“Order is Heaven’s first law,” it has been said; and surely order pervades the prophecies. But the pulpits in general over-ride this order, and are not slow to malign such men as Edward Hine, of London, England, when the fact is, that his theory of the prophecies and mode of interpretation are vastly more natural, responsive, and reasonable than the ill-adjusted, unnatural, and non-responsive system of current theology. A person is under obligation to use that key for the unlocking of prophecy which fits the best, and that responds to providential events the most natural, without regard to the antiquated systems and mode of Church, sect, or college theology. Hine’s theory, as it is called sometimes, is as much superior to the old system of interpretation, as the railway Pullman car is to the ricketty old stage coach.
The Anglo-Saxon Israel theory neither destroys or introduces any new principle, but discovers and applies that which had been long hidden. The introduction of steam and electricity did not destroy or produce any new principle, but simply discovered and applied, in an improved form, that which had been in the world from Adam down till now.
As men in science, mechanics, and practical life, throw overboard men and things of the past, so should we in theology, Church life, and experience, when we can do better. Reverence for persons, and respect for ideas, should not enslave us. Let us move on, doing better and better. We do not care to believe all the theology of a Martin Luther. When we can make an advance on men, or theories, we should do so. Bacon and Newton are now in part rejected, without intending, or in fact doing them any dishonour or disrespect. So are Calvin and Wesley, on the same principle, by every good theologian. If a theory be advanced that opens up the Scriptures, and especially the prophecies, better than those before existing, let the pulpit accept it, throwing aside its mawkishness and age-intrenched stupidity. I have no hesitation to say, after over twenty-five years of experience with preachers and pulpit, that the majority of preachers are lazy and indifferent in study. For this reason many of them are deterred from examining any new theory. Many have said to me, and written to me, that if they accepted the Lost Tribe theory it would destroy nearly all their old sermons, and necessitate the making of new ones—a work they were not willing to undertake. It will, therefore, be a long time before the pulpit is reformed. In these days there are many strikes. While in Canada, on my vacation, I agreed to lecture for a Church choir on the prophet Jeremiah’s visit to Ireland. But some preachers banded together and stopped it; and, in consequence of it, the choir struck and refused to sing the following Sunday. Passing by this strike, I really wish the laymen would strike and call the pulpit to an account and rouse it from its lethargy, and demand that it should untrammel itself and be free and equal to the age and demand. I have met with miserly persons who didn’t believe in beautiful churches, or the missionary cause, or any cause indeed that wanted money. They would argue for plainness, and so on. The secret of their peculiar ideas on these matters was to be found in their stinginess and their love of money. They advocated such theories because it saved them from contributing. Like a man I met with on my vacation tour who said that he saved forty dollars a year by pretending to be angry with the minister or some of the deacons when they came round collecting money. Some ministers, no doubt the majority of them, talk about holding on to the old landmarks and being orthodox for the very reason that to make a move implies labour, which they are not willing to give, hence they prate about orthodoxy and landmarks as a pretext to cover over their indifference. He is the most orthodox who searches after the truth and keeps up with the age. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good,” says Paul. These pretended followers of Paul say: “Prove nothing, hold fast what you have got.”