Note the omission of the antecedent in the first sentence, also the use
of the relative _what_ in the last sentence of the first paragraph:
"Whoso would be a man, must be nonconformist. He who would gather
immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must
explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity
of our own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the
suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which, when quite young, I
was prompted to make to a valued adviser who was wont to importune me
with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, "What have I
to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from
within?" my friend suggested--"But these impulses may be from below,
not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if
I am the devil's child, I will live then from the devil." No law can
be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very
readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after
my constitution; the only wrong what is against it.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a
great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself
with his shadow on the wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up
with pack threads, do. Else, if you would be a man, speak what you
think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what
tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though you contradict everything
you said today. Ah, then, exclaim the aged ladies, you shall be sure
to be misunderstood. Misunderstood! It is a right fool's word. Is it
so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and
Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and
Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be
great is to be misunderstood."--_Emerson_.