Nothing more. No good advice; not a word about government; not a word
about the rights of man or woman, or children; not a word about any law
of nature; not a word about any science--nothing, not even arithmetic.
Nothing. And so He let them go on, and in a little while they came to
the same old state; and began building the Tower of Babel; and he went
there and confounded, as they said, their languages. Never said a word
to them; never told them how foolish it was to try and reach heaven
that way. And the next we find Him talking to Abraham, and with
Abraham He makes a contract. And how did He do it? "I will bless them
that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee." Fine contract for a
God. And thereupon He made certain promises to Abraham--promised to
give him the whole world, all the nations round about, and that his
seed should be as the sands of the sea. Never kept one of His
promises--not one. He made the same promises to Isaac, and broke every
one. Then He made them all over to Jacob, and broke every one; made
them again to Moses, and broke them all. Never said a word about
anybody behaving themselves--not a word. Finally, these people whom He
had taken under His special care became slaves in the land of Egypt.
How ashamed God must have been! Finally He made up His mind to rescue
them from that servitude, and He sent Moses and Aaron. He never said a
word to Moses or Aaron that Pharaoh was wrong. He never said a word to
them about how the women felt when their male children were taken and
destroyed. He simply sent Moses before Pharaoh with a cane in his hand
that he could turn into a serpent; and, when Pharaoh called in
magicians and they did the same, Pharaoh laughed. And then they made
frogs; and Pharaoh sent for his magicians, and they did the same, and
Pharaoh still laughed. And this God had infinite power, but Pharaoh
defeated Him at every point!
It puts me in mind of the story that great Fenian told when the great
excitement was about Ireland. An Irishman was telling about the
condition of Ireland. He said: "We have got in Ireland now over
300,000 soldiers, all equipped. Every man of them has got a musket and
ammunition. They are ready to march at a minute's notice." "But," said
the other man, "why don't they march?" "Why," said the other man, "the
police won't let them." How admirable! Imagine the infinite God
endeavoring to liberate the Hebrews, and prevented by a king, who would
not let the children of Israel go until he had done some little
miracles with sticks! Think of it! But, said Christians, "you must
wait a little while if you wish to find the foundation of law."
Christians now assert that from Sinai came to this world all knowledge
of right and wrong, and that from its flaming top we received the first
ideas of law and justice. Let us look at those ten commandments.
Which of those ten commandments were new, and which of those ten
commandments were old? "Thou shalt not kill." That was as old as life.
Murder has been a crime; also, because men object to being murdered.
If you read the same bible you will find that Moses, seeing an
Israelite and an Egyptian contending together, smote the Egyptian and
hid his body in the sand. After he had committed that crime Moses fled
from the land. Why? Simply because there was a law against murder.
That is all. "Honor thy father and thy mother." That is as old as
birth. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That is as old as sex.
"Thou shalt not steal." That is as old as work, and as old as property.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That is as
old as the earth. Never was there a nation, never was there a tribe on
the earth that did not have substantially, those commandments. What,
then, were new? First, "Thou shalt worship no other God; thou shalt
have no other God." Why? "Because I am a jealous God." Second, "Thou
shalt not make any graven image." Third, "Thou shalt not take My name
in vain." Fourth, "Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day." What use
were these commandments? None--not the slightest. How much better it
would have been if God from Sinai, instead of the commandments, had
said: "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-man; no human being is
entitled to the results of another's labor." Suppose He had said:
"Thou shalt not persecute for opinion's sake; thought and speech must
be forever free." Suppose He had said, instead of "Thou shalt not work
on the Sabbath day," "A man shall have but one wife; a woman shall
have but one husband; husbands shall love their wives; wives shall love
their husbands and their children with all their hearts and as
themselves"--how much better it would have been for this world.
Long before Moses was born the Egyptians taught one God; but
afterwards, I believe, in their weakness, they degenerated into a
belief in the Trinity. They taught the divine origin of the soul, and
taught judgment after death. They taught as a reward for belief in
their doctrine eternal joy, and as a punishment for non-belief eternal
pain. Egypt, as a matter of fact, was far better governed than
Palestine. The laws of Egypt were better than the laws of God. In
Egypt woman was equal with man. Long before Moses was born there were
queens upon the Egyptian throne. Long before Moses was born they had a
written code of laws, and their laws were administered by courts and
judges. They had rules of evidence. They understood the philosophy of
damages. Long before Moses was born they had asylums for the insane
and hospitals for the sick. Long before God appeared on Sinai there
were schools in Egypt, and the highest office next to the throne was
opened to the successful scholar. The Egyptian married but one wife.
His wife was called the lady of the house. Women were not secluded;
and, above all and over all, the people of Egypt were not divided into
castes, and were infinitely better governed than God ever thought of.
I am speaking of the God of this bible. If Moses had remembered more
of what he saw in Egypt his government would have been far better than
it was. Long before these commandments were given, Zoroaster taught the
Hindoos that there was one infinite and supreme God. They had a code
of laws, and their laws were administered by judges in their courts.
By those laws, at the death of a father, the unmarried daughter
received twice as much of his property as his son. Compare those laws
with the laws of Moses.
So, too, the Romans had their code of laws. The Romans were the
greatest lawyers the world produced. The Romans had a code of civil
laws, and that code today is the foundation of all law in the civilized
world. The Romans built temples to Truth, to Faith, to Valor, to
Concord, to Modesty, to Charity and to Chastity. And so with the
Grecians. And yet you will find Christian ministers today contending
that all ideas of law, of justice and of right came from Sinai, from
the ten commandments, from the Mosaic laws. No lawyer who understands
his profession will claim that is so. No lawyer who has studied the
history of law will claim it. No man who knows history itself will
claim it. No man will claim it but an ignorant zealot.
Let us go another step--let us compare the ideas of this God with the
ideas of uninspired men. I am making this long preface because I want
to get it out of your minds that the bible is inspired.
Now let us go along a little and see what is God's opinion of liberty.
Nothing is of more value in this world today than liberty--liberty of
body and liberty of mind. Without liberty, the universe would be as a
dungeon into which human beings are flung like poor and miserable
convicts. Intellectual liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of
the mind. Without it we should be in darkness. Now, Jehovah commanded
the Jewish people to take captives the strangers and sojourners amongst
them, and ordered that they and their children should be bondsmen and
bondswomen for ever.
Now let us compare Jehovah to Epictetus--a man to whom no revelation
was ever made--a man to whom this God did not appear. Let us listen to
him: "Remember your servants are to be treated as your own
brothers--children of the same God." On the subject of liberty is not
Epictetus a better authority than Jehovah, who told the Jews to make
bondsmen and bondswomen of the heathen round about? And He said they
were to make them their bondsmen and bondswomen forever. Why? Because
they were heathen. Why? Because they were not children of the Jews.
He was the God of the Jews and not of the rest of mankind. So He said
to His chosen people: "Pillage upon the enemy and destroy the people of
other gods. Buy the heathen round about." Yet Cicero, a poor pagan
lawyer, said this--and he had not even read the old testament--had not
even had the advantage of being enlightened by the prophets: "They who
say that we should love our fellow-citizens, and not foreigners,
destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, and with it benevolence
and justice would perish forever." Is not Cicero greater than Jehovah?
The bible, inspired by Jehovah, says: "If a man smite his servant with
a rod and he die under his hand he shall be punished. It he continue a
day or two and then die, he shall not be punished." Zeno, the founder
of the stoics, who had never heard of Jehovah, and never read a word of
Moses, said this: "No man can be the owner of another, and the title is
bad. Whether the slave became a slave by conquest or by purchase, the
title is bad." Let us come and see whether Jehovah has any humanity in
Him. Jehovah ordered the Jewish general to make war, and this was the
order: "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou
shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant
with them, nor show mercy unto them." And yet Epictetus, whom I have
already quoted, said: "Treat those in thy power as thou wouldst have
thy superiors treat thee."
I am on the side of the pagan. Is it possible that a being of infinite
goodness said: "I will heap mischief upon them; I will send My arrows
upon them. They shall be burned with hunger; they shall be devoured
with burning heat and with bitter destruction. I will also send the
teeth of locusts upon them, with the poisonous serpent of the desert.
The sound without and the terror within, shall destroy both the young
men and the virgins, the sucklings also, and the men with gray hairs."
While Seneca, a poor uninspired Roman, said: "A wise man will not
pardon any crime that ought to be punished, but will accomplish in
other way all that is sought. He will spare some; he will pardon and
watch over some because of their youth; he will pardon these on account
of their ignorance. His clemency will not fail what is sought by
justice, but his clemency will fulfill justice." That was said by
Seneca. Can we believe that this Jehovah said: "Let his children be
fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually
vagabonds, and beg. Let them seek their bread out of desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil
his labor. Let no one extend mercy unto them, neither let any favor
his fatherless children." Did Jehovah say this? Surely He had never
heard this line--this plaintive music from the Hindoo: "Sweet is the
lute to those who have not heard the voices of their own children."
Let us see the generosity of Jehovah out of the cloud of darkness on
Mount Sinai. He said to the Jews: "Thou shalt have no other God before
Me. Thou shalt not bow down to any other gods, for the Lord thy God is
a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children
to the third an fourth generation of them that hate Me." Just think of
God saying to people: "If you do not love Me I will damn you."
Contrast this with the words put by the Hindoo poet into the mouth of
Brahma: "I am the same to all mankind. The who honestly worship other
gods involuntarily worship me. I am he that partaketh of all worship.
I am the reward of worship." How perfectly sublime! Let me read it to
you again: "I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly worship
other gods involuntarily worship me. I am he that partaketh of all
worship. I am the reward of worship." Compare these passages. The
first is a dungeon, which crude hands have digged with jealous slime.
The other is like the dome of the firmament, inlaid with
constellations. Is it possible God ever said: "If a prophet deceive
when he hath spoken a thing, I, the Lord, hath deceived that prophet?"
Compare that passage with the poet, a pagan: "Better remain silent the
remainder of life than speak falsely."
Can we believe a being of infinite mercy gave this command: "Put every
man his sword by his side; go from the gate throughout the camp, and
slay every man his brother, every man his companion, and every man his
neighbor. Consecrate it, yourselves this day. Let every man lay his
sword even upon his son, upon his brother, that he bestow blessing upon
Me this day." Surely that was not the outcome of a great, magnanimous
spirit, like that of the Roman emperor, who declared: "I had rather
keep a single Roman citizen alive than slay a thousand enemies."
Compare the last command given to the children of Israel with the words
of Marcus Aurelius: "I have formed an ideal of the State, in which
there is the same law for all, and equal rights and equal liberty of
speech established for all--an Empire where nothing is honored so much
as the freedom of the citizens." I am on the side of the Roman emperor.
What is more beautiful than the old story from Sufi? There was a man
who for seven years did every act of good, every kind of charity, and
at the end of the seven years he mounted the steps to the gate of
heaven and knocked. A voice cried, "Who is there?" He cried, "Thy
servant, O Lord;" and the gates were shut. Seven other years he did
every good work, and again mounted the steps to heaven and knocked.
The voice cried, "Who is there?" He answered, "Thy slave, O God;" and
the gates were shut. Seven other years he did every good deed, and
again mounted the steps to heaven, and the voice said: "Who is there?"
He replied "Thyself, O God;" and the gates wide open flew. Is there
anything in our religion so warm or so beautiful as that? Compare that
story from a pagan with the Presbyterian religion.
Take this story of Endesthora, who was a king of Egypt, and started for
the place where the horizon touched the earth, where he was to meet
God. With him followed Argune and Bemis and Traubation. They were
taught that, when any man started after God in that way, if he had been
guilty of any crime he would fall by the way. Endesthora walked at the
head and suddenly he missed Argune. He said, "He was not always
merciful in the hour of victory." A little while after he missed
Bemis, and said, "He fought not so much for the rights of man as for
his own glory." A little farther on he missed Traubation. He said, "My
God, I know no reason for his failing to reach the place where the
horizon touches the earth;" and the god Ram appeared to him, and
opening the curtains of the sky, said to him: "Enter." And Endesthora
said: "But where are my brethren? Where are Argune and Beinis and
Traubation?" And the god said: "They sinned in their time, and they
are condemned to suffer below." Then said Endestbora: "I do not wish
to enter into your heaven without my friends. If they are below, then I
will join them." But the god said: "They are here before you; I simply
said this to try your soul." Endesthora simply turned and said: "But
what of my dog?" The god said, "Thou knowest that if the shadow of a
dog fall upon the sacrifice, it is unclean. How, then, can a dog enter
heaven?" And Endesthora replies: "I know that, and I know another
thing; that ingratitude is the blackest of crimes, whether it be to man
or beast. That dog has been my faithful friend. He has followed me and
I will not desert even him." And the god said: "Let the dog follow."
Compare that with the bible stories.
Long before the advent of Christ, Aristotle said: "We should conduct
ourselves toward others as we would have them conduct themselves toward
us." Seneca said: "Do not to your neighbor what you would not have
your neighbor do to you." Socrates said: "Act toward others as you
would have others act toward you. Forgive your enemies, render good for
evil, and kiss even the hand that is upraised to smite." Krishna said:
"Cease to do evil; aim to do well; love your enemies. It is the law of
love that virtue is the only thing that has strength." Poor, miserable
pagans! Did you ever hear anything like this? Is it possible that one
of the authors of the new testament was inspired when he said that man
was not created for woman, but woman for man? Epictetus said: "What is
more delightful than to be so dear to your wife as to be on her account
dearer even to yourself?" Compare that with St. Paul: "But I would
have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the
woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Wives, submit
yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord." That was inspiration.
This was written by a poor, despised heathen: "In whatever house the
husband is contented with the wife and the wife with the husband, in
that house will fortune dwell. In the house where the woman is not
honored, let the curse be pronounced. Where the wife is honored, there
God is truly worshiped." I wish Jehovah had said something like that
from Sinai. Is there anything as beautiful as this in the new
testament: "Shall I tell you where nature is more blest and fair? It
is where those we love abide. Though the space be small, it is ample as
earth; though it be a desert, through it run the rivers of Paradise."
Compare these things with the curses pronounced in the old testament,
where you read of the heathen being given over to butchery and death,
and the women and babes to destruction; and, after you have read them,
read the chapters of horrors in the new testament, threatening eternal
fire and flame; and then read this, the greatest thought uttered by the
greatest of human beings:
The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain
from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed: It blesseth
him that gives and him that takes; 'Tis mightiest in the mighty; It
becomes the throned monarch better this his crown.
Compare that with your doctrine of the new testament! If Jehovah was
an infinite God and knew things from the beginning, He knew that His
bible would be a breast-work behind which tyranny and hypocrisy would
crouch, and knew His bible would be the auction-block on which the
mother would stand while her babe was sold from her, because He knew
His bible would be quoted by tyrants; that it would be quoted in
defense of robbers called kings, and by hypocrites called priests. He
knew that He had taught the Jewish people; He knew that He had found
them free and left them slaves; He knew that He had broken every single
promise made to them; He knew that, while other nations advanced in
knowledge, in art, in science, His chosen people were subjects still.
He promised them the world; He gave them a desert. He promised them
liberty, and made them slaves. He promised them power; He gave them
exile, and any one who reads the old testament is compelled to say that
nothing could add to their misery.
Let us be honest. How do you account for this religion? This world;
where did it come from? You hear every minister say that man is a
religious animal--that religion is natural. While man is an ignorant
animal man will be a theological animal, and no longer. Where did we
get this religion? The savage knew but little of nature, but thought
that everything happened in reference to him. He thought his sins
caused earthquakes, and that his virtues made the sunshine.
Nothing is so egotistical as ignorance. You know, and so do I, that if
no human being existed, the sun would shine, and that tempests would
now and then devastate the earth; violets would spread their velvet
bosoms to the sun, daisies would grow, roses would fill the air with
perfume, and now and then volcanoes would illuminate the horizon with
their lurid glare; the grass would grow, the waters would run, and so
far as nature is concerned, everything would be as joyous as though the
earth were filled with happy homes. We know the barbarian savage
thinks that all this was on his account. He thinks that there dwelt
two very powerful deities; that there was a good one, because he knows
good things happen to him; and that there was a bad one, because he
knows bad things happen to him. Behind the evil influence he puts a
devil, and behind the good, an intention of God; and then he imagines
both these beings are in opposition, and that, between them, they
struggle for the possession of his ignorant soul. He also thinks that
the place where the good deity lives is heaven, and that the place
where the other deity keeps himself is a place of torture and
punishment. And about that time other barbarians have chosen too keep
the ignorant ones in subjection by means of the doctrine of fear and
punishment.
There is no reforming power in fear. You can scare a man, maybe, so
bad that he won't do a thing, but you can't scare him so bad he won't
want to do it. There is no reforming power in punishment or brute
force; but our barbarians rather imagined that every being would punish
in accordance with his power, and his dignity, and that God would
subject them to torture in the same way as those who made Him angry.
They knew the king would inflict torments upon one in his power, and
they supposed that God would inflict torture according to His power.
They knew the worst torture was a slow, burning fire; added to it the
idea of eternity, and hell was produced. That was their idea. All
meanness, revenge, selfishness, cruelty, and hatred of which men here
are capable burst into blossom and bore fruit in that one word, "Hell."
In this way a God of infinite wisdom experimented with man, keeping him
between an outstretched abyss beneath and a heaven above; and in time
the man came to believe that he could please God by having read a few
sacred books, could count beads, could sprinkle water, eat little
square pieces of bread, and that he could shut his eyes and say words
to the clouds; but the moment he left this world nothing remained
except to damn him. He was to be kept miserable one day in seven, and
he could slander and persecute other men all the other days in the
week. That was the chance that God gave a man here, but the moment he
left this world that settled it. He would go to eternal pain or else
to eternal joy. That was the way that the supernatural governed this
world--through fear, through terror, through eternity of punishment;
and that government, I say tonight, has failed. How has it been kept
alive so long? It was born in ignorance. Let me tell you, whoever
attacks a creed will be confronted with a list of great men who have
believed in it. Probably their belief in that creed was the only
weakness they had. But he will be asked, "So you know more than all the
great men who have taught and all the respectable men who have believed
in that faith?" For the church is always going about to get a
certificate from some governor, or even perhaps members of the
Legislature, and you are told, because so-and-so believed all these
things, and you have no more talents than they, that you should believe
the same thing. But I contend, as against this argument, that you
should not take the testimony of these men unless you are willing to
take at the same time all their beliefs on other subjects. Then,
again, they tell you that the rich people are all on their side, and I
say so, too. The churches today seek the rich, and poverty unwillingly
seeks them. Light thrown from diamonds adorns the repentant here. We
are told that the rich, the fortunate, and the holders of place are
Christians now; and yet ministers grow eloquent over the poverty of
Christ, who was born in a manger, and say that the Holy Ghost passed
the titled ladies of the world and selected the wife of a poor mechanic
for the mother of God. Such is the difference between theory and
practice. The church condemns the men of Jerusalem who held positions
and who held the pretensions of the Savior in contempt. They admit
that He was so little known that they had to bribe a man to point Him
out to the soldiers. They assert that He performed miracles; yet He
remained absolutely unknown, hidden in the depth of obscurity. No one
knew Him, and one of His disciples had to be bribed to point Him out.
Surely He and His disciples could have met the arguments which were
urged against their religion at that time.
So long as the church honored philosophers she kept her great men in
the majority. How is it now? I say tonight that no man of genius in
the world is in the orthodox pulpit, so far as I know. Where are they?
Where are the orthodox great men? I challenge the Christian church to
produce a man like Alexander Humboldt. I challenge the world to
produce a naturalist like Haeckel. I challenge the Christian world to
produce a man like Darwin. Where in the ranks of orthodoxy are
historians like Draper and Buckle? Where are the naturalists like
Tyndall, philosophers like Mills and Spencer, and women like George
Eliot and Harriet Martineau? You may get tired of the great-men
argument; but the names of the great thinkers, and naturalists and
scientists of our time cannot be matched by the supernatural world.
What is the next argument they will bring forward? The father and
mother argument. You must not disgrace your parents. How did Christ
come to leave the religion of His mother? That argument proves too
much. There is one way every man can honor his mother--that is by
finding out more than she knew. There is one way a man can honor his
father--by correcting the old man's errors.
Most people imagine that the creed we have came from the brain and
heart of Christ. They have no idea how it was made. They think it was
all made at one time. They don't understand that it was a slow growth.
They don't understand that theology is a science made up of mistakes,
prejudices and falsehoods. Let me tell you a few facts: The Emperor
Constantine, who lifted the Christian religion into power, murdered his
wife and his eldest son the very year that he convened the Council of
Nice to decide whether Jesus Christ was man or God; and that was not
decided until the year of grace 325. Then Theodosius called a council
at Constantinople in 381, and this council decided that the Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father. You see, there was a little doubt on that
question before this was done. Then another council was called later
to determine who the Virgin Mary really was, and it was solemnly
decided that she was the mother of Christ. In 431, and then in 451, a
council was held in Chalcedon, by the Emperor Marcian, and that decided
that Christ had two natures--a human and a divine. In 680 another
council was held at Constantinople; and in 1274 at Lyons, it was
decided that the Holy Ghost proceeded not only from the Father but from
the Son; and when you take into consideration the fact that a belief in
the Trinity is absolutely essential to salvation, you see how important
it was that these doctrines should have been established in 1274, when
millions of people had dropped into hell in the interim solely because
they had forgotten that question. At last we know how religions are
made. We know how miracles are manufactured. We know the history of
relics, and bones, and pieces of the true cross. And at last we
understand apostolic succession. At last we have examined other
religions, and we find them all the same, and we are beginning to
suspect that ours is like the rest. I think we understand it.
I read a little story, a short time ago, from the Japanese, that throws
light upon the question. There was an old priest at a monastery. This
monastery was built over the bones of what he called a saint, and
people came there and were cured of many diseases. This priest had an
assistant. After the assistant grew up and got quite to understand his
business, the old priest gave him a little donkey, and told him that
henceforth he was to take care of himself. The young priest started
out with his little donkey, and asked alms of those he met. Few gave
to him. Finally he got very poor. He could not raise money enough to
feed the donkey. Finally the donkey died; he was about to bury it when
a thought occurred to him. He buried the donkey and sat down on the
grave, and to the next stranger that passed he said: "Will you not give
a little money to erect a shrine over the bones of a sinless one?"
Thereupon a man gave money. Others followed his example, a shrine was
raised, and in a little while a monastery was built over the bones of
the sinless one. Down in the grave the young priest made an orifice,
so that persons afflicted with any disease could reach down and touch
the bones of the sinless one. Hundreds were thus cured, and persons
left their crutches as testimonials to the miraculous power of the
bones of the sinless one. Finally the priest became so rich that he
thought he would visit his old master. He went to the old monastery
with a fine retinue. His old master asked him how he became so rich
and prosperous. He replied: "Old age is stupid, but youth has thought."
Later on he explained to the old priest how the donkey had died, and
how he had raised a monastery over the bones of the sinless one; and
again reminded him that old age is stupid, but youth has thought. The
old priest exclaimed: "Not quite so fast, young man; not quite so fast.
Don't imagine you worked out anything new. This shrine of mine is
built over the bones of the mother of your little donkey."
We have now reached a point in the history of the world when we know
that theocracy as a form of government is a failure, and we see that
theology as a foundation of government is an absolute failure. We can
see that theocracy and theology created, not liberty, but despotism.
We know enough of the history of the churches in this world to know
that they never can civilize mankind; that they are not imbued with the
spirit of progress; that they are not imbued with the spirit of justice
and mercy. What I ask you tonight is: What has the church done to
civilize mankind? What has the church done for us? How has it added
to the prosperity of this world? Has it ever produced anything?
Nothing. Why, they say, it has been charitable. How can a beggar be
charitable? A beggar produces nothing. The church has been an eternal
and everlasting pauper. It is not charitable. It is an object of
charity, and yet it claims to be charitable. The giver is the
charitable one. Somebody who has made something, somebody who has by
his labor produced something, he alone can be charitable.
And let me say another thing: The church is always on the wrong side.
Let us take, first, the Episcopal church--if you call that a church.
Let me tell you one thing about that church. You know what is called
the rebellion in England in 1688? Do you know what caused it? I will
tell you. King James was a Catholic, and notwithstanding that fact, he
issued an edict of toleration for the Dissenters and Catholics. And
what next did he do? He ordered all the bishops to have this edict of
toleration read in the Episcopal churches. They refused to do it--most
of them. You recollect that trial of the seven bishops? That is what
it was all about; they would not read the edict of toleration. Then
what happened? A strange thing to say, and it is one of the miracles
of this world: The Dissenters, in whose favor that edict was issued,
joined hands with the Episcopalians, and raised the rebellion against
the king, because he wanted to give the Dissenters liberty, and these
Dissenters and these Episcopalians, on account of toleration, drove
King James into exile. This is the history of the first rebellion the
Church of England ever raised against the king, simply because he
issued an edict of toleration and the poor, miserable wretches in whose
favor the edict was issued joined hands with their oppressors. I want
to show you how much the Church of England has done for England. I get
it from good authority. Let me read it to you to show how little
influence the Christian church, the Church of England, had with the
government of that country. Let me tell you that up to the reign of
George I. there were in that country sixty-seven offenses punishable
with death. There is not a lawyer in this city who can think of those
offenses and write them down in one day. Think of it! Sixty-seven
offenses punishable with death! Now, between the accession of George
I. and the termination of the reign of George III. there were added 156
new crimes punishable with death, making in all 223 crimes in England
punishable with death. There is no lawyer in this State who can think
of that many crimes in a week. Now, during all those years the
government was becoming more and more cruel; more and more barbarous;
and we do not find, and we have not found, that the Church of England,
with its 15,000 or 20,000 Ministers, with its more than a score of
bishops in the House of Lords, has ever raised its voice or perfected
any organization in favor of a more merciful code, or in condemnation
of the enormous cruelty which the laws were continually inflicting.
And was not Voltaire justified in saying that "The English were a
people who murdered by law?" Now, that is an extract from a speech
made by John Bright in May, 1883. That shows what the Church of
England did. Two hundred and twenty-three offenses in England
punishable with death, and no minister, no bishop, no church
organization raising his or its voice, against the monstrous cruelty.
And why? Even then it was better than the law of Jehovah.
And the Protestants were as bad as the Catholics. You remember the time
of Henry IV. in France, when the edict of Nantes was issued simply to
give the Protestants the right to worship God according to the dictates
of their conscience. Just as soon as that edict was issued the
Protestants themselves, in the cities where they had the power,
prevented the Catholics from worshiping their God according to the
dictates of their conscience, and it was on account of the refusal of
those Protestants to allow the Catholics to worship God as they desired
that there was a civil war lasting for seven years in France.
Richelieu came into authority about the second or third year of that
war. He made no difference between Protestants and Catholics; and it
was owing to Richelieu that the Thirty Years' War terminated. It was
owing to Richelieu that the peace of Westphalia was made in 1643,
although I believe he had been dead a year before that time; but it was
owing to him, and it was the first peace ever made between nations on a
secular basis, with everything religious left out, and it was the last
great religious war.
You may ask me what I want. Well, in the first place I want to get
theology out of government. It has no business there. Man gets his
authority from man, and is responsible only to man. I want to get
theology out of politics. Our ancestors in 1776 retired God from
politics, because of the jealousies among the churches, and the result
has been splendid for mankind. I want to get theology out of
education. Teach the children what somebody knows, not what somebody
guesses. I want to get theology out of morality, and out of charity.
Don't give for God's sake, but for man's sake.
I want you to know another thing; that neither Protestants nor
Catholics are fit to govern this world. They are not fit to govern
themselves. How could you elect a minister of any religion president
of the United States. Could you elect a bishop of the Catholic church,
or a Methodist bishop, or Episcopal minister, or one of the elders? No.
And why? We are afraid of the ecclesiastic spirit. We are afraid to
trust the liberties of men in the hands of people who acknowledge that
they are bound by a standard different from that of the welfare of
mankind.
The history of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Cuba, and Brazil all
show that slavery existed where Catholicism was a power. I would
suggest an education that would rule theology out of the government,
and teach people to rely more on themselves and less on providence.
There are two ways of living--the broad way of life lived for others,
and the narrow theological way. It is wise to so live that death can
be serenely faced, and then, if there is another world, the best way to
prepare for it is to make the best of this; and if there be no other
world, the best way to live here is to so live as to be happy and make
everybody else happy.