THE CHILD AS GIVEN BY NATURE 48 



calling the words of Jesus, "Of such is the King- 

 dom of heaven," as equally weighty with any- 

 thing that can be quoted against them, and pass 

 to what I believe a more decisive method of in- 

 vestigation.* Until the data and methods of exe- 

 gesis are more correctly defined it will hardly be 

 a sufficient method of settling even theological 

 questions. The age-long controversy concerning 

 the method of baptism, which bade fair to be 

 eternal on the battlefield of exegesis, received its 

 quietus when ' ' The Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 

 tles" was discovered or recovered from its long 

 hiding. An ounce of fact is worth a ton of argu- 

 ment. 



* We may anticipate the probability that those who regard us in error in rejecting 

 the doctrine of Original Sin will bring forward some of the passages of Scripture that 

 have bfeen used to perpetuate that doctrine. Our limits do not permit us to take up 

 those passages in detail and show them harmonious with our position. We can only 

 say that we feel that our Scriptural authority is sufficient in building on this saying of 

 Jesus "of such is the Kingdom of heaven." No possible interpretation of these words 

 can leave standing the doctrine that children are sinful when born. If now some one 

 is able to show that other passages of Scripture are incompatible with it, while not inter- 

 ested in making Scripture thus contradict itself, we are not moved from our standpoint by 

 it. In caseof acontradictionbetweenJesusandsomeotherormany other Scripture writers, 

 we stand by the word of Jesus as invincible authority. In case of an apparent contra- 

 diction, as by the words of David "in sin did my mother conceive me" we would 

 seek if possible some explanation that would not make out such a direct contradiction 

 between Jesus and David, such as: this passage is an expression of extreme emotion 

 and not intended as a statement of universal application; it is a poetical statement, and 

 must not be interpreted as prose, etc. Our motive would be to relieve Scripture of con- 

 tradiction, and it would never occur to us that even several such passages would make 

 it necessary to conclude that Jesues was mistaken in a statement so very simple, whose 

 meaning is incontrovertible, and whose interpretation can not be twisted in support of 

 the doctrine which we renounce. In other words, a clear word of Jesus is of such pre- 

 eminent authority that it can not be overthrown by any number of other writers, even 

 writers in the Scriptures themselves. Furthermore, if we have found an unmistakable 

 teaching of Jesus, why must we seek further light in an age admittedly dark? For pur- 

 poses of corroboration, it is needless; for purposes of refutation, it is futile; it could only 

 be useful when the word of Jesus was of uncertain meaning. 



