SHALL WE ABANDON OUR RELIGION?

There is no counterfeit without a genuine. Even a myth is related to

something, near or remote, to which it bears some resemblance. There is

nothing of great value that is not counterfeited. There is nothing that

is not abused. Civil government has been wonderfully abused; in this

respect it has fared no better than religion. There are many forms of

civil government. There are many forms of religion. Let us ever seek the

best form in each.

We are often pointed to the blood that has been shed in religious wars;

but do unbelievers value civil government less because of the blood

which they have cost? No. That blood speaks better things. May we not

estimate civil government and religion both by the blood they have cost?

Unbelievers are very industrious in keeping before us the disagreements

among Protestants. They say, Look! they can't agree among themselves.

Well, is there any better agreement among politicians, or in civil

governments? Is there any agreement among unbelievers which would serve

as a model for us poor souls to imitate? I confess that the way is open

for improvement among Protestants in this respect, but is it not just as

open for a similar improvement among unbelievers in the scientific field

of thought? There we find Atheists, Pantheists, Deists, Polytheists and

Theists. In their history will be found an immense mass of contradictory

opinions.

Man is imperfect in many of his attainments. A few men are more perfect

than others, but all are liable to mistakes. Errors are found in all the

histories of humanity; shall we therefore discard science and civil

government? or shall we turn misanthropists? No; we will do neither. We

are in a progressive age. We were capacitated for progression. We would

not be men without this capacity. Let us ever remember that man is,

after all his mistakes, the noblest creature of God, having God-like

attributes. Do you doubt this? Then tell us why it is that a falsehood

is always detestible to the mind. Why do men strenuously avoid

contradictory propositions? The God-like in man is the great secret of

his progression. He is a progressive being. Shall we on this account

condemn all that in which man has and does progress? Shall we condemn

Christianity on account of man's failures? Shall we discourage his

honest efforts by keeping those failures always before him? Have men

made no mistakes in science? Shall we repudiate on account of mistakes?

Then there will be no end to repudiations. Let us remember and talk of

the many mistakes that have been made in both science and religion, like

the man "who visits the shadows in the deep ravines, in order that he

may more fully realize the fact that the sun shines;" that is to say,

let us talk of old, effete dogmas in science and in religion only to

more fully realize the fact that the sunlight of truth is shining. Yes!

Man has progressed. "Science and religion both stand true to their God."

Man alone deviates. How often do we hear men say, "Science is

progressive?" Scientific truth is always the same. Man is not always the

same. Shall we keep his many deviations from truth and principle before

him in order to cause greater deviations? Who will "deliver" the

unbelievers of our country "from this dead body?" It contains all the

errors of the ages. Their name is "legion." Among them we behold laws in

the early history of our own country that to-day would shock the common

sense of our country. Examine the old "Blue Laws of Connecticut." Among

the errors of the past we find the "rack," the "thumb-screw," the

"inquisition"--I was going to add the cross, but I recollect that

unbelievers do not put that in their list. They do not sympathize with

Christ, so they leave the cross out; in fact they do not like to talk

about it. "It is their stumbling stone; the rock of their offense." I am

tempted to say more about the errors of scientists in the bygone, but I

must forbear; for in so doing I would ape the unbelievers. I have no

great love for apes. So far as old, effete, erroneous opinions and

faiths are concerned, with the old instruments of torture belonging to

the shadows of the dark ages, we should say, disturb not the dead.

A man making his appearance among us as a lecturer, condemning all the

sciences, presenting to the public mind the hundred and one old false

ideas known in the history of scientific investigation, would be hissed

out of literary circles.

An orator coming before the American people as a speaker, loaded with

all the imperfections of our government, with its errors in legislation,

its wicked and corrupt men accepting bribes, its mistakes on the fields

of battle, resulting in great loss of life, as an open enemy to our

country, breathing out treason, would subject himself to the anathemas

of our government. The course pursued by unbelievers against the

religion of Jesus Christ is without a parallel in the fields of science,

civil governments and morals, yet the way is equally open in all those

directions for a similar effort.

What is the value of the religion of Christ? What is the estimate placed

upon it by the best minds of America? Andrew Jackson said, in his last

hours, "That book, sir," pointing to the Bible, "is the rock on which

our republic rests."

Benjamin Franklin said, "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you

particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as

he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to

see."

The Christian Foundation, Or, Scientific and Religious Journal, Volume 1, January, 1880 · 第 7 / 12 题