sprang up and choked them, and He Himself
explained what He meant by this illustration, namely: That the care of
this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the truth. If the great
benefactors of the race had been burdened with the care of big fortunes,
they could not have devoted themselves to the nobler things that gave
them a place in the affection of their people and in history.

It seems, therefore, that while one cannot rightfully collect more than
he honestly earns, he may earn more than it would be wise for him to
collect. And that brings us to the next question: How much should one
desire to collect from society? I answer, that no matter how large a
service one may render or how much he may earn, he should not desire to
collect more than he can wisely spend.

And how much can one wisely spend? Not as much as you might think--not
nearly as much as some have tried to spend. No matter how honestly money
may be acquired, one is not free to spend it at will. We are hedged
about by certain restrictions that we can neither remove nor ignore. God
has written certain laws in our nature--laws that no legislature can
repeal--laws that no court can declare unconstitutional, and these laws
limit us in our expenditures.

Let us consider some of the things for which we can properly spend
money. We need food--we all need food, and we need about the same
amount; not exactly, but the difference in quantity is not great. The
range in expenditure is greater than the range in quantity, because
expenditure covers kind and quality as well as quantity. But there is a
limit even to expenditure. If a man eats too much he suffers for it. If
he squanders his money on high-priced foods, he wears his stomach out.
There is an old saying which we have all heard, viz., "The poor man is
looking for food for his stomach, while the rich man is going from one
watering place to another looking for a stomach for his food." This
is only a witty way of expressing a sober truth, namely, that one is
limited in the amount of money he can wisely spend for food.

We need clothing--we all need clothing, and we need about the same
amount. The difference in quantity is not great. The range in
expenditure for clothing is greater than the range in quantity, because
expenditure covers style and variety as well as quantity, but there is a
limit to the amount of money one can wisely spend for clothing. If a
man has so much clothing that it takes all of his time to change his
clothes, he has more than he needs and more than he can wisely buy.

We need homes--we all need shelter and we need about the same amount. In
fact, God was very democratic in the distribution of our needs, for
He so created us that our needs are about the same. The range of
expenditure for homes is probably wider than in the case of either food
or clothing. We are interested in the home. I never pass a little house
where two young people are starting out in life without a feeling of
sympathetic interest in that home; I never pass a house where a room is
being added without feeling interested, for I know the occupants have
planned it, and looked forward to it and waited for it; I like to see a
little house moved back and a larger house built, for I know it is the
fulfillment of a dream. I have had some of these dreams myself, and I
know how they lead us on and inspire us to larger effort and greater
endeavour, and yet there is a limit to the amount one can wisely spend
even for so good a thing as a home.

If a man gets too big a house it becomes a burden to him, and many have
had this experience. Not infrequently a young couple start out poor and
struggle along in a little house, looking forward to the time when they
can build a big house. After a while the time arrives and they build a
big house, larger, possibly, than they intended to, and it nearly always
costs more than they thought it would, and then they struggle along the
rest of their lives looking back to the time when they lived in a little
house.

We speak of people being _independently rich_. That is a mistake; they
are _dependency rich_. The richer a man is the more dependent he is--the
more people he depends upon to help him collect his income, and the more
people he depends upon to help him spend his income. Sometimes a couple
will start out doing their own work--the wife doing the work inside the
house and the man outside. But they prosper, and after a while they are
able to afford help; they get a girl to help the wife inside and a man
to help the husband outside; then they prosper more--and they get two
girls to help inside and two men to help outside, then three girls
inside and three men outside. Finally they have so many girls helping
inside and so many men helping outside that they cannot leave the
house--they have to stay at home and look after the establishment.

This is not a new condition. One of the Latin poets complained of "the
cares that hover about the fretted ceilings of the rich!" It was this
condition that inspired Charles Wagner to write his little book entitled
"The Simple Life," in which he entered an eloquent protest against the
materialism which makes man the slave of his possessions; he presented
an earnest plea for the raising of the spiritual above the purely
physical. I repeat, that there is a limit to the amount a man can wisely
spend upon a home.

I need not remind you that the rich are tempted to spend money on the
vices that destroy--money honestly earned may thus become a curse rather
than a blessing.

But a man can give his money away. Yes, and no one who has ever tried it
will deny that more pleasure is to be derived from the giving of money
to a cause in which one's heart is interested, than can be obtained from
the expenditure of the same amount in selfish indulgence. But if one
is going to give largely he must spend a great deal of time in
investigating and in comparing the merits of the different enterprises.
I am persuaded that there is a better life than the life led by those
who spend nearly all the time accumulating beyond their needs and then
employ the last few days in giving it away. What the world needs is not
a few men of great wealth, doling out their money in anticipation of
death--what the world needs is that these men link _themselves_ in
sympathetic interest with struggling humanity and help to solve problems
of to-day, instead of creating problems for the next generation to
solve.

But you say, a man can leave his money to his children? He can, if he
dares. A large fortune, in anticipation, has ruined more sons than it
has ever helped. If a young man has so much money coming to him that he
knows he will never have to work, the chances are that it will sap his
energy, even if it does not undermine his character, and leave him a
curse rather than a blessing to those who brought him into the world.

And it is scarcely safer to leave the money to a daughter. For, if a
young woman has a prospective inheritance so large that, when a young
man calls upon her, she cannot tell whether he is calling upon her
or her father, it is embarrassing--especially so if she finds after
marriage that he married the wrong member of the family. And, I may add,
that the daughters of the very rich are usually hedged about by a social
environment which prevents their making the acquaintance of the best
young men. The men who, twenty-five years from now, will be the leaders
in business, in society, in government, and in the Church, are not the
pampered sons of the rich, but the young men who, with good health and
good habits, with high ideals and strong ambition, are, under the spur
of necessity, laying the foundation for future achievements, and these
young men do not have a chance to become acquainted with the daughters
of the very rich. Even if they did know them they might hesitate to
enter upon the scale of expenditure to which these daughters are
accustomed.

I have dealt at length with these fixed limitations, although we all
know of them or ought to. The ministers tell us about these things
Sunday after Sunday, or should, and yet we find men chasing the almighty
dollar until they fall exhausted into the grave. Dr. Talmage dealt with
this subject; he said that a man who wore himself out getting money that
he did not need, would finally drop dead, and that his pastor would
tell a group of sorrowing friends that, by a mysterious dispensation of
Providence, the good man had been cut off in his prime. Dr. Talmage said
that Providence had nothing to do with it, and that the minister ought
to tell the truth about it, and say that the man had been kicked to
death by the golden calf.

Some years ago I read a story by Tolstoy, and I did not notice until
I had completed it that the title of the story was, "What shall it
profit?" The great Russian graphically presented the very thought that
I have been trying to impress upon your minds. He told of a Russian who
had land hunger--who added farm to farm and land to land, but could
never get enough. After a while he heard of a place where land was
cheaper and he sold his land and went and bought more land. But he had
no more than settled there until he heard of another place among a
half-civilized people where land was cheaper still. He took a servant
and went into this distant country and hunted up the head man of the
tribe, who offered him all the land he could walk around in a day for a
thousand rubles--told him he could put the money down on any spot and
walk in any direction as far and as fast as he would, and that, if he
was back by sunset, he could have all the land he had encompassed during
the day. He put the money down upon the ground and started at sunrise to
get, at last, enough land. He started leisurely, but as he looked upon
the land it looked so good that he hurried a little--and then he hurried
more, and then he went faster still. Before he turned he had gone
further in that direction than he had intended, but he spurred himself
on and started on the second side. Before he turned again the sun had
crossed the meridian and he had two sides yet to cover. As the sun was
slowly sinking in the west he constantly accelerated his pace, alarmed
at last for fear he had undertaken too much and might lose it all. He
reached the starting point, however, just as the sun went down, but he
had overtaxed his strength and fell dead upon the spot. His servant dug
a grave for him; he only needed six-feet of ground then, the same that
others needed--the rest of the land was of no use to him. Thus Tolstoy
told the story of many a life--not the life of the very rich only, but
the story of every life in which the love of money is the controlling
force and in which the desire for gain shrivels the soul and leaves the
life a failure at last.

I desire to show you how practical this subject is. If time permitted I
could take up every occupation, every avocation, every profession and
every calling, and show you that no matter which way we turn--no matter
what we do--we are always and everywhere weighing the Soul.

In the brief time that it is proper for me to occupy, I shall apply the
thought to those departments of human activity in which the sale of a
soul affects others largely as well as the individual who makes the
bargain.

Take the occupation in which I am engaged, journalism. It presents a
great field--a growing field; in fact, there are few fields so large.
The journalist is both a news gatherer and a moulder of thought. He
informs his readers as to what is going on, and he points out the
relation between cause and effect--interprets current history. Public
opinion is the controlling force in a republic, and the newspaper gives
to the journalist, beyond every one else, the opportunity to affect
public opinion. Others reach the readers through the courtesy of the
newspaper, but the owner of the paper has full access to his own
columns, and does not fear the blue pencil.

The journalist occupies the position of a watchman upon a tower. He is
often able to see dangers which are not observed by the general public,
and, because he can see these dangers, he is in a position of greater
responsibility. Is he discharging the duty which superior opportunity
imposes upon him? Year by year the disclosures are bringing to light the
fact that the predatory interests are using many newspapers and even
some magazines for the defense of commercial iniquity and for the
purpose of attacking those who lift their voices against favouritism and
privilege. A financial magnate interested in the exploitation of the
public secures control of a paper; he employs business managers,
editors, and a reportorial staff. He does not act openly or in the
daylight but through a group of employees who are the visible but not
the real directors. The reporters are instructed to bring in the kind of
news that will advance the enterprises owned by the man who stands back
of the paper, and if the news brought in is not entirely satisfactory,
it is doctored in the office. The columns of the paper are filled with
matter, written not for the purpose of presenting facts as they exist,
but for the purpose of distorting facts and misleading the public. The
editorial writers, whose names are generally unknown to the public, are
told what to say and what subjects to avoid. They are instructed
to extol the merits of those who are subservient to the interests
represented by the paper, and to misrepresent and traduce those who dare
to criticize or oppose the plans of those who hide behind the paper.
Such journalists are members of a kind of "Black Hand Society"; they are
assassins, hiding in ambush and striking in the dark; and the worst of
it is that the readers have no sure way of knowing when a real change
takes place in the ownership of such a paper notwithstanding the fact
that a recent law requires publication of ownership.

There are degrees of culpability and some are disposed to hold an
editorial writer guiltless even when they visit condemnation upon the
secret director of the paper's policy. I present to you a different--and
I believe higher--ideal of journalism. If we are going to make any
progress in morals we must abandon the idea that morals are defined by
the statutes; we must recognize that there is a wide margin between that
which the law prohibits and that which an enlightened conscience can
approve. We do not legislate against the man who uses the printed page
for the purpose of deception but, viewed from the standpoint of morals,
the man who, whether voluntarily or under instructions, writes what he
knows to be untrue or purposely misleads his readers as to the
character of a proposition upon which they have to act, is as guilty of
wrong-doing as the man who assists in any other swindling transaction.

Another method employed to mislead the public is the publication of
editorial matter supplied by those who have an interest to serve. This
evil is even more common than secrecy as to the ownership of the paper.
In the case of the weekly papers and the smaller dailies, the proprietor
is generally known, and it is understood that the editorial pages
represent his views. His standing and character give weight to that
which appears with his endorsement. A few years ago, when a railroad
rate bill was before Congress, a number of railroads joined in an effort
to create public sentiment against the bill. Bureaus were established
for the dissemination of literature, and a number of newspapers entered
into contract to publish as editorial matter the material furnished by
these bureaus. This cannot be defended in ethics. The secret purchase of
the editorial columns is a crime against the public and a disgrace to
journalism, and yet we have frequent occasion to note this degradation
of the newspaper. A few years ago Senator Carter, of Montana, speaking
in the United States Senate, read several printed slips which were sent
out by a bankers' association to local bankers with the request that
they be inserted in the local papers as editorials, suggestion being
made that the instructions to the local bankers be removed before they
were handed to the papers. The purpose of the bankers' association was
to stimulate opposition to the postal savings bank, a policy endorsed
affirmatively by the Republican party and, conditionally, by the
Democratic party, the two platforms being supported at the polls by more
than ninety per cent, of the voters. The bankers' associations were
opposing the policy, and, in sending out its literature, they were
endeavouring to conceal the source of that literature and to make it
appear that the printed matter represented the opinion of some one in
the community.

The journalist who would fully perform his duty must be not only
incorruptible, but ever alert, for those who are trying to misuse the
newspapers are able to deceive "the very elect." Whenever any movement
is on foot for the securing of legislation desired by the predatory
interests, or when restraining legislation is threatened, news bureaus
are established at Washington, and these news bureaus furnish to such
papers as will use them free reports, daily or weekly as the case may
be, from the national capitol--reports which purport to give general
news, but which in fact contain arguments in support of the schemes
which the bureaus are organized to advance. This ingenious method
of misleading the public is only a part of the general plan which
favour-holding and favour-seeking corporations pursue.

Demosthenes declared that the man who refuses a bribe conquers the man
who offers it. According to this, the journalist who resists the
many temptations which come to him to surrender his ideals has the
consciousness of winning a moral victory as well as the satisfaction of
knowing that he is rendering a real service to his fellows.

The profession for which I was trained--the law--presents another line
of temptations. The court-room is a soul's market where many barter away
their ideals in the hope of winning wealth or fame. Lawyers sometimes
boast of the number of men whose acquittal they have secured when they
knew them to be guilty, and of advantages won which they knew their
clients did not deserve. I do not understand how a lawyer can so boast,
for he is an officer of the court and, as such, is sworn to assist in
the administration of justice. When a lawyer has helped his client to
obtain all that his client is entitled to, he has done his full duty as
a lawyer, and, if he goes beyond this, he goes at his own peril. Show
me a lawyer who has spent a lifetime trying to obscure the line between
right and wrong--trying to prove that to be just which he knew to be
unjust, and I will show you a man who has grown weaker in character year
by year, and whose advice, at last, will be of no value to his clients,
for he will have lost the power to discern between right and wrong. Show
me, on the other hand, a lawyer who has spent a lifetime in the search
for truth, determined to follow where it leads, and I will show you a
man who has grown stronger in character day by day and whose advice
constantly becomes more valuably to his client, because the power to
discern the truth increases with the honest search for it.

Not only in the court-room, but in the consultation chamber also the
lawyer sometimes yields to the temptation to turn his talents to a
sordid use. The schemes of spoliation that defy the officers of the law
are, for the most part, inaugurated and directed by legal minds. I was
speaking on this very subject in one of the great cities of the country
and at the close of the address, a prominent judge commended my
criticism and declared that most of the lawyers practicing in his court
were constantly selling their souls.

The lawyer's position is scarcely less responsible than the position of
the journalist; if the journalists and lawyers of the country could be
brought to abstain from the practices by which the general public
is overreached, it would be an easy matter to secure the remedial
legislation necessary to protect the producing masses from the constant
spoliation to which they are now subjected by the privileged classes.

If a man who is planning a train-robbery takes another along to hold a
horse at a convenient distance, we say that the man who holds the horse
is equally guilty with the man who robs the train; and the time will
come when public opinion will hold as equally guilty with the plunderers
of society the lawyers and journalists who assist the plunderers to
escape.

I would not be forgiven if I failed to apply my theme to the work of the
instructor. The purpose of education is not merely to develop the mind;
it is to prepare men and women for society's work and for citizenship.
The ideals of the teacher, therefore, are of the first importance. The
pupil is apt to be as much influenced by what his teacher _is_ as by
what the teacher _says_ or _does_. The measure of a school cannot be
gathered from an inspection of the examination papers; the conception of
life which the graduate carries away must be counted in estimating the
benefits conferred. The pecuniary rewards of the teacher are usually
small when compared with the rewards of business. This may be due in
part to our failure to properly appreciate the work which the teacher
does, but it may be partially accounted for by the fact that the teacher
derives from his work a satisfaction greater than that obtained from
most other employments.

The teacher comes into contact with the life of the student and, as
our greatest joy is derived from the consciousness of having benefited
others, the teacher rightly counts as a part of his compensation the
continuing pleasure to be found in the knowledge that he is projecting
his influence through future generations. The heart plays as large
a part as the head in the teacher's work, because the heart is an
important factor in every life and in the shaping of the destiny of the
race. I fear the plutocracy of wealth; I respect the aristocracy of
learning; but I thank God for the democracy of the heart. It is upon the
heart level that we meet; it is by the characteristics of the heart
that we best know and best remember each other. Astronomers tell us the
distance of each star from the earth, but no mathematician can calculate
the influence which a noble teacher may exert upon posterity. And yet,
even the teacher may fall from his high estate, and, forgetting his
immeasurable responsibility, yield to the temptation to estimate his
work by its pecuniary reward. Just now some of the teachers are--let
us hope, unconsciously--undermining the religious faith of students by
substituting the guesses of Darwin for the Word of God.

Let me turn for a moment from the profession and the occupation to the
calling. I am sure I shall not be accused of departing from the truth
when I say that even those who minister to our spiritual wants and, as
our religious leaders, help to fix our standards of morality, sometimes
prove unfaithful to their trust. They are human, and the frailities of
man obscure the light which shines from within, even when that light is
a reflection from the throne of God.

We need more Elijahs in the pulpit to-day--more men who will dare to
upbraid an Ahab and defy a Jezebel. It is possible, aye, probable, that
even now, as of old, persecutions would follow such boldness of speech,
but he who consecrates himself to religion must smite evil wherever he
finds it, although in smiting it he may risk his salary and his social
position. It is easy enough to denounce the petty thief and the
back-alley gambler; it is easy enough to condemn the friendless rogue
and the penniless wrong-doer, but what about the rich tax-dodger, the
big lawbreaker, and the corrupter of government? The soul that is warmed
by divine fire will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete
performance of duty; it must cry aloud and spare not, to the end that
the creed of the Christ may be exemplified in the life of the nation.

We need Elijahs now to face the higher critics. Instead of allowing the
materialists to cut the supernatural out of the Bible the ministers
should demand that the unsupported guesses be cut out of school-books
dealing with science.

Not only does the soul question present itself to individuals, but it
presents itself to groups of individuals as well.

Let us consider the party. A political party cannot be better than its
ideal; in fact, it is good in proportion as its ideal is worthy, and its
place in history is determined by its adherence to a high purpose. The
party is made for its members, not the members for the party; and a
party is useful, therefore, only as it is a means through which one may
protect his rights, guard his interests and promote the public welfare.
The best service that a man can render his party is to raise its ideals.
He basely betrays his party's hopes and is recreant to his duty to his
party associates who seeks to barter away a noble party purpose for
temporary advantages or for the spoils of office. It would be a
reflection upon the intelligence and patriotism of the people to assert,
or even to assume, that lasting benefit could be secured for a party
by the lowering of its standards. He serves his party most loyally who
serves his country most faithfully; it is a fatal error to suppose that
a party can be permanently benefited by a betrayal of the people's
interests.

In every act of party life and party strife we weigh the soul. That
the people have a right to have what they want in government is a
fundamental principle in free government. Corruption in government comes
from the attempt to substitute the will of a minority for the will of
the majority. Every important measure that comes up for consideration
involves justice and injustice--right and wrong--and is, therefore, a
question of conscience. As justice is the basis of a nation's strength
and gives it hope of perpetuity, and, as the seeds of decay are sown
whenever injustice enters into government, patriotism as well as
conscience leads us to analyze every public question, ascertain the
moral principle involved and then cast our influence, whether it be
great or small, on the side of justice.

The patriot must desire the triumph of that which _is_ right above the
triumph of that which he may _think_ to be right if he is, in fact,
mistaken; and so the partizan, if he be an intelligent partizan, must be
prepared to rejoice in his party's defeat if by that defeat his country
is the gainer. One can afford to be in a minority, but he cannot afford
to be wrong; if he is in a minority and right, he will some day be in
the majority.

The activities of politics center about the election of candidates to
office, and the official, under our system, represents both the party
to which he belongs and the whole body of his constituency. He has two
temptations to withstand; first, the temptation to substitute his
own judgment for the judgment of his constituents, and second, the
temptation to put his pecuniary interests above the interests of those
for whom he acts. According to the aristocratic idea, the representative
thinks _for_ his constituents; according to the Democratic idea, the
representative thinks _with_ his constituents. A representative has no
right to defeat the wishes of those who elect him, if he knows their
wishes.

But a representative is not liable to knowingly misrepresent his
constituents unless he has pecuniary interests adverse to theirs. This
is the temptation to be resisted--this is the sin to be avoided. The
official who uses his position to secure a pecuniary advantage over the
public is an embezzler of power--and an embezzler of power is as guilty
of moral turpitude as the embezzler of money. There is no better motto
for the public official than that given by Solomon: "A good name is
rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than
silver and gold." There is no better rule for the public official to
follow than this--to do nothing that he would not be willing to have
printed in the newspaper next day.

One who exercises authority conferred upon him by the suffrages of his
fellows ought to be fortified in his integrity by the consciousness of
the fact that a betrayal of his trust is hurtful to the party which
honours him and unjust to the people whom he serves, as well as
injurious to himself. Nothing that he can gain, not even the whole
world, can compensate him for the loss that he suffers in the surrender
of a high ideal of public duty.

In conclusion, let me say that the nation, as well as the individual,
and the party, must be measured by its purpose, its ideals and its
service. "Let him who would be chiefest among you, be the servant of
all," was intended for nations as well as for citizens. Our nation is
the greatest in the world and the greatest of all time, because it is
rendering a larger service than any other nation is rendering or has
rendered. It is giving the world ideals in education, in social life,
in government, and in religion. It is the teacher of nations; it is the
world's torch-bearer. Here the people are more free than elsewhere to
"try all things and hold fast that which is good"; "to know the truth"
and to find freedom in that knowledge. No material considerations
should blind us to our nation's mission, or turn us aside from the
accomplishment of the great work which has been reserved for us. Our
fields bring forth abundantly and the products of our farms furnish food
for many in the Old World. Our mills and looms supply an increasing
export, but these are not our greatest asset. Our most fertile soil
is to be found in the minds and the hearts of our people; our most
important manufacturing plants are not our factories, with their smoking
chimneys, but our schools, our colleges and our churches, which take in
a priceless raw material and turn out the most valuable finished product
that the world has known.

We enjoy by inheritance, or by choice, the blessings of American
citizenship; let us not be unmindful of the obligations which these
blessings impose. Let us not become so occupied in the struggle for
wealth or in the contest for honours as to repudiate the debt that we
owe to those who have gone before us and to those who bear with us the
responsibilities that rest upon the present generation. Society has
claims upon us; our country makes demands upon our time, our thought and
our purpose. We cannot shirk these duties without disgrace to ourselves
and injury to those who come after us. If one is tempted to complain of
the burdens borne by American citizens, let him compare them with the
much larger burdens imposed by despots upon their subjects.

I challenge the doctrine, now being taught, that we must enter into
a mad rivalry with the Old World in the building of battleships--the
doctrine that the only way to preserve peace is to get ready for wars
that ought never to come! It is a barbarous, brutal, un-Christian
doctrine--the doctrine of the darkness, not the doctrine of the dawn.

Nation after nation, when at the zenith of its power, has proclaimed
itself invincible because its army could shake the earth with its tread
and its ships could fill the seas, but these nations are dead, and we
must build upon a different foundation if we would avoid their fate.

Carlyle, in the closing chapters of his "French Revolution," says that
thought is stronger than artillery parks and at last moulds the world
like soft clay, and then he adds that back of thought is love. Carlyle
is right. Love is the greatest power in the world. The nations that are
dead boasted that people bowed before their flag; let us not be content
until our flag represents sentiments so high and holy that the oppressed
of every land will turn their faces toward that flag and thank God that
it stands for self-government and for the rights of man.

The enlightened conscience of our nation should proclaim as the
country's creed that "righteousness exalteth a nation" and that justice
is a nation's surest defense. If there ever was a nation it is ours--if
there ever was a time it is now--to put God's truth to a test. With an
ocean rolling on either side and a mountain range along either coast
that all the armies of the world could never climb we ought not to be
afraid to trust in "the wisdom of doing right."

Our government, conceived in liberty and purchased with blood, can be
preserved only by constant vigilance. May we guard it as our children's
richest legacy, for what shall it profit our nation if it shall gain the
whole world and lose "the spirit that prizes liberty as the heritage of
all men in all lands everywhere"?



VII

THREE PRICELESS GIFTS


The Bible differs from all other books in that it never wears out. Other
books are read and laid aside, but the Bible is a constant companion. No
matter how often we read it or how familiar we become with it, some new
truth is likely to spring out at us from its pages whenever we open
it, or some old truth will impress us as it never did before. Every
Christian can give illustrations of this. Permit me to refer briefly
to four. My first religious address, "The Prince of Peace," was the
outgrowth of a chance rereading of a passage in Isaiah. This I have
referred to in my lecture entitled "His Government and Peace."

The argument presented in my lecture on the Bible, in which I defend
the inspiration of the Book of Books, was the outgrowth of a chance
rereading of Elijah's prayer test. I was preparing an address for the
celebration of the Tercentenary of the King James' Translation when, on
the train, I turned by chance to Elijah's challenge to the prophets of
Baal. It suggested to me what I regard as an unanswerable argument,
namely, a challenge to those who reject the Bible to put their theory to
the test and produce a book, the equal of the Bible, or admit one of two
alternatives, either that the Bible comes from a source higher than man
or that man has so degenerated that less can be expected of him now than
nineteen hundred years ago.

In preparing a Sunday-school lesson on Abraham's faith I was so
impressed with the influence of faith on the life of the patriarch and,
through him, on the world, that I prepared a college address on "Faith,"
a part of which I have reproduced in my lecture on "The Spoken Word."

It was a chance rereading of an extract from the account of the Ten
Lepers which led me to prepare the lecture reproduced in this chapter.
The subject to which I invite your attention is as important to-day as
it was when the Master laid emphasis upon it. As He approached a certain
village ten lepers met Him; they recognized Him and cried out, "Jesus,
Master, have mercy upon us." He healed them; when they found that they
had been made whole, one of them turned back and, falling on his face at
Jesus' feet, poured forth his heart in grateful thanks. Christ, noticing
the absence of the others, inquired, "Were there not ten cleansed, but
where are the nine?" This simple question has come echoing down through
nineteen centuries, the most stinging rebuke ever uttered against the
sin of ingratitude. If the lepers had been afflicted with a disease
easily cured, they might have said, "Any one could have healed us,"
but only Christ could restore them to health, and yet, when they had
received of His cleansing power, they apparently felt no sense of
obligation; at least, they expressed no gratitude.

Some one has described ingratitude as a meaner sin than revenge--the
explanation being that revenge is repayment of evil with evil, while
ingratitude is repayment of good with evil. If you visit revenge upon
one, it is because he has injured you first and the law takes notice of
provocation. Ingratitude is lack of appreciation of a favour shown; it
is indifference to a kindness done.

Ingratitude is so common a sin that few have occupied the pulpit for a
year without using the story of the Ten Lepers as the basis of a sermon;
and one could speak upon this theme every Sunday in the year without
being compelled to repeat himself, so infinite in number are the
illustrations. Those who speak of ingratitude usually begin with
the child. A child is born into the world the most helpless of all
creatures; for years it could not live but for the affectionate and
devoted care of parents, or of those who stand in the place of parents.
If, when it grows up, it becomes indifferent; if its heart grows cold,
and it becomes ungrateful, it arouses universal indignation. Poets and
writers of prose have exhausted all the epithets in their effort to
describe an ungrateful child. Shakespeare's words are probably those
most quoted:

  "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
  To have a thankless child."

But it is not my purpose to speak of thankless children; I shall rather
make application of the rebuke to the line of work in which I have been
engaged. For some thirty years my time, by fate or fortune, has
been devoted largely to the study and discussion of the problems of
government, and I have had occasion to note the apathy and indifference
of citizens. I have seen reforms delayed and the suffering of the people
prolonged by lack of vigilance. Let us, therefore, consider together for
a little while some of the priceless gifts that come to us because we
live under the Stars and Stripes--gifts so valuable that they cannot be
estimated in figures or described in language--gifts which are received
and enjoyed by many without any sense of obligation, and without any
resolve to repay the debt due to society.

These gifts are many, but we shall have time for only three. The first
is education; it is a gift rather than an acquirement. It comes into our
lives when we are too young to decide such questions for ourselves. I
sometimes meet a man who calls himself "self-made," and I always want to
cross-examine him. I would ask him when he began to make himself, and
how he laid the foundations of his greatness. As a matter of fact, we
inherit more than we ourselves can add. It means more to be born of a
race with centuries of civilization back of it than anything that we
ourselves can contribute. And, next to that which we inherit, comes that
which enters our lives through the environment of youth. In this country
the child is so surrounded by opportunities, that it enters school as
early as the law will permit. It does not _go_ to school, it is _sent_
to school, and we are so anxious that it shall lose no time that, if
there is ever a period in the child's life when the mother is uncertain
as to its exact age, this is the time. I heard of a little boy, who,
when asked how old he was, replied, "I am five on the train, seven in
school and six at home." The child is pushed through grade after grade,
and, according to the statistics, a little more than ninety per cent,
of the children drop out of school before they are old enough to decide
educational questions for themselves. They are scarcely more than
fourteen.

Taking the country over, a little less than one in ten of the children
who enter our graded school ever enter high school, and not quite one
in fifty enter college or university. As many who enter college do not
complete the course, I am not far from the truth when I say that only
about one young man in one hundred continues his education until he
reaches the age--twenty-one--when the law assumes that his reason is
mature. I am emphasizing these statistics in order to show that we are
indebted to others more than to ourselves for our education. That which
we do would not be done but for what others have already done. Even
those who secure an education in spite of difficulties have received
from some one the idea that makes them appreciate the value of an
education.

When we are born we find an educational system here; we do not devise
it, it was established by a generation long since dead. When we are
ready to attend school we find a schoolhouse already built; we do not
build it, it was erected by the taxpayers, many of whom are dead. When
we are ready for instruction we find teachers prepared by others, many
of whom have passed to their reward.

How do we feel when we complete our education? Do we count the cost to
others and think of the sacrifices they have made for our benefit? Do we
estimate the strength that education has brought to us and feel that we
should put that strength under heavier loads? We are raised by our study
to an intellectual eminence from which we can secure a clearer view of
the future; do we feel that we should be like watchmen upon the tower
and warn those less fortunate of the dangers that they do not yet
discern? We _should_, but do we? I venture to assert that more than nine
out of ten of those who receive into their lives, and profit by, the
gift of education are as ungrateful as the nine lepers of whom the Bible
tells us--they receive, they enjoy, but they give no thanks.

But it is even worse than this; the Bible does not say that any one of
the nine lepers used for the injury of his fellows the strength that
Christ gave back to him. All that is said is that they were ungrateful;
but how about those who go out from our colleges and universities? Are
not many of these worse than ungrateful? I would not venture to use my
own language here; I will quote what others have said.

Wendell Phillips was one of the learned men of Massachusetts and a great
orator. In his address on the "Scholar in a Republic," he said that
"The people make history while the scholars only write it." And then he
added, "part truly and part as coloured by their prejudices."

Woodrow Wilson, while president of Princeton University, said:

    "The great voice of America does not come from seats of learning.
    It comes in a murmur from the hills and woods, and the farms and
    factories and the mills, rolling on and gaining volume until it
    comes to us from the homes of common men. Do these murmurs echo in
    the corridors of our universities? I have not heard them."

President Roosevelt, while in the White House, presented an even
stronger indictment against some of the scholars. In a speech delivered
to law students at Harvard he declared that there was scarcely a great
conspiracy against the public welfare that did not have Harvard brains
behind it. He need not have gone to Harvard to utter this terrific
indictment against college graduates; he might have gone to Yale, or
Columbia, or Princeton, or to any other great university, or even to
smaller colleges. It would not take long to correct the abuses of which
the people complain but for the fact that back of every abuse are the
hired brains of scholars who turn against society and use for society's
harm the very strength that society has bestowed upon them.

Let me give you an illustration in point, and so recent that one will be
sufficient: A few months ago the Supreme Court at Washington handed
down a decision overturning every argument made against the Eighteenth
Amendment and the enforcement law. Who represented the liquor traffic in
that august tribunal? Not brewery workers, employees in distilleries, or
bartenders; these could not speak for the liquor traffic in the Supreme
Court. No! Lawyers must be employed, and they were easily found--big
lawyers, scholars, who attempted to overthrow the bulwark that society
has erected for the protection of the homes of the country.

Every reform has to be fought through the legislatures and the courts
until it is finally settled by the highest court in our land, and there,
vanquished wrong expires in the arms of learned lawyers who sell their
souls to do evil--who attempt to rend society with the very power that
our institutions of learning have conferred upon them. All of our
reforms would be led by scholars, if all scholars appreciated as they
should the gift of education. There are, of course, a multitude of noble
illustrations of scholars consecrating their learning to the service of
the people, but many scholars are indifferent to the injustice done to
the masses and some actually obstruct needed reforms--and they do it for
pay.

My second illustration is even more important, for it deals with the
heart. I am interested in education; if I had my way every child in
all the world would be educated. God forbid that I should draw a line
through society and say that the children on one side shall be educated
and the children on the other side condemned to the night of ignorance.
I shall assume no such responsibility. I am anxious that my children
and grandchildren shall be educated, and I do not desire for a child or
grandchild of mine anything that I would not like to see every
other child enjoy. Children come into the world without their own
volition--they are here as a part of the Almighty's plan--and there is
not a child born on God's footstool that has not as much right to all
that life can give as your child or my child. Education increases
one's capacity for service and thus enlarges the reward that one can
rightfully draw from society; therefore, every one is entitled to the
advantages of education.

There is no reason why every human being should not have _both_ a _good
heart_ and a _trained mind_; but, if I were compelled to choose between
the two, I would rather that one should have a good heart than a trained
mind. A good heart can make a dull brain useful to society, but a bad
heart cannot make a good use of any brain, however trained or brilliant.

When we deal with the heart we must deal with religion, for religion
controls the heart; and, when we consider religion we find that the
religious environment that surrounds our young people is as favourable
as their intellectual environment. As in the case of education, lack
of appreciation may be due in part to lack of opportunity to make
comparison. If we visit Asia, where the philosophy of Confucius
controls, or where they worship Buddha, or follow Mahomet, or observe
the forms of the Hindu religion, we find that except where they have
borrowed from Christian nations, they have made no progress in fifteen
hundred years. Here, all have the advantage of Christian ideals, and
yet, according to statistics, something more than half the adult males
of the United States are not connected with any religious organization.
Some scoff at religion, and a few are outspoken enemies of the Church.
Can they be blind to the benefits conferred by our churches? Security of
life and property is not entirely due to criminal laws, to a sheriff in
each county, and to an occasional policeman. The conscience comes first;
the law comes afterward.

Law is but the crystallization of conscience; moral sentiment must be
created before it can express itself in the form of a statute. Every
preacher and priest, therefore, whether his congregation be large or
small, who quickens the conscience of those who hear him helps the
community. Every church of every denomination, whether important or
unimportant, that helps to raise the moral standards of the land
benefits all who live under the flag, whether they acknowledge their
obligations or not.

But lack of appreciation on the part of those outside the Church would
not disturb us so much if all the church members lived up to their
obligations. How much is it worth to one to be born again? Of what value
is it to have had the heart touched by the Saviour and so changed that
it loves the things it used to hate and hates the things it formerly
loved? Of what value is it to have one's life so transformed that,
instead of resembling a stagnant pool, it becomes like a living spring,
giving forth constantly that which refreshes and invigorates? What is it
worth to the Christian, and what is it worth to those about him, to
have his life brought by Christ into such vital living contact with the
Heavenly Father, that that life becomes the means through which the
goodness of God pours out to the world?

But, I go a step farther and ask whether the Church as an
organization--not any one denomination, but the Church
universal--appreciates its great opportunities, its tremendous
responsibility, and the infinite power behind it. If the Church is what
we believe it to be it must be prepared to grapple with every problem,
individual and social, whether it affects only a community or involves
a state, a nation, or a world. There must be _some_ intelligence large
enough to direct the world or the world will run amuck. We believe that
God is the only intelligence capable of governing the world, and God
must act through the Church or outside of it. If the Church is not big
enough to act as the mouthpiece of the Almighty--not in the sense that
the Church ought to exercise governmental authority, but its members,
seeking light from the Heavenly Father through prayer, should be able to
act wisely as citizens--if, I repeat, the Church is not big enough to
deal with the problems that confront the world, then the Church must
give way to some more competent organization. Christians have no other
alternative; they _must_ believe that the _teachings of Christ can be
successfully applied to every problem that the individual has to meet
and to every problem with which governments have to deal_. I have
in another lecture in this series called attention to Christ's
all-inclusive claim set forth in the closing verses of the last chapter
of Matthew, but I must repeat it here because it is the basis of what I
desire to say on this branch of the subject. Christ declared that _all_
power had been given into His hands; He sent His followers out to make
disciples of _all_ nations; and He promised to be with them _always_,
even unto the end of the world. If the Church takes Christ at His word
and claims to be His representative on earth it cannot shirk its duty.

If Christians are as grateful to God, to Christ, and to the Bible as
they should be, they will give attention to every problem that affects
the individual, the community, and the larger units of society and
government. They will consider it their duty to _carry their religion
into business and politics_ and to apply the teachings of Christ to
every subject that affects human welfare. In another lecture I call
attention to the Church's duty to reconcile capital and labour, and to
teach God's law of rewards.

The third gift to which I would call your attention is the form of
government under which we live. Ours is a government in which the people
rule from the lowest unit to the highest office in the nation. Nearly
all of our officials are elected by popular vote, and those appointed
are appointed by officers who are elected. The tendency is everywhere
more and more toward popular government. Some people are afraid of
Democracy but a larger number of people believe that "more democracy
is the cure for such evils as have been developed under popular
government." The Christian is a citizen of the republic as well as a
member of the church and must _practice_ his religion. I have not time
to speak of our government in detail; it is rather my purpose at this
time to call attention to the gift of popular government as we find it
in the nation.

Let us begin, then, with a presidential election. I shall not yield to
the strong temptation to describe a presidential election; suffice
to say that our campaigns begin with the election of delegates to a
National Convention (I hope they will some day begin with the nomination
of presidential candidates at primaries held by all the parties, in all
the states, on the same day). The campaigns last long enough to make the
candidates so weary that they gladly resign themselves to any result if
they can only live to election day.

The campaigns increase in intensity week after week and expire, or
explode, in a blaze of glory the night before election, at which time
the committees of the leading parties set forth the reasons that make
each side certain of success. On election day a hush spreads over the
land and the voters wend their way to the polling places, where each
voter is permitted to register a sovereign's will. Usually by midnight
the wires flash out the name of one who is to be added to the list of
Presidents. We give him a few weeks to rest and get ready and then, on a
certain day in March and at a certain hour, he goes to the White House
door and knocks. The occupant opens the door, and with a wearied look
upon his face, and yet a smile, says, "I was expecting you just at this
moment." Then the man on the inside of the White House goes out and
becomes a private citizen again, while the man on the outside goes in,
takes the oath of office and is clothed with authority such as no other
human being, but a President, ever exercised.

He writes an order and ships go out to sea with their big-mouthed guns;
he writes another order and the ships return. At his command armies
assemble and march and fight, and men die; at his word armies dissolve
and soldiers become citizens again. This goes on for just so many years
and months and weeks and days--for just so many hours and minutes and
seconds, and then there is another knock on the White House door and
another man comes with a new commission from the people.

Is it not a great thing to live in a land like this where the people
can, at the polls, select one of their number and lift him to this
pinnacle of power? And is it not greater still that the people are able
to reduce a President to the ranks as well as to lift him up? When they
elevate him he is just common clay, but when they take him down from his
high place they separate him from those instrumentalities of government
which despots have employed for the enslavement of their people.

And why is it that we live under a government resting upon the consent
of the governed, and in a land in which the people rule? Because
throughout the centuries millions of the best and the bravest have given
their lives that we might be free. Every right of which we boast is a
blood-bought right, and bought by the blood of others, not our own.
Would you not think that people who inherit such a government as this
would be grateful for the priceless gift and live up to every obligation
of citizenship? It would seem so, and yet those acquainted with politics
know that the difficult task is to get the vote out. Even in a hotly
contested presidential election we never get the full vote out. If
ninety per cent of the vote is polled we are happy; if eighty-five per
cent, is polled we are satisfied. If it is an intermediate election the
vote may be less than eighty per cent., or even seventy-five. In a
primary, which is often more important than an election, the vote
sometimes falls below fifty, or even forty per cent.

And what excuses do men give? Often the most trivial. One man says that
he had some work to do and could not spare the time--as if any work
could be more important than voting in a Republic. Another was visiting
his wife's relatives and a family dinner made it inconvenient for him
to return in time to vote. A few years ago I met a man on the train who
told me that he had not voted for ten years. When I asked him why, he
explained that he had voted for a neighbour for a state office--he
declared that the neighbour could not have been elected without his
help--and yet when the election was over the successful candidate failed
to invite him to a dinner given to celebrate the victory. "And," he
added, "I just made up my mind that if I could be so deceived by a man
who lived next door to me I did not have sense enough to vote, and I
have not voted since."

We are all liable to make mistakes, but a mistake at one election is no
justification for failure to vote at other elections. We must do the
best we can; and we must not be discouraged if the men elected do not do
all that we expect of them. The government is not perfect and never will
be, no matter what party is in power. When the Democrats are in power
I can prove by all the Republicans that the government is not perfect;
when the Republicans are in power I can prove by the Democrats that the
government is not perfect. Governments are administered by human beings;
we must expect honest men to make mistakes and we must not be surprised
if, occasionally, an official embezzles power and turns to his own
advantage the authority entrusted to him to use for the public good. We
should punish him and try to safeguard the people. The initiative and
referendum are valuable because they enable the people to protect
themselves from misrepresentation.

But even if the government could be made perfect to-day it would be
imperfect to-morrow. Times change and new conditions arise that make new
laws necessary. As the remedy cannot precede the disease and cannot be
applied until the public becomes acquainted with the disease and has
time to choose the remedy, there is always something that needs to be
done. If Christians do not make it their business to understand their
government's needs and to propose laws that are necessary, others will.
Are any more worthy to be trusted than Christians?

Even constitutions must be changed in order that our government may be
in the hands of the living rather than in the hands of the dead. Those
who wrote our Constitution were very wise men and yet the wisest thing
they did was to include a provision which enabled those who came after
them to change anything that they wrote into the Constitution.

Jefferson thought a constitution should be brought up to date by every
generation. Nineteen changes have been made in our Constitution by
amendment since the Constitution was adopted and four of these have been
adopted within the last ten years. I venture to call attention to the
later ones for two purposes; first, to show how long it takes to amend
the Constitution and why; second, to remind you that these four great
amendments have been adopted by joint action by the two great parties.

It required twenty-one years to secure the amendment providing for
popular election of United States Senators after the amendment was first
endorsed by the House of Representatives at Washington. For one hundred
and three years after the adoption of the Federal Constitution the
people tolerated the election of Senators by legislatures before there
was a protest that rose to the dignity of a Congressional resolution.
A Republican President, Andrew Johnson, recommended the change in a
message to Congress. Some ten years later, General Weaver, a Populist
Representative in Congress from Iowa, introduced a resolution proposing
an amendment providing for the popular election of Senators, but
no action was taken at that time. In 1902 a Democratic House of
Representatives at Washington passed a resolution, by the necessary
two-thirds vote, submitting the proposed amendment. Hon. Harry St.
George Tucker, of Virginia, was the chairman of the committee when this
resolution passed the House. A similar resolution passed the House on
five separate occasions afterward (twice when the House was Democratic
and three times when it was Republican) before it could pass the Senate.
The amendment was finally submitted by joint action of a Democratic
House and a Republican Senate and was ratified in a short time,
Democratic and Republican states vying with each other in furnishing the
necessary number. In 1913 it became my privilege, as Secretary of State,
to sign the last document necessary to make this amendment a part of the
Constitution. I have dwelt upon this contest at some length in order to
call attention to the time it took to secure the change and to the fact
that the two parties share the honour of making the change.

It took seventeen years to secure the amendment to the Constitution
authorizing an income tax. The Income Tax Law, enacted in 1894, was
declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, by a
majority of one, in 1895. In 1896 the fight for a constitutional
amendment was inaugurated and the amendment was ratified and became
a part of the Constitution early in 1913. This amendment, like the
amendment providing for popular election of United States Senators,
required many years, and for the same reason, viz., that the people were
not alert as they should have been, not as vigilant as they should be.
In the case of the Income Tax Amendment also, as in the case of the
other, the two parties contributed to the change in the Constitution and
share the glory together. The first amendment brought the United States
Senate nearer the people and opened the way for other reforms; the
second made it possible to apportion more equitably the burdens of the
government.

The Income Tax Amendment was adopted just in time to enable the
government to collect the revenue needed for the recent war. During
the seventeen years covered by the struggle for this amendment the
government was impotent to tax wealth; it could draft the man but not
the pocketbook. What would have been the feeling among the people if we
had entered the late war under such a handicap? How would conscription
have been received if it applied to father, husband and son and not to
wealth also?

And then, too, the Income Tax Amendment came just in time to answer the
last argument made in favour of the saloon. Those engaged in the liquor
traffic, after being defeated on all other points, massed behind the
proposition that the government needed the revenue from whiskey, beer,
and saloons. As soon as the government was able to collect an income tax
the friends of prohibition were able to look the liquor dealers in the
face and say, "Never again will an American boy be auctioned off to a
saloon for money to run the government; we now have other sources from
which to draw."

The third of the amendments was also a long time in coming and was
finally brought by joint action of Democrats and Republicans. It is not
necessary to trace the growth of this reform. Suffice it to say that
the Christian churches were the dominating force behind the prohibition
movement and that the South played a very prominent part in driving out
the saloon. More than two-thirds of the Senators and members from the
Southern States voted for the submission of National Prohibition after
nearly all the Southern States had adopted prohibition by individual
act. The first four states to ratify were Southern Democratic
States--Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. It is only
fair, however, to say that the West contested with the South the honour
of leading in this fight, and that the Northern States finally did
nearly as well as the Southern States in the matter of ratifying. And
it is better that the victory should be a joint one, expressing the
conscience of the nation regardless of party, than that it should be
merely a party victory.

But the real credit for leadership belongs not to any party or to any
section, but to those whose consciences were quickened by the teachings
of the Bible. Total abstinence was naturally more prevalent among church
members than among those outside of the church, and this, of course, was
the foundation upon which prohibition rested. The arguments against the
use of liquor are the basis of the arguments in favour of prohibition.
Because liquor is harmful the saloon is intolerable.

I venture to set forth the fundamental propositions upon which the
arguments for prohibition rested.

    First: God never made a human being who, in a normal state, needed
    alcohol.

    Second: God never made a human being strong enough to begin the use
    of alcohol and be sure that he would not become its victim.

    Third: God never fixed a day in a human life _after_ which it is
    safe to begin the use of intoxicating liquors.

These three propositions can be stated without limitation or mental
reservation. They apply to all who now live and to all who ever lived;
and will apply to all who may live hereafter. To these may be added
three propositions which apply especially to Christians.

First: The Christian is a Christian because he has given himself in
pledge of service to God and to Christ. What moral right has he to take
into his body that which he knows will lessen his capacity for service
and _may_ destroy even his desire to serve?

Second: What moral right has a Christian to spend for intoxicating
liquor money needed for the many noble and needy causes that appeal to a
Christian's heart? The Christian, repeating the language taught him by
the Master, prays to the Heavenly Father, "Thy kingdom come;" what right
has he to rise from his knees and spend for intoxicating liquor money
that he can spare to hasten the coming of God's kingdom on earth?

Third: What right has a Christian to throw the influence of his example
on the side of a habit that has brought millions to the grave? We shall
have enough to answer for when we stand before the judgment bar of God
without having a ruined soul arise and testify that it was a Christian's
example that led him to his ruin. Paul declared that if meat made his
brother to offend he would eat no meat. What Christian can afford to say
less in regard to intoxicants? If the Christian drinks only a little
it is a small sacrifice to make for the aid of his brother; if the
Christian drinks enough to make stopping a real sacrifice he ought to
stop for his own sake, on his family's account and out of respect for
his church.

While the harmfulness of liquor was the foundation upon which the
opposition to the saloon was built, it may be worth while to add that
popular government, by putting responsibility upon the voters, compelled
the Christian to vote against the saloon licenses. In all civilized
countries the sale of liquor is now so restricted that it cannot be
lawfully offered for sale without a license. As the license is necessary
to the existence of the saloon--as necessary as the liquor sold over the
bar--the Christian who voted for a license became as much a partner in
the business as the man who dispensed it, and he had even less excuse.
The manufacturer and the bartender could plead in extenuation that they
made money out of the business and money has led multitudes into sin.
For money many have been willing to steal; for money some have been
willing to murder; for money a few have been willing to sell their
country; for money one man was willing to betray the Saviour. The
Christian who voted for licenses had not even the poor excuse of those
who engaged in the business for mercenary reasons. As the consciences
became awakened, therefore, Christians, in increasing numbers, refused
to share responsibility for the saloon and what it did.

Science contributed largely to the final victory. People used to say
that drinking did not hurt if one did not drink too much. But no one
could define how much "too much" was. The invisible line between "just
enough" and "too much" is like the line of the horizon--it recedes as
you approach until it is lost in the darkness of the night.

Science proved that it is not immoderate drinking only, but
_any_ drinking that is harmful, and, therefore, that the real line is
that between not drinking and drinking.

Science has also demonstrated, as I have shown in another lecture, that
drinking decreases one's expectancy, according to insurance tables; a
young man at twenty-one must deliberately decide to shorten his life by
more than ten per cent. if he becomes an habitual drinker.

But, what is worse, science has shown that alcohol is a poison that runs
in the blood, so that the drinking of the father or mother may curse a
child unborn and close the door of hope upon it before its eyes have
opened to the light of day.

Business aided us also, as large corporations increasingly discriminated
against those who drank.

Patriotism furnished the last impulse; war threw a ghastly light upon
the evils of intemperance and upon the sordid greed of those engaged in
the liquor business.

The reform will not turn back. Enforcement will become more strict in
this country as its benefits are more clearly shown and prohibition will
spread until the saloon will be abolished throughout the world. Although
now past sixty-one I expect to live to see the day when there will not
be an open saloon under the flag of any civilized nation.

We are now able to prevent typhoid fever, the individual being made
immune by a treatment administered before he has been exposed to the
disease. Total abstinence resembles this preventive; no total abstainer
is in danger of alcoholism.

But we also have a preventive for yellow fever, namely, the destroying
of the breeding place of the mosquito which carries the germ of the
disease. Prohibition resembles this preventive. The saloon was found
to be the breeding place of alcoholism and prohibition strikes at the
source of the danger. These two, total abstinence and prohibition,
will eliminate the drink evil as typhoid and yellow fever have been
eliminated.

The fourth amendment adopted in recent years extended equal suffrage
to women. Like the three to which I have referred, it was a long time
coming and came at last by joint action of the two great parties.
A majority of both parties in both Senate and House voted for the
submission of this amendment and it required both Democratic and
Republican states to ratify it. The opposition which the amendment met
in the South was not due to lack of confidence in women, for nowhere in
the world is woman more highly estimated or more fully trusted. Such
local opposition as there was was due to the race question. Now that
woman can express herself at the polls, her influence will be felt as
much in the South as in other sections; it will throughout the United
States seal the doom of the liquor traffic. The women will stand guard
at the grave of John Barleycorn and make sure that he will never know a
resurrection morn.

Drawing their inspiration from the Bible, even to a greater extent than
the men do, the women will hasten the triumph of every righteous cause.
They will throw their influence on the side of every moral reform. The
adoption of the single standard of morals will be made possible by
woman's advent into politics. Her ballot will make it easier to lift man
to her level in the matter of chastity and to distribute more equitably
than man has done, the punishments imposed for acts of immorality.

Woman has come into power in politics at a time when she can aid in the
promotion of world peace by compelling the establishment of machinery
which will substitute reason for force in the settlement of
international disputes. Her first great triumph at the polls may be the
fulfilling of the prophecy, spoken more than two thousand years ago,
that swords shall be beaten into ploughshares and that nations shall
learn war no more. She will be repaid for all her patience and her
waiting if now, by her ballot, she can make it unnecessary for another
mother's son to be offered upon the altar of Mars. That this nation is
in a better position than ever before to lead the world in every good
cause is due to the gifts that have come with American citizenship, only
three of which I have had time to mention.

Every citizen should be honest with himself, examine his own heart and
answer to his own conscience. What estimate does he place upon the
education which he has received? What value does he put upon the
religion that controls his heart? How highly does he prize the form of
government under which he lives? Let him put his own appraisement upon
these three great gifts; these sums added together will represent his
acknowledged indebtedness to society; then let him resolve to pay so
much of this incalculable debt as is within his power.

We live in a goodly land. No king can shape our nation's destiny; not
even a President can have the final word as to what our nation is to be.
Each citizen, no matter how humble that citizen may be, can have a part.
Let us do our part; joining together, let us solve the problems with
which we have to deal, and, by so doing, bless our country and, through
it, other lands. Let us join together and raise the light of our
civilization so high that its rays, illumining every land, may lead the
world to those better things for which the world is praying.



VIII

"HIS GOVERNMENT AND PEACE"


By way of introduction, allow me to say that I fully recognize the
difference between a _presentation_ of fundamental principles and an
_application_ of those principles to life. While an _application_
of principles arouses greater interest it is more apt to bring out
differences of opinion and to excite controversy. But the Christian is
always open-minded because he desires to _know_ the right and to do it.
He "prove(s) all things and hold(s) fast that which is good." Therefore,
he welcomes light on every subject, from every source. It is in this
spirit that I speak to you and it is this spirit that I invoke. I speak
from conviction, formed after prayerful investigation, and am as anxious
to be informed as I am to inform.

Some twenty years ago I turned back to the sixth verse of the ninth
chapter of Isaiah to refresh my memory on the titles bestowed on the
Messiah whose coming the prophet foretold. After reading verse six, my
eyes fell on verse seven and it impressed me as it had not on former
readings. This was probably because I had recently been giving attention
to governmental problems and had occasionally heard advanced a very
gloomy philosophy, namely, that a government, being the work of
man, must, like man, pass through certain changes that mark a human
life--that is, be born, grow strong, and then, after a period of
maturity, decline and die. It is a repulsive doctrine and my heart
rebelled against it. It offends one's patriotism, too, to be compelled
to admit that, in spite of all that can be done, our government _must
some day perish_. In verse seven we read of a government that _will not
die_:

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, ...
to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even
forever."

The fault in the philosophy to which I have referred lies in the fact
that while government is each day in control of those then living,
it really belongs to generations rather than to individuals. As one
generation passes off the stage another comes on; therefore, there is no
reason why this government should ever be weaker or worse than it is now
unless our people decline in virtue, intelligence and patriotism. It
should grow better as the people improve.

In the verse quoted we find that the enduring government--the government
of Christ--is to rest on justice. And so, our government must rest on
justice if it is to endure. But what is justice? We are familiar with
this word but how shall it be interpreted in governmental terms? Christ
furnished the solution--He presented a scheme of Universal Brotherhood
in which justice will be possible.

To show how important this doctrine of brotherhood is, let us consider
for a moment the alternative relationship. There are but two attitudes
that one can assume in regard to his fellowmen--the attitude of brother
and the attitude of the brute; there is no middle ground.

This is the choice that each human being must make--a choice as distinct
and fundamental as the choice between God and Baal; and it is a choice
not unlike that.

One may be a very weak brother or a very feeble brute, but each person
is, consciously or unconsciously, controlled by the sympathetic spirit
of brotherhood or he hunts for spoil with the savage hunger of a beast
of prey.

I am not making a new classification; I am merely calling attention to
a classification that has come down from the beginning of history. Many
years ago I heard a man from New Zealand tell how a cannibal in that
country once supported his claim to a piece of land on the ground that
the title passed to him when he ate the former owner. I accepted this
story as a bit of humour, but it accurately describes an historic form
of title. Even among the highly civilized nations governments convey to
their subjects or citizens land secured by conquest, the lands being
taken from the conquered by the conquerors. A tramp, so the story goes,
being ordered out of a nobleman's yard, questioned the owner's title.
The latter explained that the title to the land had come down to him
in unbroken line from father to son through a period of 700 years,
beginning with an ancestor who fought for it. "Let's fight for it
again," suggested the tramp.

To show how ancient is the distinction that I am trying to make clear, I
remind you that both the Psalmist and Solomon used the word "brutish"
in describing certain kinds of men, and one of the minor prophets calls
down wrath upon those who build a city with blood. Christ, it will be
remembered, denounced the hypocrites who devoured widows' houses and for
a pretense made long prayers.

The devouring did not cease with that generation; it is to-day a menace
to stable government and to civilization itself. In times of peace we
have the profiteer who is guilty of practices which violate all rules
of morality even when they do not actually violate statute law. In this
"Land of the free and home of the brave," we have been compelled to
enact laws to restrain brutishness--not only laws to prevent assault,
murder, arson, the white slave traffic, etc., but also laws to restrain
men engaged in legitimate business. Pure food laws prevent the
adulteration of that which the people eat--men were willing to destroy
health and even life in order to add to their profits. Child labour laws
have become necessary to keep employers from dwarfing the bodies, minds
and souls of the young in their haste to make larger dividends.

Usury laws are necessary to protect the borrowers from the lenders, and,
from occasional violations, we can judge what the condition would be if
the very respectable business of banking was not strictly regulated by
law. We have an anti-trust law intended to prevent the devouring
of small industries by large ones--law made necessary by injustice
nation-wide in extent.

Congress and the legislatures of the several states are constantly
compelled to legislate against so-called "business" enterprises that are
being conducted on a brute basis--some are combinations in restraint of
trade, others are merely gambling transactions. For a generation the
agriculturists, who constitute about one-third of our entire population,
have been at the mercy of a comparatively small group of market gamblers
who, by betting, force prices up or down for their own pecuniary gain.
An anti-option law has been recently enacted after an agitation of
nearly thirty years, and also a law regulating the packers. These are
only a few illustrations; they could be multiplied without limit. They
show how unbrotherly society sometimes is even in this highly favoured
nation.

How can Christ's teachings relieve the situation? Easily. He dealt with
fundamentals, and gave special attention to the causes of evil. He
taught, first, that man should love God--the basis of all religion;
second, He taught that man should commune with the Heavenly Father
through prayer--the basis of all worship; third, He proclaimed the
existence of a future life in which the righteous shall be rewarded and
the wicked punished. These three doctrines contribute powerfully to
morality, the basis of stable government. In another address I have
called attention to the destructive influence exerted by the doctrine of
evolution, as applied to man, and have pointed out how Darwinism
weakens faith in God, makes a mockery of prayer, undermines belief in
immortality, reduces Christ to the stature of a man, lessens the sense
of brotherhood and encourages brutishness. It is unnecessary, therefore,
to dwell upon this subject in this address.

Christ warned against the sins into which man is sure to fall when the
heart is not wholly devoted to the service of God. He shows how evil in
the heart will manifest itself in the life. Greed is at the bottom of
most of the wrong-doing with which government has to deal. The Bible
says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

It surely is responsible for unspeakable ills. The case is so plain that
human reason would seem sufficient to furnish a cure. It ought not to
be difficult to agree upon the principles that should govern legitimate
accumulations.

There are two propositions that cover the whole ground; one is economic
and the other rests upon religion. Both are based upon the laws of God,
but one can be enforced by the government, while the other is binding on
the conscience alone.

The divine law of rewards is self-evident. When God gave us the earth
with its fertile soil, the sunshine with its warmth and the rains with
their moisture, His voice proclaimed as clearly as if it had issued from
the skies: Go work, and in proportion to your industry and ability so
shall be your reward. This is God's law and it will prevail except where
force suspends it or cunning evades it. It is the duty of the Church to
teach, and the duty of Christians to respect, God's law of rewards.

It is the duty of the government to give free course and full sway to
the divine law of rewards; first, by abstaining from interference with
that law; and second, by preventing interference by individuals. No
defense need be made of the righteousness of this law; just in so far
as the government can make it possible for each individual to draw from
society according to his contribution to the welfare of society it will
encourage the maximum of effort on the part of the individual and,
therefore, on the part of society as a whole. If some receive more than
their share, others will necessarily receive less than their share--the
very essence of injustice; the former will become indolent because work
is not required of them and the latter will grow desperate because
their toil is not fairly rewarded. Injustice is the greatest enemy of
government.

But there is a sphere which the government cannot and should not
invade. The government's work ends when it has insured just rewards by
preventing unjust profits, but even a just government cannot bring about
an equal distribution of happiness. It can and should guarantee equality
before the law--that is, equality of opportunity and equal treatment at
the hand of the government--but that will not insure equal prosperity to
each or bestow on all an equal amount of enjoyment. Ability will have to
be taken into consideration, and likewise, industry, integrity and many
other factors.

While the government can encourage all the virtues it cannot compel
them; there is a zone between that Which can be legally required and
that which is morally desirable. When the government has done all in
its power--all that it can do and all that it should do--there will be
inequalities in success, based upon inequalities in merit. There must,
therefore, be a spiritual law to govern when the statute law, based upon
economic principles, has reached its limit.

Christ suggests such a law--the law of stewardship. We hold what we
have--no matter how justly acquired--in trust. That which is ours by
economic right and by the government's permission, is not ours to waste.
We have no more moral right to squander it foolishly than we have to
throw away our bodily strength, our mental energy or our moral worth.

When we analyze ourselves we find that there is little of real value in
us for which we can claim sole credit. We inherit much from ancestry
and draw much from environment long before we are able to choose our
surroundings. The ideals which come to us from others will account for
nearly all that we do not derive from the past and from those among whom
we spend our youth. If one has accepted Christ, received forgiveness of
sin and been brought into living contact with the Heavenly Father,
he becomes indebted beyond the power of language to describe. Our
indebtedness if discharged at all must be paid not, as a rule, to those
who have contributed most largely to making us what we are, but by
general service to those now living and to those who succeed us. Our
debtors are as impersonal as our creditors.

Nothing could contribute more to the security of the government than
an approximation to the divine standard of rewards, and if all then
recognized and obeyed the law of stewardship nearly all the complaint
that would still exist would be silenced by the volunteer service
rendered by the fortunate to the unfortunate.

"The mob"--the terror of orderly government--has been described by
Victor Hugo as "the human race in misery." When the brotherhood of
Christ is established a just standard of rewards will abolish law-made
misery and private benevolence will relieve such suffering as may come
upon the members of society without their fault and in spite of all the
government can do.

But plain as are the dangers arising from love of money, and reasonable
as seem the means of meeting them, the mad race for riches goes on all
over the world. The mind is powerless to call a halt; intellectual
processes fail--man needs a voice that can speak with authority--a voice
that must be obeyed. He needs even more--he needs to be born again. His
heart must be cleansed and his thoughts turned to higher things. It is
to such that Christ appeals when He asks: "What shall it profit a man if
he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Let man cease
to be brutish and become brotherly and he will need few restraining
statutes.

If it is brutish to turn so-called legitimate business into grand
larceny, what shall be said of those forms of money-making that deprave
both parties to the transaction? The liquor traffic furnished the best
illustration of the power of the dollar to blind the eyes of greedy men
to the crime and misery produced by drink. The beneficiaries of this
wicked business formerly included high church officials--and does yet in
some countries--who swelled their incomes with the dividends collected
from vice; they included also highly respected brewers and distillers as
well as saloon-keepers of all degrees. The fact that the liquor traffic
manufactured criminals, ruined men and women, produced poverty,
disrupted families, lowered the standard of education, lessened
attendance upon worship and even afflicted little children before their
birth, was not sufficient to deter people from engaging in it--even
some calling themselves Christians. The handling of intoxicating drinks
continued openly until these centers of pollution were closed by an
emphatic expression of the nation's conscience.

Now, the fight is against the bootlegger and the smuggler. The man who
peddles liquor, like the man who sells habit-forming drugs, is an outlaw
and his trade is branded as an enemy of society. The sanction given to
prohibition by the law brings to its support all who respect orderly
government and reduces the enemies of prohibition to those whose
fondness for drink, or for the profits obtainable from its illicit sale,
is sufficient to overcome conscientious scruples and a sense of civic
duty. Those who oppose prohibition now are shameless enough to become
voluntary companions of the lawless members of society, but this number
will constantly decrease as the virtue of the country asserts itself
at the polls in the election of officials who are in sympathy with the
enforcement of the law.

The unrest which pervades the industrial world to-day also threatens the
stability of government. The members of the Capitalistic group and the
members of the Labour group are becoming more and more class-conscious;
they are solidifying as if they looked forward with a vague dread
to what they regard as an inevitable class conflict. The same plan,
Universal Brotherhood, can reconcile all class differences. Is there any
other plan? Christ died for all--the employer as well as the employee;
He is the friend of those who pay wages as well as of those who work for
wages; the children of one class are as dear to Him as the children of
the other. His creed brings man into harmony with God and then teaches
him to love his neighbour as himself. To put human rights before
property rights--the man before the dollar, is simply to put the
teachings of the Saviour into modern language and apply them to
present-day conditions.

The whole code of morals of the Nazarene is a protest against the
attitude of antagonism between capital and labour. He pleads for
sympathy and fellowship. Every worker should give to society the maximum
of his productive power--but he cannot do this unless he is a willing
worker. Every employer should give to society the maximum of his
organizing and directing ability, but he cannot do it unless he is a
satisfied employer. What plan but the plan of Christ can fill the world
with _willing workers_ and _satisfied employers?_ Capitalism, supported
by force, cannot save civilization; neither can government by any
class assure the justice that makes for permanence in government. Only
brotherly love can make employers willing to pay fair compensation for
work done and employees anxious to give fair work for their wages.

One of the first fruits of the spirit of brotherhood will be
investigation before strike or lockout, just as our nation has provided
for investigation before war. If these bloody conflicts cannot be
entirely abolished to-day the civilized nations should at least know
_why_ they are to shoot before they begin shooting. The world, too,
should know. War is not a private affair; it disturbs the commerce of
the world, obstructs the ocean's highways and kills innocent bystanders.
Neutral nations suffer as well as those at war. If peacefully inclined
nations cannot avoid loss and suffering _after_ war is begun, they
certainly have a right to demand information as to the nature and merits
of the dispute _before_ any nation begins to "shoot up" civilization.

The strike and the lockout are to our industrial life what war is
between nations, and the general public stands in much the same position
as neutral nations. The number of those actually injured by a suspension
of industry is often many times as great as the total number of
employers and employees in that industry combined.

If, for instance, ninety-five per cent, of the people are asked to
freeze while the mine owners and the mine workers (numbering possibly
five per cent.) fight out their differences, have they not a right to
demand information as to the merits of the dispute before the shivering
begins? If the home builders are asked to suspend construction while
the steel manufacturers and steel workers (but a small fraction of the
population) go to war over the terms of employment, have they not a
right to inquire why before they begin to move into tents? And so with
disputes between railroads and their employees.

Compulsory _arbitration_ of _all_ disputes between labour and capital
is as improbable as compulsory arbitration of _all_ disputes between
nations, but the compulsory _investigation_ of all disputes (before
lockout or strike) will come as soon as the Golden Rule--an expression
of brotherhood--is adopted in industry. When each man loves his
neighbour as himself all rights will be safeguarded--the rights of
employees, the rights of employers and the rights of the public--that
important third party that furnishes the profits for the employer and
the wages for the employee.

Ambition has been a disturbing factor in government. The ambitions of
monarchs have overthrown governments and enslaved races. In republics,
the ambitions of aspirants for office have caused revolutions and
corrupted politics. No form of government is immune to the evils that
flow from ambition, or proof against those who plot for their own
political advancement. For this evil, too, Christ has a remedy. He
changes the point of view. It seems a simple thing, but behold the
transformation! "Let him who would be chiefest among you be servant of
all." He makes service the measure of greatness. This is one of the most
important of the many great doctrines taught by the Saviour. It puts
the accent on _giving_ instead of _getting_; it measures a life by the
_outflow_ rather than by the _income_. Men had been in the habit of
estimating their greatness by the amount of service they could coerce or
buy; Christ taught them to measure their greatness by service rendered
to others. A wonderful transformation will take place in this old world
when all are animated by a desire to contribute to the public good
rather than by an ambition to absorb as much as possible from society.

Brotherhood is easily established among those who "in honour prefer one
another"--who are willing to hold office when they are needed, but
as willing to serve under others as to command. It is impossible
to overestimate the contribution that Christ has made to enduring
government in suppressing unworthy ambition and in implanting high and
ennobling ideals.

War may be mentioned as the fourth foe of enduring government. It is the
resultant of many forces. Love of money is probably more responsible for
modern wars than any other one cause; commercial rivalries lead nations
into injustice and unfair dealing.

Wars are sometimes waged to extend trade--the blood of many being shed
to enrich a few. The supplying of battleships and munitions is so
profitable a business that wars are encouraged by some for the money
they bring to certain classes. Prejudices are aroused, jealousies are
stirred up and hatreds are fanned into flame. Class conflicts cause wars
and selfish ambitions have often embroiled nations; in fact, war is like
a boil, it indicates that there is poison in the blood. Christ is the
great physician whose teachings purify the blood of the body politic and
restore health.

In dealing with the subject of war we cannot ignore another great
foundation principle of Christianity, namely, forgiveness. The war
through which the world has recently passed is not only without a
parallel in the blood and treasure it has cost, but it was a typical war
in that nearly every important war-producing cause contributed to the
fierceness of the conflict. Personal ambition, trade rivalries, the
greed of munition-makers, race hatreds and revenge--all played a part in
the awful tragedy. Thirty millions of human lives were sacrificed; three
hundred billion dollars' worth of property was destroyed; more than two
hundred billion dollars of indebtedness was added to the burden that
the world was already carrying. The paper currency of the nations was
swollen from seven billions to fifty-six and the gold reserve dwindled
from seventy per cent. to twelve.

And, oh, the pity! nearly every great nation engaged in the war was a
Christian nation and every important branch of the Church was involved!
And this occurred nineteen hundred years after the birth of the Saviour,
at whose coming the angels sang, "on earth, peace, good-will to men."

The world is weary of war. If blood is necessary for the remission of
sins, enough has been spilled to atone for the wrong done by all who
live upon the earth; if sorrow is necessary to repentance and reform,
enough tears have been shed to wash away all the crimes of the past.
This last plague would seem to have been sufficient to release the world
from bondage to force--if so, mankind is ready to turn over a new leaf
and set about the task of finding a way to prevent war.

As Christ can remove the pecuniary cause of war by purging the heart of
that love of money which leads men into evil doings, the class-conflict
cause by stimulating brotherly love, and the ambition cause, by setting
up a new measure of greatness; so He can subdue hatred and silence the
cry for revenge.

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord," should be a
restraint, but Christ goes farther and commands us to love our enemies.
That was the complete cure for which the world was not ready when God
made Moses His spokesman. "Thou shalt not," came first; "Thou shalt,"
came later. Christ's creed compels positive helpfulness and love is the
basis of that creed.

Love makes money-grabbing seem contemptible; love makes class prejudice
impossible; love makes selfish ambition a thing to be despised; love
converts enemies into friends.

It may encourage us to expect Christ's teachings to bring world peace
if we consider for a moment what has already been accomplished in the
establishing of peace between individuals. Take, for instance, the
doctrine of forgiveness as applied to indebtedness. In Christ's time
debtors were not only imprisoned but members of the family could be sold
into bondage to satisfy a pecuniary obligation. In Matthew (chap. 18)
we have a picture of the cruelty which the creditor was permitted to
practice:

    Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king,
    which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun
    to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand
    talents [ten million dollars]. But forasmuch as he had not to pay,
    his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and
    all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell
    down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and
    I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with
    compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same
    servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants which owed
    him an hundred pence [seventeen dollars]; and he laid hands on him,
    and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his
    fellow-servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have
    patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but
    went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when
    his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and
    came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord,
    after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant,
    I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest
    not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I
    had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the
    tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

If Christ were to reappear to-day he would find imprisonment for debt
abolished throughout nearly all, if not the entire, civilized world. The
law stays the hand of the creditor, or rather withholds from him the
instruments of torture which he formerly employed. Here we have the
doctrine of forgiveness applied in a very practical form. It is based on
mercy, and yet in a larger sense it rests on justice and promotes the
welfare of society.

But compassion has gone further; we have the exemption law which secures
to the debtor the food necessary for his family and the tools by which
he makes his living. Christ's doctrine has been applied further still;
we have the bankruptcy law which gives a new lease of life to an
insolvent debtor if his failure is without criminal fault on his
part. By turning over to his creditors all the property he has above
exemptions he can go forth from court free from all legal obligations
and begin business unembarrassed. Some who take advantage of these
provisions of the law may be indifferent to the Teacher whose loving
spirit has thus conquered the hard heart of the world, but the triumph
marks a step in human advance and suggests possible changes in other
directions as the principle is increasingly applied to daily life.

International law still permits greater cruelty in war than accompanied
imprisonment for debt. National obligations are enforced by killing the
innocent as well as the guilty. Ports are blockaded, cities are besieged
and even bombed, and non-combatants are starved and drowned.

As imprisonment for debt has disappeared and as duelling is giving way
to the suit at law, so war will be succeeded by courts of arbitration
and tribunals for investigation. All real progress toward peace is in
line with the teachings of the Nazarene and this progress hastens the
coming of governments that shall endure.

With the conclusion of the World War our nation confronts such an
opportunity as never came to any other nation--such an opportunity as
never came to our nation before. We were the only great nation that
sought no selfish advantage and had no old scores to settle, no spirit
of revenge to gratify. Our contributions were made for the world's
benefit--to end war and make self-government respected everywhere. We
entered the conflict at the time when we could render the maximum of
service with a minimum of sacrifice. At the peace conference we asked
nothing for ourselves--no territorial additions, no indemnities, no
reimbursements--just world peace, universal and perpetual. That was to
be our recompense.

It is not entirely the fault of other nations that they do not stand
exactly in the same position that we do. In many respects their
situations are different from ours. They have received from the past an
inheritance of race and national hostility; they have their commercial
ambitions; they have their military and naval groups with antiquated
standards of honour, not to speak of those who, feeding on war
contracts, feel that they have a vested interest in carnage. Besides
these hindrances to peace they lack several advantages which we enjoy
over any other nation of importance, viz., more complete information in
regard to other people, a more general sympathy with other nations and a
greater moral obligation to them. Our nation being made up of the best
blood of the nations of Europe, we learn to know the people at home
through the representatives who come here. Because of our intimate
connection with the foreign elements of our country our sympathy goes
out to all lands; and because we have received from other nations as no
other nation ever did, we are in duty bound to give as no other nation
has given.

We have given the world a peace plan that provides for the investigation
of all disputes before a resort to arms--a plan that gives time
for passions to subside and for reason to resume her sway. We have
substituted the maxim: "Nothing is final between friends," for the
old-fashioned diplomacy based on threats and ultimatums. We have turned
from the blood-stained precedents of the past and invoked a spirit of
brotherhood for the purpose of preventing wars. These treaties contain
a provision which, though seemingly very simple, is profoundly
significant. In former times treaties ran for a certain number of years
and then lapsed unless renewed. The thirty treaties negotiated by our
nation in 1913 and 1914 with three-quarters of the world, providing for
_investigation_ of _all_ disputes before hostilities can begin, run for
five years and then, instead of lapsing, continue until one year after
one of the parties to the treaty has formally demanded its termination.
Note the difference: the old treaties gave the presumption to war--the
new treaties give the presumption to peace. As our constitution requires
a two-thirds vote for ratification of a treaty, a minority of the Senate
(as few as one-third plus one) could prevent the renewal of a treaty;
under the new plan the treaty continues indefinitely until a majority
denounce it.

But while we have made a splendid beginning as the leader of the peace
movement in the world much remains to be done. Our nation should lead in
the crusade for disarmament; no other nation is so well qualified for
leadership in this movement so necessary for civilization. The desire
for peace, intensified by the agonies of an unprecedented war, ought to
be sufficient to bring about disarmament; it should be unnecessary
to invoke financial reasons. But national debts have increased so
enormously as to have become unbearable and the world must disarm or
face universal bankruptcy. The reaction against militarism is more
advanced, but the reaction against navalism is just as sure to come--one
cannot survive without the support of the other. Rivalry in the building
of battleships will not long be tolerated after rivalry in land forces
has been abandoned.

The United States should be the champion of the Christian method of
preserving peace--and the world is ready for it. The devil never won
a greater victory than when he persuaded statesmen to make the absurd
experiment of trying to prevent war by getting ready for it. "Arm
yourselves," he whispered, "and you will never have to use your
weapons." How his Satanic majesty must have gloated over the gullibility
of his dupes.

John Bright, Quaker statesman of Great Britain, pointed out the fallacy
of this policy. He called it, "Worshipping the scimitar" and predicted
that it would invite war instead of preventing it. But the din of the
munition factories drowned the voice of protest and the civilized
world--yes, the Christian world--went into a prepared war, each nation
protesting that it was drawn into the conflict against its will.

Permanent peace cannot rest upon terrorism; friendship alone can inspire
peace, and friendship has no swagger in its gait; it does not flourish a
sword. Our nation has invited the world to a conference to consider the
limitation of armaments; if disarmament by agreement fails we should
enter upon a systematic policy of reduction ourselves and by so doing
arouse the Christians, the friends of humanity and the toilers of the
world to the criminal folly of the brute method of dealing with this
question.

We should also join the world in creating a tribunal before which every
complaint of international injustice can be heard. If reason is to be
substituted for force the forum instituted for the consideration of
these questions must have authority to hear all issues between nations,
in order that public opinion, based upon information, may compel such
action as may be necessary to remove discord.

It does not lessen the value of such a tribunal to withhold from it the
power to enforce its findings by the weapons of warfare. In the case of
our own nation, we have no constitutional right to transfer to another
nation authority to declare war for us, or to impair our freedom of
action when the time for action arrives.

Then, too, the judgment that rests upon its merits alone, and is not
enforceable by war, is more apt to be fair than one that can be executed
by those who render it. A persuasive plea appeals to the reason; a
command is usually uttered in an entirely different spirit.

There is another difference between a recommendation and a decree; if
the European nations could call our army and navy into their service
at any time they might yield to the temptation to use our resources
to advance their ambitions. As the man who carries a revolver is more
likely than an unarmed man to be drawn into a fight, so the European
nations would be more apt to engage in selfish quarrels if they carried
the fighting power of the United States in their hip pocket. For
their own good, as well as for our protection and for the saving of
civilization, it is well to require a clear and complete statement of
the reasons for the war and of the ends that the belligerents have in
view, before we mingle our blood with theirs upon the battle-field.

Our nation is in an ideal position; it has financial power and moral
prestige; it has disinterestedness of purpose and far-reaching sympathy.
When to these qualifications for leadership independence of action is
added we can render the maximum of service to the world.

It matters not what name is given to the cooperative body; it may be a
League of Nations or an Association of Nations or anything else. The
name is a mere form; the tribunal should be the greatest that has ever
assembled. Our delegates should be chosen by the people _directly_, as
our senators, our congressmen, our governors, and our legislators are,
and as our President virtually is. Representatives chosen to speak for
the American people on such momentous themes as will be discussed in
that body should have their commissions signed by the sovereign voters
themselves. We cannot afford to intrust the selection of these delegates
to the President or to Congress. The members of our delegation should
not be discredited by any flavour of presidential favouritism or by any
taint of Congressional log-rolling.

Delegates, selected by popular vote in districts, would reflect the
sentiment of the entire country, and their power would be enhanced
rather than decreased if they were compelled to seek endorsement of
their views on vital questions at a referendum vote. Their authority to
cast the nation's vote for war ought to be subject to the approval of
the people, expressed at the ballot box. Those who are to furnish the
blood and take upon themselves the burden of war-debts ought to be
consulted before the solemn duties and the sacrifices of war are
required of them.

Our nation can, by its example, teach the world the true meaning of that
democracy which was to be made safe throughout the world. The essence of
democracy is found in the right of the people to have what they want,
and experience shows that the best way to find out what the people want
is to ask them. There is more virtue in the people themselves than can
be found anywhere else; the faults of popular government result chiefly
from the embezzlement of power by representatives of the people--the
people themselves are not often at fault. But, suppose they make
mistakes occasionally: have they not a right to make _their own
mistakes_? Who has a right to make mistakes for them?

The Saviour not only furnished a solution for all of life's problems,
individual and governmental, national and international, but He also
called His followers to the performance of the duties of citizenship:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things
that are God's," was the answer that Christ made to those who were
quibbling about the claims of the government under which they lived.

The citizen is a unit of the community in which he lives and a part of
his government. Our government derives its power from the consent of the
governed; what kind of a government would we have if all Christians were
indifferent to its claims? No rule can be laid down for one citizen that
does not apply to all; each citizen, therefore, should bear his share of
the burden if he is to claim his share of the government protection. The
teachings of Christ require that we should respect the rights of others
as well as insist upon the recognition of our own rights. In fact, the
recognition of the rights of others is a higher form of patriotism than
mere insistence upon that which is due us and the spirit of brotherhood
is calculated to create just such a community of interest. Each will
find his security in the safety of all--the welfare of each being the
concern of the whole group.

In a government like ours the Christian is compelled by conscience to
avoid sins of omission as well as sins of commission; he must not only
avoid the doing of evil, but he must not permit wrong-doing by law if
he can prevent it. In other words, the conscientious citizen must
understand the principles of his government, the methods employed by his
government and the policies that come before the government for
adoption or rejection. He is a partner in a very important business--a
stockholder in the greatest of all corporations. If the good people of
the land do not do their duty as citizens they may be sure that bad
people will use the power and instrumentalities of government for their
own advantage and for the injury of the many.

An indifferent Christian? It is impossible. A Christian cannot be
indifferent without betraying a sacred trust. And yet every bad law, and
every bad condition that can be remedied by a good law, proclaims an
indifferent citizenship or a citizenship lacking in virtue, for popular
government is merely a reflection of the character of its active
citizenship.

The charitable view to take of a nation's failure to have the best
government, the best laws and the best administration possible, is not
that the citizenship is lacking in virtue and good intent, but that
it is lacking in information. It is the business of the good citizen,
therefore, to encourage the spread of accurate information--the
dissemination of light--in order that those who "love darkness rather
than light because their deeds are evil" may not be able to work under
cover. No evil can stand long against a united Christian citizenship;
witness how prohibition came as soon as the churches united against the
saloon.

Having faith in the power of truth to win its way when understood,
Christians believe in publicity and are not afraid to call every evil
before the bar of public judgment. Believing in the superhuman wisdom of
Christ, as well as in the saving power of His blood, they are bold to
apply His code of morals to every problem. His is a name that will
increasingly arouse the hosts of righteousness to irresistible attacks
on the brutishness that endangers government, society and civilization.

I am so confident that the Christian citizenship of this country will
prove faithful to every trust and rise to the requirements of every
emergency that I venture to repeat a forecast of our nation's future,
made more than twenty years ago:

I can conceive of a national destiny which meets the responsibilities
of to-day and measures up to the possibilities of to-morrow. Behold
a republic, resting securely upon the mountain of eternal truth--a
republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the
self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among
men to secure these rights; and that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic, in which
civil and religious liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavour and in
which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbour's injury--a
republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one
cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic, standing erect, while empires
all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments--a
republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold
a republic, increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in
influence; solving the problems of civilization, and hastening the
coming of an universal brotherhood--a republic which shakes thrones
and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and
inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic, gradually
but surely becoming the supreme moral factor to the world's progress and
the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes--a republic whose history
like the path of the just--"is as the shining light that shineth more
and more unto the perfect day."



IX

THE SPOKEN WORD


Some have prophesied that with the spread of the newspaper public
speaking would decline--but the prediction has not been fulfilled and
its failure is easily explained. In the first place, the written
page can never be a substitute for the message delivered orally. The
newspaper vastly multiplies the audience but they hear only the echo,
not the speech itself. One cannot write as he speaks because he lacks
the inspiration furnished by an audience. Gladstone has very happily
described the influence exerted by the audience upon the speaker,
an influence which returns to the audience stamped with his own
personality. He says that the speaker draws inspiration from the
audience in the form of mist and pours it back in a flood. It need
hardly be added that this refers to speaking without manuscript, but
reading, while always regrettable, is sometimes necessary--especially
when accuracy is more important than the immediate effect.

In order to secure both accuracy and animation it is well to prepare the
speech in advance and then revise it after delivery.

With increased intelligence a larger percentage of the population are
able to think upon their feet, to take part in public discussions and
to give their community and country the benefit of their conscience and
judgment. The fraternities and labour and commercial organizations have
largely aided in the development of speaking by the exchange of views at
their regular meetings. The extension of popular government naturally
increases public speaking as it brings the masses into closer relation
to the government and makes them more and more a controlling force in
politics.

The newspapers, instead of making the stump unnecessary, often increase
the necessity for face to face communication in order that both sides
may be represented and, sometimes, in order that misrepresentations may
be exposed.

No substitute can be found for the pulpit. Earnestness which finds
expression through the voice cannot be communicated through the printed
page. If we are thrilled by what we read it gives us only a glimpse of
the power of speech to stir the soul. If the spoken word is to continue
to play an important part in the communication of information and in the
compelling of thought it is worth while to consider some of the rules
that contribute to the effectiveness of the pulpit and the platform.

Sometimes I receive a letter from a young man who informs me that he is
a born orator and asks what such an one should do to prepare him for his
life-work. I answer that while an orator must be born like others his
success will not depend on inheritance, neither will a favourable
environment in youth assure it. An ancestor's fame may inspire him to
effort and the associations of the fireside may stimulate, but ability
to speak effectively is an acquirement rather than a gift.

Eloquence may be defined as the speech of one who _knows what he is
talking about_ and _means what he says_--it is _thought on fire_. One
cannot communicate information unless he possesses it. There is quite a
difference in people in this respect; we say of one that he knows more
than he can tell and, of another, that he can tell all he knows, but it
is a reflection upon a man to say that he can tell more than he knows.

The first thing, therefore, is to know the subject. One should know his
subject so well that a question will aid rather than embarrass him. A
question from the audience annoys one only when the speaker is _unable_
to answer it or does not _want_ to answer it. Many a speaker has
been brought into ridicule by a question that revealed his lack of
information on the subject; and a speaker has sometimes been routed by
a question that revealed something he intended to conceal. Before
discussing a subject one should go all around it and view it from every
standpoint, asking and answering all the questions likely to be put by
his opponents. Nothing strengthens a speaker more than to be able
to answer every question put to him. His argument is made much more
forcible because the question focuses attention on the particular point;
a ready answer makes a deeper impression than the speaker could make
by the use of the same language without the benefit of the question to
excite interest in the proposition.

But knowledge is of little use to the speaker without earnestness.
Persuasive speech is from heart to heart, not from mind to mind. It is
difficult for a speaker to deceive his audience as to his own feelings;
it takes a trained actor to make an imaginary thing seem real. Nearly
two thousand years ago one of the Latin poets expressed this thought
when he said, "If you would draw tears from others' eyes, yourself the
signs of grief must show."

If one is master of an important subject and feels that he has a message
that must be delivered he will not lack a hearing. As there are always
important subjects before the country for settlement there will always
be oratory. In order to speak eloquently on one subject a man need not
be well informed on a large number of subjects, although information on
all subjects is of value. One who can in a general way discuss a large
number of subjects may be entirely outclassed by one who knows but one
subject but knows it well and _feels_ it.

The pulpit has developed many great orators because it furnishes the
largest subject with which one can deal. The preacher who knows the
Bible and feels that every human being needs the message that the Bible
contains cannot fail to reach the hearts of his hearers. Dr. E. Benjamin
Andrews, once the President of Brown University and later Chancellor
of Nebraska University, told me of a sermon that he heard Jasper, the
coloured preacher of Richmond, deliver late in life on an anniversary
occasion. Jasper claimed nothing for himself but attributed his long
pastorate and whatever influence he had to the fact that he preached
from only one book--the Bible.

When I was in college I heard a visitor draw a contrast between Cicero
and Demosthenes. I am not sure that it is fair to Cicero but it brings
out an important distinction. As I recall it, the speaker said, "When
Cicero spake the people said, 'How well Cicero speaks'; when Demosthenes
spake his hearers cried, 'Let us go against Philip.'" One impressed
himself upon his audience while the other impressed his subject. It need
hardly be said that in all effective oratory the speaker succeeds in
proportion as he can make his hearers forget him in their absorption
in the subject that he presents. I may add that there is a practical
advantage in the speaker's diverting attention from himself. There is
only one of him and he would soon become monotonous if he continually
thrust himself forward; but, as subjects are innumerable, he can give
infinite variety to his speech by putting the emphasis upon the theme.

It is better that the audience, when it breaks up, should gather into
groups and discuss what the speaker said than to go away saying, "What a
delightful speech it was," and yet not remember the things said. Whether
the statements made are true or not it does no harm to have them
challenged; if some dispute what has been said and others defend the
speaker it is certain that thought has been aroused, and thinking leads
to truth. That is why freedom of speech is so essential in a republic;
it is the only process by which truth can be separated from error and
made to stand forth in all its strength. We should, therefore, invite
discussion.

While acquaintance with the subject and heartfelt interest in it are the
first essentials of convincing speech, there are other qualities that
greatly strengthen discourse. First among these I would put _clearness
of statement_. Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence
that _certain_ truths are self-evident. It is a very conservative
statement of an important fact; it could be made stronger: _all truth is
self-evident_. The best service one can render a truth, therefore, is to
state it so clearly that it can be understood. This does not mean that
every self-evident truth will be immediately accepted because there are
many things that interfere with the acceptance of truth.

First, let us consider depth of conviction. Some people take their
convictions more seriously than others. In India I heard a missionary
speak of another person as having "no opinions--nothing but
convictions"; while one of the enemies of Gladstone described him as
being the only person he ever knew who "could improvise the convictions
of a lifetime." Depth of conviction gives great force to an individual
when he is going in the right direction, but he is difficult to change
if he is going in the wrong direction. When I visited the Hermitage for
the first time they told me of an old coloured man, formerly a slave of
Jackson's, who survived his master many years. He was, of course, an
object of interest and many questions were asked in regard to Jackson's
characteristics. One visitor inquired of him if he thought Andrew
Jackson went to heaven. He quickly responded, "If he sot his head that
way, he did."

Prejudice also delays the spread of truth. People sometimes brace
themselves against arguments. If I may be pardoned a personal
illustration I will cite a case of political prejudice that came under
my own observation. I was speaking in a town in western Nebraska, an
out-of-the-way place that I had seldom visited. A friend heard a man
say, "Well, I never heard him and I thought I would come and see what he
has to say." And then, with a determined look upon his face he added,
"But he will not convince me." Political prejudice is not so hard to
overcome as race prejudice and race prejudice is not so deep-seated as
religious prejudice; but prejudice of any kind, whether it be personal,
political, race, or religious, seriously interferes with the progress of
truth.

Narrowness of vision often obstructs acceptance of truth. One must be
made to feel interested in the subject before he will listen to that
which is said about it. Aristotle has suggested a means by which each
one can measure himself. "If he is interested in himself only he is
very small; if he is interested in his family he is larger; if he is
interested in his community he is larger still." Thus he grows in size
as his sympathies expand--the largest person being the one whose heart
takes in the whole world. In proportion as we can enlarge the horizon of
the hearer we can increase the number of subjects to which he will give
attention. The minister has an advantage in that he deals with the one
subject about which all mankind thinks. The soul yearns for God: it is
man's highest aspiration and his most enduring concern. When one's
heart is changed--when he is born again--he listens to, understands and
accepts arguments that he rejected before.

Selfish interest is one of the most common obstructions to the advance
of truth. Very often this difficulty can be overcome by showing that
the party is mistaken as to the effect of the proposed measure upon his
interests. Fortunately in matters of government a large majority of the
people have interests on the same side and the real task is to make this
plain. Where there is a real opposing interest, argument is of little
use unless it can be shown that the public welfare outweighs the
personal interest--that is, that a public interest is large enough to
swallow up the interest that is private and personal.

Whenever one refuses to admit such a self-evident truth, for instance,
as that it is wrong to steal, don't argue with him--search him; the
reason may be found in his pocket.

Next to clearness of statement, I would put conciseness--the condensing
of much into a few words. This is a great asset to a speaker. The
moulder of public opinion does not manufacture opinion; he simply puts
it into form so that it can be remembered and repeated; just as my
father used bullet-moulds to make bullets when he was about to go
squirrel hunting. The moulds did not create the lead, they simply put
it into effective form. Jefferson was the greatest moulder of public
opinion in the early days of this country. He did not create Democratic
sentiment; he simply took the aspirations that had nestled in the
hearts of men from time immemorial and put them into appropriate and
epigrammatic language, so that the nation thought his thoughts after
him, as the world is now doing. The proverbs of Solomon are priceless
for the same reason; they are full of wisdom--wisdom so expressed that
it can be easily comprehended.

When I was a boy my father would call me in from work a little before
noon, read to me from Proverbs and comment on the sayings of the Wise
Man. After his death (when I was twenty) I recalled his fondness for
Proverbs and read the thirty-one chapters through each month for a year.
I was increasingly impressed with their beauty and strength. I have used
many of them in speeches. The one I have most frequently used in the
advocacy of reforms reads: "A prudent man foreseeth the evil and hideth
himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished."

I have often used a story to illustrate how much can be said in a few
words. A man said to another, "Do you drink?" The man to whom the
question was addressed, replied rather indignantly, "That is my
business, sir." "Have you any other business?" asked the first man. The
story is not only valuable as an illustration of brevity but it has a
moral side; if a man drinks much he soon has no other business.

In this connection I will speak of the words to be employed. Our use of
big words increases from infancy to the day of graduation. I think it is
safe to say that with nearly all of us the maximum is reached on the day
when we leave school. We use more big words that day than we have
ever used before or will ever use again. When we go from college into
every-day life and begin to deal with our fellowmen we drop the big words
because we are more interested in making people understand us than we
are in parading our learning. The more earnest one is the smaller the
words used. If a young man used big words to assure his sweetheart of
his affection she would never understand him, but the word love has but
one syllable, just as the words life, faith, hope, home, food, and work
are one-syllable words. Remember that nearly every audience is made up
of people who differ in the amount of book learning they have received.
If you speak only to those best educated you will speak over the heads
of those less educated. A story is told on a great scientist who made
two holes in the back fence and showed them to his wife, explaining that
the big hole was for the cat and the small hole for the kitten. "But
cannot the kitten go through the same hole as the cat?" inquired his
wife. If you use little words you can reach not only the least learned,
but the most learned as well.

Illustration is one of the most potent forms of argument; we understand
new things by comparing them with what we know. Christ was a master of
illustrations--the master. No one of whom history tells us has ever used
the illustration as effectively as He. He took the objects of every-day
life and made them mirrors which reflected truth. His parables give us a
wide range of illustration--the Sower going forth to sow, the Wheat and
the Tares, the Prodigal Son, the Wise and Foolish Virgins--in fact, all
the illustrations that He used might be cited to prove the power of this
form of argument.

The question has been used throughout history; at every great crisis the
orators of the day have used the question form of argument. Its strength
depends upon the completeness with which the speaker includes all of the
essentials involved in summing up the situation. The greatest question
ever presented as an argument was that in which Christ concentrated
attention upon the value of the soul. No one will ever place a higher
estimate upon the soul than Christ did when He asked, "What shall it
profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"
No greater question was ever asked, or can be asked. (See Lecture, "The
Value of the Soul.")

Courage is the last attribute to which I shall invite your attention.
The speaker must possess moral courage, and to possess it he must have
faith.

Faith exerts a controlling influence over our lives. If it is argued
that works are more important than faith, I reply that faith comes
first, works afterward. Until one believes, he does not act, and in
accordance with his faith, so will be his deeds.

Abraham, called of God, went forth in faith to establish a race and a
religion. It was faith that led Columbus to discover America, and faith
again that conducted the early settlers to Jamestown, the Dutch to New
York and the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock. Faith has led the pioneer across
deserts and through trackless forests, and faith has brought others in
his footsteps to lay in our land the foundations of a civilization the
highest that the world has known.

I might draw an illustration from the life of each one of you. You have
faith in education, and that faith is behind your study; you have faith
in this institution, and that faith brought you here; your parents
and friends have had faith in you and have helped you to your present
position. And back of all these manifestations of faith is your faith in
God, in His Word and in His Son. We are told that without faith it
is impossible to please God, and I may add that without faith it is
impossible to meet the expectations of those who are most interested in
you. Let me present this subject under four heads:

First--You must have faith in yourselves. Not that you should carry
confidence in yourselves to the point of displaying egotism, and yet,
egotism is not the worst possible fault. My father was wont to say that
if a man had the big head, you could whittle it down, but that if he had
the little head, there was no hope for him. If you have the big head
others will help you to reduce it, but if you have the little head, they
cannot help you. You must believe that you can do things or you will
not undertake them. Those who lack faith attempt nothing and therefore
cannot possibly succeed; those with great faith attempt the seemingly
impossible and by attempting prove what man can do.

But you cannot have faith in yourselves unless you are conscious that
you are prepared for your work. If one is feeble in body, he cannot have
the confidence in his physical strength that the athlete has, and, as
physical strength is necessary, one is justified in devoting to exercise
and to the strengthening of the body such time as may be necessary.

Intellectual training is also necessary, and more necessary than it used
to be. When but few had the advantages of a college education, the
lack of such advantages was not so apparent. Now when so many of the
ministers, lawyers, physicians, journalists, and even business men, are
college graduates, one cannot afford to be without the best possible
intellectual preparation. When one comes into competition with his
fellows, he soon recognizes his own intellectual superiority, equality
or inferiority as compared with others. In China they have a very
interesting bird contest. The singing lark is the most popular bird
there, and as you go along the streets of a Chinese city you see
Chinamen out airing their birds. These singing larks are entered in
contests, and the contests are decided by the birds themselves. If, for
instance, a dozen are entered, they all begin to sing lustily, but as
they sing, one after another recognizes that it is outclassed and gets
down off its perch, puts its head under its wing and will not sing any
more. At last there is just one bird left singing, and it sings with
enthusiasm as if it recognized its victory.

So it is in all intellectual contests. Put twenty men in a room and let
them discuss any important question. At first all will take part in the
discussion, but as the discussion proceeds, one after another drops out
until finally two are left in debate, one on one side and one on the
other. The rest are content to have their ideas presented by those who
can present them best. If you are going to have faith, therefore, in
yourselves, you must be prepared to meet your competitors upon an equal
plane; if you are prepared, they will be conscious of it as well as you.

A high purpose is also a necessary part of your preparation. You cannot
afford to put a low purpose in competition with a high one. If you go
out to work from a purely selfish standpoint, you will be ashamed
to stand in the presence of those who have higher aims and nobler
ambitions. Have faith in yourselves, but to have faith you must
be prepared for your work, and this preparation must be moral and
intellectual as well as physical. The preacher should be the boldest of
men because of the unselfish character of his work.

Second: Have faith in mankind. The great fault of our scholarship is
that it is not sufficiently sympathetic. It holds itself aloof from the
struggling masses. It is too often cold and cynical. It is better to
trust your fellowmen and be occasionally deceived than to be distrustful
and live alone. Mankind deserves to be trusted. There is something good
in every one, and that good responds to sympathy. If you speak to the
multitude and they do not respond, do not despise them, but rather
examine what you have said. If you speak from your heart, you will
speak to their hearts, and they can tell very quickly whether you are
interested in them or simply in yourself. The heart of mankind is sound;
the sense of justice is universal. Trust it, appeal to it, do not
violate it. People differ in race characteristics, in national
traditions, in language, in ideas of government, and in forms of
religion, but at the heart they are very much alike. I fear the
plutocracy of wealth; I respect the aristocracy of learning; but I thank
God for the democracy of the heart. You must love if you would be loved.
"They loved him because he first loved them"--this is the verdict
pronounced where men have unselfishly laboured for the welfare of the
whole people. Link yourselves in sympathy with your fellowmen; mingle
with them; know them and you will trust them and they will trust you.
If you are stronger than others, bear heavier loads; if you are more
capable than others, show it by your willingness to perform a larger
service.

Third: If you are going to accomplish anything in this country, you must
have faith in your form of government, and there is every reason why
you should have faith in it. It is the best form of government ever
conceived by the mind of man, and it is spreading throughout the world.
It is best, not because it is perfect, but because it can be made as
perfect as the people deserve to have. It is a people's government, and
it reflects the virtue and intelligence of the people. As the people
make progress in virtue and intelligence, the government ought to
approach more and more nearly to perfection. It will never, of course,
be entirely free from faults, because it must be administered by human
beings, and imperfection is to be expected in the work of human hands.

Jefferson said a century ago that there were naturally two parties in
every country, one which drew to itself those who trusted the people,
the other which as naturally drew to itself those who distrusted the
people. That was true when Jefferson said it, and it is true to-day.
In every country there are those who are seeking to enlarge the
participation of the people in government, and that group is growing. In
every country there are those who are endeavouring to obstruct each
step toward popular government, and that group is diminishing. In this
country the tendency is constantly toward more popular government, and
every effort which has for its object the bringing of the government
into closer touch with the people is sure of ultimate triumph.

Our form of government is good. Call it a democracy if you are a
democrat, or a republic if you are a republican, but help to make it a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A democracy
is wiser than an aristocracy because a democracy can draw from the
wisdom of the people, and all of the people know more than any part of
the people. A democracy is stronger than a monarchy, because, as the
historian, Bancroft, has said: "It dares to discard the implements of
terror and build its citadel in the hearts of men." And a democracy is
the most just form of government because it is built upon the doctrine
that men are created equal, that governments are instituted to protect
the inalienable rights of the people and that governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed.

We know that a grain of wheat planted in the ground will, under the
influence of the sunshine and rain, send forth a blade, and then a
stalk, and then the full head, because there is behind the grain of
wheat a force irresistible and constantly at work. There is behind moral
and political truth a force equally irresistible and always operating,
and just as we may expect the harvest in due season, we may be sure of
the triumph of these eternal forces that make for man's uplifting. Have
faith in your form of government, for it rests upon a growing idea, and
if you will but attach yourself to that idea, you will grow with it.

Fourth, the subject presents itself in another aspect. You must not only
have faith in yourselves, in humanity and in the form of government
under which we live, but if you would do a great work, you must have
faith in God. I am not a preacher; I am but a layman; yet, I am
not willing that the minister shall monopolize the blessings of
Christianity, and I do not know of any moral precept binding upon the
preacher behind the pulpit that is not binding upon the Christian and
whose acceptance would not be helpful to every one. I am not speaking
from the minister's standpoint but from the observation of every-day life
when I say that there is a wide difference between the desire to live
so that men will applaud you and the desire to live so that God will be
satisfied with you. Man needs the inner strength that comes from faith
in God and belief in His constant presence.

Man needs faith in God, therefore, to strengthen him in his hours of
trial, and he needs it to give him courage to do the work of life. How
can one fight for a principle unless he believes in the triumph of
right? How can he believe in the triumph of the right if he does not
believe that God stands back of the truth and that God is able to bring
victory to His side? He knows not whether he is to live for the truth or
to die for it, but if he has the faith he ought to have, he is as ready
to die for it as to live for it.

Faith will not only give you strength when you fight for righteousness,
but your faith will bring dismay to your enemies. There is power in the
presence of an honest man who does right because it is right and dares
to do the right in the face of all opposition. That is true to-day, and
has been true through all history.

If your preparation is complete so that you are conscious of your
ability to do great things; if you have faith in your fellowmen and
become a colabourer with them in the raising of the general level of
society; if you have faith in our form of government and seek to purge
it of its imperfections so as to make it more and more acceptable to our
own people and to the oppressed of other nations; and if, in addition,
you have faith in God and in the triumph of the right, no one can set
limits to your achievements. This is the greatest of all ages in which
to live. The railroads and the telegraph wires have brought the corners
of the earth close together, and it is easier to-day for one to be
helpful to the whole world than it was a few centuries ago to be
helpful to the inhabitants of a single valley. This is the age of great
opportunity and of great responsibility. Let your faith be large, and
let this large faith inspire you to perform a large service.

Because the preacher has consecrated himself to God's service and seeks
divine guidance from the Bible and through prayer, he is able to speak
with absolute confidence. His trust is the measure of his strength;
because he _knows_ what Christ has done for him he knows what Christ can
do for others. His own experience is the foundation of his trust in the
Gospel that he preaches. Because a miracle was wrought in his own life
he knows that the day of miracles is not past; because one heart has
been regenerated he knows that all hearts can be, and that Christ,
through His power to transform the life of each individual, can
transform a world.

I beg you to prepare yourselves to proclaim the Word of God by voice
as well as with pen. You have a mighty message for a waiting world--a
message worthy of all your powers of heart and mind and tongue.



BIBLE STUDY


_P. WHITWELL WILSON Author of the "Christ We Forget_"

The Vision We Forget

A Layman's Reading of the Book of Revelation. $2.00

"Certainly this is the most entertaining treatise on the Revelation ever
written. Will make the Revelation a new book in the reading of many
Christians. It brings the Revelation down into the present day and makes
it all intensely vital and modern."

_C.E. World_.


_J.J. ROSS

The author of "The Kingdom in Mystery."_

Thinking Through the New Testament

An Outline Study of Every Book In the New Testament. $1.75

A course of study in the books of the New Testament. Dr. Ross has
prepared a volume which can be used by the individual student as well as
by study groups.


_FREDERIC B. OXTOBY_

Making the Bible Real

Introductory Studies in the Bible. $1.00

In simple, direct language, Dr. Oxtoby brings his readers into close,
intimate contact with the wonderful story of God's chosen People, their
Land, their History, their Prophets and their Literature.


_PHILIP MAURO Author of "The Number of Man"_

Bringing Back the King

Another Volume on the Kingdom. $1.00

Continuing his study of the Kingdom, the author in this volume sets
forth the relation of King David with the Gospel.


_PHILIP MAURO_

Our Liberty in Christ

A Study in Galatians. $1.25

An exposition of Galatians from the standpoint that its main theme is
"the Liberty wherewith Christ has made us free." Special attention is
given to the unfolding of the remarkable "allegory" in Chapter IV.



WORK AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE


_HUGH T. KERR_

Children's Gospel Story-Sermons

A New Volume of Talks to the Young. $1.25

The stories are drawn from history, mythology, the daily newspapers,
biography, and fiction. They are all interesting, and the author
always makes a plain, sensible, evangelical application of them, well
calculated to help boys and girls.

[Illustration: Children's Gospel Story-Sermons.]


_S.D. CHAMBERS_

_Author of "If I Were You_."

To Be or Not To Be

Brief Talks with Children and Young Folks. $1.25

In Mr. Chambers' new volume of "Five Minute Talks" he aims at helping
the children to right decisions--to determine whether they will, or will
not, acquire certain good and bad qualities, calculated to either make
or mar their characters and lives. A useful series, quite above the
ordinary.


_W. RUSSELL BOWIE_

_Rector St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Richmond, Va. Author of "The
Children's Year," etc_.

Sunny Windows

and Other Sermons for Children. $1.25

"Every pastor has the rich opportunity of speaking to the children, and
desires to magnify this opportunity for indoctrination to the highest
degree. The advantage of this book lies in the fact that the preacher
has had unusual success in his ministry with the children in which
he has made use of all the materials here accumulated." _Christian
Advocate_.


_WADE O. SMITH_

_Author of "The Little Jets", etc._

"Say, Fellows!"

Chummy Talks with Young Men about the Game of Life. $1.25

A volume of the famous talks from Wade Smith's Boys' Class: "Say
Fellows, the finest and biggest and most thrilling game of all is the
life game, in which our adversary is the devil. The forces of the devil
are most powerfully organized to overthrow the forces of God's Kingdom."



EVANGELISTIC WORK


_OZORA S. DAVIS_

_President, Chicago Theological Seminary_

Evangelistic Preaching

With Sermon Outlines and Talks to Children and Young People. $1.50

"The best help on this important subject that we have ever seen. Sets
forth with skill and completeness the method of evangelism that best
appeals to the men and women of the present day."--_C.E. World_.

[Illustration]


_WILLIAM E. BIEDERWOLF_

_Sec. The National Federated Evangelistic Committee_

Evangelism

Its Justification--Operation--Value. $1.75

"It is a text-book and a call. Every chapter is full of value. It tells
how to give the invitation and how to conduct the after-meeting. It is a
book for every one who is interested in doing evangelistic work."

_Herald and Presbyter_.


_FREDERICK L. FAGLEY_

_Executive Secretary Commission on Evangelism Congregation Churches_.

Parish Evangelism

An Outline of a Year's Program. $1.00

Mr. Fagley lays down a sensible, workable plan of work, including the
formalities and maintenance of an evangelistic committee, a program of
preaching, methods of personal work, deepening of the prayer-life, etc.


_J.W. PORTER_

The Assurance of Salvation

And Other Evangelistic Sermons. $1.25

"Sermons of the distinctly orthodox type and suggestive in outline and
illustration. Warm the soul and stimulate the thought."--_Evangelical
Messenger_.


_CHARLES FORBES TAYLOR (The Boy Evangelist)_

The Riveter's Gang

and Other Revival Addresses. $1.25

"The value of this book lies not alone in the anecdotes and sermons that
it contains, but in the illustration of how a successful evangelistic
preacher may enforce his teaching."--_Lookout_.



SELF-HELP


_ROGER W. BABSON_

_Pres. Babson's Statistical Organization_

Making Good in Business $1.25

The famous Business Expert here applies a fundamental knowledge of
business principles to daily business life. The latest work by the
author of "Fundamentals of Prosperity" is crammed with the most valuable
sort of hints and suggestions for the attainment of a successful
business career.

[Illustration]


_WILLIAM GEORGE JORDAN_ _Author of "Self Control", etc._

The Trusteeship of Life

A Study in the True Values of Existence $1.25

A new volume of Mr. Jordan's winning Essays which have called forth
the hearty praise of Henry van Dyke who said: "They are suggestive
and stimulating. His philosophy has three big little words--courage,
cheerfulness and charity."



BIOGRAPHY, etc.


_FREDERICK LYNCH Educational Secretary of The Church Peace Union_

Personal Recollections of Andrew Carnegie $1.50

"Happily Dr. Lynch's little volume of personal recollections of Andrew
Carnegie admirably supplements the autobiography. These two books
taken together will explain the real Carnegie to his countrymen."
_Independent_.


_PHILIP I. ROBERTS_

"Charlie" Alexander

A Study in Personality. $1.00

_Dr. Edgar Whitaker Work says_. "Brief as it is, it serves its purpose
successfully. It leaves a picture of the great singer in the mind that
cannot be forgotten."


_DAVID GREGG, D.D._

A Book of Remembrance

Selections from the writings of Dr. David Gregg. Compiled by Frank
Dilnot. $2.00

A book of rare stimulus and devotional charm overflowing with precious
thoughts selected from the works of the well-known preacher and
devotional writer by one well qualified for the task.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "In His Image" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.