AS MUCH INSPIRED AS ANY OF IT.

Did it ever occur to you that those absurd tales have as much claim to

be called the "word of God" as any of the rest of it? How can people

say they believe such nonsense? And how can they think it is evidence of

goodness to believe it? They say it takes a horribly wicked man to doubt

one of those yarns; and to come right out and say honestly, "I don't

believe it," will elect you, on the first ballot, to a permanent seat

in the lower house. Mr. Talmage says four out of five Christians "try to

explain away" these tales by giving them another meaning, and he urges

them not to do it. He says, stick to the original story in all its

literal bearings. The advice is certainly honest, but it would take

a brave man to follow it. And four out of five of even professed

Christians is a pretty heavy balance on the side of intellectual

integrity; and even Mr. Tal-mage's mammoth credulity fails to tip the

scale.

They simply can't believe these biblical stones, so they try to explain

the marvellous part entirely away. It has about come to this, in this

day of thought and intelligence, that when a thinking man claims to

believe these tales, and says it is an evidence of righteousness to

believe them, there are just two things to examine, his intellect and

his integrity. If one is all right the other is pretty sure to be out

of repair. Defective intellect or doubtful integrity is what he suffers

from. He has got one of them sure, and he may have both.

Now I should just like to ask you one honest question. Why should any

book bind us to sentiments that we would not tolerate if they came from

any other source? And why tolerate them coming from it? Do you know who

compiled the Bible? Do you know it was settled by vote which manuscripts

God did and which he did not write? The ballot is a very good thing to

have; but I decline to have it extend its power into eternity, and bind

my brain by the capacity of a ballot-box held by caste and saturated

with blood.

There can be but slow progress while we are weighted down by the

superstitions of ages past. The brain of the nineteenth century should

not be bound down to the capacity of the third, nor its moral sentiment

dwarfed to fit Jehovah.

But so long as the theories of revelation and vicarious atonement are

taught, we shall not need to be surprised that every murderer who is

hanged to-day says that he is going, with bloody hands, directly into

companionship with the deity of revelation. He has had ample time in

prison to re-read in the Bible (what he had previously been taught

in Sunday school), of many worse crimes than his which his spiritual

adviser assures him (to the edification and encouragement of all his

kind outside) were not only forgiven, but were actually ordered and

participated in, by the God he is going to.

That is what orthodoxy tells him! Just think of it! Do you think that is

a safe doctrine to teach to the criminal classes? Aside from its being

dishonest, is it safe? Does it not put a premium on crime? I maintain

that it is always a dangerous religion where faith in a given dogma, and

not continuous uprightness of life, is the standard of excellence. It is

a cruel religion where force is king and immorality God. It is an unjust

religion which seeks to make women serfs and men tyrants. It is an

unreasonable religion where credulity usurps the place of intellect and

judgment. It is an immoral religion where vice is deified and virtue

strangled. It is a cowardly religion where an innocent man, who was

murdered 1,800 years ago, is asked to bear the burden of your wrong acts

to-day. Aside from its impossibility that is cowardly.

Man should be taught that for every wrong he does, he must himself be

responsible--not that some one else stands between him and absolute

personal responsibility--not that Eve caused him to sin, nor that Christ

stands between him and full accountability for his every act.

And he should be taught that for every noble deed, for every act of

justice or mercy, he deserves the credit himself; that Christ does not

need it; that Christ cannot want it; and that Christ does not deserve

it.

And you will not want to "wash your hands in the blood of Christ," nor

to shed that of any other innocent man, if your motives are pure and

your lives clean.

*****

Men, Women, and Gods; and Other Lectures · 第 33 / 79 题