"_Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible_."
They say, now, that there is the one personal God; that he is the maker
of the universe and its ruler. I again ask the old question, Of what did
he make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this God
made it. Of what did he make it? What did he use for the purpose? There
was nothing in the universe except this God. What had the God been doing
for the eternity he had been living? He had made nothing--called nothing
into existence; never had had an idea, because it is impossible to have
an idea unless there is something to excite an idea. What had he been
doing? Why does not the Congregational Church tell us? How do they know
about this Infinite Being? And if he is infinite how can they comprehend
him? What good is it to believe in something that you know you do not
understand, and that you never can understand?
In the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:
"_There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts
or passions_."
Think of that!--without body, parts, or passions.
I defy any man in the world to write a better description of nothing.
You cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without
body, parts, or passions." And yet this God, without passions, is angry
at the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a jealous God,
whose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God, without passions,
loves the whole human race; and this God, without passions, damns a
large majority of mankind. This God without body, walked in the Garden
of Eden, in the cool of the day. This God, without body, talked with
Adam and Eve. This God, without body, or parts met Moses upon Mount
Sinai, appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses
face to face as a man speaketh to his friend. This description of God is
simply an effort of the church to describe a something of which it has
no conception.
God as a Governor.
So, too, I find the following:
"_We believe that the Providence of God, by which he executes his
eternal purposes in the government of the world, is in and over all
events._"
Is God the governor of the world? Is this established by the history of
nations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and
not frightened, in the history of the world, that this universe is
presided over by an infinitely wise and good God?
How do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do
you account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the
master's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you
account for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers--arms
that had been reached toward God in supplication? How do you account for
it? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account
for the fact that this God allows people to be burned simply for loving
him? Is justice always done? Is innocence always acquitted? Do the
good succeed? Are the honest fed? Are the charitable clothed? Are the
virtuous shielded? How do you account for the fact that the world has
been filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the
fact that people have been swallowed by earthquakes, overwhelmned by
volcanoes, and swept from the earth by storms? Is it easy to account
for famine, for pestilence and plague if there be above us all a Ruler
infinitely good, powerful and wise?
I do not say there is none. I do not know. As I have said before, this
is the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts
of the universe, and do not know about these things as much as the
clergy pretend to, but if they know no more about the other world than
they do about this, it is not worth mentioning.
How do they answer all this? They say that God "permits" it. What would
you say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a
child, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say
truthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. Is it possible for this
God to prevent it? Then, if he does not he is a fiend; he is no god.
But they say he "permits" it. What for? So that we may have freedom of
choice. What for? So that God may find, I suppose, who are good and who
are bad. Did he not know that when he made us? Did he not know exactly
just what he was making? Why should he make those whom he knew would be
criminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and
take the lives of people you would hang me. And if God made a man whom
he knew would commit murder, then God is guilty of that murder. If God
made a man knowing that he would beat his wife, that he would starve
his children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the
wrecks of ruined homes, then I say the being who knowingly called that
wretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find
the providence of God in the history of nations. What little I have read
shows me that when man has been helped, man has done it; when the
chains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when
something bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to
trace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You
need not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame upon
gods; you can find the efficient causes nearer home--right here.
The Love of God.
What is the next thing I find in this creed?
"_We believe that man was made in the image of God, that he might know,
love, and obey God, and enjoy him forever._"
I do not believe that anybody ever did love God, because nobody ever
knew anything about him. We love each other. We love something that we
know. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great
and beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can
love truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice,
because it preserves human joy. We can love charity. We can love every
form of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we
cannot love the infinitely unknown. And how can we be made in the image
of something that has neither body, parts, nor passions?
The Fall of Man.
The Congregational Church has not outgrown the doctrine of "original
sin." We are told that:
"_Our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation
of God, and that all men are so alienated from God that there is no
salvation from the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming
power._"
Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in
the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike
his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any
intelligent man now believe that God made man of dust, and woman of a
rib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the midst of it? Was
there not room outside of the garden to put his tree, if he did not want
people to eat his apples?
If I did not want a man to eat my fruit, I would not put him in my
orchard.
Does anybody now believe in the story of the serpent? I pity any man or
woman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable.
Why did Adam and Eve disobey? Why, they were tempted. By whom? The
devil. Who made the devil? God. What did God make him for? Why did
he not tell Adam and Eve about this serpent? Why did he not watch the
devil, instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out,
why did he not keep him from getting in? Why did he not have his flood
first, and drown the devil, before he made a man and woman.
And yet, people who call themselves intelligent--professors in colleges
and presidents of venerable institutions--teach children and young men
that the Garden of Eden story is an absolute historical fact. I defy
any man to think of a more childish thing. This God, waiting around
Eden--knowing all the while what would happen--having made them on
purpose so that it would happen, then does what? Holds all of us
responsible, and we were not there. Here is a representative before the
constituency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative I want
a chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known
all the circumstances, I should have voted "No!" And yet, I am held
responsible.
We are told by the Bible and by the churches that through this fall of
man "_Sin and death entered the world?_"
According to this, just as soon as Adam and Eve had partaken of the
forbidden fruit, God began to contrive ways by which he could destroy
the lives of his children. He invented all the diseases--all the fevers
and coughs and colds--all the pains and plagues and pestilences--all the
aches and agonies, the malaria and spores; so that when we take a breath
of air we admit into our lungs unseen assassins; and, fearing that some
might live too long, even under such circumstances, God invented the
earthquake and volcano, the cyclone and lightning, animalcules to infest
the heart and brain, so small that no eye can detect--no instrument
reach. This was all owing to the disobedience of Adam and Eve!
In his infinite goodness, God invented rheumatism and gout and
dyspepsia, cancers and neuralgia, and is still inventing new diseases.
Not only this', but he decreed the pangs of mothers, and that by the
gates of love and life should crouch the dragons of death and pain.
Fearing that some might, by accident, live too long, he planted
poisonous vines and herbs that looked like food. He caught the serpents
he had made and gave them fangs and curious organs, ingeniously devised
to distill and deposit the deadly drop. He changed the nature of the
beasts, that they might feed on human flesh. He cursed a world, and
tainted every spring and source of joy. He poisoned every breath of air;
corrupted even light, that it might bear disease on every ray; tainted
every drop of blood in human veins; touched every nerve, that it
might bear the double fruit of pain and joy; decreed all accidents and
mistakes that maim and hurt and kill, and set the snares of life-long
grief, baited with present pleasure,--with a moment's joy. Then and
there he foreknew and foreordained all human tears. And yet all this is
but the prelude, the introduction, to the infinite revenge of the good
God. Increase and multiply all human griefs until the mind has reached
imagination's farthest verge, then add eternity to time, and you may
faintly tell, but never can conceive, the infinite horrors of this
doctrine called "The Fall of Man." The Atonement.
We are further told that:
"_All men are so alienated from God that there is no alleviation from
the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming grace;_"
And that:
"_We believe that the love of God to sinful man has found its highest
expression in the redemptive work of his Son, who became man, uniting
his divine nature with our human nature in one person; who was tempted
like other men and yet without sin, and by his humiliation, his holy
obedience, his sufferings, his death on the cross, and his resurrection,
became a perfect redeemer; whose sacrifice of himself for the sins
of the world declares the righteousness of God, and is the sole and
sufficient ground of forgiveness and of reconciliation with him_."
The absurdity of the doctrine known as "The Fall of Man," gave birth
to that other absurdity known as "The Atonement." So that now it is
insisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of somebody
else, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another. Let us
leave out of our philosophy both these absurdities. Our creed will read
a great deal better with both of them out, and will make far better
sense.
Now, in consequence of Adam's sin, everybody is alienated from God. How?
Why? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all do wrong. Well, why?
Is that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes?
Because there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite
number of wrong ways; and as long as we are not perfect in our
intellects we must make mistakes. "There is no darkness but ignorance,"
and alienation, as they call it, from God, is simply a lack of
intellect. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the
alienation.
The church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the shore of
this world is against God--naturally hates God; that the little dimpled
child in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against
God! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men
who have worked for wife and child; upon all mothers who have suffered
and labored, wept and worked; upon all the men who have died for their
country; upon all who have fought for human liberty. Leave out the
history of religion and there is little left to prove the depravity of
man.
Everybody that comes is against God! Every soul, they think, is like the
wrecked Irishman, who drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed
the shore saw a man and said to him, "Have you a Government here?" The
man replied "We have." "Well," said he, "I'm forninst it!"
The church teaches us that such is the attitude of every soul in the
universe of God. Ought a god to take any credit to himself for making
depraved people? A god that cannot make a soul that is not totally
depraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And
if a god has made us, knowing that we are totally depraved, why should
we go to the same being to be "born again?"
The Second Birth.
The church insists that we must be "born again" and that all who are not
the subjects of this second birth are heirs of everlasting fire. Would
it not have been much better to have made another Adam and Eve? Would it
not have been better to change Noah and his people, so that after that a
second birth would not have been necessary? Why not purify the fountain
of all human life? Why allow the earth to be peopled with depraved and
monstrous beings, each one of whom must be re-made, re-formed, and born
again?
And yet, even reformation is not enough. If the man who steals
becomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his
fellow-man, changes and loves his fellow-man, that is not enough; he
must go through that mysterious thing called the second birth; he must
be born again. He must have faith; he must believe something that
he does not understand, and experience what they call "conversion."
According to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of God--nothing so
corrugates the brows of Jehovah with hatred--as a man relying on his own
good works. He must admit that he ought to be damned, and that of the
two he prefers it, before God will consent to save him.
I met a man the other day, who said to me, "I am a Unitarian
Universalist." "What do you mean by that?" I asked. "Well," said he,
"this is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be damned,
and the Universalist thinks God is too good to damn him, and I believe
them both."
Is it possible that the sacrifice of a perfect being was acceptable to
God? Will he accept the agony of innocence for the punishment of guilt?
Will he release Barabbas and crucify Christ?
Inspiration.
What is the next thing in this great creed?
"_We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the
record of God's revelation of Himself, the work of redemption; that
they were written by men under the special guidance of the holy spirit;
that they are able to make wise unto salvation; and that they constitute
an authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct
are to be regulated and judged._"
This is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, the result
reached by a high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for
their churches; and there we have the statement that the Bible was
written "by men under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit."
What part of the Bible? All of it? All of it. And yet what is this Old
Testament that was written by an infinitely good God? The being who
wrote it did not know the shape of the world he had made; knew nothing
of human nature. He commands men to love him, as if one could love upon
command. The same God upheld the institution of human slavery; and the
church says that the Bible that upholds that institution was written by
men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy
Spirit.
This church tells us that men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
upheld the institution of polygamy--I deny it; that under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit these men upheld wars of extermination and
conquest--I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these
men wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife if
she happened to differ with him on the subject of religion--I deny it.
And yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the Congregational
Church.
If the devil had written upon the subject of slavery, which side would
he have taken? Let every minister answer. If you knew the devil had
written a work on human slavery, in your judgment, would he uphold
slavery, or denounce it? Would you regard it as any evidence that he
ever wrote it, if it upheld slavery? And yet, here you have a work
upholding slavery, and you say that it was written by an infinitely good
God! If the devil upheld polygamy, would you be surprised? If the devil
wanted to kill men for differing with him would you be astonished? If
the devil told a man to kill his wife, would you be shocked? And yet,
you say, that is exactly what God did. If there be a God, then that
creed is blasphemy. That creed is a libel upon him who sits on heaven's
throne. If there be a God, I ask him to write in the book in which my
account is kept, that I denied these lies for him.
I do not believe in a slaveholding God! I do not worship a polygamous
Holy Ghost, nor a Son who threatens eternal pain; I will not get upon my
knees before any being who commands a husband to slay his wife because
she expresses her honest thought. Suppose a book should be found old as
the Old Testament in which slavery, polygamy and war are all denounced,
would Christians think that it was written by the devil?
Did it ever occur to you that if God wrote the Old Testament, and
told the Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on
religion, and that this God afterward took upon himself flesh and came
to Jerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed
him--did it ever occur to you that he reaped exactly what he had sown?
Did it ever occur to you that he fell a victim to his own tyranny, and
was destroyed by his own hand? Of course I do not believe that any God
ever was the author of the Bible, or that any God was ever crucified,
or that any God was ever killed, or ever will be, but I want to ask you
that question.
Take this Old Testament, then, with all its stories of murder and
massacre; with all its foolish and cruel fables; with all its infamous
doctrines; with its spirit of caste; with its spirit of hatred, and
tell me whether it was written by a good God. If you will read the
maledictions and curses of that book, you will think that God, like
Lear, had divided heaven among his daughters, and then, in the insanity
of despair, had launched his curses on the human race.
And yet, I must say--I must admit--that the Old Testament is better
than the New. In the Old Testament, when God had a man dead, he let
him alone. When he saw him quietly in his grave he was satisfied. The
muscles relaxed, and the frown gave place to a smile. But in the New
Testament the trouble commences at death. In the New Testament God is
to wreak his revenge forever and ever. It was reserved for one who said,
"Love your enemies," to tear asunder the veil between time and eternity
and fix the horrified gaze of man upon the gulfs of eternal fire. The
New Testament is just as much worse than the Old, as hell is worse than
sleep; just as much worse, as infinite cruelty is worse than dreamless
rest; and yet, the New Testament is claimed to be a gospel of love and
peace.
Is it possible that: "_The Scriptures constitute the authoritative
standard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be
regulated and judged"?_
Are we to judge of conduct by the Old Testament, by the New, or by both?
According to the Old, the slaveholder was a just and generous man; a
polygamist was a model of virtue. According to the New, the worst can be
forgiven and the best can be lost. How can any book be a standard,
when the standard itself must be measured by human reason? Is there a
standard of a standard? Must not the reason be convinced? and, if so, is
not the reason of each man the final arbiter of that man? If he takes a
book as a standard, does he so take it because it is to him reasonable?
In what way is the human reason to be ignored? Why should a book take
its place, unless the reason has been convinced that the book is the
proper standard? If this is so, the book rests upon the reason of those
who adopt it. Are they to be saved because they act in accordance with
their reason, and are others to be damned because they act by the same
standard--their reason? No two are alike. Can we demand of all the same
result? Suppose the compasses were not constant to the pole--no two
compasses exactly alike--would you expect all ships to reach the same
harbor?
The Reign of Truth and Love.