HE title raises two questions: First, What is our plea? Second, Have we outgrown it?

      By way of general definition, I will say that our plea is an appeal to the Christian world for the restoration of everything that is essential and universal in New Testament Christianity. This plea did not originate with us. It was born in the brain of Ulric Zwingle, the reformer of the sixteenth century.

      You are all familiar with the controversy that raged for years between Luther and Zwingle. The former said: "We will keep in the church all that is not contradicted by Scripture." The latter said: "We will put out of the church all that is not taught in Scripture." Unfortunately for Protestantism, the view of Luther prevailed, and a whole lot of evils were kept in the church to plague, perplex and paralyze Protestantism till now. Had the view of Zwingle prevailed, the Reformation of the sixteenth century would have been a restoration of the divine teaching instead of an abortive attempt at [82] reformation of an apostate church, and Protestantism would have been centuries in advance of what it is to-day. Tennyson puts it in a stanza:

      "Step by step with voices crying right and left, I have climbed my way back to the primal church and stand within the porch, and Christ is with me."

      The men who laid the foundation for this plea in the United States were all Presbyterian clergymen, scholarly, wise and far-seeing. Moreover, they were aflame with a passion for the unity of all Christians. They realized that Christendom could never be united upon the peculiarities of any one sect or denomination. Only that which is essential and universal in Christianity could be made the basis of Christian unity. They carefully sifted out that which was peculiar and partial, and selected that which was essential and universal. That they succeeded in this effort is demonstrated by the fact that there is nothing in our plea that is not recognized by all evangelical Christians as Scriptural and right. This may sound arrogant and bigoted to some, but it is true nevertheless, and truth is never arrogant nor bigoted. The differences between us and other religious communions are not over what we teach and practice, but over what they teach and practice. I have heard sermons from our own preachers upon "Our Peculiarities." Such preachers fail to catch the significance of our plea. We have but one peculiarity, and that lies in the fact that we have no peculiarities. We eschew peculiarities and stand [83] only for what is universal in Christianity. This will appear as we proceed.

      Our plea naturally divides itself into, first, our creed; second, our practice.

      I. What is our creed? The apostle Peter, in the opening sentence of his second Epistle, addresses it, "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us." In his day the faith of one Christian was like the faith of every other Christian. Not so to-day. That "like precious faith" was like Peter's. If we can learn what was Peter's faith, we can know the faith of all. Peter makes a confession of his faith to the Lord at Caesarea Philippi in the following words: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ blessed Peter and told him, "Upon this rock I will build my church." This is our creed.

      Let us analyze this creed. We will begin at its close and work backward. It contains five articles; viz., (1) God; (2) the living God; (3) the Son of the living God; (4) the Christ, the Son of the living God, and (5) Jesus of Nazareth is that Christ.

      God never vindicated His wisdom more signally than when He put the creed of Christianity into these simple propositions. The first lays the ax at the root of all idolatry. It emptied the Pantheon once, and will expel all idols wherever it prevails. The second kills all ancient Pantheism and also all modern Pantheism that prates so constantly of the "immanence of God" in the universe. All this talk [84] about the "immanence of God" is an attempt to destroy the idea of a personal God outside of nature and ruling over it, and reduce God to an impersonal principle, similar to the law of gravitation. You can conceive of a man in the image of a personal God, but how can you conceive of a man in the image of the law of gravitation?

      The third article destroys all Unitarianism and puts Christ into His proper place as the "only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," and containing within Himself "the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The fourth declares this Son of the living God to be the Messiah of the prophets. He is not merely a Christ, for there have been many Christs--every prophet, priest and king was a Christ--but He is the Christ, embodying in Himself the three offices of prophet, priest and king, the only such being in all human history. The fifth article declares that Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah.

      There is not an article in that creed that is not essential to Christianity. Moreover, it is the universal faith of all evangelical Christians. Our creed, therefore, is universal. "Well," says one, "is that all?" Yes, that is all--absolutely and unqualifiedly all that a man must believe to be a Christian. "Can't a man believe more than that?" Of course he can; we all believe more than that. A man can believe anything he pleases that is in harmony with that creed. The Gospel is powerful enough to save a man that believes a whole lot of tomfoolery, [85] provided he believes the above creed, but he is not required to believe anything more to be a Christian.

      "Will that creed keep out hypocrites?" No. You can't keep a hypocrite out of the church by any sort of a creed. He will swallow any creed you make and be sorry you don't make more. His swallowing capacity is far greater than your creed-making ability. You can, however, keep an honest man out when you require more than you are authorized to require.

      "Oh," says one, "we all believe that, but some of us think we should require more." There begins trouble. When you require more, you produce division and sectarianism.

      An Irishman was once giving testimony in court. When he finished, the judge said: "Pat, have you told the truth and the whole truth?" He replied "Yes, your Honor; and a good deal more." That "more" causes the trouble.

      As illustrative of this, a story is told of a man in southern Indiana, who lived in the neighborhood of a strong congregation of Christians, who had added to the above creed a plank that required every man who came into the church to relate a "Christian experience," and have it voted on before he was admitted. This man had no "Christian experience" and was therefore ineligible. He wanted to go into the church with his family and friends, and he finally concluded he would make up an experience, [86] copying after some he had heard. He finally "cooked up" an "Experience of grace," and it was voted sound and acceptable, and he was admitted. He was an honest man and it lay heavily upon his conscience. One Sunday morning he rose and told the church that he had made up a good deal of his experience out of his imagination, and he was sorry for it and asked the church to forgive him. They took it in high dudgeon and a motion was made and carried to expel him from the church. They took him in for telling a falsehood and turned him out for telling the truth. This incident illustrates the difficulties in the pathway of a church that requires a "good deal more" than Christ requires.

      II. What is our practice? In the short space allotted me, I have only time to hint at a few of the important details in our practice:

      (1) We call Bible things by Bible names. We call the church by its names in the New Testament. We call the members by New Testament names. We especially call ourselves Christians. Is there anything peculiar in that? Is not the name "Christian" worn by all who profess the religion of Christ? "Oh," says one, "we all claim to be Christians, but some of us wear human names." Well, those names are peculiar, but they are your peculiarity and not ours; our name is universal.

      (2) We baptize believers in Christ. Is there anything peculiar in that? Don't all churches baptize believers? "But we baptize infants also." [87] Well, that is peculiar, but it is your peculiarity. Our practice is universal.

      (3) We practice immersion for baptism. Is there anything peculiar in that? Don't all churches recognize immersion as valid baptism? "We practice immersion and also pouring and sprinkling." Here, again, you are peculiar while our practice is universal.

      (4) We meet on the first day of the week to break bread. Is there any church that will deny that is right? "We think that is too often, and so practice monthly, quarterly or yearly communion." That, again, is peculiar, but it is your peculiarity. All agree that if any church desires to practice weekly communion it is in harmony with the will of God.

      (5) We require Christians to form their character according to the ethics of Christ. The great laws of self-sacrifice and self-denial and altruism taught by Him are to form the warp and woof of Christian character; Christ must be formed "in us the hope of glory."

      (6) We require all members of Christ's body to live a life of holiness and peace, to walk in the footsteps and teachings of the Master, to grow up in the divine life "unto him who is the head in all things," to "do good unto all men, especially unto them that are of the household of faith."

      (7) We present to the Christian world a platform of unity found in the fourth chapter of [88] Ephesians in the following words: "There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all."

      (8) We require all who come into the church to co-operate as they are able in carrying out the command of Jesus to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Is there anything peculiar in that? Do not all churches require the same?

      Now, I have given as briefly as I can our practice, and I defy you to show that there is anything peculiar in it. It is the universal practice of all angelical Christians, and entirely unsectarian.

      III. We are now ready to answer the second question; viz., Have we outgrown our plea? To outgrow it, we must outgrow our creed. Have we done that? If so, we have outgrown (1) God; (2) the living God; (3) the Son of the living God; (4) the Christ, the Son of the living God, and (5) Jesus of Nazareth. If we have outgrown these things, we have outgrown Christianity and should no longer confess it.

      Second, have we outgrown the ethics of Christ? Have we outgrown the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule? I would walk across this continent to see a man who can truthfully say "I have outgrown the ethics of Christ and am ready for something better." You will not find such a one, and [89] least of all will you find him in the ranks of those who think they have outgrown our plea. The world has been busy of late adding to its stock of knowledge. It is estimated that the nineteenth century added more to the world's stock of knowledge than all the previous centuries of the race. When our Constitution was written, the archives of all European Governments were ransacked to learn their treasures of liberty, fraternity and equality. Our fathers thought they had it well-nigh perfect. Mr. Gladstone said it was the greatest human document ever struck off at a single time. But in a little over a century we have added nineteen amendments to it, and have a half-dozen others knocking for admission. No one has added a single amendment to the ethics of Jesus Christ. No one has convicted Him of being at war with a well-known ethical principle.

      Third, have we outgrown the Christian life? Have we outgrown the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians? Show me the full moons of Christian love that say "I have absorbed all the love of the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians and need another standard of love." Have we outgrown the twelfth chapter of Romans? It is a practical application to human conduct of the general principles of love found in I Cor. 13. I unhesitatingly affirm that the twelfth chapter of Romans contains a perfect rule of conduct for all ages. Have we outgrown the first chapter of II Peter, which contains [90] a stairway of growth, beginning with faith and adding, step by step, courage, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity? Fourth, have we outgrown our platform for the unity of Christians based upon one body, animated by one spirit, cherishing one hope, looking to one Lord by one faith, practicing one baptism and bowing before the altar of one God in worship? I aver that this is the only practical plan in the world today for the unity of God's people. All others are mere compromises. Men are so busy to-day formulating plans for Christian unity, that they overlook the fact that God has laid a foundation for Christian unity that is perfect and practical.

      Fifth, have we outgrown the Lord's program for the world's conversion? Have we gone into all the world and preached the Gospel to every creature? Not half the world has ever heard the name of Christ. We have not begun to carry out this program. After nearly two thousand years of teaching and working, we have not only failed to convert the world, but truth and candor compel me to say that the world is not even in the process of being converted. I would not make such a statement unless it were supported by facts. What are the facts? In the first decade of the twentieth century, the United States statistics revealed the fact that the church barely held its own, having a 10 per cent increase against a 10 per cent increase in population. [91] In England it did not hold its own, while, in the heathen countries, for every heathen converted a hundred heathens are born. How long will it take to convert the world at such a rate of progress? "Well," says one, "what then, Is the world never to be converted? Have all the beautiful visions of the prophets proven to be disordered fancies? Has. the Sun of righteousness risen upon the world in glory only to set behind clouds of disaster and defeat? Is it all a failure?"

      No! a thousand times no! That is not the answer to the question, "What then?" But there is an answer to that question so pregnant with meaning that it should be pondered by every lover of Christ. The experience of nineteen centuries teaches us one great lesson; viz., a sectarian presentation of Christianity will never convert a heathen world.

      John R. Mott said in the great Edinburgh Conference on Missions: "We are defeated before we begin, by our divisions!"

      Pangiri Bey, private secretary to Sultan Abdul Hamid Khan, once said to me: "Excellence! Christianity can never hope to conquer Islamism till your missionaries can agree upon what Christianity is."

      They both spoke the truth. The foundation of our plea is to call the Christian world away from philosophic subtleties and doctrinal peculiarities to what is essential and universal in Christianity. The Christian world owes it to God, to itself and to an [92] unbelieving world to get down upon its knees and pray and study till it finds what is essential and universal in Christianity, and with united voice present that and only that, to the heathen. The Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation. When properly presented and believed, it can save, and will save, every man on the face of the earth. But, diluted with human teaching and emasculated by philosophic subtlety, it loses its saving power.

      "Well," says one, "why all this talk of some among us about outgrowing our plea?" I once heard of a sailor who was placed at the wheel, and shown the North Star and told to steer the vessel toward it. He got to looking around among the stars till he lost the North Star and wabbled around until he was sailing south. The captain came upon deck, and, seeing the departure, he pointed to the pole star and said: "I told you to sail for that, and you are going directly away from it." The sailor replied: "Captain, I passed that star an hour ago." He had simply turned his back upon it. That is precisely the way some have outgrown the plea. They have turned their back upon it.

      In conclusion, let us examine the claims of some who profess to have outgrown the plea. Prominent among these is former president Charles W. Eliot of Harvard University. He claims the world has outgrown Christianity, and has presented to the world what he calls "the religion of the twentieth [93] century."It is full of good and original sayings, but, unfortunately for him, the good sayings are not original, and the original sayings are not good. Let us notice some of them:

      (1) "The new religion will laud God's love and teach that he is best who loves best and serves best. " That is exactly the teaching of the apostle Paul, who says that "love is the fulfilling of the law" and "the end of the commandment is love," and the Master's statement: "He that would be great among you, let him be your servant."

      (2) "The new religion will not teach condemnation for the mass of mankind." Neither does New Testament Christianity. Its first pronouncement is, "Fear not: behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people." It is saturated with salvation for all and only throws out the red light of warning to the wilfully disobedient.

      (3) "Its priests will strive to improve social and industrial conditions." No statement of New Testament Christianity could be truer. The world to-day stands graded in social and industrial progress precisely in the ratio that it has accepted New Testament Christianity. Where do we find the greatest social and industrial advancement?

      (a) In the Anglo-Saxon-speaking, Protestant countries; (b) in the non-English-speaking, Protestant countries; (c) in the Catholic countries; (d) in the Mohammedan countries, and (e) in the pagan or idolatrous countries. [94]

      That classification is perfect. There is not an exception to it on God's green earth. That is precisely the ratio that Christianity has leavened the nations.

      (4) "The religion of the twentieth century will attack quickly all forms of evil." That is precisely what was done by the New Testament Christianity. It made war upon all forms of evil and exhorted its followers to avoid evil of every form.

      (5) "The twentieth-century religion will reverence the teaching of liberty and righteousness." That is the very gist of New Testament teaching. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." "Ye have been called unto liberty." "Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, live soberly, righteously and godly." There is nothing new in that statement.

      (6) "The new religion of the twentieth century will not be a religion of obscure dogmas and sacraments." I assert that the religion of the New Testament is not that. The good Doctor evidently doesn't know the difference between New Testament Christianity and the caricatures found in the Romish apostasy.

      Thus we find Dr. Eliot borrowing the substance of his new religion from the identical system which he claims to have outgrown. But he has some original statements which differentiate his new religion from that of Christ:

      (1) "The new religion will have no authoritative [95] teacher." The New Testament church has an authoritative teacher. It is the religion of a person. God gave all authority to Jesus Christ, and He gave all authority to His apostles, and they are exercising that authority to-day. That is a clean-cut difference. The church of the New Testament is governed by the apostles, representing Christ as He represents God. In the new religion of Dr. Eliot every man will "do that which is right in his own eyes."

      (2) "There will be no sudden conversions in the new religion." Here, again, the new religion differs squarely from the old. It took the bitter and bigoted Saul and suddenly transformed him into the bond-servant of Jesus Christ. It took the cobbler, William Carey, and transformed him into the pioneer missionary of modern days. It laid hold upon the tipsy tinker, John Bunyan, and transformed him into one of the greatest religious writers of his time. Macaulay says that "English literature of that day produced only two great creative minds--John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, and John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress." It lead the ignorant and indifferent gipsy boy out of his camp and made "Gipsy Smith," the most distinguished herald of the cross on earth today. It took possession of Jerry McAulay and led him to convert his home for gamblers and prostitutes into an ark of salvation for the outcasts of New York. Under its power the debauched father of Florence Crittenden [96] was lifted up to be one of the philanthropists of the nineteenth century, whose work still lives in the scores of Florence Crittenden homes for unfortunate young girls. Its transforming power is seen on every hand.

      Thus all the good sayings of Dr. Eliot are echoes of Christ's teachings, and his original sayings are wrong. Christ furnishes the cream and the Doctor the skim-milk in his new religion.

      IV. Mrs. Eddy thought we had outgrown Christianity and so gave to the world Science and Health. What has she given us? I will notice only two principles in her teaching: "God is spirit--God is all." If that be true, then "spirit is all." If spirit is all, there is no matter. This Mrs. Eddy boldly affirms. If there is no matter, there can be no material universe and there are no suns, stars or planets. Then, astronomy is all false and should be cast aside. The same reasoning will set aside geology, geography, chemistry and every science that deals with matter. "Down with Science" is the slogan of Christian Science. Again: "God is good--God is all." Therefore all is good. There is no sin. The world needs no Saviour from sin because there is no sin from which we can be saved. Truly that is a marvelous outgrowth of New Testament teaching!

      V. "The Universal Brotherhood," headed by Mrs. Katharine A. Tingley, claims to have outgrown the teachings of Christ. It has its headquarters at [97] Pt. Loma, Calif., where the faithful meet in palatial buildings, and go through mysterious rites dressed in cheese-cloth. But it has had its troubles. Only a few years ago the "Universal Brotherhood" was split wide open over the worship of a dog! Mrs. Tingley claimed that her dog was a reincarnation, and that every time he barked he said "brotherhood." Dr. Anderson and his crowd held that the dog was an ornery "fice," and he and his crowd refused to kotow to him as the rest of the faithful did. In the name of common sense, are these the best things that can be presented to Christian America by those who claim to have outgrown the teachings of Jesus?

      Now, suppose this plea of ours were carried out. Suppose that every church in Christendom should sit down and look its faith and practice squarely in the face and say, "We propose to eliminate everything from you that is not held as universal and essential in the New Testament. We will quit all talk about clerical orders, and authority of officials, not one of whom is even hinted at in the New Testament church, and will keep only what is held as the universal faith and practice of the apostolic church." What a revolution would follow! Our missionaries would assail the citadels of heathenism with the cry of the apostle Paul, "I determined to make known nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified." Behind them would march the cohorts of Christendom singing--truthfully singing: [98]

      Over such a scene the spirit of God would brood in loving sympathy; God Himself would smile His approval upon it, and the heart of Jesus would leap with new life as He beholds His followers going into battle for the conquest of a lost world under His Lordship and leadership.

      The church of God would emerge from the clouds of dissension and strife, that now cover it, "as fair as the moon, as clear as the sun, and as terrible as an army with banners." Heathenism would fall before it and the earth would be "full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the deep." I have given fifty of the best years of my life to the accomplishment of this great end, and if I had a hundred more lives, I would freely give them all to the same cause. Our plea is not outgrown, nor will it be till the "sun is cold and stars are old, and the leaves of the judgment book unfold." I have lived long enough in this world to know that men live and die with their causes. No man is strong enough to attain earthly immortality independent of a great cause. No man is so weak that he can not link him [99] self to some great cause and live with it. Will you link your life to a divided Protestantism saturated with humanism, or will you stand for New Testament Christianity as revealed by the Holy Spirit through the teaching of the inspired apostles?

[NTC3 82-100]