things before you condemn. I have no doubt Saul was an honest man, in
the world's acceptation of the term, for he says he persecuted the
Nazarenes ignorantly, thinking he was doing God service; but what a
grand mistake he was making, and how effectually he was doing the
_work of the devil!_ Of course, if he had _seen_, he was mistaken, he
would have ceased to _be mistaken_.

I wish people would stop and think that the path they are now
standing in the well-beaten track on which they are now walking with
such slow dignity--was one quite as new and unconventional and
outrageous to the coadjutors of their forefathers, as the path which
any new departure by the Holy Ghost may set before them _now_. I
wish such people would read history. I suppose they do not, or, if
they do, they read it as they do the Bible--they fail to draw any
practical principle from it. Such people should read "Neale's History
of the Puritans," and see in what a hurricane of excitement,
opposition, contempt, and persecution, their forefathers fought for
the very paths they are now _standing still in_, and holding so
sacred that they cannot have them disturbed. Do you see how
unphilosophically they are acting? If their forefathers had acted on
the principles they are acting on, they would have stood still in old
paths, and we would never have been in the new ones. These people
stand in these paths of traditionalism and routinism, just where
their forefathers left them, occupying all their time in admiring the
wisdom and benevolence and devotion of their forefathers, instead of
imitating _their aggressive faith_ and MARCHING ON TO THE CONQUEST OF
THE WORLD.

Which is the most God-honoring? Which has the most common sense in
it? Which will please your, forefathers the most? But it is now as it