evangelical preachers as an evidence that the entire religious world
is rapidly coming to their position. On the other hand, they look at
these preachers with pity and contempt because they do not follow the
thing to its logical conclusion, and drop the Bible entirely as a
supernatural revelation. And I believe the Unitarians are right in
this. The same fundamental reasons that led the rationalistic critics
in the evangelical churches to their present conclusions will
inevitably and logically lead to the Unitarian conclusions, whenever
preconceived ideas and inherited prejudices are sufficiently relaxed.
When I first studied this question of destructive higher criticism so
called (it is often _hire_ criticism) from the rationalistic
standpoint and under rationalistic guides, its conclusions seemed the
most reasonable thing on earth. I wondered that I had not seen it
myself long before, and I looked with pity upon the deluded victims
who did not see it. But after I was delivered from rationalism and my
eyes were opened, I commenced to study the other side of the question
and discovered where I was deceived.

Let me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic
criticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that
Jesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did
not walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and
the disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the shore.
Where it says "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side," we
were informed that the Greek word here means primarily to prick as
with a pin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite
the fact that the narrative adds, "straightway there came out blood
and water." The purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that
Christ did not die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and
when he came to in the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so