The Washington times., 1894-04-08
Lay Sermon for
Sunday Reading

80 II =
Mr.. Webster gives US two distinct and sepa
rate definitions of the word lay: pertaining
to the laity or people, as distinct from the
clergy or clerical;" second, "Not educated
or cultivated, Ignorant" neither Of which
seems to exactly fit the situation, rs many
Of the thoughts here introduced will be ex-
tracts from the discourses and writings Of the
preacher, and from other sources that can
hardly be called ignorant" or "uncul-
tivated.'
The lay preacher has an evident advantage
over his brother Of the robe and the pulpit.
He can select good thought whenever he
finds it, without stopping to inquire into its
pedigree or measuring it carefully to see il
it will fit the crystallized thought of any yes
terday of doctrine. Again, his audience is a
changing one. He can say that which rises
within him demanding utterance, unmindful
of the pronounced opinions and prejudices
of the "best pews" and contingent diminu-
tion Of the yearly subscription list or in the
amount of the Sunday dole.
Mr.. Ingersoll had a mission as lay preacher
many years ago. An early aphorism of his
made him famous. 1--WE have been taught
that an honest man is the noblest work OF
God, but tell you that an honest God is the
noblest work OF man." Like many another
current aphorism there is truth or falsehood
in this; it depends upon the Interpretation.
As the Unseen and Eternal can only take
form in the imagination or image-making
power of the mind, the ability to construct a
semblance of actual being out of the material
thoughts, about the necessityfor such being,
it follows that the qualities or attributes OF
the result would correspond to the condition
of the mental or character concepts of the
image-builder; and, therefore, when man had
so far advanced in the scale of being as to
clothe his image of God in the garment of
honesty, the maker of the image had arrived
at the point where he at least puts honesty as
an ideal.
This doubtless took form in the mind OF
this lay preacher; this son of Calvanistic teach
ing, in natural rebellion in his own heart
against the God of the Jew, interpreted by
Calvin and his followers-the God of jealousy
and anger: the God who is at war with other
gods; the God that can create but for the pur-
poses of punishment. This was only an evil
dence of his own evolution, and the COURAGE
to speak out the truth that was In him. At
that time he would have been willing to give
his reasons why in detail. but he has never
had time. He then and there made the fatal
discovery that skiilful phrase-making paid
better than labored argument, and q phase
ninker he has remained.
The public is still eager to hear him clothe
the rudest, most commonplace conclusions
with filmy gauZe of sentimentalism or
the coarser fun of the horse market. He sets
up an image of his own before an expectant
and sympathetic audience, for the applause
which inevitably follows its easy demolition.
HE has studied the New Testament and ana
lyzed it."
1t would rather seem from what follows that
his analysis consisted i'll passing the magnet
of his own character and purpose over it,
bringing away such fragments and conclu-
sions as came to it by the law of affinity. mo
founder OF any religion ever said let him who
hath brains to think think" more careful
analysis" would have discovered that 1t is
with this very thinker that the whole of the
mission of Jesus has to do. 'As a man
thinketh in his heart SO is he" He talks
freely and sentimeDtally about love and paints
word-pictures to wiring applause, laughter,
and tears from his audience. but in the
Byronic Interpretation the humanized form
of the purely animal instinct.
If he is so fond of analysis. he might find
the definition Paul gives of love: ''That is
not pulled up. nor provoked; that thinketh no
evil; that vaunteth not itself: that surfereth
iDlib anu ID llil uDl.
eth not her own; that never faileth." Also
the analysis" of the complicated form of
Mosaic law he is so fond of ridicuing-"Love
is the fulfilling of the law"-and further that
such love is impossible in the heart of selfish
ness. When Jesus, this .'founder of a reli-
gion, told the young man to ''sell all he had
and give to the poor" this founder" was
only pointing the inquirer's thought to the
stronghold of his selashness, '.for he had
great possessions The fact is that CAL
whistle theology should have died and been
decently buried under the advent of the hello
centric theory of Copernicus. which it ante
dated.
Mr.. Ingersolrs equipment is quite out of
date. He takes down his old flintlock mus
ket. slings on his powder horn, comes over
to Washington on a Sunday, when the law
office is shut up, to bag a thousand dollars
worth of game to carry back to his home.
then TO make sacrifice to the only god he has
been able to find in his life pilgrimage His
creed is an old one and capable of great sim
pliilcation: Let US eat, drink and be merry
Let US wear good clothes" He omits the
closing truism of the original. .'for tomorrow
we die" as too self-evident to warrant stage
repetition. II the only god he has discovered
is self, he carries with him abundant physical
altar of worship is rapidly enlarging its bor-
iers.
The religion of to-day thankfully accepts
he lay preaching of Darwin, of Spencer, of
ryndal and Huxley, and of all ardent workers |
n the study of the eternal law as extcrnalized |
n what is called matter, for on the rock OF |
,ternal truth must rest the ark of deliverance. |
g a
lpon the solid foundations of truth and rea- |
on, and if for thousands the chief corner
tone be this same truth as it was lived in |
esus the Nazarene. it is because they have |
ONE to see 1t so; have come to find ii an ab- |
olute necessity to the elimination of charac-
er, the peace and rest of their own souls. Mr..
ngersoll's so-called lectures are rather paving
monologues where he has the
Whole stage TO himself. aid dresses his part |
n the feathers and regimentals OF the bygone
entury of thought. He breaches the gospel |
II the Eternal Mo- in strident puerilites. as
eeble as those which supported Calvanistic
heology or the Ptolemaic astronomy.
Had this human nature of ours been more
imple structure the New Testament would
ever have been. and the warning discussions
n regard to it would have been devoid of in
crest.
Why should so many people who ought to
hink flock to hear a platform reitera,ion of
be Eternal No?" Is it not in itself the
trongest evidence of the existence of the
Eternal Yes in every human soul2 1t isthe
Tar. more or less fierce. waged in every in
ividual consciousness between the ideal and
ne actual; the temporary drug, admins
cred to the fundamental question of conscious
eing. Whence Why? Whittier? Why
hould one be anxious to be convinced of
ankruptcy when he has neither money nor
redit?
Why should all men ask the one question
Mess the Eternal Yes'' were prompting the
iquiry. as He alone is the final answer, all