There is a great deal of exaggerated rhetoric employed in praising what
is called "Christian Morality." I have examined with considerable care
everything that may justly come within the meaning of this expression,
and I am bound to say, out of respect for the truth, that such morality
does not deserve praise and can not be praised by the honest lips of an
honest person.
I am perfectly aware that I have made a statement which challenges the
sincerity of the Christian pulpit, but every one knows that there is
not a minister in Christendom whose practise agrees with his preaching.
While it is common to hear a clergyman in pious ecstasy exhaust the
vocabulary of laudation in his praises of the beautiful morals of the
"Sermon on the Mount," it is exceedingly rare to see one of these
parsons sacrifice his commonsense to the nonsense of Jesus.
We are learning that the theological morality of the Christian faith is
not the right kind of morality to make manhood and womanhood. The great
weakness of Christian morality is this: It depends upon the Christian
idea of Jesus, and when the world has outgrown the superstition about
this person, all of his moral precepts will lose their value and their
splendor.
Men and women of any intellectual penetration know that the New
Testament story is founded upon unreliable tradition; that its heart is
a myth.
Where men live independent of the foolish faith of the Gospels, there
is a character of self-reliance which towers like a mountain-peak
above the dead level of Christian endeavor. The person who accepts the
Christian theology is no more in sympathy with the best thought of the
age than is the man who wanders about the streets, begging his food and
sleeping wherever he can, in harmony with the highest comforts of our
civilization.
There is a nobler purpose in a train of cars carrying grain and produce
across the continent than in a conference of clergymen trying to keep
alive a theology which teaches that God was born of a Jewish maiden
who lived and died in Palestine, and devising ways to make the people
believe the ridiculous superstition.
Truth is born where men are allowed to think and speak their thoughts.
Error can not be maintained where man is permitted to ask questions.
The only way to preserve Christianity is to put it in a tin can and
have it hermetically sealed.
We are getting a new examination of the universe as a basis for our
philosophy. The telescope has afforded man visions far beyond the
seventh heaven of the Apocalypse. The genesis of things is found to lie
millions of years back of the Genesis of the Bible. The chaos out of
which this world was made has been discovered to be a previous state of
existence.
Science is laying the new foundation for our faith, and knowledge is
building the new temple of the mind.
Men and women everywhere are stating their opinions, and the world
recognizes that there is to be a religious controversy upon this earth
which will shake to its base everything that is not true. Not one
stone of falsehood will be left standing upon another. Every dogma of
superstition must find a grave, and truth alone be reverenced by man.
* * * * *
The world has taken a step forward of Christianity, and in its march of
advancement has left behind the Christian God, the Christian Savior,
the Christian Bible, and the Christian Faith. But the world will not
stop here. It must go further. The question which the human mind wants
answered today is this: Is the decay of Christian theology to be
followed by the decay of Christian morality?
I think that it is, and I also think that this morality is about as
near dead now as it can be.
It is true that the author of this morality is painted in divine colors
for human adoration Sunday after Sunday, and that his other-world
ethics are inculcated by the pulpit; but beyond these attempts to
give the peculiar moral teachings of Jesus the show of life, there is
absolutely no sign of them in the world of man.
The morality of the Christian system is not designed for humanity in
its present condition, nor does it possess the elements necessary
to make man into the image of any higher virtue. It is, in fact, an
unreal, unnatural morality which Jesus taught, and the notion that men
and women do not practise it because it is too far above them, depends
upon an estimate of this morality which we are not willing to allow.
I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. I want to say that
the general moral duties of man, as they have been taught for ages by
teachers of every race and of every religion, are not Christian, and
that Christian ethics are found in the code of moral duties taught by
Jesus _which are different from the recognized standard of morality
adopted by mankind generally_. Christian morals are Christian _only
wherein they differ from all other morals_.
It is because they are peculiar to Christianity that they are
Christian.
Because I do not believe in Christianity--in the Christian theology and
in Christian morals--I do not wish it said that I do not believe in
morality, for I do. I believe that man can be good and true and that he
can do right, and I believe that he ought to do right.
I do not say that every one can reach the same moral altitude. I do
not even say that every individual can be good and true. Some persons
do not seem to be morally adjusted. I think, however, that we do not
trespass beyond the domain of truth when we predicate the power of man
to be moral.
The notion that man can not be good has been the apology of half the
criminals of the world. It is the creed of all crime. If we affirm the
idea of human depravity, we may as well erase our statutes, for, if man
can not be good, it is the height of folly to expect him to be so.
The healthy faith of man is faith _in_ man.
The theology which has been preached for the past few centuries is
not calculated to make men moral. Those ministers who have shouted
themselves hoarse for the salvation of the soul, and who have made no
account of man's behavior in their scheme to save the race, are the
ones who have rubbed humanity in the dirt and undermined the moral
foundations of the world.
* * * * *
Every ethical principle that supports our social structure is
independent of ecclesiastical relations, and it is not essential that
we recognize any theology in order to comprehend the necessity of moral
obedience.
There is no sympathy between right, truth and justice, and the
"Apostles' Creed." We may go so far as to say that the attempt to
establish a perpetual union between Christianity and morality would
result in an absolute divorce of these two forces.
I wish to make it plain beyond a question that the Christian faith, in
itself, is entirely distinct from all moral effort on the part of man.
To believe that Jesus was the Christ does not carry any obligation to
do right; does not make it incumbent upon the believer to do a single
moral action.
It is sufficient to establish our predication that not a single church
in Christendom makes moral character the condition of membership, or
good behavior the way to Heaven.
There is a code of Christian morals which has been taught, but never
practised. The special duties which Jesus enjoined upon his followers
have never been reduced to conduct. It is not too much to say that
the moral precepts of Jesus, if carried into action, would cause
social revolutions beyond precedent, and produce a state of existence
compared with which anarchy would be government, and confusion would be
order.
But, before we undertake to examine the Christian morals, let us shed
a few tears of rejoicing upon the grave of Orthodox theology. We do
not ask to have a coroner's jury decide what caused the death of this
theology. We bless the cause, whatever it was. We only wish to feel
assured that it is really, truly dead, and the fact that "not a single
treatise written by a New England Puritan is a living and authoritative
book" seems to prove it beyond a question. The persons who still preach
this theology and profess to believe it are only "sitting up with the
corpse."
While it is asserted that a wrong interpretation of this theology sent
it out of the world, it is pretty evident that a right understanding of
it inspires no wish to have it back. Much of the superstition in morals
sprang from fear of God, which the Christian church has inculcated as
the highest incentive to right doing.
The truth, broadly and frankly stated, is this: God is no longer the
inspiration of morality. Fear of God does not check the actions of man
today, nor is the attempt to make human and divine interests identical
sufficient to insure obedience to moral laws. The ancient basis of
morals is gone, and another and better one must be found to inspire a
freer life, a fuller life, a better life, and a higher.
We who have rejected the Christian theology are looked upon as orphans.
But, if I understand the position of freethinkers, the question of a
supreme power is neither affirmed nor denied by those who wish to have
no further business with the God of Orthodoxy.
We read that, "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God," but
we prefer to say nothing about the matter. Theologies may come, and
theologies may go, but humanity goes on forever, and so we do not deem
it as important to worship the fleeting shadows of the universe which
are cast upon the minds of men as it is to hold fast to those realities
which make human existence a blessing and "a joy forever."
We are called "infidels" and denounced as "unbelievers" because we
will not march in the ranks of hypocrisy, and dance to the music of
Orthodoxy. We believe no statement which our reason can not approve; we
accept no doctrine which is contrary to commonsense; we have confidence
in human nature; we believe in truth, justice and love; we accept life
as a blessing, and try to make it so; we believe in taking care of
ourselves, in helping others and in being just and kind to all, and we
say to the Christian Church, "If this be Infidelity, make the most of
it."
* * * * *
It is suggested by some that if man's exact relation to the Deity
were understood, the whole question of morals would be settled at
once. But would it not be truer to say that if man's exact relation to
his fellowmen were understood and respected, the highest individual
welfare, no less than the general good, would dictate the morality
which the world needs? And is not this the grand task for the human
race, to rightly interpret the effect of human action upon the
individual and the community, and to deduce from human experience the
rules for human conduct?
I do not know that I owe to God any duty. I do know that I owe a duty
to my neighbor. I plead total indifference to the demands of divine
ethics, but I trust that I am not completely callous to the wants of
my fellow-beings. I owe it to myself to be moral. I owe it to my race,
to every man and woman that I meet in life, to be as honest, as true,
as upright, as my nature will permit. I can comprehend and appreciate
obligations to humanity, but moral indebtedness to the Deity I know
nothing about.
The Christian morals are founded upon the assumption that the work of
man here is to do something that he may escape punishment hereafter,
and hence the morality of the Christian Church has had little
reference to the concerns of the present life.
Christian morality is based upon the Christian faith that the human
race is under the curse of God, and that, to evade the penalty
pronounced upon him, man must perform certain duties--these duties
being taught as paramount to all we owe to self, to family, to society,
and to the world.
But an almost universal disbelief of the Christian dogmas prevails
today, and, consequently, a new morality, with man's welfare for
its supreme object, is fast supplanting the outworn and valueless
performances of Christian duties.
The moral teaching of the New Testament may be the highest and purest
of its kind of teaching, but it is not the kind which is needed today.
It is a false morality, yea, a dead morality for the most part, which
the Christian Church demands of men. The general conviction is that
no salvation is needed by man, and that all the virtues advertised as
requisite for such safety as the Church is prepared to secure, are
spurious virtues.
Those actions which advance man along the way of general prosperity,
which make it easier to live and get a living on the earth, which have
their value determined by their respect for human beings, are what the
world needs.
The generally acknowledged author of Christian morals offers no
salient points for criticism, as he can not be regarded as a historical
person whose career has been carefully followed and marked by the
biographer. He is a mythological man, with a little less of the
fabulous and a little more of the real than attaches to the gods and
goddesses of ancient Greece and Rome.
The name of Jesus adorns an anatomy of words. It pictures a person,
not of flesh and blood, but of faith and fancy. Jesus is a man of the
imagination; but mythical as he is, certain men and women believe
in him in their own way, and are not over-tolerant of those who are
disposed to ask for the proofs of his life and works.
This person has left no more marks of his living upon the earth than
have the birds the marks of their flight through the air. The New
Testament is no more history than is Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_.
We can not make any positive assertions in regard to the life and
character of a man when we do not know who was his father, where or
when he was born, with whom he lived, nor when he died. The only
historical fact connected with Jesus which is not disputed is that Mary
was his mother. This is a very important point in his history, but it
is not sufficient to constitute a biography.
Notwithstanding the fact that the entire narrative of Jesus is without
a single chronological date, and the vastly more significant fact that
not a single incident connected with the career of Jesus is mentioned
in contemporaneous history, we must perforce speak of him as a person
whose life was watched and noted from his miraculous advent to his
miraculous ascension, and look upon his disciples as so many Boswells
ready to mirror to the world his every speech and act.
We must do this--Why? Because the world will not candidly and
critically study the gospel-story.
For the present, then, we will speak of Jesus as a man, and accept him
as the author of the moral code in the New Testament. But a word or
two about the man. The Christian world sets him apart as the model of
the race, as the masterpiece of Nature, as the utmost which earth can
produce. Every man must here fetch his word of praise, and every word
be a mountain to meet the demand of the Christian Church for reverence
of Jesus.
* * * * *
I do not believe in the infallibility of any man, but I believe in
the improvability of all men. Is man no longer heir to the virtues of
life, that he must erect monuments of praise forever over the name of
Jesus? I shall take the liberty to express my dissent from the common
expressions of admiration for this man. I can not praise everything
which he did, nor can I think that every word he uttered is a star of
wisdom. He said some good things, but much of what he said is good
for nothing. His theology will do for Sunday Schools, but it will not
stand half a dozen questions by commonsense. His Hell is barbarous,
his Heaven childish, and his ideas of humanity show but a superficial
knowledge of human nature. His life can not be imitated with advantage
to the race, and his notions of human existence are wholly inadequate
to the complex, varied civilization of this age.
Let us see what he did. He paid no filial respect to his parents; he
refused to acknowledge his mother and his brothers; he lived a roving,
wandering life; he paid no heed to the laws of his country; he placed
no value upon industry, and even went so far as to tell men and women
that God would feed and clothe them; he helped himself to the property
and possessions of other people without paying for them, and destroyed
what belonged to others without offering an equivalent; he had no
property, no home, not a place to lay his head; he hated the rulers,
yet sought to establish a kingdom for himself; he failed to reach the
throne he sought, and died upon the malefactor's cross.
Is this the man for the Twentieth Century to honor? Is this the man for
men to follow in this age? Is this the man whose life all should strive
to imitate?
The man who took the life of Jesus for a model would hate father and
mother, brother and sister; he would have neither wife nor child; he
would live from place to place; he would be a lawbreaker and an idler;
he would live the life of a wanderer and die the death of a criminal.
Have I put a false color in this picture which I have painted? Have I
misrepresented the life of Jesus? Read the four Gospels and see. I find
this character sketched in the New Testament, and it is there called
Jesus, and it is this character which we are adjured to imitate if we
would be perfect.
To the man or woman who declares that the life of Jesus is the way to
salvation, I have only this to say, "Why then do you not imitate it?"
Now, I wish to ask, "What kind of morals would such a man as we have
sketched naturally teach?"
You will answer, "The morals he lived." At least, we find such morals
taught in the New Testament.
My point here is: If the life of Jesus was an honest, faithful exponent
of his moral teachings, then such a morality as he practised is not
wanted today--and that such a morality is not wanted is shown by the
fact that no one practises it.
I know that it is considered respectable and pious to profess great
admiration for the doctrines taught by Jesus, and the world has paid
them the outward compliment of profession, saying that the moral
code of the New Testament was the despair of man; but it has never
seriously set to work to reduce this code to practise, which proves
that such profession is only a part of the universal accomplishment of
fashionable hypocrisy.
* * * * *
Do not understand me as saying that there is no moral precept contained
in the Gospels which is worthy of being practised. I make no such
declaration, and wish no such construction put upon my words. What I
desire to enforce is this: That the morality of Jesus sprang from a
philosophy which has passed away, and therefore, that it is, for the
greater part, obsolete and worthless. That Jesus shared the general
belief of his age that the world was soon to be destroyed, is shown by
his estimate of earthly things; and that a morality founded upon such a
belief should survive and outlast the faith which inspired it reveals
a condition of things that is not flattering to our intellectual
perception or to our moral sense.
The morals of the New Testament are founded upon a theory of the
universe which is found now only in creeds--those epitaphs of religion.
The most superficial observation is sufficient to enable us to perceive
that theology can no longer be the basis of morality, and that the
authority of the New Testament can not be accepted on this question.
There is nothing more firmly impressed upon the mind of man than the
fact of the stability of the universe, notwithstanding an occasional
earthquake; and the value of earthly things has a higher moral
significance consequent upon the assurance of material existence.
Morality must have a physical basis; that is, the moral code which man
can practise to his safety and his honor must not contradict human
nature. The defeat of the New Testament morals is assured by their
antagonism to the nature of man. The morals of Jesus were designed
to fit man for what he called the "Kingdom of Heaven," but the only
morality which is worth the name is that which fits man for living his
life on earth.
Jesus constantly urged men to the performance of moral duties that they
might be rewarded by their "Father in Heaven." Such a motive for good
behavior is offensive to the rational mind, and moral commandments
which are enforced with a Heaven and a Hell do not spring from an
opinion of human nature which deserves our respect.
The most comprehensive criticism which one can make upon the morals of
the New Testament is, that they are not practicable. Is the character
of Christians fashioned by the power and influence of the words
which Jesus left in the world? This question should be pressed to an
answer, and honesty would answer it in a way which would shake every
church-building in the land and tear the mask from the face of every
Christian worshiper on the globe.
Jesus taught that men and women were to love him more than father or
mother, son or daughter. Imagine human beings loving a man whom they
know nothing about, and consequently can care nothing about, and who
has no more claim to their affections than has the ghost in Hamlet,
better than they love parent or child! Such morality as this is not fit
for a Hottentot.
If any command is implanted in our nature and is a part of the bone
and fiber of our very being, it is to love beyond all else those who
have borne us and cared for us through infancy and childhood, and
those whose existence depends upon us, and to whom we stand pledged
by the holiest ties of our beings, to watch over and protect, to care
for and love, to the last days of our lives. It is love of parent and
child which is alike the supreme obligation and the supreme benefaction
of our humanity. No being has walked this earth who had the moral
right to demand a greater love than is due to father and mother, son
and daughter; and if Jesus claimed such affection, his claim is an
impertinence which we are bound to treat with indignation and scorn.
* * * * *
For the Christian Church to make of the words of Jesus commands to the
world is to deserve the severest condemnation. Jesus taught that men
were not to make for themselves a home, not to cultivate those virtues
which blossom into the family, and not to save the fruits of their toil
to make old age with its tottering form and feeble limbs less liable to
the hardships of the world, but he summed up all the duties of life in
these words: "Sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and come follow
me."
To obey such teaching as this would overturn every monument of
prosperity upon the earth, blight every feeling of happiness that
gladdens the heart of man, and convert the busy, working, loving world
into one vast army of tramps, following a king without a kingdom, a
leader without a purpose, a commander with nothing to give those who
followed his command.
Jesus taught that we were not to resist evil; that is, that if a thief
stole our watch and chain, we were bound to run after him and give him
our purse also; that if a man took away our coat, we should wrong him
if we did not send him the balance of the suit; that if a man struck
us on one side of the face, we were to invite him to strike us on
the other side also; that if, as it were, the armies of some foreign
powers were to invade our land, and burn and destroy our cities and
towns, pillage our homes and murder our families, we were in duty bound
to look upon them as benefactors and thank them for their work of
destruction, and ask them to come and do it again.
Such moral teaching as this would make a nation of cowards and slaves.
It is our duty to punish thieves and robbers, not to reward them; to
resist wrong and injustice, not to submit to them like cravens; to
protect our country from foes, even though we are obliged to shed their
blood and our own in so doing.
Is there a Christian on the globe who pays the least heed to a single
one of the moral commands of Jesus? You all know there is not.
I need not tell the Christian Church that the morality taught by Jesus
is decaying when every church is its coffin, and every minister its
grave-digger.
If you wish to see how much respect for the moral teachings of Jesus
one of his professed followers has, just steal his coat, and if he
gives you his cloak also, as he is commanded to do by his Lord and
Master, please publish his name in the daily papers--for the benefit of
others who wish to get a cloak.
We find among the express commands of Jesus this advice: "Lay not up
for yourselves treasures upon earth." The most liberal translation of
this counsel can not make it anything but poor advice. Every material
blessing of mankind has come from the savings of human labor, and the
value of laying up treasures upon earth is more evident than that of
laying up treasures in Heaven, whatever this saying may mean. When
every Christian tries as hard to be poor as he tries now to get rich,
we shall think that he has some regard for the moral teachings of Jesus.
* * * * *
It must be apparent to all that what may be claimed as Christian
morality is not only decaying, but that it ought to decay. There is
no sense in it. Imagine a man telling people in the Twentieth Century
to "take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall
drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on," and endeavoring
to prove that because the fowls of the air do not have to broil a
beefsteak for their breakfast or make biscuit for tea, human beings
will be fed whether they provide anything for their appetites or not.
Jesus tells us that our Heavenly Father will feed us because we are
better than the fowls of the air, and that he will clothe us because he
clothes the grass of the field. Our earthly fathers seem to have done
more in the way of providing food and clothing for us before we were
able to take care of ourselves than any Heavenly Father. Others may put
their trust in God for something to eat and drink and wear, if they
wish to, but I prefer to give the matter a little thought myself.
Jesus concludes these admonitions by saying, "Take no thought for the
morrow." This is bad counsel, and it shows the good sense of mankind
that it has never been followed. The whole world lives in what one of
our poets called, "The bright tomorrow of the mind."
We will refer to only one more of the peculiar moral injunctions of
Jesus. In the fifth chapter of Matthew, in the forty-fourth verse,
we read, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and
persecute you."
If we were to do as herein commanded, we should have an inverted
morality which would place the crown of virtue upon the forehead of
vice.
Let us see if the preacher of this doctrine practised it.
Did Jesus bless the Scribes and Pharisees when they refused to
acknowledge his claim to be the Messiah? This is the blessing which he
pronounced upon them: "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
for ye devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers;
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." "Ye serpents, ye
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell?" That is
not a very sweet blessing!
And these men did not curse Jesus. They only did not agree with his
opinions. Jesus, also, in his wrath against his enemies, calls them,
in the seventeenth and nineteenth verses of the twenty-third chapter
of Matthew, "Ye fools and blind," forgetting, doubtless, that he had
previously declared, when preaching on the Mount, "Whosoever shall say,
'Thou Fool,' shall be in danger of hell-fire."
The moral teachings of Jesus were inspired by a false estimate of all
earthly things. There is no doubt that Jesus believed the world was
coming to an end in his generation. How to get into the Kingdom of
Heaven was of more consequence than how to reform mankind, or improve
the world, since the end of earthly things was near at hand. This
appears to have been the thought of Jesus, and explains much of his
language.
But today we do not believe that the earth has run its course, and
that the end of all material things is near at hand. We are living
without fear of failure on the part of the universe, and are giving our
attention more to human wants than to divine commands.
_Not fear of offending God, but fear of wronging man, is the highest
basis of morals._ We have reached a time when apologies are not
respected, when repentance is looked upon as the mask of villainy,
when the stature of life is most shorn of manliness by prancing in
the garb of humility, when a brave facing of life's trials and demands
counts for more than cowardly surrender in the name of God. In fact,
we have come to say to the world of humanity, "Be moral, and you need
not be religious." Work for man is coming to be a sufficient excuse for
neglect of God.
* * * * *
But we want no cheap moral duties held up for man to perform. It is
serious business to live this life of ours and live it well, and it
is hard work to do it. Morality sets us as high a task as we are able
to perform, and a higher task than has yet been performed by most of
mankind. The effort of this age is to expose the sham of what is called
holiness, and make sacred the surroundings of human beings. We must
throw off the past, and stand upon that sunlit height where we can feel
that "somehow life is bigger after all than any painted angel, could we
see the man that is within us."
This is the moral duty of the world: to respect the man that is within
us. We ought to rear on the earth a range of moral Alps that would
stand and command the admiration of the world as long as eye could see
and heart could feel. We need a rational hope and a burning purpose in
this century, something noble to live for and the courage of nobility
to work and win it.
The improvement of the world is the only object of life worthy of man.
Do and say nothing that will not improve mankind. Were this simple
admonition heeded, we should have the key to the kingdom of the only
heaven that man needs in our own pocket.
It is time for the reign of commonsense to begin on earth; time for
men to elevate morality above religion; and time for us to say,
"Millions for the world, not a cent for the Church." The battle between
Freedom and Christianity has begun, and I believe that when it ends
Christianity will be buried beneath the ruins of its own dogmas, there
to remain forever. It possesses no spirit that can rise again from its
ashes and mount on wings of flame to a higher life. When superstition
dies, it dies to the root.
The Christian minister can not arrest the march of liberty by crying,
"Infidelity!" and threatening with everlasting cremation all those who
refuse to heed his words.
But let there be no base understanding of freedom. The new John the
Baptist must not be a cowboy, saying, "The kingdom of highwaymen is at
hand." As a person when in perfect bodily health knows not from any
intimation from the respective parts that he has a stomach, a brain,
or a heart, so a person when living in perfect freedom is unconscious
of law, of creed, of custom. The healthy man physically is the free
man physically; the healthy man mentally is the free man mentally; the
healthy man morally is the free man morally; liberty of the individual
is health of the individual, and a free man means a man who is true and
obedient to all natural laws.
* * * * *
There is a misunderstanding of freedom upon the one side, and a
misrepresentation of it upon the other, that make it hazardous for one
to employ the word. To connect this word with morality in the eyes of
many is to confound the Madonna with Mary Magdalene. It is to start the
ghost of Don Juan.
The conservatism of society has ever regarded liberty as the black flag
of the moral marauder, the emblem of a piratical intention upon the
casket of the world that contains the jewels of honor, justice, virtue
and social order.
So persistently and malignantly has freedom been represented as a
wrecker's light, kindled only to lure to destruction, that to represent
it as worthy to be trusted is to arouse the spirit which pursued
Voltaire to his grave with a lie, erected a shaft of calumny over the
tomb of Paine, and which now, with the coward's weapon of slander,
attacks the living who refuse to acknowledge that the voice of the
Church is the voice of God.
But nevertheless we believe with Burns that:
Upo' this tree there grows sic fruit,
Its virtues a' can tell, man;
It raises man aboon the brute,
It maks him ken himsel', man;
Gif ance the peasant taste a bite,
He's greater than a lord, man,
And ni' the beggar shares a mite
Of a' he can afford, man.
And so we exclaim in the words of one of our own true poets:
Always in thine eyes, O Liberty!
Shines that high light whereby the world is saved,
And though thou slay us, we will trust in thee.
You have all heard of the man who refused to open his eyes for a year,
and who declared that during that time nothing could be seen on account
of the darkness. But the endeavor to perpetuate old errors by keeping
the eyes closed to the facts of science, the truths of philosophy, and
the progress of the human race, has not been crowned with success.
The further attempt to convert the world to what James Parton calls a
"kitchen religion" is merely waste of power.
The preaching of Christianity is making "much ado about nothing." What
we want is manhood and womanhood.
It is said by the Church that the man who lives for his family and
brings all that he can win of what is fair and bright and glad to those
he loves, may be a good man, but he is not a Christian, and therefore
has no religion.
Give me then the man who is not a Christian, and who has no religion,
for if the man who loves his wife and children, who gives to them the
strength of his arm, the thought of his brain, the warmth of his heart,
has not religion, the world is better off without it, for these are the
highest and holiest things which man can do.
[Illustration]
There is only one thing worth praying for: to be in the line of
evolution.--_Elbert Hubbard._
Jesus as Savior of the world is a theological creation, and not a
historical character.
SO HERE THEN ENDETH THAT GREAT AND GOOD BOOK "I DON'T KNOW--DO
YOU?" WRITTEN BY MARILLA M. RICKER, AND PRINTED AND BOUND FOR HER
BY THE ROYCROFTERS AT THEIR SHOP, WHICH IS IN EAST AURORA, ERIE
COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, MCMXVI.