HE future is hope's paradise. Within its beautiful realm is to be found the antidote for all our political, social and religious disorders. It is, to most of us, a world of untold delights and infinite possibilities. In short, it is the "home, sweet home" of that "good time coming" of which we have all been dreaming, and concerning which we have so often been disappointed.

      And yet this future is practically an unexplored land. Really we know nothing about it. It is true we are always in sight of it, but have never actually entered it; for, like the mirage of the desert, it changes its position the moment we change ours. It lies just beyond the narrow strait which we call the present, and which separates us from the ever-receding past. We are constantly sailing along the shores of this enchanting paradise, and yet we are never permitted to press our feet upon its untrodden soil. We often strain our aching eyes to catch some clear gleam from the mountain peaks to which hope impels us to look; but, alas! the light of the future land does not suit our eyes, and consequently when we [362] open the door of our souls for some sweet vision, like the dreamer in Poe's Raven, we see "darkness there and nothing more."

      Nevertheless, it is still true that we are saved by hope; saved from the despondency which would inevitably overwhelm us if shut up wholly to recollections of the past and perplexities of the present. And especially would this be the case when considering religious matters. The past is full of disappointments as regards everything, and in nothing is this disappointment more distinctly realized than in the achievements of the post Apostolic Church. At any rate, I think it is impossible for any intelligent, honest student of church history to be satisfied with what the historic church has accomplished. Undoubtedly a great deal has been done, and no one is more ready to acknowledge this than I am; and yet it is simply impossible to accept with entire satisfaction the facts of our religious development. Whatever may be the excuses offered, it is nevertheless certainly true that the success of the church in the past has not been commensurate with the vast energies and means which have constantly been placed under contribution.

      I do not now stop to account for this failure, though much could be said in explanation of it without charging anyone with wilful departure from New Testament teaching, or want of earnestness in doing the work of the Lord. However, in view of what the past actually has been, it is not surprising [363] that many are turning their faces to the future and anxiously looking for the realization of the church which has so far existed in the world only as an ideal.

      And it now falls to my lot to make an honest effort to formulate a church of the future that will bring the real and ideal church into practical unity, and thus present to the world the conception of the church which is found in the New Testament Scriptures, and which will at the same time satisfy the ardent hopes of those who have waited long and patiently for the realization of the prophetic vision which the apocalyptic seer so vividly sketches in the last two chapters of the Book of Revelation.

      And it will help us just here to a better understanding of the whole question if I indicate in a comprehensive generalization the main standpoints from which the church must be viewed when considered with respect to its whole history.

      1. The first and most important of these standpoints is that which reveals to us the Divine ideal of the church. This ideal can only be found in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit describes the church as "without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing," being "holy and without blemish." But surely no such church as this has ever yet been realized in human experience. Not even in Apostolic times did the church fully reach this splendid ideal. And the reason for it is not far to seek. The ideal represents the Divine perfection, but the real or [364] historic church has always been more or less affected by human weakness. The first is what Clod would have the church to be; the second is what it has always been, in view of the fact that the church in history simply illustrates the struggles of human weakness to reach the perfection of the Divine.

      2. The fact just stated makes it necessary for us to distinguish sharply between the church described in the New Testament and the church as it has existed in human history. The latter is practically in many respects a different church from the former, and this difference is at many points so decided that we are justified in speaking of the historic church as practically a distinct and separate organization from the church described in the New Testament. And yet there are many points of identity between the two, and this fact leads me to suggest that the church of history must be reckoned with in any honest effort to deal with the characteristics of the church of the future. In fact, it may be well to take an honest look at the church of the present day before attempting to indicate what the church of the future will be.

      3. This brings me to consider a most important factor in connection with the law of development. It must never be forgotten that the church of the present day is the product of a number of complex and often conflicting forces. It is really the result of a compound, the parts of which are not always easily detected by even the most trustworthy tests. [365] However, there are a few elements entering into the compound which cannot be mistaken by anyone who is at all acquainted with ecclesiastical chemistry. Among these elements must be mentioned, first and most important, the Divine ideal of the church as it is given in the Word of God. But this ideal has been filtered through the solution of human weakness, and has certainly been brought into contact with an environment tainted not only with weakness, but also with sin, and the consequence has been precisely what every reasonable person could readily anticipate--namely, a church closely allied to the Divine principle and aim, but very far from the Divine in character and work. And just here we are lifted to a high promontory, from which we can survey the whole field of religious controversy, and at the same time find the solution of many problems which would otherwise be perplexing.

      A distinguished French writer has truly said that "Every religion has two factors, God and man, in other words, the truth, and the human mind, which, more or less perfectly, grasps the truth. When any religion claims to have only God for Father, and to reach us without any passing through minds like our own, it labors under a mere; illusion; this is not a mystery to be sure, but a chimera." And it is precisely this fact which is most frequently overlooked by many who study the Christian religion. They either reckon with God only, or man only; but, to do justice to every question involved, [366] they should reckon with both God and man. It is not enough to determine even definitely what is the truth in any given case, but we must also determine what that truth will be when it passes into human experience. It is one thing to consider truth in the abstract, and it is quite another to consider it in human life. In the first case, it may be very beautiful to look at. We may even lock it up in some place where it will be secure from the contaminating influences of human struggle; but when truth is thus considered it is really of no practical importance. We must look at it as it shows itself in human history. Hence the intelligent and conscientious student of the Christian religion must not fail to note carefully the difference between the Divine ideal of the church as described in the New Testament Scriptures, and the human real church as it is shown in the history of the ages since the day of Pentecost.

      And from this point of view it is easy to see that in indicating what the future will be, we must take into consideration the two factors to which reference has been made. Both God and man must be reckoned with, and when this is intelligently and honestly done, we shall undoubtedly realize a church modelled after the pattern given us in the New Testament as regards faith, organization and life, but nevertheless considerably modified by the human element, which must assert itself as long as sin and weakness are incidental to our present invironment.

      And now, with these clearly defined and [367] important preliminary conclusions before us, I think we are prepared to look somewhat in detail as to what the church of the future will be in its faith, organization and life.

      1. What Will Its Faith Be? Undoubtedly it will believe something. It was always true, is true now, and will be true in the future, that "without faith it is impossible to please God." I know it is just now a growing fashion to treat faith indifferently as if it were possible to know anything until we first believe! The fact is, faith is absolutely primary and fundamental in all our actions. The Apostle Paul said what is perfectly true to human experience when he declared that "we walk by faith and not by sight." The great Anselm said: "I believe in order that I may know; I do not know in order that I may believe." And this is precisely in harmony with the experience of all who look at the matter from either a Scriptural or philosophical point of view.

      But the church of the future will not only believe something, but that something will have a definite reality. There is a good deal of what is called faith which has nothing definite upon which to rest. It is belief in something, but that something is not unlike the woman's singing of the stanza in which both Canaan and Jordan are mentioned. She could not remember these names, and consequently she sang it after the following fashion:

      It is perhaps true that in the past too much has been made of nice philosophical distinctions and recondite theological definitions but this, in my judgment, does not justify a reaction to the extreme of latitudinarianism. I am not unconscious of the fact that, one extreme begets another, but surely one extreme does not justify another. The old tendency to dogmatize as to matters of faith, to believe in opinions rather than facts, and to formulate speculations about the truth rather than to accept heartily the truth itself, has no doubt produced untold evils, and among these evils may be fairly reckoned the present tendency to be all things to all men, that by all means we may be nothing. There is really just as much need in these days of definiteness as regards matters of faith as at any time during the history of the church.

      But this definite something in the church of the future will have infallibility. We are so constituted that we cannot find perfect rest in anything short of that which is infallibly certain. Archimedes said that if he had a fulcrum for his lever he could lift the world from its center. This suggests the need of hermeneutics as well as philosophy. We cannot make progress without a definite starting point, and as regards religion this starting point must have infallibility. There is really nothing so certain as certainty. The French have a proverb which in our language says: "He who hesitates is lost." But we are sure to hesitate in religious matters if we do [369] not accept our Supreme Guide as absolutely infallible. The great French philosopher, M. Cousin, in his lectures on "The True, the Beautiful and the Good," says:

      "To-day, as in all time, two great wants are felt by man. The first, the most imperious, is that of fixed, immutable principles, which depend upon neither times nor places nor circumstances, and on which the mind reposes with an unbounded confidence. In all investigations, as long as we have seized only isolated, disconnected facts, as long as we have referred them to a general law, we possess the materials of science, but there is yet no science. Even physics commence only when universal truths appear, to which all facts of the same order that observation discovers to us in nature may be referred."

      Plato has said: "There is no science of the transitory." This is our first need. But there is another, not less legitimate, the need of not being the dupe of chimerical principles, of barren abstractions, of combinations more or less ingenious, but, artificial; the need of resting upon reality and life, the need of experience. The physical and natural sciences, whose regular and rapid conquests strike and dazzle the most ignorant, owe their progress to the experimental method, which is carried to such an extent that one would not now condescend to lend the least attention to a science over which this method should not seek to preside. [370]

      The first part of this statement distinctly emphasizes the point I have just made with respect to the need for infallibility, while the second leads me to expand my statement with regard to what the church of the future will believe. The definite something which will be the object of faith will not only have infallibility, but will also have personality. Whoever has carefully looked into the history of the rise and progress of theology can scarcely have failed to notice that the whole of what is called theological science is based upon deductions from concepts of relations which have been improperly translated into things. It is truthfully said in Lewis' "History of Philosophy" that "one of the infirmities of thought is to transmute the former into material elements, to raise relations out of their proper category and transport them into the category of things. This is the parent of metaphysics. It is often called the tendency to realize abstractions. Having combined certain elements of practical experiences into a single conception, we treat the concept as if it were an individual object." Nothing could be more destructive of practical religion than this tendency to realize abstractions in the matters with which religion has to do.

      But we do not stop even here in our metaphysical gymnastics. If the tendency to which I have called attention were allowed to have free course, as a mere exercise of the mind, the evil would not be so great, for undoubtedly metaphysical studies have a [371] tendency to help the mind in making accurate distinctions, but these metaphysical conceptions or abstractions as soon as they are changed into things become in our estimation tests of fellowship, and consequently our reasonings instead of our actions are made to mark the bounds of Christian unity. We go deliberately to work to make out a given case; we apply the rules of logic until the Aristotelian system trembles under the heavy weight laid upon it, and then, when we have reached a conclusion, we do not hesitate to elevate this conclusion into all the force of a "Thus-saith-the Lord." This is precisely what is objectionable. Logic is not a thing to be feared so long as it is confined to its legitimate sphere, but when we undertake to substitute the deductions of human reason for the plain statements of the Word of God, then it is that knowledge usurps the authority of faith, and human creeds become the bonds of religious union and communion; then it is that the Bible ceases to be a rule of faith and duty, and becomes a mere fighting-ground for theological pugilists.

      Several years ago Archbishop Whately called very earnest attention to the folly of making theological speculations fundamental, or even important, in our religious faith, and Mansel, in his "Limits of Religious Thought," has put the whole matter so clearly that I feel justified in quoting a few sentences from his masterly statement. He says: " The testimony of Scripture, like that of our natural [372] faculties, is plain and intelligible when we are content to accept it as a fact intended for our practical guidance; it becomes incomprehensible only when we attempt to explain it as a theory capable of speculative analysis. We are distinctly told that there is mutual relation between God and man as distinct agents; that God influences man by His grace, visits him with reward or punishment, regards him with love or anger; that man within his own limited sphere is likewise capable of 'prevailing with God' that his prayer may obtain an answer from Him, his conduct call down God's favor of condemnation.

      "There is nothing self-contradictory or even unintelligible in this if we are content to believe that it is so, without striving to understand how it is so; but the instant we attempt to analyze the ideas of God as infinite and man's as finite--to resolve the Scriptural statements into the higher principles on which their possibility apparently depends--we are surrounded on every side by contradictions of our own raising, and, unable to comprehend how the Infinite and finite can exist in mutual relation, we are tempted to deny the fact of that relation altogether, and to seek refuge, though it be but insecure and momentary, in pantheism, which denies the existence of the finite; or atheism, which rejects the Infinite."

      This very clear and forcible statement enables us to see how surely we run upon breakers if we attempt to steer our religious life by a purely [373] theological chart. It is well therefore that we are beginning to understand this matter, and, as a consequence, are beginning to seek for practical channels through which to display our energies, instead of in theological hair-splitting, which serves only to confuse thought rather than clarify it, to hinder Christian unity rather than foster it.

      Certainly no one ought to conclude from the present tendency that right thinking is of no consequence. I do not for a moment anticipate that the tendency to the practical will do away with even formulated thinking. As long as men ask the reason why things are so there will undoubtedly be attempts to answer, and no one should object to all legitimate efforts to solve every question which can possibly be suggested as regards both the life that now is and that which is to come, provided always that the inquiry is conducted in a legitimate manner. And when once we have abandoned the dogmatic method of investigation as regards the faith of the Gospel, it will not be difficult for us to reach the conclusion that faith is simply personal and not doctrinal at all. It is belief in a great Person, as our Prophet, Priest and King, and not in some metaphysical abstractions concerning either Him or anything He has spoken. This at once lifts faith out of the region of abstraction and places it where it properly belongs.

      The last point to be considered with respect to faith is that Christ, as the object of faith, inspires perfect confidence, not only because of His [374] infallibility as a teacher, but also because of His perfect character in every other respect. We need only to understand Him in order to be able to trust Him implicitly, and this implicit trust brings with it perfect peace. I do not say that we will always completely trust Him, even though, like Pilate, we are compelled to acknowledge that we find no fault in Him. I have already intimated that there are two factors in Christianity, namely, the Divine and the human. One is perfect, the other imperfect. And while this remains true I do not see how it is possible to expect any condition of things wherein there will be no place for doubt and uncertainty. The human will always be more or less uncertain in its grasp of the Divine, although it may be perfectly certain that the latter has every characteristic on which the soul can repose with entire confidence. However, it will surely help us to rest securely in the object of our faith, when that object is something definite, and when this something definite has infallibility, and when this infallibility has personality, and when this personality is entirely worthy of our most implicit trust.

      And this brings me to say a word or two about the difference between Christ Himself and that system of religion which bears His name. Christ is greater than Christianity. This fact contains the hope of the world. Christianity, as the historical evolution, has doubtless been useful in many respects, but has also been destructive of some of the best [375] interests of mankind. It should be remembered that the word "Christianity" is not in the Bible, and is, therefore, of human origin. Nevertheless, when it represents the teaching and practice of Christ and His apostles, it has its proper place in the nomenclature of religious literature. But, unfortunately, in its modern use it very frequently stands for systems of doctrines presented in human creeds, while in its practical aspects it stands for the divided state of what is called Christendom, as well as the dogmatic strife which has more frequently in the history of the church represented the spirit of anti-Christ than the spirit of Christ Himself. Indeed, it may be truly said that every century since the days of the apostles has had its confederacy of evil in the garb of Christianity. I have already intimated the danger of theological speculation in religious matters, and therefore I need not take up your time with details as to how this danger has been illustrated in the history of past centuries. It is quite sufficient to say that there can be little hope for any church of the future which does not make the personal Christ the beginning and end of a whole-hearted faith.

      2. What Will Be the Organization of the Future Church. Before looking at the question of organization specifically, it may be well to say a few words about it generally. Undoubtedly the historic church has been heavily burdened by an alliance with the governments of this world. But this is not the worst [376] of it. The union of church and state necessarily implies limitations which are not in harmony with the character of the church as described in the New Testament. The Divine ideal of the church may always and everywhere be known by at least three distinguishing characteristics:

      First, universality; second, spirituality; and third by unity.

      And if the church of the future is to manifest the essential features of the Divine ideal, or New Testament church, then clearly the coming church cannot be bounded by state lines, or associated with statecraft, or divided into as many parts as there are different governments in the world. Whatever else the church of the future may lack, it must have comprehension; it must have a spiritual membership; and it must have distinct oneness in all that is necessary to constitute Christian unity. The very message which it has to deliver to the world is universal in its character, and consequently the church itself cannot be restricted by the boundary lines of earthly kingdoms or temporalities of any kind whatever. In a word, it must be ecumenical. The Gospel is to be carried into all the world and preached to every creature, and the church ought to be coextensive with the Gospel message. It is also true that membership in the church of the future must depend upon spiritual birth, and not upon natural birth.

      In other words, nationality must not be allowed to take the place of spirituality. Because a man is a [377] citizen of a certain government or belongs to a particular nationality, he must not on that account be regarded as necessarily belonging to the church of Jesus Christ. Nothing' short of the new birth, or new creation in Christ Jesus, will entitle anyone to real membership in the organization I am considering. And let it be furthermore distinctly understood that the present divided state of Christendom utterly fails to represent the oneness of Christ's disciples for which He so fervently prayed. Hence the church of the future must have catholicity, spirituality and unity. And to have these it must not consider seriously the question of what is called the "historic episcopate," or any other peculiar feature of church government which radically affects the three general characteristics to which I have called attention.

      Nor is there any need for cleavage along the lines which have usually distinguished Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists from each other. The church of the future will undoubtedly be Episcopalian, because it will be governed by bishops or overseers; it will be Presbyterian because it will be governed by presbyters or elders, these being from a New Testament point of view the same as bishops or overseers; and it will also be Congregational, because the whole assembly will be the final source of appeal with respect to all matters of governmental authority. Hence the church will be Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Congregational, but [378] not any one of these to the exclusion of the others.

      It is desirable I think that special emphasis should be placed upon the last general characteristic which I have mentioned, namely, the oneness of the members of the church of the future. This oneness is very comprehensively and clearly stated by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians, where he says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus."

      In this Scripture there are three very important distinctions clearly indicated, which I think the church of the future must practically annihilate before it is possible for that church to realize, even in an approximate sense, the splendid ideal of the New Testament. Let us therefore look honestly at these three distinctions to which the Apostle calls attention.

      1. The distinction between Jew and Greek cannot be recognized in the future church. This has been one of the fundamental difficulties in the way of the progress of the Gospel ever since it was first preached, and it has perhaps done more than any other one thing to destroy the ecumenical character of the church. Indeed, it cannot be doubted that even now the old controversy between Jew and Greek, between the old covenant and the new, between the law and the Gospel, between Moses and Christ, is more or less a factor in the church of the [379] present day. It is not too much to say, I verily believe, that we are still troubled with Judaizing teachers, who are urging all God's free children to go back again to the yoke of bondage. But those who are so zealous for the law practically destroy the Gospel. We must not bind freedom in order to liberate the slave. In our anxiety to honor the law of Moses we may dishonor the law of Christ.

      Too much emphasis placed upon the first may make the last an insignificant, appendix, and this is precisely what many have practically done during the past ages of the church, and I fear that there are not a few who are even now more careful about maintaining the integrity of the law than the integrity of the Gospel. Undoubtedly the law is better than nothing at all. And it may be that some people will have to tie themselves to it, like Ulysses tied himself to the masts of the ship in order to pass securely the Island of the Sirens; but if we really know how to make the music of the new covenant we may, like Orpheus, drown the voice of the sirens in the sweet melody of the Gospel lute, and thus escape the seductive influence of temptation without the necessity of fastening ourselves to the imperious prohibitions of the law. And it is simply certain that the church of the future must take a new departure with respect to the matter now under consideration. And it will, I think, at any rate demonstrate the unity of the race by breaking down the distinction between Jew and Greek. [380]

      The promise of God to Abraham was in its ultimate design emphatically ecumenical--it included all the families of the earth. And the law which was given 430 years afterwards was simply a parenthesis, or a mere temporary addition, because of transgressions until the promised seed should come. This law could not therefore annul the promise which was intended for all time and for every creature. The former was not only temporal, but temporary. It related not only to time simply in its dealings with the Jewish people, but even the time of its authority was limited. It was also exclusive. The latter however is inclusive, comprehensive, spiritual and permanent. As the law has dominion only while the man liveth, the moment we are crucified with Christ, or die to sin, that moment are we released from the law. Our resurrection is to a new life, to a new Master, and to a new kingdom. In fact, all things become new to us the moment we are in Christ Jesus our lord, and in Him the law hath no dominion over us. Or, to change the figure, the law is a shadow of the good things to come. Now a shadow presupposes light somewhere. The light of the Sun of Righteousness was actually shining at the time the law was in force, and as this Sun rose higher and higher the shadow grew shorter and shorter; so that when on the day of Pentecost, the Sun had reached the zenith of His glory, was indeed declared to be both Lord and Christ, then the shadow was under His feet or the law ceased to have any potentiality with either [381] Christ or those who were His. Since that time " Christ has been the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This fact must be made prominent in the church of the future, or else that church will not be much of an improvement on the church of the past or the present.

      And the influence of the Greek as such must be broken. The late Professor Hatch, of Oxford University, with great research and ability, has shown with admirable clearness the influence of Greek philosophy on the development of historic Christianity. No doubt we are, largely indebted to the Greek spirit for the philosophizing tendency to which I have already called attention, and which has wrought such fearful havoc in the historic church, for it cannot be doubted that the tendency has been the parent of most of the theological hair-splitting which has often made the difference between saints and sinners to consist in little more than the charge of a single letter in the spelling of a word.

      However, the annihilation of the difference between Jew and Greek will at once demonstrate the unity of the race, which is a most important step in the direction of that universal brotherhood, the establishment of which is one of the great objects of Christianity in the world.

      2. The distinction between bond and free must also give way before the coming church. The breaking down of this distinction will bring us to social unity. There is perhaps nothing in which the church [382] of the past has more signally failed than in realizing the Christian ideal of social life. The late General Gordon was practically divorced from the churches of his day by what he regarded as this recognition of caste. He held very earnestly to the notion that both Christ and His apostles very clearly taught that in Christ Jesus the distinction between bond and free cannot legitimately be recognized. And I think we are all bound to acknowledge that even our modern Christianity does not properly illustrate the socialism of the New Testament. The old notion that one man is better than another because of the accident of natural birth still dominates our church life, and I fear has a much deeper hold than many are willing to admit. But the church of the future will break down the reign of caste, and will recognize only the royal mark of dignity which belongs to every Christian man, because of his relation to the Man Christ Jesus. The fact is there is nothing which distinguishes the Christian religion so much as its doctrine of social unity.

      When Christ said "There is joy in heaven with the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth," He struck the keynote of the music of the new age to which we are rapidly coming. The value of the individual man, and the value of the man in his lowest estate, is perhaps the most marvelous revelation in the whole teaching of the great Teacher. We pray that the will of God may be done on earth as in heaven, but how few of us are ready to rejoice [383] over one sinner that repenteth! When, however, such a person returns to God, all heaven is filled with rapturous delight. But we wait for the hundreds and thousands before our joy amounts to much. And even these must be the distinguished of earth in order to excite our highest delight. But I thank God the church of the future will change all this, for it will completely revolutionize our social ideas and will consequently break down all such barriers as have heretofore blocked the way to genuine religious progress. Flesh will not longer dominate, though it may not be completely conquered while we are subject to the conditions of our present environment. Doubtless we shall always be to some extent influenced by the sensuous while we are in our present state, but when the spiritual man has fair play in the struggle for the mastery, we shall at last be delivered from the complete domination of the sensuous, which has so emphatically marked the past history of the church.

      3. It is perhaps even more remarkable that the Apostle should say that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. And yet there is a most important sense in which this is true, and if the church of the future is to maintain the essential characteristics of the unity contended for by the Apostle, then it is certain that woman must have a more important place in the church than she has yet filled. I do not stop to discuss these recondite questions which so often have engaged the attention of theological [384] pugilists--much as Paul's supposed prohibition against women speaking in church, etc. I am concerned at present with a more important aspect of the question. I am looking at a phase of family life which must be made prominent in the church.

      I have already shown that by getting rid of the anti-spiritual difference between Jew and Greek we practically reach the unity of the race, and by getting rid of the distinction between bond and free we reach the unity of society; or social unity; and now I wish to emphasize the fact that by getting rid of the distinction between male and female, in so far as church relations are concerned, we shall reach family unity; and this will practically cover the whole ground of unity so far as it relates to organization. Indeed, I believe the church of the future will have organic unity simply because it will recognize organic difference. Unity implies difference. There is difference between Jew and Greek, there is also difference between bond and free, there is difference between male and female; but in Christ Jesus these differences do not count. The oneness that is in Him brings all differences into unity. He is the light of the world in which all colors are blended; He is the music of the world in which all different notes harmonize. And when the church shall cease listening to organ-grinders, and hear only Him of whom Moses and the Prophets did speak, then we shall begin to understand that difference in the right place is harmony, while difference in the wrong place [385] is discord. But, as already intimated, we have been listening to organ-grinders whose sectarian clatter is not much more grateful to the cultivated ear than those of whom Dr. Holmes speaks:

      And it cannot be disputed that the discords of hurdy-gurdy sectarianism have been heard all along the line traced by the apostle in the words which we have been considering, and especially with respect to what he says about male and female.

      I cannot now go into particulars in order to show how woman's work may be made more effective in the salvation of the world. It is sufficient for my present purpose to put all the emphasis I can command into the inspired statement which I have quoted from the Apostle to the Gentiles. And, in my judgment, when we have practically reached the three unities to which I have called attention, there will not be much difficulty in realizing "the unity of the spirit" which the Divine Word so urgently exhorts us to keep. This, of course, is the main end in view, but the three unities which the Apostle's teaching clearly implies must necessarily precede such a unity of the spirit as will give us a church [386] commensurate with the needs of the whole human race.

      Undoubtedly our conflict is chiefly with the three antagonisms which the Apostle has presented, and consequently to overcome at these points will be to subdue the flesh, conquer the animal, and bring liberty to the spiritual man. At present our struggle is with the sensuous, the carnal, the animal, involving all the lower elements of our being and environment, and we can have spiritual unity only when our higher nature has gained the ascendancy over the lower, and when our true manhood and womanhood are allowed to become dominant in our life-work. . . .

      3. Having now considered with sufficient fullness what will be the faith and organic character of the church of the future, it is only necessary in order to complete our survey to notice briefly what this church will be in its life; or what it will be as a practical organization for good. This, after all, is the true test of everything that has life, and this is really the side of what we call Christianity that Christ Himself most distinctly emphasized. He certainly did not give much attention to what we call doctrinal statements. Indeed it may be fairly questioned whether he gave any attention whatever to the kind of doctrinal statement which has largely engaged the attention of the church in the past. It is at any rate a very remarkable fact that all the creeds of Christendom are chiefly concerned with [387] dogmas which have little or no place in the teaching of the Christ, while the matters which He emphasized most are either not noticed at all, or else they are placed in a very subordinate position. It would truly be a very curious creed that would emphasize the teaching, item by item, of the Sermon on the Mount; and yet it seems to me that that teaching is quite as important as anything else in the New Testament, if indeed it is not more important. But, however this may be, it is safe to say that whatever may have been necessary to the church of the past, or whatever it may have been able to do without, it is absolutely certain that the church of the future can never meet the high hopes of the present nor the responsibilities of the work which that church will be called upon to discharge, unless it practices what it preaches. Hence both its faith and organization will be useless, and even worse than useless, if the life of the church is not what it ought to be. . . .

      What, then, will be the character of the coming church with respect to the great work which it has to accomplish? It will be (A) aggressive; (B) progressive; (C) congressive.

      Let us very briefly examine each one of these in the order I have named them, and then we shall, I think, the better understand the real spirit of the church which we are all hoping may soon come in its fullest manifestations of power.

      1. The church of the future will be intensely [388] aggressive. It will not be satisfied to merely build places of worship and then invite the people into them, or else by pandering to worldly taste entice the people into them; but the church I am considering will recognize in all its potentiality the meaning of the first word in the great commission which Christ gave to His Apostles. The word "Go" will have a significance which at present does not attach to it, and this word will take the future church into all the world, so that the Gospel may really be preached to every creature. The one need of the present day is the heroic spirit which compels to the noblest deeds. Really, the age of heroes has passed. In our church life there are no grand men, such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Campbell to lead us. We have many men of excellent characters, and some of them are filling important spheres, but when we ask: Where are the men who fitly represent the heroic age of action? echo answers, Where? Truly may it be said that "Atlas has gone to the Hesperides, and there is no one left to hold up the skies; that Ulysses has departed on his wanderings and there is none strong enough at Ithaca to bend his matchless bow."

      But the church of the future will aim to make every man a hero by infusing into him the aggressive spirit. However, all are not likely to be heroic; some will have to be carried, but the aggressive spirit will not wait on these, though it will recognize the duty of carrying all who have not strength in [389] themselves. Many of these are no doubt very troublesome, even when the noblest charity is exercised toward them; and if we were engaged in a carnal strife we could well afford to leave them behind, for they undoubtedly hinder to a large extent all the earnest aggressive effort. All the same, it is impossible to reckon with the conditions of the future without taking them into account, and while this may be a hindrance to progress, it is altogether probable that even the church army of the future cannot do without its ambulance corps. There will always be enough weak souls who must be carried to give full employment to the surplus energies of the strong. Grumblers and fault-finders, like the poor, are with us always, and it is almost certain that they will not leave us in the coming church. Some men were no doubt born in the objective case. They, are never pleased with anything except themselves, and they would not be pleased even with themselves if they were large enough to be seen on the other side of the personal pronoun I.

      But the habit of fault-finding is no new thing under the sun. The Israelites were much given to grumbling. No people were ever more highly favored. God was with them in a very special manner. He was a pillar of cloud to them by day and a pillar of fire by night. He fed them with manna and quails, and gave, them water from Horeb to drink. Yet the people murmured. The more blessing they received the more they seemed to be dissatisfied. [390] No wonder Moses grew impatient. He knew how little cause there was for complaint. But he did not take into account sufficiently their immaturity. They were simply big babies. They had physical growth, but their religious and mental development was sadly behind; they had been carried. They cried for the mortar-beds of Egypt. They often sighed to go back to their bondage. This feeling showed itself right at the start. At the Red Sea their demands to go back were imperative. Moses said to them, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." But God said, "Wherefore criest thou unto me? Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward." Here were four doctrines preached: first, the go-back doctrine; second, the cry-on doctrine; third, the stand-still doctrine; and fourth, the go-forward doctrine. The last was God's doctrine, and was consequently the true doctrine. The other three doctrines were false, and as used in these days are always misleading. The third was at once contradicted by Divine authority, and therefore should not now be used as indicating the way out of any difficulty.

      The way to victory is toward the front. Forward! should be the watchword of every man who hopes to accomplish anything in this life. But the go-back, crying, and standing-still doctrines are not yet conquered. Indeed, in many places they are in a large majority; at least the men who do not wish to go forward are in a large majority. Progress is not always peace. To float down stream is an easy [391] matter, but to pull against the tide is quite another thing. Anyone can object--anyone can find fault. The world's heroes have always had to pull the grumblers after them. But even this is a noble work to do. We must not be satisfied with getting forward ourselves; we must aim to get others forward also. Unselfishness is one of the most fundamental matters connected with the Christian religion. And yet unselfishness is, in its highest form, the very highest self-interest. As a matter of fact, the only way to get on is to help others. Some men make a great noise and go through all the motions of work, but a closer examination will reveal the fact that they are practically doing nothing. What we need is real work, not pretense. Mere motion and noise are poor substitutes for genuine power and a wise application of it.

      I was once crossing the Atlantic from New York to Liverpool, and after leaving New York I soon noticed that the ship was not making her usual time. I counted the revolutions of the screw and found that these were at least ten behind what they should be. A look into the engine-room revealed nothing that indicated weakness. But I was not satisfied; I asked an officer what was the matter. He replied by pointing to one of the three pistons. Said be, "That piston nearest to you is a dummy. It is moving up and down just like the other two, but it is not only useless, but worse than useless, for it is indebted to the two live pistons for even the life it shows. They [392] not only drive the ship, but have to pull the dummy piston along while doing it." And so I think it is with some men. They not only do nothing themselves, but the live, active, progressive workers who are driving the ship of progress have literally to draw the dummy men after them, or else the dummies would never get on at all. Let us make no mistake in this matter. It often happens that the very little activity shown by fault-finders is due wholly to the great activity of the real workers. The real workers are not only carrying the whole load of the work, but they are carrying also the men who will not work, and who really try to hinder the hard workers by fault-finding.

      But this double service is quite necessary. We cannot, even if we would, disassociate ourselves from the dummies, the fault-finders, the objectors. They belong to the machinery, and must therefore be reckoned with in all our efforts at progress. But we must not stop the ship because we have to carry a dummy piston. We can at least put motion into the men who are preaching the go-back, cry-on or standstill doctrine. I am not unmindful that these men may claim that the very motion we impart to them is a sign that they are actually driving the ship. Let us not mind that. The defects in their machinery may be remedied after a while and then these dummies may do good service in the great work of progress.

      2. The church of the future will be essentially [393] progressive in the best meaning of that word. I do not see how this could be otherwise in a church which aims at development. Legitimate growth is only another name for normal progress. Any church which grows in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ must make progress. I am not unmindful of the fact that with some of the grumblers, to whom reference has been made, progress has become an epithet, and efficiency a crime, but to those who look at the whole matter from a truly Christian point of view it will appear perfectly evident that no church can do the work of God in this world which does not make progress a watchword and efficiency the highest proof of fitness for service.

      But in pleading earnestly for progress, I do not wish to be understood as having any faith at all in noisy professions of progress. It is not necessary to talk loud and make large demonstrations of purpose. The Divine method of working should always be our example. God is economical of power. He does not waste energy. Even when He exerts His mighty strength the most He nearly always does this in silent courses. Nor is the silence broken until the power is exhausted. He never thunders without the corresponding lightning. We often thunder most when the lightning is least. Noise does not therefore necessarily imply strength; indeed it is rather a sign of weakness. Progress is not simply resistance; it may not imply any visible conflict at all. [394] I know we are always talking about fighting error, and no doubt there are times when this cannot be avoided. We have already seen that the church must be aggressive, and that this aggressiveness means the overthrow of all opposition. Hence there are times when the conflict between truth and error will not admit of even a temporary compromise, and at such times to fight earnestly for the truth is the highest virtue; but, after all, truth is never so beautiful as when she humbles herself in order to be charitable to the wrong-doer. It is precisely at such a moment that she best reflects the image of Him who said to the erring one: "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more."

      3. The coming church will not only be aggressive and progressive, but it will also be eminently congressive. This means that Christians shall not only walk together, but that they shall meet together, worship together, and work together. In the past there has been entirely too much isolation, too little conference, and by far too little co-operation. Denominationalism is bad enough, but sectarianism is even worse. The former may exist without the latter, but neither can exist without injury to the cause of Christ. The one hinders brotherliness and Christian work, but the other literally drives out the Christian spirit, and in its stead fosters a spirit which is intensely selfish, if not devilish. The church of the future must get rid of the latter, if indeed it does not of the former. When that church has [395] reached its highest development (and this will be its congressive period), then such a religious congress as the one in which we are now taking part will be regarded as a normal sign of our religious development. . . .

      Let us now answer the inquiry as to what the church of the future will bring with it.

      1. It will bring a new era of brotherhood. Professor Drummond has been telling us about "The City without a Church." And what he has said has attracted widespread attention. But in my judgment there is a fallacy in the Professor's reasoning which some have failed to discover. If he had described a city that is all church, he would have come much nearer the truth than he has done. He seems to have a wrong conception of what the church is as it is represented in the Word of God. He evidently confounds the place of worship with the church itself, or that which really worships. The ecclesia of the New Testament is altogether a different thing from the kuriakee or kuriakon, which seems to be the thing which Professor Drummond does not find in the New Jerusalem city. This confusion of the ecclesia with the "house of the Lord," or the place in which the assembly gathers, is not peculiar to Professor Drummond; it is a common habit with many who write about the church. But if we fix our minds upon the assembly itself, or, better still, on all the Christians at a given place or city, we immediately see how absurd it is to suppose that [396] there can be a consecrated Christian city without a church. Really the thing to be aimed at is to make the whole city practically a church. In Apostolic days the style was "The church at" a place or city, such as "The church at Jerusalem," "The church at Ephesus," "The church at Thessalonica," etc., etc. We never read in the New Testament of churches (plural) at a city. Evidently it was the Divine intention to bring every city into subjection to the Gospel, and thus make each city co-extensive with the church at that place. . . .

      However, the moment that we realize the city that is allchurch, or the city where all its inhabitants belong to the spiritual brotherhood which is represented by the ideal church, that moment we have reached a new and blessed era of brotherhood. This is what the world is sighing for, and this is exactly the socialism which the world needs. When the church in the life of its members fitly illustrates universality, spirituality and unity, then we shall have the socialism of Christ, and this will at once bring the new era of brotherhood to which I have called attention.

      2. The church of the future will bring a new era of consecration and service. Who does not feel the need of such an era? Everywhere there is a painful sense of failure as regards devotedness to the cause of Christ. I greatly fear that very many professing Christians of the present day might safely be classed with the Laodiceans in the apocalyptic vision. At [397] best they are only lukewarm, and lack both the spirit of consecration and earnestness to work. Indeed, very few, compared with the great mass of Christians, make any decided sacrifices at all for the spread of the Gospel. How many are contributing liberally to support missionaries in the field? How many are willing to go into the field and bear the heat and burden incident to such a service?

      We sometimes wonder why our missionary meetings and conventions are not better attended than they are. But the reason is not difficult to find. We must never expect interest where there is no capital. If Christians do not invest in our missionary enterprises, we cannot hope that they will come to our meetings to hear about missionary work. You cannot expect a good angler to watch intently the cork on his line when he knows he has put no bait on the hook. When we can persuade Christians to put bait on their missionary hooks, there will not be much difficulty in getting them to watch the corks. They will then come to our missionary meetings in order that they may learn what success has attended their investments. A new era of consecration and service will send thousands of missionaries into heathen lands, and will at the same time bring millions of dollars into the missionary treasuries for the support of the Gospel.

      3. And lastly, the coming church will bring a new era of triumphs and peace. We are just now standing on the verge of a new century, and I cannot help; [398] believing that this new century contains within its hidden folds a marvelous record of this world's history. But we who are now men and women can hope to see only the beginning of the glories which will be revealed. And yet this beginning will probably be more wonderful than anything our eyes have ever beheld. The past hundred years have been crowded with events which point to the coming of a new era, and this era is even now beginning to dawn upon the world. The beginning of a new year always has in it considerable significance to those who recognize the value of every moment of time. But the beginning of a new century is often the turning point with reference to some of the most important matters connected with human destiny. Who can estimate the progress that has been made within the last hundred years? Looked at from almost any point of view, the century which is just closing has had no parallel in the history of this planet. It began with a revival of the religious spirit, and especially the missionary spirit, and it is ending with a record which promises much for the twentieth century. . . .

      And we ought to learn a lesson from all this. That lesson is that when there is little activity among God's children there may not be a corresponding indifference on the part of the powers of evil; but when God's people are deeply in earnest, and are waging an aggressive warfare upon the strongholds of Satan, then we may be well assured that all the forces of evil will be brought into the field. [399]

      And if we should find some such state of things as I have described prevailing at the present time, surely no one ought to be astonished. There is just now very great activity among religious people. It may not be as great as some desire, and it is certainly not as great as it ought to be; and yet it is far greater than at any period within the recollection of the present generation. I do not now refer simply to the actual work that is being accomplished. Very much is being done in this direction, but this does not represent all that we mean by activity. Thought logically goes before action, and it is the thinking of the present hour that is making highways for the workers of the future. There can be no doubt about the fact that some of this thinking is in a crude state, but even this ought to be reasonably expected. Mind no more than matter can emerge from chaos without bringing with it some of the darkness with which it was enshrouded. For many years the religious mind has been slowly working its way out of the darkness of the Middle Ages, and considering that it has had to overcome so many difficulties, there is certainly much reason for rejoicing at the progress that has been made.

      At any rate, it appears to me that we are just now standing upon the dividing line of two ages. The age of struggle, conflict, war, but nevertheless the age of mighty achievements, is rapidly passing away. The age to come will be one which at least will not be entirely without the characteristics of the [400] age now passing. But the new age will be especially distinguished for its great victories in all the departments of human progress. It will be strongly marked by the spirit of unity which will everywhere prevail. The ushering in of the church of the future will at least be the beginning of that happy time foretold in prophecy, when the church shall become universal, and when national life shall become ecumenical--in other words, when the nations of the earth and the church of Jesus Christ shall become co-extensive. In fact, the new age will bring us to that happy period

[NTC3 362-401]