THE REACTION: A NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH
At this time I knew nothing of a liberal church. If I had, I doubt if
I was in a condition of mind to consider it. I was so utterly
disgusted with ecclesiasticism as I knew it that I was but little
prepared if at all, to give anything of the kind fair consideration.
The pendulum had swung to the opposite extreme. I abandoned everything
but God. I never doubted for a moment the existence of a Supreme
Being. Nature and instinct taught me this. But who, or what, or
where, this Supreme Being was, or what his attributes or
characteristics were, I did not pretend to know, or care. I relegated
it all to the realm of the unknown and unknowable.
For a while I went to church occasionally, merely for the sake of
respectability, and not because I took any interest in common with it.
I listened to the preaching with such patience and fortitude as I could
command. I heard only the same old platitudes about a dying Christ and
the flames of perdition I had heard all my life and preached for eight
years myself. I often felt as if I would like to help the preacher out
in his struggle to "divest himself of his thoughts." I finally quit
going to church altogether, until I located where I had an opportunity
to attend a Reformed Jewish synagogue, which I did quite often, and
always heard broad-gauged, intellectual discourses.
As I have before said, up to this time, and for years thereafter, I had
never read a distinctively "infidel" book, nor even a liberal religious
one. My change of opinions had all come from an honest effort to seek
proofs for the faith of my fathers, which I inherited. But I never
ceased to be a student. My temporary antagonism to the church soon
vanished. I simply viewed it with utter indifference, and somewhat of
sympathy. I had no more creed to defend, and none to condemn. I had
no desire whatever to propagate my own ideas or disturb any one else in
theirs. I felt that if any one got any satisfaction out of his
religious beliefs he was welcome to it. I would not disturb him for
anything. I looked upon it as a harmless delusion, and if it made one
any better, society was so much the gainer. But to me it was as
"sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." But I cannot say that I was
satisfied with my position. Man is a social as well as an emotional
animal. Agnosticism is neither social nor emotional. It is
cold-blooded and indifferent at its best. It is simply a bundle of
doubts and negations. Men are bound together in social and fraternal
ties by what they affirm and believe in common. But they care nothing
for what they deny.
But having no creed to defend and no preconceived opinions to prove,
and being of studious habits, I was now prepared to study in search of
abstract truth for truth's own sake, ready to accept it from whatever
source it might come, and follow it wherever it might lead.
Without arrogating to myself any special merit or credit for taking
this course, I wish that all people would do the same. As I said in
the very beginning of this book, most people inherit their religious
beliefs, and there they stop. We are Baptists, or Methodists, or
Presbyterians, or Catholics, because we were born so. We transmit our
beliefs to our children, from generation to generation, each following
the faith of his ancestors, without ever stopping to inquire why, or
seek a reason. And if a thought is ever given to it, or any search
made, it is but rarely for abstract truth, but for the proofs that
support the inherited faith, the preconceived opinion. It is like one
going into his house and bolting the door on the inside. Nothing is
ever given out and nothing ever permitted to come in. This is exactly
why for centuries the world was drenched in Christian blood, shed by
Christian hands. Each had its infallible creed, to which all the world
must bow--or take the consequences.
It took me several years to get myself settled with anything like a
definite "creed of my own," tho I was never in the least disturbed
about it, and only gave it such time as I could spare from a busy
business and professional life. By this time I had reached such
definite conclusions as satisfied my own mind, tho I never,--after my
"crisis,"--held any opinion, and do not now, that I am not willing to
change at any time that evidence is furnished to justify it. In my
search for truth I found myself confronted with certain facts that
Agnosticism did not satisfactorily explain. These were facts of
Nature, of Man as a part of it, of man's nature, habits, history,
thoughts, conduct, and social relations,--in fact, all that pertains to
the phenomena of Nature and Human Life and Relations. The conclusions
I reached constitute.
MY NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH
_THE UNIVERSE AND GOD_
The first of these was the physical universe. I had accepted the
theory of evolution in a general way; yet I could not account for the
marvelous organism of millions of worlds and suns and systems, of which
our earth is but a mere atom, filling the infinity of space, beyond all
human comprehension, revolving and whirling thru space, each in its
alloted orbit, with such perfect order and regularity, and all in the
most perfect harmony, governed by such immutable, perfect and universal
law, upon the theory of the operation of blind, unintelligent force
upon inert matter. Here was an effect. There must be a cause. The
effect cannot be greater than the cause. Here is an infinite universe;
there must be an infinite cause; and that cause cannot be less than
Infinite Eternal Intelligence. This cause, for the want of a better
name, we call God. I could thus easily account for the universe thru
the processes of evolution, directed by eternal, intelligent will,
operating thru eternal immutable and perfect law, upon eternal and
indestructible matter. Whether correct or not, this satisfied my mind
as to God and the universe.
I could sing with the Psalmist:
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his
handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth
knowledge. Their line is gone out thru all the earth and their words
to the end of the world. There is no speech nor language where their
voice is not heard."
As I have before said, I never had any doubt about the existence of a
Supreme Being, and that the universe was in some way the product of his
creative energy. I think the doctrine of evolution satisfactorily
solves the "riddle of the universe," if it recognizes Infinite Spirit
as well as Eternal Matter; and that this Infinite Spirit is in some
way, tho beyond our comprehension, the real Force or Energy, both the
Intelligence and Life, the Great Uncaused First Cause behind all
phenomena, who, for the want of a better name we call God.
Perhaps it is impossible for any one to think of God without at the
same time conceiving some sort of definition of him. Yet, God cannot
be defined. He is infinite. And infinity cannot be defined in terms
of the finite. Any attempt to define God is to limit Him. Our
conceptions of God are at best limited, tho God himself is not. The
finite mind cannot conceive unlimited space, nor eternal duration. We
can conceive of them as _existing_; but we cannot conceive what they
are. We can conceive of God as infinite; but we cannot conceive what
infinity is. If we could, it would not be infinite, unless we are
infinite. So all attempts to define God in terms of the finite are
futile. And yet, when we look back over the past history of the human
race and see what ruin has been wrought by this very thing it becomes
appalling! All religious controversies, wars and bloodshed have had
their ultimate source just here. Certain men have formed certain
conceptions of God, of his character, his attributes, his will, and his
purposes concerning mankind. These they have labelled, patented,
copyrighted, and declared to the world to be correct, final and
infallible, and demanded that all the world accept them on penalty of
death!
To quote, in substance, from a recent author, we might as well try to
make a meal of the stars and contain them all in our stomach at once as
to comprehend God in his fullness. God _is what He is_, no matter what
our opinions may be of him. But what any one of us _thinks God is_,
that is what _God is to him_. This is all the definition of God that
need be given. God is his own revelation. "The heavens declare the
glory of God." Nature reveals God in greater power and splendor than
any book.
What is _my_ conception of God? Only this: God is the Life of the
universe; and this includes the ALL. As what we call the spirit is the
life in my body, and permeates the whole of it from the most central
vital organs to the utmost extremities of nails and hair; so God--and
He is Spirit--permeates the _whole universe_, and is the life of, or in
it, as you please.
"'All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the Soul.'"
He is manifest in the majesty of the universe and is seen in the
beauties of the flowers. He is reflected in the painted wings of the
birds, in the rippling leaf, in the blade of grass, in the dewdrop, in
the snowflake, in all nature; and above all in man himself, in whom He
dwells and lives. How noble and inspiring the thought that I, even I,
am a part of the life of the infinite, eternal God! All this I take on
trust--_by faith_--and confess freely that, while believing it I cannot
comprehend it. But such a God must be eternally good. He could not be
the monster that Jewish tradition and orthodox Christianity paint him,
eternally hating his enemies, all of whom were his own creatures, and
plunging into an eternal hell of fire and brimstone the larger part of
his own children, created in his own image and likeness. While I
cannot understand the "problems of his providence," I am sure that "the
Judge of all the earth will do right." As to the perplexities that
have grown out of the ideas of God's _foreknowledge, foreordination_,
etc., my view is that no such a thing as _foreknowledge_ can be
attributed to God. To do so is to attribute to him time limitations.
To the Infinite God there can be no such thing as past or future. All
is the "_eternal present_" in which God is still at work, as much as
ever before. I confess I cannot comprehend _how_ this is; but I can
comprehend _that_ it is.
"Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs,
And works his sovereign will."
_MAN_
"What is man that thou art mindful of him?" So far as we know, as a
pure animal, he is the highest product, the climax of the processes of
organic evolution. In addition to this, he is the only known creature
on earth, or elsewhere, endowed with those God-like faculties of mind,
thought, reason, will,--_soul_. As far as man's moral character and
destiny are concerned, it matters as little how he came to be here, as
it does who Cain's wife was. We are confronted with the serious fact
that _we are here_; and that we are endowed with these supreme
faculties that differentiate us from the lower forms of life about us,
and consequently entail upon us, not thru some supernatural revelation,
but by natural instinct, certain moral and social responsibilities and
obligations, not only to our own kind, but to all those myriad forms of
life below us,--obligations and responsibilities which we cannot avoid
or escape, except at our peril.
And as to these responsibilities, it is not material whether man is
immortal or not. I once had serious doubts of this. But while I now
believe it with a firm conviction that in my own mind amounts to moral
certainty, yet I recognize that it is beyond the pale of ocular proof
or physical demonstration. It pertains exclusively to the realm of
faith.
"Strange is it not? that of the myriads who,
Before us passed the door of darkness thru,
Not one returns, to tell us of the road,
Which to discover, we must travel too?"
And yet this faith is one of the most comforting and inspiring of all
the objects of faith known to man. But he that is governed in his life
and conduct, solely by the fear of some dire punishment in the
after-life, or some hope of bribing the Infinite to give him a
comfortable berth in heaven, is at best but a little and weak soul.
No need to go into any argument here upon the question of whether, "If
a man die shall he live again?" Our social and moral obligations to
live right with our fellowmen are none the less, whether there is an
after-life or not. In fact no man can be right with God,--a part of
whose life he is,--while wrong with his fellow-man.
_THE PROBLEM OF EVIL_
This brings us to a consideration of the problem of evil. "Ever since
human intelligence became enlightened enough to grope for a meaning and
purpose in human life, this problem of the existence of evil has been
the burden of man." (John Fiske.) Out of some attempt to solve it,
every religion on earth was born. I do not offer to solve this
problem; but to try to take a rational view of it.
Good and evil are relative terms. How could we know anything about the
one but thru its contrast with the other? If there were no such thing
as evil, how could we be conscious of the good? How could we know that
it was good? We cannot know anything except by its contrast with
something else. Some element of unlikeness must appear before we can
distinguish anything from something else. To quote again from Fiske:
"If there were no color but red, it would be exactly the same thing as
if there were no color at all." There could be no music except for
variety and contrasts in sounds. If we had never tasted anything but
sugar, could we know what bitterness is? But having tasted the bitter
we then know what sweetness means. Likewise, if there was no such
thing as moral evil in the world, we could not possibly know what moral
goodness is. We could not know what happiness is if we did not have
some knowledge of sorrow and pain. Just why this is so, I do not
pretend to know. I am only stating facts as they are; and the great
Creator, who is the author of both, if of either, knows; and we may
know in proper time. Another pertinent question from Fiske may be
asked here: "What would have been the worth of that primitive innocence
portrayed in the myth of the garden of Eden? What would have been the
moral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of evil,
and doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than
the deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and
turns out some finished product at the other? Clearly for strong and
resolute men and women an Eden would be but a fool's paradise. How
could anything fit to be called _character_ ever have been produced
there? But for tasting the forbidden fruit, in what respect could man
have become a being of higher order than the beast of the field?"
The point is that the same law of evolution applies in the moral world
as it does in the material. As the highest types of life have been
developed only thru the processes of struggle with adverse elements, in
which only the fittest, strongest and best adapted to its environment
survived, so moral character is only developed thru the struggle with
moral evil. Just as one cannot learn to swim on a parlor sofa, but
must get in the water and struggle, so one must come in contact with,
combat, struggle with, and overcome moral evil in order to develop the
highest and strongest type of moral character.
"Heaven is not reached by a single bound;
But we build the ladder by which we rise
From the lowly earth to the vaulted skies,
And rise to its summit round by round."
The rise from a bestial to a moral plane involves the acquirement of a
knowledge of both good and evil. The moral conscience thus developed
plays the same role in the moral world that the consciousness of pain
does in the physical. As this consciousness of pain is a monitor to
warn us from physical danger, so the moral conscience is our monitor to
keep us from moral evil. And the higher this moral conscience is
developed, the more sensitive it becomes, the higher will its possessor
rise in the moral scale. This is the law which Paul tells us is
written in the hearts of all men, "their consciences meanwhile accusing
or excusing them." This may seem a strange philosophy. But it
comports with the facts of nature and life. The mystery of evil is not
solved. But at least we have a rational, working hypothesis upon which
to deal with it, as will further appear as we proceed.
_SIN_
Evil, at least in the physical world, exists separate and apart from
sin. We will not speculate upon the metaphysical differences that may,
or may not, exist between moral evil and personal guilt. But I wish to
record briefly the views I ultimately arrived at concerning the nature
and consequences of sin.
According to the orthodox doctrine, altho sin is defined in the New
Testament as the "transgression of the law," it is something _more_
than this;--a direct personal offence against God; and that therefore
its penalties are punitive and vindictive, designed to vindicate the
person of God against insult and injury by disobedience to his law.
Punishment was therefore believed to be administered judicially,
according to the extent of the offense, that the sinner might be made
to suffer _purely for suffering's sake_, measure for measure. I long
ago abandoned this doctrine. I accept fully the New Testament teaching
that "sin is the transgression of the law,"--not the law of Moses or
any other penal code,--but the great universal, immutable law of Nature
in the moral world. That God is the author of this law does not make
its violation any more a personal offense against God than the
violation of a State statute is a personal offense against the
Governor, or legislature, or the judge that administers it. God cannot
be personally sinned against. If so He is neither infinite nor
immutable. To constitute a personal offense the person offended must
take cognizance of it, which necessarily involves _a change of mind_
toward the offender,--otherwise it is not an offense. The same
condition would be involved in a second change of mind toward the
offender, upon his repentance and forgiveness. Neither is consistent
with any idea of infinity or immutability. Neither does God ever
punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, and it operates automatically.
No sin was ever committed that the sinner did not pay the penalty in
full. From this there is no more escape than there is from the law of
gravitation. If I put my hand into the fire I cannot avoid being
burned. If I take poison I cannot avoid the consequences. The fact
that there may be an antidote for the poison in no way destroys the
truth of this fundamental law.
"The moving finger writes, and having writ
Moves on; Nor all your piety nor wit
Can lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."
Jesus illustrated this law fully and beautifully in the parable of the
Prodigal Son, and I can do no better than quote its substance here.
This young man left his father's house. This was not a personal
offence against his father, altho the father may well have conjectured
what would be the result. He was of age and had a right to go. He
spent his funds in riotous living, and as a consequence was reduced to
want and suffering, his punishment for his sin. To thus waste his
funds was sin, _He punished himself_ by his own conduct. His
sufferings became so intense and severe that he resolved to abandon his
present surroundings and return home at any cost, even to becoming a
menial servant in his father's house. Here we get a clear view of the
_purpose_ of punishment, not as vindictive, but remedial and
corrective. The young man suffered until his sufferings accomplished
their end in correcting and changing his life. As soon as this was
done his punishment ended. Just so with all punishment for sin. It
will continue until its remedial and corrective purpose is completed
and no longer, whether in this life or some other. When the young man
returned home his father received him, not as a servant, but a son.
But remember, _his wasted fortune was not restored_. "Was he not
freely forgiven?" Yes; but forgiveness does not blot out nor restore
the past; nor absolve one from the natural consequences of his own acts
already committed. It simply means a new opportunity and a new start,
but with the handicap of the consequences of the past life. The
returned prodigal was forgiven. He had the opportunity to begin life
anew as a son, just as he was before. But his material resources
represented in his squandered fortune, and the time he lost while
squandering it, were lost forever! Be as diligent and frugal as he
might, he could never, thru time or eternity, reach that attainment
_which he might have reached_, had he used the same diligence and
frugality from the start, in the use of his natural inheritance as his
operating capital.
Hence, one sins, not against God, but most of all _against himself_, by
violating the law of his own being, and of humanity. And the
_consequences_ of sins committed can never be escaped, in this world or
any other. If this kind of gospel had been preached to humanity during
all these past centuries of Christianity,--instead of a gospel that
teaches that no matter how vile, wicked and sinful one may be, nor how
long he may thus live in sin, if, in the last hour of life he will only
"believe in Jesus," at death he will go sweeping thru the gates of
heaven into eternal glory on a complete equality with the noblest
saints and purest characters that ever lived on earth,--this world
would now be much better than it is.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," whether divinely
inspired or not, is as eternally true, certain, and unescapable in the
moral world as are the stars in their courses. Man sins against
society in transgressing those natural laws of social relations that
bind society together. But even in this, while society suffers from
his sins, the sinner himself must ultimately suffer for his own sins
above all others.
The question has often been asked me, "If a man cannot sin against God,
but only against himself and society, by what standard, gauge, or
measure am I to determine what is right or wrong?" I think the Golden
Rule answers that question completely. All sins are either personal or
social or both. A man may, by some sort of self-indulgence or abuse or
by his own secret thoughts sin against himself _only_, from which he
alone must suffer. He may also sin against society by doing some evil
to or against some one else or against society as a whole, from which
both he and others may suffer. A simple rule of conduct may be this:
In view of any proposed course of conduct, word or act, these questions
may be asked: "What may be the result? Will it in any way injure me,
or any one else? Is any possible evil consequence, either to myself or
any one else, likely to come of it?" If the answer is in the
affirmative, it is wrong; otherwise not. These are my simple views of
sin.
_SALVATION_
What is salvation? Almost the universal answer of Christendom has been
for eighteen centuries, escape from hell hereafter and the assurance of
heaven. Yet, according to the record we have of him, Jesus never
taught any such doctrine. It is true that he refers several times to
the Gehena of the Jews, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not
quenched," but always as a natural consequence of some failure to do,
or perform certain things that they should do; but never does he appeal
to any one to do or perform anything _for the purpose of escaping it_.
Did the reader ever notice that in all the record we have of the
sayings of Jesus, he is nowhere quoted as having ever said one word
about the great, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, over which
pagans and Christians wrangled for four centuries; and over which
Christians have wrangled and fought with each other for fourteen
centuries? Do we find where Jesus ever said one word about the Garden
of Eden, the fall of Adam, original sin, total depravity, vicarious
atonement, the mode of baptism, the Trinity, the possession of the Holy
Spirit, or any form of ecclesiastical organization or church polity?
Salvation, and Jesus so taught, pertains to this life exclusively. It
simply means _to save this life_,--not from physical death, nor hell
hereafter,--but to its proper function, use and purpose, according to
the will of God, as revealed in nature and human experience. In
simpler words, it is to save this life from sin, wrong doing of every
kind, and making of it the highest, noblest and best it is capable of.
This is what Jesus taught; and Jesus is the savior of mankind _only_ in
that he has taught mankind _how to live_,--not by dying for it. Thus
to save this life to the highest, noblest and best of which it is
capable, is to save it from sin unto righteousness; and this is to save
it both here and hereafter. He that _continually lives right_ cannot
die wrong. And whatever the next life may be, it is but a
continuation, a larger unfolding and fruition of this. Salvation is
here, not hereafter.
_HEAVEN AND HELL_
But do I not believe in heaven and hell? Yes, and no. I believe in
both, and neither. I do not believe in either the kind of heaven or
hell I was taught in the church. Yet, I have already said that I did
not believe any sin ever committed by man ever went unpunished, either
here or hereafter, until the full penalty was paid, and the punishment
had completed its remedial and corrective purpose. And I will say here
that I do not believe any good deed or word ever performed or said by
man ever went unrewarded up to the full value of its merit, either here
or hereafter. But I believe both heaven and hell to be
_conditions_,--not places,--and we have them both here in this life,
and will have them hereafter. Each individual makes his own heaven, or
his own hell, and carries it with him when he leaves this life. To
quote from Omar Khayyam:
"I sent my Soul thru the invisible
Some letter of that After-life to spell;
And by and by my Soul returned to me
And answered: I myself am Heaven and Hell;
Heaven's but the vision of fulfilled desire,
And Hell the shadow of a Soul on fire."
The idea of a literal lake of fire and brimstone to be the eternal
abode of by far the larger part of the human race, according to the
orthodox doctrine of Christianity, is not only unreasonable, but
unthinkable. If it exists God must have made it; and such a thought is
a caricature of God. Such a view of hell practically involves the
necessity of the personal devil that has always been associated with
it; and this is also both unreasonable and unthinkable. If such a
being exists he is either co-eternal with God--which is
unreasonable--or God created him--which is unthinkable. The idea that
there is in this universe two co-eternal antagonistic spirits in
eternal warfare with each other challenges human credulity. If the
Bible story of creation and the fall of man is true, as interpreted by
orthodox Christianity, the devil got the best of God right from the
start, and has held it ever since; and according to the current
doctrines of the plan and means of salvation, will hold it eternally.
This leads us inevitably to one of two conclusions: God is neither
Infinite, Omniscient, nor Omnipotent, else He would not have permitted
such a condition to come about, and permit Himself to be thus defeated
in his plans and purposes, and lose eternally ninety percent of the
highest product of his own creation, Man, whom He made in his own image
and likeness. If we still insist that God is Infinite, Omniscient, and
therefore knew in advance all that ever would take place, including the
fall of Adam and its consequences, Omnipotent, and therefore able to
prevent it, but did not, it only makes the matter worse.
But to take the other horn of the dilemma, that God _created_ the devil
first an angel in heaven, who afterwards led a rebellion in heaven and
had to be cast out, and that hell was then created as a place in which
to put him, but where it proved afterwards that he could not be kept,
but got out and robbed God of the noblest product of his creative
genius at the very threshold of creation, corrupting the very fountain
of human life itself, whereby he became the ultimate possessor of
nine-tenths of all the race forever, is only to make the matter still
worse than before. He certainly was not Omniscient, and therefore able
to foreknow what this newly created angel would ultimately do, else He
would not have made him; nor was He Omnipotent, else He would have
prevented it. But if it still be insisted--and unfortunately it is by
far the greater part of Christianity--that God is, nevertheless and
notwithstanding, Infinite, Omniscient and Omnipotent, and either
deliberately planned or supinely sat by and permitted these things to
take place, _then He is not_ a God of goodness, love, justice, truth,
mercy and benevolence, but an unthinkable monster, more diabolical and
cruel than the wildest savage ever known to the earth, or the most
ferocious beast of prey in the jungle. I might naturally fear such a
God, but never love or respect, but eternally hate him.
I have already given my views of the story of Eden and the fall of man;
that man never fell, but is still incomplete, but progressing onward
and upward forever; that he was never, on the general average, higher
or better than now; and as the years and ages go on he will continue
thus to grow better and nobler, making his own heaven as he goes along,
and destroying his own hell by learning his lessons of suffering for
wrong doing, and leaving it behind him. No, God did not make man in
his own image, implant in his very nature that eternal aspiration
upward that is possessed by every normal human being, and then make a
devil to tempt and ruin him, and a hell in which to eternally torment
him.
I quote again from Omar Khayyam:
"Oh, Thou who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin.
... "Ne'er a peevish boy
Would break the bowl from which he drank in joy;
And he that with his hand the vessel made
Will not in after wrath destroy."
_REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT_
It is hardly necessary to the purpose of this work, to say anything at
all on these subjects. If man was never lost, kidnapped or stolen from
God, he needed no _redeemer_, to _buy him back_ with a price. If man
never "fell" from the favor of God by disobedience, and thereby
incurred his anger, illwill and wrath that sought vengeance on his
life, he needed no one to mediate, propitiate or atone for him by
shedding his own blood as a substitute. The whole doctrine of
redemption and atonement falls flat when the doctrine of the fall of
man is removed from under it. But as this is the very crux of the
whole orthodox Christian system, the reader may be interested to know
what conclusions I reached concerning it, after some years of study, as
to both its origin and meaning. These conclusions I reached, not only
from the study of the Bible, but from the study of history generally;
and especially the history of religion, in other races as well as the
Jews. It must be remembered that this doctrine of atonement by the
shedding of blood, is--or rather was,--in one form or another, common
to many ancient religions and nations. It was by no means exclusively
Jewish or Christian. It probably had a common origin and purpose in
all.
I have already intimated that all religious doctrine and practice had
their origin in man's attempt to solve the problem of evil, sin,
suffering and death; and to remedy it. I will treat this more fully
when I come to consider the subject of religion specifically.
The general solution of this problem, if not the almost universal one,
was, that men had offended the gods and incurred their anger and
illwill; and for this reason the gods continually afflicted them thru
life and ultimately destroyed them. Thus death was the final penalty
for sin. The gods could be finally satisfied only with the life,--the
blood,--of the transgressor. "For the blood is the life." This
doctrine is not confined to Genesis and the Jews. In fact, the best
Biblical scholars of today are of the opinion that this story of Eden
and the fall were not originally Jewish at all; but that the tradition
was learned during the exile in Babylonia and Persia, where, it has
been learned from recent excavations, the tradition existed centuries
before the time of the captivity. It is believed that this tradition
so fitted into the Jewish history and gave them such a satisfactory
solution of their own sufferings and misery that it was brought back by
them, and, with some adaptations, incorporated into their own sacred
literature as a part of their own history. Thus, Genesis is now
believed by the best scholars and most competent critics, not to be the
first book of the Bible written, but in its present form, one of the
last written of the Old Testament. But this is a digression.
Quite early, however, tho the time and the exact reason why are both
unknown, it is evident that man conceived the idea that, tho he could
not escape ultimate death, yet, he might in some way appease the wrath
of the gods, and thus at least mitigate his afflictions in this life,
by offering them the life--the blood--of a substitute. Thus originated
the practice of offering burnt offerings to the gods, so common among
so many ancient tribes and nations besides Israel. It was believed
that the gods would be satisfied, at least for the time being, with the
blood of an innocent victim, especially if it was the best, or the most
precious the offerer had. And from this grew the offering of human
sacrifices, especially one's own children, as Abraham offering Isaac,
Jephtha his daughter, and the practice in Israel so severely condemned
by some of the earlier prophets, of making "their children pass the
fire unto Moloch."
Other offerings in the course of time grew up, such as fruits,
vegetables, incense, etc.; but no offering was acceptable as an
_atonement for sin_, except the offering of blood. Thus Cain brought
an offering "of the fruit of the ground" and Jehovah rejected it. But
Abel came with "the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and unto his offering."
The later Levitical ritual with its organized priesthood, tabernacle,
temple, etc., was by no means the beginning of this idea of appeasing
the wrath of Jehovah by blood atonement; but was only the more perfect
and systematic organization and administration of it. Blood was
considered so precious, because it was the life, that the children of
Israel were forbidden to eat it on penalty of death. "For the life of
the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make atonement for your sins: for it is the blood that maketh atonement
by reason of the life." Lev. xvii, 11.
I shall assume here that the reader is already sufficiently familiar
with the practices of the Jews, as recorded thruout the Old Testament,
concerning this matter of blood atonement, to render it unnecessary to
go into further details. If he is not already familiar with it, he can
easily become so.
The question has been asked, why _burn_ the offering? Why was it not
sufficient simply to shed the blood? Perhaps in the beginning this was
the practice. There is nothing said about burning the offerings of
either Cain or Abel. It is highly probable they were not burnt.
Jehovah was satisfied with the mere _sight_ of blood, the destruction
of a life. But this, Cain did not offer. There was no _blood_ in his
fruit-offering; hence Jehovah was not only unappeased, but insulted.
The first mention of "burnt-offerings" in the Bible is the offering
made by Noah after the flood. From this on they are common. The
purpose of burning the offering was simply to cook it,--to roast it.
The offering was nearly always eaten. Sometimes only the fat,
considered the choicest part, was burnt as an offering to the god;
while the people and priests ate the balance, either roasted or boiled.
See a full account of this in 1 Sam. ii, 12f. As man has always made
his gods in his own image he imagined the gods, like himself, loved to
eat. Therefore, in addition to appeasing the wrath of the god by the
sight of the blood of the victim, his favor was supposed to be further
obtained by feeding him. As the good host always sets the best he has
before his guest, so the best part of the sacrificed victim was placed
on the altar for the god. Altho invisible, it was firmly believed that
the god consumed the burning flesh or fat, as it was reduced to smoke
and ascended to heaven. The parties making the offering,--sometimes
only an individual, or a family, but often the whole tribe,--ate the
balance. They were therefore, "eating with the god," and consequently
on good terms with him, just as eating together today is an indication
of friendship, or the taking of salt together among certain savage
tribes is a token of peace and friendship, or the smoking from the
common pipe among the early American Indians. Later in Israel, the
whole offering was burnt. Jehovah was entitled to it all. Men had
outgrown the idea of "eating with Jehovah."
We now come back more specifically to the _purpose_ of this blood
atonement. We have no account in all the Old Testament where it was
ever offered with direct reference to a future life,--for the purpose
of escaping hell. We have already seen that there is absolutely
nothing in the story of Eden and the fall of man, upon which to
predicate any thought of immortality after physical death, either a
heaven or hell. We now come to note that there is nowhere any _direct_
reference to a life after death, in any book of the Old Testament,
written _before_ the exile. The account of Saul having the witch of
Endor call up Samuel after his death; and David's faith that he could
go to his dead child, indeed indicate some belief at this time in an
after-life; but nowhere is there the remotest reference to a hell, a
separate place of torment for the wicked. In the case of Samuel being
recalled to converse with Saul, he says, that altho Jehovah had
departed from Saul, and notwithstanding Saul's great wickedness,
"Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,"--the saintly Samuel, all
in the same place. There are a few direct references to a future life,
_in a few places only_, in some of the books written _during_ or
_after_ the exile. But nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a
single reference to the offering of the sacrifice of atonement with any
reference whatever to a future life. To ancient Israel, Jehovah was a
God of the present,--not the future. He did things _then_,--in the
present tense. He was the God of the _living_,--not of the dead. And
Jesus affirmed the same thing.
He was exclusively a God for this world and this life. The atoning
sacrifice was offered to appease his wrath against them for their past
sins, not the sin of the individual only, but the sins of the whole
nation. The benefits they expected to receive from this remission of
sins thru the blood of the atonement were _here_ and _now_,--not in
some future life.
We pass rapidly now to the time of the Christ. Altho the canonical
books of the Old Testament give us no clue to any definite, fixed
beliefs among the Jews concerning a future life, heaven, hell or the
resurrection of the dead, yet, according to the New Testament
literature, these views were all quite clearly defined, and generally
believed among all the Jews, except the party of the Sadducees,
relatively a very small party. Whence came these beliefs? If they had
come by some divine revelation they would certainly have been recorded
in some of their sacred books. But they were not. The only rational
answer is that they learned all these things from their Eastern masters
during the captivity, where all these beliefs are now known to have
been current centuries before the captivity, and brought them back on
their return; and with some modifications incorporated them into their
own system. Yet there is no indication in the New Testament, nor any
contemporary literature now extant, that the atoning sacrifice that was
continually offered in the temple, even down to the destruction of
Jerusalem, was ever offered with any view, or reference to a future
life; much less as a means of escaping hell.
We turn now to the Christ. It has already been said that he nowhere
makes the least reference to a vicarious atonement to be made by
himself for the sins of world. True, he warns his disciples that he
must needs go up to Jerusalem, there to suffer and be put to death; but
nowhere does he say that this death is to _redeem back_ mankind from
the devil; nor appease the wrath of God against mankind by the sight of
his blood; nor to vindicate the majesty of a broken law, for the
benefit of mankind. It is all but universally acknowledged that his
disciples had no such conception of his mission, but followed him up to
Jerusalem expecting to see him made King, sit on the "throne of David"
and restore Israel to her pristine glory, according to the universal
interpretation of the Messianic prophecies. After his tragic death,
and alleged resurrection and ascension,--in which his disciples
certainly implicitly believed, no matter what the actual facts may
be,--we still hear not a word about his death being a vicarious
atonement for sin. When Peter preached that great sermon on the day of
Pentecost he says not one word about a vicarious atonement in the death
of Christ, but lays the whole emphasis on his resurrection and
ascension. Let the reader turn here to that sermon in the second
chapter of Acts and read it; and he will find that the whole burden of
Peter's sermon is to the effect, that since the Jews had put Jesus to
death, he had broken the bonds of death and hades, they being powerless
to hold him, and had ascended to the right hand of God, whereby he had
conquered both death and hades, and for which "God hath made him both
Lord and Christ." Note, that because of this resurrection and
ascension he had _been made_ both Lord and Christ,--and not by any
virtue in his death itself. Not the remotest hint of vicarious
atonement! The natural inference is--tho Peter is not quoted as saying
so in so many words,--that men are to be saved from death and hades
hereafter, because Jesus had escaped from both, and thus not only paved
the way, but himself thereby became able to save others also.
As is well known, for half a century or more, the followers of the new
faith, who for fifteen years were all Jews, or Jewish proselytes,
looked with anxious expectancy for the return of this Jesus, with the
power and glory of heaven, to set up his earthly kingdom on the throne
of David in Jerusalem. Not a word yet about saving men's soul's from
hell thru vicarious atonement. No need for a vicarious atonement to
save men from hell hereafter, if they were soon to live on this earth
forever--those who died before his return to be raised from the dead as
he was, while those that remained were to be "caught up in the clouds
to meet him in the air and live forever,"--under the benign reign of
the Messiah of God.
But we are approaching its development. There appears upon the scene
one Saul of Tarsus, afterwards known as Paul the Apostle. It is
generally conceded that he never saw Jesus in his lifetime; in fact
knew nothing of him while he lived. He early became a violent
persecutor of the new sect, which for years was only another Jewish
sect, as exclusively Jewish in its views and outlook as were the
priests and Rabbis. But Paul was a well educated man, a scholar in his
day,--and a philosopher. He was a Jew to the core, and lived and died
one. We need not consider the story of his trip to Damascus, the
supposed miracle on the way, and his conversion to the new faith. He
soon became the greatest leader and exponent it had thus far produced;
and he put a new interpretation on it, _entirely unchristian_, if we
are to take the recorded teachings of the Christ himself as our
standard for Christianity. And the Christianity of the world today is
much more Pauline than Christian, judged by this standard.
This Paul operated independent of the other Apostles. He was a "free
lance" and launched forth, both in a field, and with a doctrine all his
own. He was thoroly familiar with the whole Jewish system. He knew
all about the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice of atonement. Yet
he was too wise not to know that there was no _intrinsic merit_ in the
blood of bulls and goats to cleanse from sin, or appease the divine
wrath. Yet as a loyal Jew he certainly _believed_ these to be of
divine origin,--and that they must have a meaning deeper than the
physical fact itself. He was a believer in the coming of the
long-promised Messiah--to restore Israel. A man of his knowledge and
foresight might well be able to read "the signs of the times," and see
that the Jewish nation could but little longer maintain its separate
identity against the overwhelming power of the growing Roman Empire.
It must soon be swallowed up and its separate identity lost in the
greater whole. No power in Israel seemed to be able to stem the tide
of events. Remember that this was now some years after the
crucifixion; and after Paul had changed his course towards the new
sect, because of the events about Damascus,--no matter what they may
have been. At any rate, it is quite clear, no matter what the reasons
may have been that induced him to do so, that he had accepted in good
faith, as a veritable truth, the belief in the physical resurrection of
the crucified Jesus. Paul tells us himself that after his escape from
Damascus he went into Arabia for three years,--perhaps to try to think
out some rational interpretation of the meaning of the events that he
had felt himself forced to accept as true.
After this we find him passing thru Jerusalem, stopping a few weeks
with Peter and the other Apostles to learn from them all he could; and
then going on to his native city, Tarsus, where we lose sight of him
for several years before we find him starting on his first great
missionary journey from Antioch, in which we begin to get our first
glimpses of the doctrine of vicarious atonement made for the sins of
the world by the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
During these years of Paul's obscurity, both in Arabia and at Tarsus,
what was he probably doing? We do not know. But is it unreasonable to
conjecture that he must have spent at least a good portion of his time
in profound study, to try to reconcile these new views with the past
history, traditions and beliefs of his own people? If this new
teaching meant only a new ethical standard of life; that men are saved
by what they _are_ and _do_, without any reference to _belief_, then
the whole Jewish system of sacrifices had no meaning at all, and never
did have. We can hardly conceive of Paul, educated as he was in all
the lore and traditions of his people, accepting such a view as this.
To him all the traditions and practices of his people were at least of
divine origin; and hence must have a meaning of eternal significance.
Yet, it must have been plain to him that in the natural course of
events, as they were then clearly tending, it could not be long until
the elaborate temple ritual, with _all_ its sacrifices, oblation,
burning bullocks and incense, must soon cease forever!
And now for the interpretation. All the ceremonial of Israel had a
meaning; but it was symbolic, typical of some reality to come. The
blood of bulls and lambs and goats could not in themselves atone for
sin; but they could _point_ to the "Lamb of Calvary," slain for the
sins of the world. He that was without sin,--"the lamb without spot or
blemish,"--was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of others. The law
had its purpose, but it was now fulfilled, all its symbolic meaning was
consummated in the death of Jesus, and now it must go. It was only a
school master, to keep us in the way until the Christ should come.
When this "lamb" was slain, God saw his shed blood, and was satisfied.
His anger relented, his wrath cooled and the hand of mercy was
extended, on the simple condition,--_of faith_. What was the meaning,
intent and purpose of this vicarious atonement? According to the
belief of the time, that Jesus would soon return in the power and glory
of heaven to set up his everlasting kingdom here on earth, it was to
prepare a people for this kingdom. This kingdom was to be composed
only of those who had been thus prepared for it, by the remission of
their sins, thru this blood atonement. The earliest Christians, all of
whom were Jews, led by Peter, held that this new kingdom was to be
forever limited to Jews and Jewish proselytes. If any Gentile wanted
to have any part or lot in this new kingdom, he must first become a
Jew. But Paul took a broader view. To him the whole Jewish system was
purely preliminary to a greater dispensation, which was now fulfilled;
symbolic and typical of a greater reality which was now here; and had
therefore fulfilled its purpose and was ended. All symbolic ceremonial
was now past forever. There was no longer any distinction between Jew
and Gentile as far as God's grace was concerned. The New Kingdom was
open to all upon the same terms,--faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God,
and this particular interpretation of his mission.
This opening of the gates to all the world on equal terms produced a
bitter controversy between Peter and Paul and led to a sharp and well
defined division in the early church, which continues to this day. The
Roman Church is Petrine, narrow, exclusive and given to much elaborate
ceremonial, as were the ancient Jews; while Protestantism is generally
Pauline, much broader, generally freer from ceremonial, and as a rule
much more truly Catholic; yet often narrow enough.
As time went on, and Jesus did not return as expected, faith in his
early coming waned; and the idea began to grow that his real Kingdom
was not for this world at all, but a heavenly one hereafter. By this
time the Apostle Paul was dead and the Fourth Gospel had appeared,
supposed to be written by the Apostle John, in which the Master was
quoted as saying, "My kingdom is not of this world." Thus the idea
took form, grew and developed that the real mission of the Messiah,
after all, was not the establishment of a kingdom here on earth, but a
heavenly kingdom hereafter; and hence that his death was a vicarious
atonement made by the shedding of his blood, to satisfy the divine
vengeance against sin, and save souls from hell hereafter; and thus fit
them for this heavenly kingdom.
And ever since this doctrine became thus established, by the middle of
the second century, almost the whole emphasis and entire energies of
the church, Catholic and Protestant, have been directed, not towards
making this a better world by making mankind better, building up,
developing, purifying and uplifting human character; but toward saving
them from a hell hereafter. And what little energy the church had left
after this, has been spent, and is still being spent, in never-ending
controversy among themselves over _just how to do it_.
Thus the doctrine of vicarious atonement, thru blood, and blood alone,
had its origin in the lowest paganism, away back in the infancy of the
human race, was transmitted down thru Judaism, and transplanted from it
into Christianity.
But I cannot leave this subject without a few remarks on the various
meanings that have been attached to the idea of vicarious atonement,
since it became an integral part of the Christian system. We have
already seen that the original pagan meaning of blood atonement was
based upon the idea that the gods were angry and out for vengeance, and
nothing but blood would appease them; but that the blood of a proper
substitute would answer this purpose. But the earliest Christian
doctrine of the atonement made by Christ was in the nature of
redemption. In fact the term became so deeply rooted and grounded in
early Christian nomenclature that it has never been fully eliminated.
But its use is much less now than formerly. The theory was based upon
tradition, partly scriptural and partly not, that in the affair of Eden
the devil fairly outwitted God and became rightfully entitled to the
souls of all mankind forever; but that on account of the great war in
heaven, in which the devil and his angels were cast out by the "Eternal
Son" of God (see Milton's "Paradise Lost"), the devil held a bitter
grudge against this son, and offered to bargain with God and give him
back all the souls of mankind for the soul of this son. So God,
knowing the power of his son to break the bands of death and
hell,--which the devil did not know,--accepted the bargain; and in due
time, as agreed upon, the Son of God came into the world, died on the
cross and went to hell, in fulfillment of this contract; and thus
liberated all the souls already there, and obtained a conditional
release of all the balance of mankind,---the condition of faith,--and
then suddenly broke the bands of death and hell and escaped back to
heaven. But he literally fulfilled his contract as originally made.
Thus we find the old church creeds reciting--and still reciting--that
"he was crucified, dead, buried and descended into hell, and the third
day rose," etc. This idea may look strange to present day Christians;
but all they have to do is to consult the early church literature to
find that it was almost the universal belief as to the meaning of the
atonement during the first few centuries of Christianity.
The next view that gradually developed as the older one waned, was the
old Jewish idea of _substituted suffering_ and to which was added that
of imputed righteousness. That is to say, that in order to save
mankind and yet appease the divine wrath, and satisfy the vengeance of
an offended God, God sent his son into the world to bear the brunt of
his wrath instead of mankind, and tho innocent, to suffer as tho
guilty; and finally to die as a malefactor, tho innocent of sin; and
because of the dignity and character of the victim and the intensity of
his sufferings in both life and death, they were sufficient in both
quality and quantity to satisfy the divine vengeance against all
mankind; _provided_ man would avail himself of these provisions for his
release by accepting by faith the Son of God as his suffering
substitute; whereupon, God would forgive the sins of the faithful and
_impute_ to them the benefits of the righteousness of Christ. This
doctrine of the atonement dominated the Middle Ages. Upon it was based
the doctrine of supererogation, whereby the surplus stock of good works
of the holy saints might be laid up for the benefit of the less worthy,
who might receive the benefits of them thru the process of indulgences,
sold by the church for a money consideration. It is still held in a
somewhat modified form in a large part of Christendom to this day.
The more modern doctrine of the atonement is that called the
Governmental Theory. That is to say, that God was not so mad with
mankind after all; but having once ordained the law that "the soul that
sinneth, it shall die," the law could neither be abrogated nor
suspended, but must have its penalty. As no mortal man could fulfill
it for any one but himself, and that only by his eternal death, only
the Son of God could satisfy it for mankind. Therefore the Eternal Son
of God became incarnate in human flesh, but still remained "Very God of
Very God," in order that he might meet the demands of this divine law
for all mankind, by not being amenable to it himself, being without
sin; and yet by his sufferings and death paying its penalty in full for
the whole human race; subject, however, to the appropriation of its
benefits by the individual, thru faith. In a measure this is the same
as that of the substitution theory; but it does not go to the extent of
the doctrine of imputed righteousness.
The only exception to it is in the Roman church, and here the exception
is apparent rather than real. In the Roman church salvation is _by
faith in the church_, the benefits of which are transmitted to the
individual thru the sacraments of the church; but in the ancient
church, and in practically all modern Protestant churches, saving faith
is held to be individual and personal; and must be not only faith in
the atoning sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on the cross for all
mankind; but it must be faith _in the correct view of the atonement_.
Hence, no matter which of the views I have herein outlined may be
correct, those who have held to either of the others are all lost.
This is the only logical conclusion any one can reach who insists that
salvation is impossible except by accepting any prescribed creed. Only
those who possess and accept the _right creed_ can be saved. All the
balance of mankind must be lost forever. To take either of these views
of the atonement, or all of them together, as the only means by which
mankind can be saved from hell is to make God a complete failure from
beginning to end. As we have already seen, the orthodox view of
creation makes God either a failure or a monster. The attempt to
reform man thru the process of elimination by the flood proved a
failure. And now if the success of God's last attempt to save mankind
thru the death of his son, is limited to any interpretation orthodox
Christianity has ever placed upon it, it is the most stupendous failure
of all.
There is but one rational interpretation of any doctrine of salvation
by vicarious atonement; and that is that the atonement must be
automatically as far-reaching and comprehensive in its results as the
sin it is designed to remedy. If sin entered into the world because of
the offence of Adam, the head of the race, and thus passed upon all
men, without their knowledge or consent, simply because they were
descendants of Adam, any scheme of redemption, atonement, or salvation
that purports in any way to remedy, or obviate the consequences of this
original sin, in order to be just must be equally as broad and
comprehensive, and operate as automatically and unconditionally in its
remedial effects, as did Adam's sin in its consequences.
I have thus gone at some length into this doctrine of atonement and
redemption. Perhaps I have wearied the reader. But as it is the most
fundamental doctrine of the whole orthodox Christian system, and has
been such a bone of contention in all the ages of the Christian church,
and was such a stumbling block to me for so long a time, I felt that my
"Confession of Faith" would be incomplete if I did not go into it in
some detail.
My final conclusion is, that man never fell, but always has been and
still is imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving upward. As man
was never lost or stolen from God, he needed no redeemer to buy him
back. As he was never an enemy to God, but always his child, God was
never angry with him; hence he needed neither mediator, nor any one to
make any atonement for him.