To Infidelity and Back Part 3

What follows is the last part of the sermon on "The Proper Method of Religious Inquiry." Text: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

It is not only important that we should appeal to our own experience in trying to discover what is true in religion, but we should also take into consideration the experiences of others. If a man, who is partially color blind, should base a science of color on his own experience, it would necessarily be partial or incomplete. So if a cla.s.s of men, with certain peculiar traits, should build up a system of theology on their religious experiences, it would necessarily be partial and not adequate for universal application. Suppose, for example, that a number of persons with large reasoning powers, cold temperaments, and very little religious feeling, should build up a religious system on their experiences. Is it not perfectly clear that it would be partial and narrow? It would make no allowance at all for people of strong religious experiences. While it might be of some use to these few people, it would never help the great bulk of humanity who need the help of religion the most. To say that a religion is not for the common people is to admit that it is narrow and not true to universal human nature. Certainly it is not Christian, for the common people heard Jesus gladly; and they ever will hear gladly any one who preaches a religion that is true to their own religious experiences.

In trying to discover what is true in religion, we should also carefully examine the religious experiences of all ages, as recorded in their religious writings. I shall here quote from an authority on this point, because I think it of much value, and because it is not probable that the writer was influenced by prejudice and preconceived ideas. I shall quote from John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic," page 477: "There is a perpetual oscillation in spiritual truths, and in spiritual doctrines of any significance, even when not truths. Their meaning is almost always in a process either of being lost or of being recovered.

Whoever has attended to the history of the more serious convictions of mankind--of the opinion by which the general conduct of their lives is, or as they conceive ought to be, more especially regulated--is aware that even when recognizing verbally the same doctrines, they attach to them at different periods a greater or less quant.i.ty, and even a different kind of meaning. The words in their original acceptation connoted, and the propositions expressed, a complication of outward facts and inward feelings, to different portions of which the general mind is more particularly alive in different generations of mankind. To common minds, only that portion of the meaning is in each generation suggested, of which that generation possesses the counterpart in its habitual experience. But the words and propositions lie ready to suggest to any mind duly prepared to receive the remainder of the meaning. Such individual minds are almost always to be found; and the lost meaning, revived by them, again by degrees works its way into the general mind.

"The arrival of this salutary reaction may, however, be materially r.e.t.a.r.ded by the shallow conceptions and incautious proceedings of mere logicians. ... These logicians think more of having a clear, than of having a comprehensive, meaning; and although they perceive that every age is adding to the truth which it has received from its predecessors, they fail to see that a counter process of losing, truths already possessed, is also constantly going on, and requiring the most sedulous attention to counteract it."

But, as a matter of fact, people have, as a rule, followed their experiences in everything, despite the sneers and ridicules of the would-be wise. People have planted their vegetables during the increase of the moon despite all ridicule and laughter. And in due time the wise men came to their position, declaring that the sunlight reflected by the moon helps the growth of vegetation. People in all ages have believed in faith cure under one form or another to the utter amazement of the intelligent physicians who made fun of them and pitied their ignorance. But now, through the facts discovered by hypnotism and other means, the scientists are coming around and admitting that the old women were right, that the people really did get help from faith cure.

In religion, too, people have followed their experience, despite the sneers, ridicule and protests of wise men. And, on the whole, I have no doubt that they are better off than if they had listened to the persons who showed them that their beliefs, from a rationalistic standpoint, are false; and at the same time offered them beliefs that were about as ridiculous from a logical standpoint, and which left out all the power and good of their own system of belief.

CHAPTER III.

THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.

The objections made to faith are by no means an effect of knowledge, but proceed rather from ignorance of what knowledge is.--_Bishop Berkley._

No difficulty emerges in theology which has not previously emerged in philosophy.--_Sir Wm. Hamilton._

The human mind inevitably and by virtue of its essential const.i.tution finds itself involved in self-contradictions whenever it ventures on certain courses of speculation.--_Mansel._

In the last two chapters I presented the reasons that led me to infidelity and back to Christ, as they appeared to me while in the thick of the conflict and soon after. In this and following chapters I wish to present the matter in the light that has come to me on the subject up to the present date.

As will be noticed in the previous chapters, the external causes that drove me to infidelity were the theology of creeds, sectarianism and the apparent difficulties in the Bible and in religion. But the real underlying cause was rationalism, or a failure to recognize the proper functions and limitations of the finite intellect. In later chapters, I shall show how I overcame the difficulties about creeds and speculative theology and how I solved the problem of sectarianism by turning to Christian union on the primitive gospel. In this chapter I wish to speak more definitely of rationalism or the subjective cause of my infidelity. For, after all, the whole matter resolves itself into a question of psychology, or science of the mind. What is the profit of reading numerous books on the subject, _pro_ and _con_, so long as we are reading the books through colored gla.s.ses that deceive our vision and lead us to apply false tests as to what the truth in the matter is?

There must be some matters that require our prayerful and serious consideration, when we observe how the most talented, scholarly, devout and honest of all ages have been divided into warring camps on questions of religion, politics, medicine and science. Certainly truth is not divided; and there must be some mysterious, deceptive mental pitfalls that have caused this Babel of confusion. When we count the cost of this warring conflict of the choicest spirits of the earth in waste, failure, suffering, bloodshed and death, and contemplate the gain in prosperity, progress, happiness and conquest over ignorance and evil, that would have resulted had all the good been enabled to see alike, and thus unite on the truth, we cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theme that has ever engaged the attention of mortal man. Well may we ask with Pilate, "What is truth?" Or perhaps the more important question, "How can we discover what is truth?" What is there in the nature of the mind that side-tracks the wisest and best in their effort to know the truth?

Why was Paul, the conscientious, intellectual giant, so deceived that he "verily thought he was doing G.o.d service" while destroying the best and holiest thing that had ever come to earth? Why did Cotton Mather and other saintly, scholarly Christians martyr innocent saints as witches? Why did devout patriots of the North and South slaughter each other in cold blood? Why were the scientific theses written at Harvard during forty years, all found out of date by Edward Everett Hale? Why are the intelligent and consecrated hosts of Christ wasting three-fourths of their men and money through sectarian divisions? Why are the intelligent, patriotic citizens of America divided into two camps on free silver and other issues when the truth and their interest are one, and by a united effort they could carry every election for truth and righteousness? Common sense asks, Why? The interests of humanity ask, Why? Love and compa.s.sion ask, _Why?_ I believe we must find the answer chiefly in the failure to understand clearly the nature and functions of the mind.

The Nature of Conscience.

Turn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe guide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience fought on both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we should stay this awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the conscientious; at least, long enough to examine most earnestly into the cause of this strange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not a safe guide, then woe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we have, or, at least, the only avenue through which human and divine truth can guide us. For it is the moral nature itself.

The eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the eye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye is a safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only guide we have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes must have light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to act as a guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements, that the conscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes without light and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience without love and truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and _conscience_. And as long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to discriminate between conscience proper and the term as used in the looser, larger sense, we will have nothing but confusion. Conscience proper is simply the impulse of the soul that urges us to do right as we see the right. We do not deny that it also embodies the basic element in the soul that enables us to discover what is right; but our conviction as to what is right is dependent upon knowledge acquired through other faculties.

When we speak of conscience in the loose and general sense, we refer to both of these elements. In this sense conscience is the product of a number of faculties working together. Thus when we talk about following conscience, we mean following the voice of our moral nature, or the convictions of the highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience should always be followed as a guide in both its proper and larger sense; but as an impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is infallible, while as a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is fallible and liable to lead us into all kinds of folly and error.

While, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our highest conviction of what is right, we should a.s.siduously probe our conscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is dependent upon information. In other words, a truly conscientious person not only scrupulously does what he believes to be right; but he also constantly strives to get all the truth, that his conscience may be enlightened more and more. To follow our conscience, therefore, in searching for and obeying the truth, is our highest duty to G.o.d, and it is the _sine qua non_ of acceptance with him. This is the "love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10), "the good and honest heart" (Luke 8:15), through which the gospel becomes fruitful. To refuse to follow our conscience, or highest light of duty, as revealed in the Bible or from any other source, is treason toward G.o.d in whose image we were morally created; and such persons forfeit heaven, no matter how faultless their outward acts may be. With G.o.d it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire Bible reveals. The man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but fails to meet his inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but a hypocrite. Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the full and true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by truth, is the voice of G.o.d to the soul. The Proverb says, "The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov.

20:27), while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: "For when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them; in the day when G.o.d shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ."

G.o.d wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by investigation we discover a better one. Thus G.o.d guides the individual in his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual. It has a fallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant and vigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge and sharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much mischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to thrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of creeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and despised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of opinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to recognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How foolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The infidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and that Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then promulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an ill.u.s.tration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted conscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very conscientious young man who left the ministry because he could not agree, with members of the church he was serving, on matters of expediency. On my table lies a letter recently received from a young man who graduated for the ministry last spring, but through doubts, similar to those I formerly experienced, left the ministry for conscience' sake. This unhappiness of doubters and this testimony of their consciences, even while they hold opinions that logically rob conscience of any authority, should cause every one to think; and is strong evidence that skepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong. I followed rationalism into infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave up belief in the miraculous and supernatural in the Bible _for conscience' sake_. But after the rationalists had driven me to this bitter end, through my sensitive conscience, I was gravely informed that conscience was a mere creature of education and therefore should only be followed conditionally.

I discovered sufficient truth in this claim to open my eyes to the fact that I had been deceived and had followed the fallible part of my conscience, which is a creature of education, as though it were infallible and the voice of G.o.d.

It will be noticed that eternal life depends on the infallible element of conscience, while stupendous, yet only mundane, interests depend upon its fallible element. This is a mystery that perplexes a great many people. Is ignorance an excuse? Does it not matter what you believe, just so you are honest? The highest and best thing anybody can ever do, is to follow his conscience, or the voice of his highest moral and spiritual nature. This the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. To teach that G.o.d would d.a.m.n a soul for doing this is destructive of all moral distinctions, and is as abominable as the old doctrine that G.o.d elects certain people and d.a.m.ns others irrespective of their thoughts and conduct. Ignorance is an excuse if it is _innocent ignorance_. What about those who are willfully ignorant? or those who have a seared conscience? They are not following their conscience at all. Conscience insists that we make every possible effort to get the truth. By a seared conscience we mean a person who does not follow his conscience at all, and he knows it.

We know that ignorant innocence is an excuse in the sight of G.o.d, but we do not know who is innocently ignorant. The former fact is revealed to us in the Bible, but the latter is known only to G.o.d. Therefore in these matters we should "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall each man have his praise from G.o.d" (I Cor. 4:5).

Nothing has ever been revealed more clearly in the Bible than that innocent ignorance is an excuse in the sight of G.o.d. The cities of refuge and the entire ceremonial law were based upon this fact. Christ said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). James says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). In Acts 17:30 we read, "The times of ignorance therefore G.o.d overlooked." In the second chapter of Romans Paul makes it clear that each person shall be judged by the light that comes to him, whether in or out of the law or of the gospel. Heathen people, who never heard the gospel, will not be condemned for rejecting the gospel, but for rejecting the light that came to them through their conscience and through other sources. "For this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). But we will be condemned if we do not do all in our power to bring the gospel to the heathen.

We need not worry about the pious, conscientious peoples scattered among the sectarian churches; but we need to worry lest we do not do all in our power to make it impossible for them to remain pious and conscientious while upholding sectarianism. It is our duty to help them to understand the Word; and if, after they understand it, they refuse to obey it, they are under condemnation. But we cannot and dare not decide whether they understand it or not. It is ours to preach the Word, and it will judge them in that Great Day.

The ground or mainspring of conscience is love--love of the well-being or welfare of all sentient beings, or of all beings capable of enjoying happiness. Our conscience goads us to do what love demands as our duty.

He who, through want of discrimination, ignores the love element in conscience, becomes a cruel misanthrope, and is misguided by a perverted conscience. May the Lord help us to clear up our minds on this subject of conscience so that this divine light may lead us onward and upward towards perfection in holiness; and that this eye of the moral nature may not be deprived of love and knowledge and thus flounder around like a blind giant spreading misery and suffering everywhere.

The Feelings or Emotions.

Psychology divides the mind into intellect, sensibilities and will.

This is doubtless a valuable cla.s.sification in a general way. But the cla.s.sification is very general and indefinite. Indeed, school psychology has confined itself almost entirely to a consideration of the _general operations_ of the mind and has given us very little light on the cla.s.sification of the mental faculties. The limited attempts at cla.s.sification have varied considerably according to the subjective make-up of the author, as the cla.s.sifications were based on introspection.

While the deductive, axiomatic or intuitive, scholastic or introspective methods of inquiry prevailed in the intellectual world, systems of philosophy, psychology and theology were built up according to the peculiar subjective nature of their author, and held the field until some other strong mind projected its views of the subject and thus rivaled or supplanted the other systems. It was the modern inductive or empirical method of investigation, introduced by Bacon, Locke, Mill and others, that has put knowledge on a real scientific basis and has led to the marvelous scientific and material progress of recent times. I believe the time is not far distant when the old medieval, introspective psychology of the schools will be displaced by a more scientific system. All that is of value in the old system will be retained, but the most valuable psychological knowledge will come from the new system. That this need is generally recognized by those who have given the matter most attention, is evidenced by the words of that prince of modern psychologists, Professor James, when he says, "At present psychology is in the condition of physics before Galileo and the laws of motion or of chemistry before Lavoisier." I believe that phrenology has blazed the way for this new psychology. It was violently attacked by the old-school psychologists because it taught that the brain is the instrument of the mind, that the mind has a plurality of faculties and that various brain functions can be localized. Every one conversant with the present literature on physiology and psychology will see that phrenologists have conquered, and that their basic principles are now accepted by all. It is now simply a matter of the application of these principles by further investigation. The psychologists have made some progress in brain localization through various mechanical and more or less abnormal methods of investigation.

When they come to a more sensible and natural method of inquiry by observing the concomitance between various brain developments and various mental traits, I feel sure that they will have to admit that the phrenologists are essentially right in their brain localizations, just as they have already admitted that they are right in their basic principles.

That the tide is already turning is manifest from the following quotations.

Alfred Russell Wallace, one of the greatest of scientists, in his book, "The Wonderful Century," says: "I begin with the subject of phrenology, a science of whose substantial truth and vast importance I have no more doubt than I have of the value and importance of any of the great intellectual advances already recorded.

"In the coming century, phrenology will a.s.suredly attain general acceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of mind. Its practical use in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory treatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane, will give it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of sciences; and its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years, will be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness and prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time they were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and action."

Benard Hollander, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in his late book on "Functions of the Brain," says: "What Gall knew at the close of the eighteenth century is only just dawning upon the scientists of the present day. The history of Gall and his doctrine is given in these pages, and will be quite a revelation to the reader. No subject has ever been so thoroughly misrepresented, even by learned men of acknowledged authority." In his "Scientific Phrenology," Dr. Hollander says: "In this volume I have laid stress on the strictly phrenological method of observing special parts of the brain, distinct lobes and convolutions, and comparing their size to development of the rest of the brain--which, if applied in conjunction with the study of the mental characteristics of our fellow-beings, would enable us to make observations by the million. This method, which was considered unscientific, and hence shunned, for a long time, has found favor with scientists, since the author's first papers on scientific phrenology were published in 1886, and was for the first time advocated publicly last year by Dr. Cunningham, professor of anatomy in Dublin University, in his presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the British a.s.sociation at their meeting in Glasgow. Dr. Cunningham was upheld by Sir Wm. Turner, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University and president of the General Medical Council, who, like Sir Sam. Wilks, the expresident of the College of Physicians, and the late Sir James Paget, besides others with whom I have not come in contact, have always kept an open mind on this subject. In Germany, Dr. Landois, professor of physiology at Griefswalt, has been long urging a reinvestigation of Gall's doctrines; Dr. R. Sommer, professor of clinical psychiatry at Griessen, recommends it, not dogmatically, but as a working hypothesis; and the Swiss professor of physiology, Dr. Von Bunge, in his text-book just published, acts as pioneer in devoting two chapters to a rehabilitation of Gall; Dr. Mobius, of Leipsic, has published several books on the same subject, and, quite lately, the renowned professor of psychiatry in the University of Vienna, Dr. R. Von Krafft-Ebing, has joined in the defense of this great discovery."

Beecher said that if he were in the pulpit without his knowledge of phrenology, he would feel like a mariner at sea without a compa.s.s; and he declared: "All my life long I have been in the habit of using phrenology as that which solves the practical phenomena of life. I regard it far more useful, practical and sensible than any other system of mental philosophy which has yet been evolved."

Horace Mann said: "I declare myself a hundred times more indebted to phrenology than to all the metaphysical works that I ever read. . . . I look upon phrenology as the guide to philosophy and the handmaid of Christianity. Whoever disseminates true phrenology is a public benefactor."

Joseph Cook declared: "Choosing a foreman or clerk, guiding the education of children, settling my judgment of men in public or private life, estimating a wife or husband, and their fitness for each other, or endeavoring to understand myself and to select the right occupation, there is no advice of which I so often feel the need as that of a thoroughly able, scientific, experienced and Christian phrenologist."

Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his views on phrenology in his maturer years and said: "We owe phrenology a great debt. It has melted the world's conscience in its crucible and cast it in a new mould, with features less like those of Moloch and more like those of humanity."

Andrew Carnegie said: "Not to know phrenology is sure to keep you standing on the 'Bridge of Sighs' all your life."

I think the superiority of the phrenological cla.s.sification of the mental powers to that of other systems of psychology will be apparent from the following:

Phrenological a.n.a.lysis of Mental Faculties.

I. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).

1. Amativeness--Love between the s.e.xes.

2. Conjugality--Matrimony, love of one.

3. Parental Love--Regard for offspring, pets, etc.

4. Friends.h.i.+p, sociability.

5. Inhabitiveness--Love of home.

6. Continuity--One thing at a time.

II. Selfish Propensities (Lookout for "No. 1").