CREEDS.

There is a natural desire on the part of every intelligent human

being to harmonize his information--to make his theories agree--in

other words, to make what he knows, or thinks he knows, in one

department, agree and harmonize with what he knows, or thinks he

knows, in every other department of human knowledge.

The human race has not advanced in line, neither has it advanced

in all departments with the same rapidity. It is with the race as

it is with an individual. A man may turn his entire attention to

some one subject--as, for instance, to geology--and neglect other

sciences. He may be a good geologist, but an exceedingly poor

astronomer; or he may know nothing of politics or of political

economy. So he may be a successful statesman and know nothing of

theology. But if a man, successful in one direction, takes up some

other question, he is bound to use the knowledge he has on one

subject as a kind of standard to measure what he is told on some

other subject. If he is a chemist, it will be natural for him,

when studying some other question, to use what he knows in chemistry;

that is to say, he will expect to find cause and effect everywhere

--succession and resemblance. He will say: It must be in all

other sciences as in chemistry--there must be no chance. The

elements have no caprice. Iron is always the same. Gold does not

change. Prussic acid is always poison--it has no freaks. So he

will reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a believer in

the atomic integrity of all matter, in the persistence of gravitation.

Being so trained, and so convinced, his tendency will be to weigh

what is called new information in the same scales that he has been

using.

Now, for the application of this. Progress in religion is the

slowest, because man is kept back by sentimentality, by the efforts

of parents, by old associations. A thousand unseen tendrils are

twining about him that he must necessarily break if he advances.

In other departments of knowledge inducements are held out and

rewards are promised to the one who does succeed--to the one who

really does advance--to the one who discovers new facts. But in

religion, instead of rewards being promised, threats are made.

The man is told that he must not advance; that if he takes a step

forward, it is at the peril of his soul; that if he thinks and

investigates, he is in danger of exciting the wrath of God.

Consequently religion has been of the slowest growth. Now, in most

departments of knowledge, man has advanced; and coming back to the

original statement--a desire to harmonize all that we know--there

is a growing desire on the part of intelligent men to have a religion

fit to keep company with the other sciences.

Our creeds were made in times of ignorance. They suited very well

a flat world, and a God who lived in the sky just above us and who

used the lightning to destroy his enemies. This God was regarded

much as a savage regarded the head of his tribe--as one having the

right to reward and punish. And this God, being much greater than

a chief of the tribe, could give greater rewards and inflict greater

punishments. They knew that the ordinary chief, or the ordinary

king, punished the slightest offence with death. They also knew

that these chiefs and kings tortured their victims as long as the

victims could bear the torture. So when they described their God,

they gave this God power to keep the tortured victim alive forever

--because they knew that the earthly chief, or the earthly king,

would prolong the life of the tortured for the sake of increasing

the agonies of the victim. In those savage days they regarded

punishment as the only means of protecting society. In consequence

of this they built heaven and hell on an earthly plan, and they

put God--that is to say the chief, that is to say the king--on a

throne like an earthly king.

Of course, these views were all ignorant and barbaric; but in that

blessed day their geology and astronomy were on a par with their

theology. There was a harmony in all departments of knowledge, or

rather of ignorance. Since that time there has been a great advance

made in the idea of government--the old idea being that the right

to govern came from God to the king, and from the king to his

people. Now intelligent people believe that the source of authority

has been changed, and that all just powers of government are derived

from the consent of the governed. So there has been a great advance

in the philosophy of punishment--in the treatment of criminals.

So, too, in all the sciences. The earth is no longer flat; heaven

is not immediately above us; the universe has been infinitely

enlarged, and we have at last found that our earth is but a grain

of sand, a speck on the great shore of the infinite. Consequently

there is a discrepancy, a discord, a contradiction between our

theology and the other sciences. Men of intelligence feel this.

Dr. Briggs concluded that a perfectly good and intelligent God

could not have created billions of sentient beings, knowing that

they were to be eternally miserable. No man could do such a thing,

had he the power, without being infinitely malicious. Dr. Briggs

began to have a little hope for the human race--began to think that

maybe God is better than the creed describes him.

And right here it may be well enough to remark that no one has ever

been declared a heretic for thinking God bad. Heresy has consisted

in thinking God better than the church said he was. The man who

said God will damn nearly everybody, was orthodox. The man who

said God will save everybody, was denounced as a blaspheming wretch,

as one who assailed and maligned the character of God. I can

remember when the Universalists were denounced as vehemently and

maliciously as the Atheists are to-day.

Now, Dr. Briggs is undoubtedly an intelligent man. He knows that

nobody on earth knows who wrote the five books of Moses. He knows

that they were not written until hundreds of years after Moses was

dead. He knows that two or more persons were the authors of Isaiah.

He knows that David did not write to exceed three or four of the

Psalms. He knows that the Book of Job is not a Jewish book. He

knows that the Songs of Solomon were not written by Solomon. He

knows that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by a Freethinker.

He also knows that there is not in existence to-day--so far as

anybody knows--any of the manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments.

So about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows that nobody lives who

has ever seen an original manuscript, or who ever saw anybody that

did see one, or that claims to have seen one. He knows that nobody

knows who wrote Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. He knows that

John did not write John, and that that gospel was not written until

long after John was dead. He knows that no one knows who wrote

the Hebrews. He also knows that the Book of Revelation is an insane

production. Dr. Briggs also knows the way in which these books came

to be canonical, and he knows that the way was no more binding than

a resolution passed by a political convention. He also knows that

many books were left out that had for centuries equal authority

with those that were put in. He also knows that many passages--

and the very passages upon which many churches are founded--are

interpolations. He knows that the last chapter of Mark, beginning

with the sixteenth verse to the end, is an interpolation; and he

also knows that neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke ever said one

word about the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, or

of believing anything--not one word about believing the Bible or

joining the church, or doing any particular thing in the way of

ceremony to insure salvation. He knows that according to Matthew,

God agreed to forgive us when we would forgive others. Consequently

he knows that there is not one particle of what is called modern

theology in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He knows that the trouble

commenced in John, and that John was not written until probably

one hundred and fifty years--possibly two hundred years--after

Christ was dead. So he also knows that the sin against the Holy

Ghost is an interpolation; that "I came not to bring peace but a

sword," if not an interpolation, is an absolute contradiction.

So, too, he knows that the promise to forgive in heaven what the

disciples should forgive on earth, is an interpolation; and that

if its not an interpolation, it is without the slightest sense in

fact.

Knowing these things, and knowing, in addition to what I have

stated, that there are thirty thousand or forty thousand mistakes

in the Old Testament, that there are a great many contradictions

and absurdities, than many of the laws are cruel and infamous, and

could have been made only by a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has

concluded that, after all, the torch that sheds the serenest and

divinest light is the human reason, and that we must investigate

the Bible as we do other books. At least, I suppose he has reached

some such conclusion. He may imagine that the pure gold of

inspiration still runs through the quartz and porphyry of ignorance

and mistake, and that all we have to do is to extract the shining

metal by some process that may be called theological smelting; and

if so I have no fault to find. Dr. Briggs has taken a step in

advance--that is to say, the tree is growing, and when the tree

grows, the bark splits; when the new leaves come the old leaves

are rotting on the ground.

The Presbyterian creed is a very bad creed. It has been the

stumbling-block, not only of the head, but of the heart for many

generations. I do not know that it is, in fact, worse than any

other orthodox creed; but the bad features are stated with an

explicitness and emphasized with a candor that render the creed

absolutely appalling. It is amazing to me that any man ever wrote

it, or that any set of men ever produced it. It is more amazing

to me that any human being ever believed in it. It is still more

amazing that any human being ever thought it wicked not to believe

it. It is more amazing still, than all the others combined, that

any human being ever wanted it to be true.

This creed is a relic of the Middle Ages. It has in it the malice,

the malicious logic, the total depravity, the utter heartlessness

of John Calvin, and it gives me great pleasure to say that no

Presbyterian was ever as bad as his creed. And here let me say,

as I have said many times, that I do not hate Presbyterians--because

among them I count some of my best friends--but I hate Presbyterianism.

And I cannot illustrate this any better than by saying, I do not

hate a man because he has the rheumatism, but I hate the rheumatism

because it has a man.

The Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing because, as I

said at first, there is a universal tendency in the mind of man to

harmonize all that he knows or thinks he knows. This growth may

be delayed. The buds of heresy may be kept back by the north wind

of Princeton and by the early frost called Patton. In spite of

these souvenirs of the Dark Ages, the church must continue to grow.

The theologians who regard theology as something higher than a

trade, tend toward Liberalism. Those who regard preaching as a

business, and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade, will stand

by the lowest possible views. They will cling to the letter and

throw away the spirit. They prefer the dead limb to a new bud or

to a new leaf. They want no more sap. They delight in the dead

tree, in its unbending nature, and they mistake the stiffness of

death for the vigor and resistance of life.

Now, as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman, although it seems

to me that he has simply jumped from the frying-pan into the fire;

and why he should prefer the Episcopal creed to the Baptist, is

more than I can imagine. The Episcopal creed is, in fact, just as

bad as the Presbyterian. It calmly and with unruffled brow, utters

the sentence of eternal punishment on the majority of the human

race, and the Episcopalian expects to be happy in heaven, with his

son or daughter or his mother or wife in hell.

Dr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the position of the Rev.

Mr. Newton, provided he expresses his thought. But I account for

the Bridgmans and for the Newtons by the fact that there is still

sympathy in the human heart, and that there is still intelligence

in the human brain. For my part, I am glad to see this growth in

the orthodox churches, and the quicker they revise their creeds

the better.

I oppose nothing that is good in any creed--I attack only that

which is ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I make the attack in the

interest of human liberty, and for the sake of human happiness.

_Question_. What do you think of the action of the Presbyterian

General Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do you think it will

have on religious growth?

_Answer_. That General Assembly was controlled by the orthodox

within the church, by the strict constructionists and by the

Calvinists; by gentlemen who not only believe the creed, not only

believe that a vast majority of people are going to hell, but are

really glad of it; by gentlemen who, when they feel a little blue,

read about total depravity to cheer up, and when they think of the

mercy of God as exhibited in their salvation, and the justice of

God as illustrated by the damnation of others, their hearts burst

into a kind of efflorescence of joy.

These gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amusements except

reading the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and the creed, and

listening to Presbyterian sermons and prayers. All these things

they regard as the food of cheerfulness. They warn the elect

against theatres and operas, dancing and games of chance.

Well, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no theatres,

except exhibitions of hell; there ought to be no operas, except

where the music is a succession of wails for the misfortunes of

man. If their doctrine is true, I do not see how any human being

could ever smile again--I do not see how a mother could welcome

her babe; everything in nature would become hateful; flowers and

sunshine would simply tell us of our fate.

My doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us enjoy ourselves

every moment that we can. The love of the dramatic is universal.

The stage has not simply amused, but it has elevated mankind. The

greatest genius of our world poured the treasures of his soul into

the drama. I do not believe that any girl can be corrupted, or

that any man can be injured, by becoming acquainted with Isabella

or Miranda or Juliet or Imogen, or any of the great heroines of

Shakespeare.

So I regard the opera as one of the great civilizers. No one can

listen to the symphonies of Beethoven, or the music of Schubert,

without receiving a benefit. And no one can hear the operas of

Wagner without feeling that he has been ennobled and refined.

Why is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music in the world,

and yet expect to have so much in heaven? Is not music just as

demoralizing in the sky as on the earth, and does anybody believe

that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, ever played any music comparable

to Wagner?

Why should we postpone our joy to another world? Thousands of

people take great pleasure in dancing, and I say let them dance.

Dancing is better than weeping and wailing over a theology born of

ignorance and superstition.

And so with games of chance. There is a certain pleasure in playing

games, and the pleasure is of the most innocent character. Let

all these games be played at home and children will not prefer the

saloon to the society of their parents. I believe in cards and

billiards, and would believe in progressive euchre, were it more

of a game--the great objection to it is its lack of complexity.

My idea is to get what little happiness you can out of this life,

and to enjoy all sunshine that breaks through the clouds of

misfortune. Life is poor enough at best. No one should fail to

pick up every jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every

one should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy at the

expense of another, and no person rightly constituted can be happy

at the expense of another.

So let us get all we can of good between the cradle and the grave;

all that we can of the truly dramatic; all that we can of music;

all that we can of art; all that we can of enjoyment; and if, when

death comes, that is the end, we have at least made the best of

this life; and if there be another life, let us make the best of

that.

I am doing what little I can to hasten the coming of the day when

the human race will enjoy liberty--not simply of body, but liberty

of mind. And by liberty of mind I mean freedom from superstition,

and added to that, the intelligence to find out the conditions of

happiness; and added to that, the wisdom to live in accordance with

those conditions.

--_The Morning Advertiser_, New York, June 12, 1891.