There is a natural desire on the part of every intelligent human
being to harmonize his information--to make his theories agree--in
other words, to make what he knows, or thinks he knows, in one
department, agree and harmonize with what he knows, or thinks he
knows, in every other department of human knowledge.
The human race has not advanced in line, neither has it advanced
in all departments with the same rapidity. It is with the race as
it is with an individual. A man may turn his entire attention to
some one subject--as, for instance, to geology--and neglect other
sciences. He may be a good geologist, but an exceedingly poor
astronomer; or he may know nothing of politics or of political
economy. So he may be a successful statesman and know nothing of
theology. But if a man, successful in one direction, takes up some
other question, he is bound to use the knowledge he has on one
subject as a kind of standard to measure what he is told on some
other subject. If he is a chemist, it will be natural for him,
when studying some other question, to use what he knows in chemistry;
that is to say, he will expect to find cause and effect everywhere
--succession and resemblance. He will say: It must be in all
other sciences as in chemistry--there must be no chance. The
elements have no caprice. Iron is always the same. Gold does not
change. Prussic acid is always poison--it has no freaks. So he
will reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a believer in
the atomic integrity of all matter, in the persistence of gravitation.
Being so trained, and so convinced, his tendency will be to weigh
what is called new information in the same scales that he has been
using.
Now, for the application of this. Progress in religion is the
slowest, because man is kept back by sentimentality, by the efforts
of parents, by old associations. A thousand unseen tendrils are
twining about him that he must necessarily break if he advances.
In other departments of knowledge inducements are held out and
rewards are promised to the one who does succeed--to the one who
really does advance--to the one who discovers new facts. But in
religion, instead of rewards being promised, threats are made.
The man is told that he must not advance; that if he takes a step
forward, it is at the peril of his soul; that if he thinks and
investigates, he is in danger of exciting the wrath of God.
Consequently religion has been of the slowest growth. Now, in most
departments of knowledge, man has advanced; and coming back to the
original statement--a desire to harmonize all that we know--there
is a growing desire on the part of intelligent men to have a religion
fit to keep company with the other sciences.
Our creeds were made in times of ignorance. They suited very well
a flat world, and a God who lived in the sky just above us and who
used the lightning to destroy his enemies. This God was regarded
much as a savage regarded the head of his tribe--as one having the
right to reward and punish. And this God, being much greater than
a chief of the tribe, could give greater rewards and inflict greater
punishments. They knew that the ordinary chief, or the ordinary
king, punished the slightest offence with death. They also knew
that these chiefs and kings tortured their victims as long as the
victims could bear the torture. So when they described their God,
they gave this God power to keep the tortured victim alive forever
--because they knew that the earthly chief, or the earthly king,
would prolong the life of the tortured for the sake of increasing
the agonies of the victim. In those savage days they regarded
punishment as the only means of protecting society. In consequence
of this they built heaven and hell on an earthly plan, and they
put God--that is to say the chief, that is to say the king--on a
throne like an earthly king.
Of course, these views were all ignorant and barbaric; but in that
blessed day their geology and astronomy were on a par with their
theology. There was a harmony in all departments of knowledge, or
rather of ignorance. Since that time there has been a great advance
made in the idea of government--the old idea being that the right
to govern came from God to the king, and from the king to his
people. Now intelligent people believe that the source of authority
has been changed, and that all just powers of government are derived
from the consent of the governed. So there has been a great advance
in the philosophy of punishment--in the treatment of criminals.
So, too, in all the sciences. The earth is no longer flat; heaven
is not immediately above us; the universe has been infinitely
enlarged, and we have at last found that our earth is but a grain
of sand, a speck on the great shore of the infinite. Consequently
there is a discrepancy, a discord, a contradiction between our
theology and the other sciences. Men of intelligence feel this.
Dr. Briggs concluded that a perfectly good and intelligent God
could not have created billions of sentient beings, knowing that
they were to be eternally miserable. No man could do such a thing,
had he the power, without being infinitely malicious. Dr. Briggs
began to have a little hope for the human race--began to think that
maybe God is better than the creed describes him.
And right here it may be well enough to remark that no one has ever
been declared a heretic for thinking God bad. Heresy has consisted
in thinking God better than the church said he was. The man who
said God will damn nearly everybody, was orthodox. The man who
said God will save everybody, was denounced as a blaspheming wretch,
as one who assailed and maligned the character of God. I can
remember when the Universalists were denounced as vehemently and
maliciously as the Atheists are to-day.
Now, Dr. Briggs is undoubtedly an intelligent man. He knows that
nobody on earth knows who wrote the five books of Moses. He knows
that they were not written until hundreds of years after Moses was
dead. He knows that two or more persons were the authors of Isaiah.
He knows that David did not write to exceed three or four of the
Psalms. He knows that the Book of Job is not a Jewish book. He
knows that the Songs of Solomon were not written by Solomon. He
knows that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by a Freethinker.
He also knows that there is not in existence to-day--so far as
anybody knows--any of the manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments.
So about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows that nobody lives who
has ever seen an original manuscript, or who ever saw anybody that
did see one, or that claims to have seen one. He knows that nobody
knows who wrote Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. He knows that
John did not write John, and that that gospel was not written until
long after John was dead. He knows that no one knows who wrote
the Hebrews. He also knows that the Book of Revelation is an insane
production. Dr. Briggs also knows the way in which these books came
to be canonical, and he knows that the way was no more binding than
a resolution passed by a political convention. He also knows that
many books were left out that had for centuries equal authority
with those that were put in. He also knows that many passages--
and the very passages upon which many churches are founded--are
interpolations. He knows that the last chapter of Mark, beginning
with the sixteenth verse to the end, is an interpolation; and he
also knows that neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke ever said one
word about the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, or
of believing anything--not one word about believing the Bible or
joining the church, or doing any particular thing in the way of
ceremony to insure salvation. He knows that according to Matthew,
God agreed to forgive us when we would forgive others. Consequently
he knows that there is not one particle of what is called modern
theology in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He knows that the trouble
commenced in John, and that John was not written until probably
one hundred and fifty years--possibly two hundred years--after
Christ was dead. So he also knows that the sin against the Holy
Ghost is an interpolation; that "I came not to bring peace but a
sword," if not an interpolation, is an absolute contradiction.
So, too, he knows that the promise to forgive in heaven what the
disciples should forgive on earth, is an interpolation; and that
if its not an interpolation, it is without the slightest sense in
fact.
Knowing these things, and knowing, in addition to what I have
stated, that there are thirty thousand or forty thousand mistakes
in the Old Testament, that there are a great many contradictions
and absurdities, than many of the laws are cruel and infamous, and
could have been made only by a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has
concluded that, after all, the torch that sheds the serenest and
divinest light is the human reason, and that we must investigate
the Bible as we do other books. At least, I suppose he has reached
some such conclusion. He may imagine that the pure gold of
inspiration still runs through the quartz and porphyry of ignorance
and mistake, and that all we have to do is to extract the shining
metal by some process that may be called theological smelting; and
if so I have no fault to find. Dr. Briggs has taken a step in
advance--that is to say, the tree is growing, and when the tree
grows, the bark splits; when the new leaves come the old leaves
are rotting on the ground.
The Presbyterian creed is a very bad creed. It has been the
stumbling-block, not only of the head, but of the heart for many
generations. I do not know that it is, in fact, worse than any
other orthodox creed; but the bad features are stated with an
explicitness and emphasized with a candor that render the creed
absolutely appalling. It is amazing to me that any man ever wrote
it, or that any set of men ever produced it. It is more amazing
to me that any human being ever believed in it. It is still more
amazing that any human being ever thought it wicked not to believe
it. It is more amazing still, than all the others combined, that
any human being ever wanted it to be true.
This creed is a relic of the Middle Ages. It has in it the malice,
the malicious logic, the total depravity, the utter heartlessness
of John Calvin, and it gives me great pleasure to say that no
Presbyterian was ever as bad as his creed. And here let me say,
as I have said many times, that I do not hate Presbyterians--because
among them I count some of my best friends--but I hate Presbyterianism.
And I cannot illustrate this any better than by saying, I do not
hate a man because he has the rheumatism, but I hate the rheumatism
because it has a man.
The Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing because, as I
said at first, there is a universal tendency in the mind of man to
harmonize all that he knows or thinks he knows. This growth may
be delayed. The buds of heresy may be kept back by the north wind
of Princeton and by the early frost called Patton. In spite of
these souvenirs of the Dark Ages, the church must continue to grow.
The theologians who regard theology as something higher than a
trade, tend toward Liberalism. Those who regard preaching as a
business, and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade, will stand
by the lowest possible views. They will cling to the letter and
throw away the spirit. They prefer the dead limb to a new bud or
to a new leaf. They want no more sap. They delight in the dead
tree, in its unbending nature, and they mistake the stiffness of
death for the vigor and resistance of life.
Now, as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman, although it seems
to me that he has simply jumped from the frying-pan into the fire;
and why he should prefer the Episcopal creed to the Baptist, is
more than I can imagine. The Episcopal creed is, in fact, just as
bad as the Presbyterian. It calmly and with unruffled brow, utters
the sentence of eternal punishment on the majority of the human
race, and the Episcopalian expects to be happy in heaven, with his
son or daughter or his mother or wife in hell.
Dr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the position of the Rev.
Mr. Newton, provided he expresses his thought. But I account for
the Bridgmans and for the Newtons by the fact that there is still
sympathy in the human heart, and that there is still intelligence
in the human brain. For my part, I am glad to see this growth in
the orthodox churches, and the quicker they revise their creeds
the better.
I oppose nothing that is good in any creed--I attack only that
which is ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I make the attack in the
interest of human liberty, and for the sake of human happiness.
_Question_. What do you think of the action of the Presbyterian
General Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do you think it will
have on religious growth?
_Answer_. That General Assembly was controlled by the orthodox
within the church, by the strict constructionists and by the
Calvinists; by gentlemen who not only believe the creed, not only
believe that a vast majority of people are going to hell, but are
really glad of it; by gentlemen who, when they feel a little blue,
read about total depravity to cheer up, and when they think of the
mercy of God as exhibited in their salvation, and the justice of
God as illustrated by the damnation of others, their hearts burst
into a kind of efflorescence of joy.
These gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amusements except
reading the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and the creed, and
listening to Presbyterian sermons and prayers. All these things
they regard as the food of cheerfulness. They warn the elect
against theatres and operas, dancing and games of chance.
Well, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no theatres,
except exhibitions of hell; there ought to be no operas, except
where the music is a succession of wails for the misfortunes of
man. If their doctrine is true, I do not see how any human being
could ever smile again--I do not see how a mother could welcome
her babe; everything in nature would become hateful; flowers and
sunshine would simply tell us of our fate.
My doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us enjoy ourselves
every moment that we can. The love of the dramatic is universal.
The stage has not simply amused, but it has elevated mankind. The
greatest genius of our world poured the treasures of his soul into
the drama. I do not believe that any girl can be corrupted, or
that any man can be injured, by becoming acquainted with Isabella
or Miranda or Juliet or Imogen, or any of the great heroines of
Shakespeare.
So I regard the opera as one of the great civilizers. No one can
listen to the symphonies of Beethoven, or the music of Schubert,
without receiving a benefit. And no one can hear the operas of
Wagner without feeling that he has been ennobled and refined.
Why is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music in the world,
and yet expect to have so much in heaven? Is not music just as
demoralizing in the sky as on the earth, and does anybody believe
that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, ever played any music comparable
to Wagner?
Why should we postpone our joy to another world? Thousands of
people take great pleasure in dancing, and I say let them dance.
Dancing is better than weeping and wailing over a theology born of
ignorance and superstition.
And so with games of chance. There is a certain pleasure in playing
games, and the pleasure is of the most innocent character. Let
all these games be played at home and children will not prefer the
saloon to the society of their parents. I believe in cards and
billiards, and would believe in progressive euchre, were it more
of a game--the great objection to it is its lack of complexity.
My idea is to get what little happiness you can out of this life,
and to enjoy all sunshine that breaks through the clouds of
misfortune. Life is poor enough at best. No one should fail to
pick up every jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every
one should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy at the
expense of another, and no person rightly constituted can be happy
at the expense of another.
So let us get all we can of good between the cradle and the grave;
all that we can of the truly dramatic; all that we can of music;
all that we can of art; all that we can of enjoyment; and if, when
death comes, that is the end, we have at least made the best of
this life; and if there be another life, let us make the best of
that.
I am doing what little I can to hasten the coming of the day when
the human race will enjoy liberty--not simply of body, but liberty
of mind. And by liberty of mind I mean freedom from superstition,
and added to that, the intelligence to find out the conditions of
happiness; and added to that, the wisdom to live in accordance with
those conditions.
--_The Morning Advertiser_, New York, June 12, 1891.