Faith and the Faith by T. T. Eaton D. D., LL. D. Part 2 "Truth is by its very nature intolerant, exclusive."—Lubhardt "Nihil est veritatis luce dulcius."—Cicero "‘Tis man’s perdition to be safe When for the truth he ought to die."—Emerson "A man protesting against error is on the way towards uniting himself with all men that believe in truth."—Carlyle "There are some faults slight in the sight of love, some errors slight in the estimate of wisdom; but truth forgives no insult and endures no stain."—Ruskin "Buy the truth, and sell it not."—Prov. 23:23 "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed."—2 John 10 "But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."—Galatians 1:8 THE FAITH "I was constrained to write unto you, exhorting you to contend earnestly (epagwnizesqai) for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints."—Jude 3 "The faith" is the body of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, centering in Christ and His work. It is written (Acts 6: 7) that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." In Acts 16:5, we are told "so the churches were strengthened in the faith." Felix and Drusilla heard Paul "concerning the faith in Christ Jesus." Paul tells the Galatians how he "preaches the faith of which he once made havoc." Deacons are to "hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." Paul tells Titus about certain gainsayers and adds: "For which cause reprove them sharply that they may be sound in the faith." What we are to believe, what we are to be and what we are to do "according to the Scriptures—this is "the faith" which was delivered once for all and for which we are to "contend earnestly"—epi-agonize. This world is not a friend to truth, any more than it is a friend to grace, "to help us on to God." Error has more of the nature of leaven than has truth. The common saying: "Truth is mighty, and will prevail," is false. Truth is not mighty, and in times without number it has not prevailed. In a perfect world truth would be mighty but not in a world of sin. Many languages have proverbs to the effect that "a lie will get half round the world while the truth is getting on its boots to start." Did any one, reader, ever tell a lie on you? Did the correction ever overtake the lie? One rotten apple put into a barrel of sound ones will rot them all, while one sound apple put into a barrel of rotten ones will not make them sound, but will speedily rot itself. One diseased man can spread contagion through a city, while one healthy man cannot impart soundness to the sick in a hospital. In this world, alas! it is disease, and not health, that is contagious. One bad boy running with a dozen good ones may corrupt them all; while one good boy running with a dozen bad ones will not purify them, but will soon become as bad as they. Truth is mighty only when it has prophets, apostles and martyrs ready to do and dare and die in its behalf. Such triumphs of truth as we see in history were caused by the power of the Holy Spirit in faithful witnesses. Truth will make no progress by its own inherent power. It will not do to say that since the gospel is in the world it will make its own way because "truth is mighty and will prevail;" so we can take our ease and do nothing while the conversion of the world goes bravely on. Nay, verily, the gospel will not preach itself. We are to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Indeed no good cause in this world will take care of itself. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and of everything worth having. Ideas are the real rulers of the world, and before them the sword drops powerless. It has been truly said: "Load a gun with a bullet and you can kill a tyrant; load it with an idea and you can kill tyranny," making future tyrants impossible. The Popes established a far wider and stronger dominion than did the Cæsars, because the Popes ruled the ideas of Europe. In vain did king and kaiser appeal to the sword. Henry of England and Henry of Germany were obliged to humble themselves before their weaponless foes. Luther succeeded where warrior monarchs had failed because he attacked ideas with ideas. What deadly things ideas are, and what widespread ruin has been wrought by wrong beliefs! How important then, beyond our power to estimate, that truth shall prevail in the world! We are to "contend earnestly" for the faith. The Greek is epagwnizesqai,—epi-agonize—and it is the strongest word in any language, so far as I know, to express intensity of struggle. It occurs in the New Testament only here. We are to agonize to enter the strait gate, but we are to epi-agonize for "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints." This, then, is the supreme struggle of our existence. It is more important that "the faith be maintained than anything else, yea, than even our own salvation as individuals. We are to agonize for the latter but to epi-agonize for the former. We are not to let error alone; we are to attack it with all our force and contend against it with all our strength. Of course we must use no wrong means or methods, but our whole power should be exerted against error and in favor of the faith. The oft quoted utterance of Gamaliel has done great harm, "Let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." There is not a heresy but has sought shelter behind this utterance. And it is quoted as if it were Scripture, and therefore binding. Luke, by inspiration, simply tells us that Gamaliel said this, but nowhere is it intimated that the saying was right. All the Bible is responsible for, is that Gamaliel did say it. Many things are quoted in the Bible that are not Scripture at all. We are told what the devil said on certain occasions, but never is a statement of the devil endorsed. Neither is this statement of Gamaliel approved. Men do not argue in such fashion about the practical affairs of life. A farmer does not let the weeds alone on the plea that "if they be of man they will come to naught, while if they be of God, I cannot destroy them, lest haply I be found even to fight against God." When the yellow fever appeared in New Orleans, the medical authorities did not accept Gamalielism and say: "Let it alone, for if it be of man it will come to nought, but if it be of God we cannot check it, lest, haply, we be found even to fight against God." Such superlative nonsense is tolerated only in the matter of highest importance; only in religion. All that weeds can do is prevent the crop. All that yellow fever can do is to destroy life; while error destroys the soul. Hence while we are to contend against all that is hurtful, we are to epi-agonize against error. Saul of Tarsus took the right view of it. Believing the true faith to be in danger, the earnest young Pharisee exerted himself to the utmost to destroy what he regarded as error and to maintain what he believed to be truth. In doing this God blessed him, met him on the road to Damascus and transformed him into the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Whenever a man earnestly acts up to his light, God will give him more light. Earnest, fiery Saul of Tarsus epi-agonizing for his faith is met and converted, but complaisant Gamaliel is not saved. There is no hope for such as Gamaliel, but Paul is blessed and crowned. One Paul is worth more to the world than an acre of Gamaliels. Never was there a time when there was greater need to epi-agonize for the faith than now. Skepticism has become more aggressive than ever. For a time infidelity walked the earth in haughty exclusiveness. Christianity was well enough for the unlearned, for women and children; let them get whatever comfort they could from religion, it would be a pity to disturb their pleasing delusion. Infidelity was for philosophers and other lofty beings who dwelt on the intellectual heights. But now infidelity has professed religion and joined the church. Now it occupies pulpits and theological professors’ chairs, and the attack is from within. They seek to evaporate the faith into moonlit mist. They teach an inspiration that does not inspire, an atonement that does not atone, and a salvation that does not save. It were easy to multiply quotations in proof of this. Their special point of attack is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. They emphasize His incarnation and seek to substitute the gospel of the manger for the gospel of the cross. They do not like a "forensic" view of the atonement, as if sin were not forensic, and as if infinite justice could be flanked and the penalty of God’s law set aside. They are willing to believe in Christ, yes, but not in Christ upon the cross, bearing "our sins in His own body on the tree." It is the same old cry of the priests and rulers who stood upon Calvary—"Come down from the cross and we will believe." While abounding in euphemisms, the new theology robs us of all hope. I am a sinner. Eternal justice cannot be defeated. If any part of the penalty due my sins is set aside, to that extent divine justice is defeated. Either I must bear that penalty or someone must bear it for me, since infinite justice cannot be thwarted. Only upon the principle of substitution can I hope to escape. If Christ bore my sins for me, suffering in my stead, it is right that I should be forgiven, and I have hope. To convince me that Christ did not bear the penalty of my sins, is to rob me of all hope. Despite whole libraries of euphemisms, the new theology is the doctrine of despair. No wonder it decries logic. No wonder its statements are vague and hazy. No wonder it takes refuge in fog. Similarly the authority of Scripture is assailed. The authenticity of most of the books of the Bible is denied and all statements of Scripture, not in harmony with the preconceived theories of the critics, are set aside. They refuse to believe anything because the Bible says so, but will believe only what seems to them correct. This leaves us without any standard whatever, and makes every man a law unto himself. Then we are complacently told that "external authority" is of no consequence; that just so we have the language stating the truth, it does not matter from whom that language comes—its "religious value" being the same from whomsoever it may have come. John Smith is in need. He is handed a paper containing the following: "For valuable consideration four months from date I promise to pay John Smith, or order, the sum of ten thousand dollars, with interest from date at the rate, of six per cent, per annum until paid. Negotiable and payable at the Louisville National Banking Co. Louisville, Ky. Given this the 1st of December, 1905. Robert Jones." Smith immediately begins to inquire as to who Robert Jones is, and as to his financial standing. His friends say: "Ah! no matter about the ‘external authority,’ you have the language of the note, and that is of the same value, no matter who signed it." Smith insists that everything depends on whose name is signed to that note. On that name depends whether or not Smith’s necessities shall be relieved. Similarly when we read: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, etc.;" everything depends on the "eternal authority" of the statement. If God says this, we can trust our souls to it and have peace. If, however, it was simply a Christian of the Apostolic or sub-apostolic age who thought so, then the statement is worthless as a basis for any hope. It is thus with all the teachings of Scripture. If they are from God, we can trust them, but if they are simply, from man, they are worthless. "External authority" is everything. Setting aside the authority of Scripture as God’s Word, leaves man groping in darkness, with only a guess for a hope, and without the "sure word of promise" for which Socrates longed. Then we are told to be "broad," and the man who has clear cut beliefs to which he clings is denounced, or pitied, as "narrow." If we reach definite conclusions and insist on them, it is charged that we have thereby "closed our minds to new truth" and have become "narrowed" and "fossilized." This plea of being "broad" and "liberal" has been deadly in many cases, and under its spell many have loosened their grip on "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints." Now there are three respects in which a man can be broad or narrow. In two of them he ought to be broad while in one he ought to be narrow. The trouble is people are narrow where they ought to be broad and broad where they ought to be narrow. 1. We ought to be broad in our sympathies. Nothing human should be foreign to us. God loves the whole world and if we be godly we will love the whole world also. That a man is worshipping idols and ancestors in China, that a man is starving in India, that a man is a savage in Africa, that a man is blinded by superstition in Brazil, these ought to be matters of grave concern to us. That a man is of a different nationality or different color or different race from us, should not hinder the outflow of our heart’s sympathy to him. We ought to be broad in our sympathies. 2. We ought also to be broad in our horizon. We should be able to see truths in their relations. Our conclusions ought not to be the results of ignorance and prejudice. We should be able to see things lying outside the range of our prejudices. We should think for ourselves, and make our conclusions our own, and so make them intelligent. Yes, we should be broad in our horizon. 3. But in our beliefs we should be narrow, because truth is narrow. Every kind of truth is narrow. Mathematical truth is narrow. Two and two make exactly four—no more, no less, and whoever says they make anything else is wrong. There are thousands of numbers two and two do not make (error is broad) and only one they do make—truth is narrow. Scientific truth is narrow. Under ordinary conditions at the sea level water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, just that, no more, no less. There are thousands of temperatures at which water does not freeze. Suppose a man should say: "I am very broad in my scientific beliefs. I am not one of your scientific bigots who insist that water freezes at just 32 degrees, and that all who think differently are wrong. No; I admit water freezes at 20, 25, 32, 38, or 40 degrees, and at any other temperature. Just so a man is sincere, it does not matter at what temperature he believes water freezes. I am broad in my science." What would be thought of such a man? Historical truth is narrow. A given event took place in one particular way. There are thousands of ways in which it did not take place. It is the business of a jury to so consider the testimonies of the witnesses, each giving his impression, that they can determine just how the event did take place. So the historian is to use the data to determine just how the events he describes did take place. Suppose a professed historian should say: "I have very broad views of history. I abominate the narrow bigotry which says that a given event took place in only one particular way and that whoever says differently, is wrong. I believe the event took place in a hundred ways, and just so a man is sincere it does not matter how he believes it took place. Geographical truth is narrow. There is but one right direction to London from where the reader sits, while there are thousands of wrong directions. If, dear reader, you point towards London you must point in one definite direction. If you point in either of a thousand other directions, you are not pointing towards London. Suppose a man should say: "I am not one of you geographical bigots, who say that there is only one right direction towards London, from where he stands, while all who point in any other way are wrong. No, indeed, I am broad in my views of geography, and any way a man chooses to start, is the right way to London, if only he be honest; and whichever way he starts he will get to London all the same." What would be thought of such talk? How comes it to pass that what is recognized as the most arrant nonsense in all other realms, is, greedily swallowed when it comes into the realm of religion, where truth is most important? Whether a man be right or wrong in mathematics, in science, in history, in geography, etc., is of comparatively small importance, but his character and his eternal destiny depend upon his being right in religion. While we must be narrow in our beliefs if we be right, yet it does. not follow that we are right because we are narrow. It is just as narrow to say—two and two make five, no more, no less, as to say two and two make four. Hence we may be narrow and be wrong, while if we be broad in our beliefs we are certain to be wrong. Truth is narrow, and hence right belief must be narrow. Many are deterred from "contending earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints," by the fear of giving offense. Not long ago in my pulpit I had occasion to speak of Christian Science, and after the sermon a good brother came to me privately and said: "Did you know that Mrs.———has taken up with Christian Science? I’d advise you to be cautious how you oppose it, because she may be offended, and her family connection are very clannish, so that, if you anger her you will anger the whole connection, and will drive them away from our church." Now I am very much opposed to consumption. If I had my way there would never be another case of consumption on earth. Suppose some brother should say: "You had better be careful how you oppose consumption, since Mrs. Jones has consumption. She is a good woman and her relatives are devoted to her. She was a Smith and if you oppose consumption you will offend all the Joneses and Smiths and drive them away from our church." It is precisely because consumption injures good people that I oppose it. If I attacked only rascals, though I would pray for their salvation, I would not so vigorously oppose consumption. Similarly it is because error injures people that we oppose it. Those who are affected by religious error have no more reason to be offended at those who oppose error, than a consumptive has to be offended at those who oppose consumption. Indeed we ought to oppose error far more vigorously than we oppose disease, because disease can only kill the body while error can destroy the soul. While we ought not needlessly to give offense, we should not in the slightest degree be deterred from "contending earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints," because of the liability of giving offense. It is written "ye are the salt of the earth:" it is nowhere written "ye are the honey of the earth." The Apostle Paul made enemies wherever he went, getting himself beaten, imprisoned, cast out and finally beheaded. A greater than Paul made enemies by His faithful advocacy of the truth; enemies so bitter that they hounded Him to His death and jeered at Him while He hung in agony upon the cross. "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant of his Lord." "Wo unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets." "He has no enemies, you say! My friend, your boast is poor; He who hath mingled in the fray Of duty, that the brave endure, Must have made foes. If he has none, Small is the work that he has done. He has bit no traitor on the hip, He has cast no cup from tempted lip, He has never turned the wrong to right, He has been a coward in the fight." Those who assail "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints," claim everything with a naiveté that is positively refreshing. They put their "assured results" at us as if those results had been established beyond peradventure, whereas there is not an atom of evidence among the documents or the monuments in favor of those results. Their criticism is wholly subjective. They simply evolve their results "out of the depths of their own consciousness." And yet they attack orthodoxy as if it were no longer possible for a man of intelligence to be orthodox. I have carefully read many thousands of pages of the writings of those who advocate the new theology, and the "higher criticism," and I have never yet seen a single argument worthy of respect in favor of those "results." They first form their theory and then manipulate the facts so as to make them fit the theory; while such facts as cannot be made to fit are tossed aside or ignored. This is thoroughly unscientific and thoroughly unreasonable. Even Dr. Cheyne says: "I am far from asserting the ‘bankruptcy’ of the prevalent methods of ‘higher criticism,’ but I do assert their inadequacy." Dr. Reich has shown their bankruptcy. Not only do the new theology advocates set aside the atonement of Christ, and the authority of Scripture, but they also set aside the guilt of sin. The sinner is regarded as affected by a malady which makes him suffer and from which we should seek to relieve him, but for which he is in no wise to blame. He is simply unfortunate but not guilty. Dr. Adolf Harnack, perhaps the highest authority among the new theology men, says: "Psychology has given us a new picture of man; the investigations regarding the origin of morality have altered our notions of sin." Dr. Matheson quotes a leading evolutionist as saying: "The scientific definition I would give to sin would be an unfortunate regress in a development whose trend is manifestly upward." Doing away with the guilt of sin, they do away with repentance as well. These "advanced" gentlemen claim that the Bible is full of mistakes, both as to statements of fact and as to many points of its teaching. They admit that it has a "religious value," as the record of the pious thoughts and aspirations of men who lived between, say, 800 B.C. and 150 A.D. and while these utterances contain some truth, it is so mingled with the wrong and the crude notions of those times, that only a twentieth century critic can distinguish the true from the false. Hence these gentlemen owe it to the public and to themselves to furnish us an up-to-date Bible, whose teachings can be trusted. Why should we be dependent on the thoughts of men, however good and sincere, who lived during a millennium so long ago, while in the centuries since, and particularly during the past century, the world has made such progress? These gentlemen hold that men are inspired now as truly as in the olden time. Then let them eliminate all they regard as false from the Scriptures and add such things as have been inspired since the canon closed, so as to furnish an up-to-date Bible. According to their theory they cannot escape this responsibility. John Toland published a pantheistic Bible for those who agreed with him. Mrs. Eddy has done likewise for her disciples. The record of what the orthodox faith has done in the world is open to all. It has stood the test. Now let the new theology be put to a practical test. Let a mission be opened in the slums of New York where the new doctrine shall be preached, and let it be seen whether the work of the Jerry McCauley Mission can be surpassed. Let missionaries be sent to preach the new theology to tribes as yet untouched by orthodoxy, and see whether such results will follow, as Charles Darwin (and surely they will believe Darwin) said followed the preaching of orthodoxy on the island of Tahiti, for example. When practical tests show that preaching the new theology produces better results than have been produced by preaching orthodoxy, then, and not till then, should these gentlemen have the face to ask us to give up orthodoxy and to accept the new theology. The fact is, the new theology is no match for total depravity. "The faith" was "delivered." It was not invented. It is not the result of human thought, nor the output of human philosophy. It came from God, and was delivered to man. It is to be kept by God’s people, maintained by them, and contended for by them as they contend for nothing else. It is a sacred trust, to be guarded by their highest effort and their heart’s blood. Better men and women than we are have died for this faith. Christ died for it, that it might be ours. This faith was "once for all" delivered unto the saints—once for all. It is not subject to change. It is incapable of improvement. "What?" it is asked. "Shall I believe just as my grandfather did? Shall I carry my grist to mill in one end of a bag with a stone In the other, because my grandfather did so? [I have been hunting for a man who would admit his grandfather did that. Mine didn’t. He had better sense.] In view of the great progress in all other things, shall theology alone make no progress? Shall we wear clothes like those the apostles wore? Shall I we travel on donkeys, and on sail vessels, because they did so in New Testament times? Conditions are so different now from what obtained formerly, shall not the faith be modified to fit these new conditions? Shall we be fossilized in religion while we advance in everything else? My grandfather traveled five miles an hour and I go fifty. Shall I therefore be expected to hold the same faith he held? etc., etc., etc., etc." All the changes in human society do not affect the question in the slightest degree. A sinner going fifty miles an hour needs to repent in exactly the same way as a sinner going five miles an hour. A heavy-laden heart working at a hand loom needs the same hope as one working in an enormous factory. Changes in conditions do not change human nature nor do they change truth. Truth, before concealed, may be discovered, but it is incapable of change. If two and two did not make four in Adam’s time, they do not make four now and never will make four. We are commanded to "buy the truth," no matter what the cost, and to "sell it not," no matter what the inducement to let it go. "The faith" is God’s truth, delivered to us, and it is final. Well does Lowell say: "In vain we call old notions fudge, And trim our conscience to our dealing. The ten commandments will not budge, And stealing will continue stealing." Let all progress possible be made in all lines where progress is possible. Let customs and fashions change whensoever and whereinsoever they can be bettered, but let no change be attempted in the faith. It is not written: "contend earnestly for a custom, or for a fashion, once for all delivered unto the saints;" but it is written, everlastingly written: "epi-agonize for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints." Moreover these "advanced" views, despite the claims made for them really contain nothing new. Before an assembly in Detroit, Dr. Howard Osgood read from slips of paper what he claimed were the latest conclusions of the higher criticism. In the assembly were many men in sympathy with this criticism and familiar with it. Dr. Osgood asked to be corrected if in any respect the statements read were incorrect. No one offered any objection; thereupon he startled them by saying that all he had read was taken from the writings of infidels of the eighteenth century. I had heard so much about "new truths," which made it necessary for us to readjust our theology, that I made vigorous efforts to get hold of some of them. Many writers had much to say about these "new truths" in theology, which rendered it impossible to hold the old views, but none of them, so far as I could find, ventured to give a definite statement to any of these "new truths." Surely if a man is asked to abandon cherished beliefs on account of certain, alleged "new truths," he has a right to know what those truths are. Failing in every attempt to learn what are some of these new truths, some months ago I offered, in England and in this country, a reward of $100.00 for the production of a single new truth in theology discovered since 1850. That date was selected simply because some date must be fixed, and that was convenient as the middle of the last century. Many responses from both sides of the Atlantic have been sent in, but so far nothing new has been presented. One gentleman in the Northwest urged that the doctrine of evolution was a new truth in theology discovered since 1850. It was necessary only to call his attention to the fact that evolution was taught by Sanchoniathon in the fourteenth century B.C. There is absolutely nothing new in the "new theology." These loose views have been widely propagated. They are in magazines and newspapers. They are taught by men who stand in professedly orthodox pulpits, and by men who occupy professors’ chairs in institutions founded for the maintenance of the faith these men seek to destroy. When some lover of truth arises to make an earnest protest, a great cry is raised—"heresy-hunter!"—"opposed to liberty of speech!"—"trying to stop free investigation!"—"fettered by tradition!"—"animated by the spirit of the Inquisition!"—"reactionary!"—"opposed to progress!" etc., etc. We are reminded that Huss, Wickliffe, Luther and other Christian heroes were denounced as heretics, and it is complacently assumed that because these modern teachers are called heretics, they are thus proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be the Husses, Wickliffes and Luthers of our times. Alas! for the stupidity of people, that such nonsense should pass for valid argument and should actually carry conviction in many cases! It is the custom of those who assail "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints" to pose as very sweet-spirited and to represent those who stand for orthodoxy as harsh and unlovely. Indeed it has long been the tactics of heresy to represent heretics as gentle, mild and lovely, and to represent the orthodox as malignant, spiteful and generally hateful. Let the words of Christ be remembered: "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves." False prophets always wrap up carefully in sheep’s clothing. My observation, however, is that there is no hatred so bitter as that a modern heretic has for a "heresy hunter." You have only to probe the sheep’s clothing and the ravening wolf asserts himself. Time was when it required courage for a man to avow himself a heretic—time is when it requires courage for a man to stand aggressively for orthodoxy. The praise of the newspapers and of many who ought to know better, is for the heretic, while their denunciation is for the man who "contends earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints." There is no logical standing-ground between "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints," and bald naturalism, which offers no hope. Every year these new theology men drift farther and farther away. "The radical of today is the conservative of tomorrow." It has not been many years since Smith’s Bible Dictionary was regarded as too "advanced." Now even Hastings’ is considered conservative, and ere long Cheyne’s will be thought of as ultra-conservative. Not yet do the new theology men deny everything, but they keep on denying more and more. The end is not difficult to see. Indeed because they do not yet deny everything, they point to what they leave and claim to be "constructive" with a naiveté that is refreshing. They do not pretend to offer any assurance that they will not deny tomorrow what they admit today. They do not claim that what they now hold will abide. They have no standard, each man being a standard to himself, and he constantly changing. Some of them talk as if they took Christ as their standard, and yet these very men do not hesitate to flatly contradict many plain statements of Christ. Even with the Bible, recognized as a standard, we have had great variety of opinion; and with no standard at all, generally recognized, we would have chaos. It is high time Christians were obeying as they never obeyed before the great command to "epi-agonize for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints." This faith will not take care of itself. It needs for its maintenance, men and women who are willing to dare and do and die in its behalf. Maintaining it and extending it is our chief business in the world. The hopes of all mankind are centered here. Should this faith perish from the earth, the world will be wrapped in the shadows of a night that is starless. Whatever else fails this faith must conquer; whatever else falls, this faith must be upheld. In the hottest of one of the great battles of our Civil War, in one of the regiments most fiercely engaged, was a fair-haired boy. He was but a child, you could see by his beardless chin and his soft white cheek; but he had begged so earnestly to carry the flag that it had been entrusted to his care. In all the fierce charges of that fearful winter’s day, he had held his place in the line unfaltering, and in the last great charge, still grasping the flagstaff in his hand, he was among the foremost. But as decimated and broken the line retreated slowly and sullenly, the enemy caught the gleam of the flag and pressed on eagerly to capture it. Vain all the efforts of our boy hero. Vain all his brave deeds unequalled in that army of brave men. Still, as they crowded upon him and his young life was ebbing from three wounds, he clung to the flag. As he fell at last, he was carried unconscious to the rear, and strong men wept as they strove to staunch his bleeding wounds. Suddenly he started up—"Is the flag safe?" And as the surgeon, too deeply moved for words, placed it in his nerveless grasp, with a smile of blissful content, he laid his pale young cheek against it and died. People of God, let us be as faithful soldiers as that young hero. However the battle may go for us, though we fall pierced by the darts of the foe—oh! let the flag be safe! Let no polluting hand mar its white purity, no insolent enemy bear it from us in triumph, but let us welcome death, if need be, with a smile, if we can lay our weary heads upon its soft folds and know that it is safe! "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony: and they loved not their lives unto the death" (Rev. 12:11).
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:18:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015