Part 8 (1/2)
”Well, but I tell it as you have it written in your creed.” ”Oh, well,” he says, ”we don't mind that any more.” ”Well, why don't you change it?” ”Oh, well,” he says, ”we understand it.” Possibly the creed is in the best possible condition for them now. There is a tacit understanding that they don't believe it. There is a tacit understanding that they have got some way to get around it, that they read between the lines; and if they should meet now to form a creed, they might fail to agree; and the creed is now so that they can say as they please, except in public. Whenever they do so in public, the church, in self-defense, must try them; and I believe in trying every minister that doesn't preach the doctrine as he agrees to. I have not the slightest sympathy with a Presbyterian preacher who endeavors to preach infidelity from his pulpit and receive Presbyterian money. When he changes his views, he should step down and out like a man, and say: ”I don't believe your doctrine, and I will not preach it. You must hire some bigger fool than I am.”
But I find that I get the creed very nearly right. Today there was put into my hands the new Congregational creed. I have just read it, and I thought I would call your attention to it tonight, to find whether the church has made any advance; to find whether it has been affected by the light of science; to find whether the sun of knowledge has risen in the heavens in vain; whether they are still the children of intellectual darkness; whether they still consider it necessary for you to believe something that you by no possibility, can understand, in order to be a winged angel forever. Now, let us see what their creed is. I will read a little of it. They commence by saying that they ”believe in one G.o.d, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven, and of earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” I am perfectly willing that He should make the invisible, if they want Him to. They say, now, that there is this one personal G.o.d; that He is the maker of the universe, and its ruler. I again ask the old question: of what did He make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this G.o.d made it. Of what did He make it? What did He use for the purpose?
There was nothing in the universe except this G.o.d. What had the G.o.d been doing for the eternity He had been living? He had made nothing--called nothing into existence; never had had an idea, because it is impossible to have an idea unless there is something to excite an idea. What had He been doing? Why doesn't the Congregational Church tell us? How do they know about this infinite being? And if He is infinite, how can they comprehend Him? What good is it to believe something that you don't understand--that you never can understand? In the old creeds they described this G.o.d as a being without body and parts or pa.s.sions. Think of that! Something without body and parts or pa.s.sions. I defy any man in the world to write a letter descriptive of nothing. You can not conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than a something without body and parts or pa.s.sions. And yet this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, is angry at the wicked every day; this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, is a jealous G.o.d, whose anger burneth to the lowest h.e.l.l.
This G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, loves the whole human race, and this G.o.d, without pa.s.sions, d.a.m.ns a large majority of the same. So, too, He is the ruler of the world, and I find here that we find His providence in the government of the nations. What nations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and not frightened, in the history of nations, that this universe is presided over by an infinitely wise and good G.o.d? How do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do you account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the master's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you account for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers--arms that had been reached toward G.o.d in supplication?
How do you account for it? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account for the fact that this G.o.d allows people to be burned simply for loving Him? How do you account for the fact that justice doesn't always triumph? How do you account for the fact that innocence is not a perfect s.h.i.+eld? How do you account for the fact that the world has been filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the fact that people have been swallowed by volcanoes, swept from the earth by storms, dying by famine, if there is above us a ruler who is infinitely good and infinitely powerful?
I don't say there is none. I don't know. As I have said before, this is the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts of the universe. I know not about these things as much as the clergy.
And if they know no more about the other world than they do about this, it is not worth mentioning. How do they answer all this? They say that G.o.d ”permits it.” What would you say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a child, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say truthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. That is what you would say. Is it possible for this G.o.d to prevent it? Then, if He doesn't, He is a fiend; He is not good. But they say He ”permits it.” What for? So we may have freedom of choice.
What for? So that G.o.d may find, I suppose, who are good and who are bad. Didn't He know that when He made us? Did He not know exactly just what He was making? Why should He make those whom He knew would be criminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and commit murder, you would hang me. Why not? And if G.o.d made a man whom He knew would commit murder, then G.o.d is guilty of that murder.
If G.o.d made a man, knowing he would beat his wife, that he would starve his children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the wrecks of ruined homes, then, I say, the being who called that wretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find the providence of G.o.d in the history of nations. What little I have read shows me that when man has been helped, man had to do it; when the chains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when something bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to trace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You will not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame; you can find the efficient causes nearer home--right here.
What is the next thing I find in this creed? ”We believe that man was made in the image of G.o.d, that he might know, love and obey G.o.d, and enjoy Him for ever.” I don't believe that anybody ever did love G.o.d, because n.o.body ever knew anything about Him. We love each other. We love something that we know. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great, and good and beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can love truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice, because it preserves human joy.
We can love charity. We can love every form of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we cannot love the infinitely unknown.
And how can we be made in the image of something that has neither body and parts nor pa.s.sions?
”That our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation of G.o.d, and that all men are so alienated from G.o.d that there is no salvation from the guilt and power of sin except through G.o.d's redeeming power.” Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If there is, strike here (tapping his forehead) and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any human being now believe that G.o.d made man of dust and a woman of a rib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the middle of it? Wasn't there room outside of the garden to put His tree, if He didn't want people to eat His apple? If I didn't want a man to eat my fruit I would not put him in my orchard.
Does anybody now believe in the snake story? I pity any man or woman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable. Why did they disobey? Why, they were tempted. Who by? The devil. Who made the devil? What did He make him for? Why didn't He tell Adam and Eve about this fellow? Why didn't he watch the devil instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out, why didn't He keep him from getting in? Why didn't He have His flood first and drown the devil, before He made man and woman?
And yet people who call themselves intelligent--professors in colleges and presidents of venerable inst.i.tutions--teach children, and young men who ought to be children, that the Garden of Eden story is an absolute, historical fact! Well, I guess it will not be long until that will fade from the imagination of men. I defy any man to think of a more childish thing. This G.o.d waiting around there, knowing all the while what would happen, made them on purpose so it would happen; and then what does he do? Holds all of us responsible; and we were not there.
Here is a representative before the const.i.tuency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative, I want a chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known all the circ.u.mstances, I should have voted against him. And yet, I am held responsible.
What did Adam do? I cannot see that it amounted to much anyway. A G.o.d that can create something out of nothing ought not to have complained of the loss of an apple. I can hardly have the patience to speak upon such a subject. Now, that absurdity gave birth to another--that, while we could be rightfully charged with the rascality of somebody else, we could also be credited with the virtues of somebody else; and the atonement is the absurdity which offsets the other absurdity of the fall of man. Let us leave them both out; it reads a great deal better with both of them out; it makes better sense.
Now, in consequence of that, everybody is alienated from G.o.d. How?
Why? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all want to do wrong. Well, why? Is that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes? Because there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite number of wrong ones; and as long as we are not perfect in our intellects we must make mistakes. There is no darkness but ignorance; and alienation, as they call it, from G.o.d, is simply a lack of intellect upon our part. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the alienation. But the church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the sh.o.r.e of this world is against G.o.d--naturally hates G.o.d; that the little dimpled child in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against G.o.d! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men who have worked for wife and child; it is a libel upon all the wives who have suffered and labored, wept and worked for children; it is a libel upon all the men who have died for their country; it is a libel upon all who have fought for human liberty; it is a libel upon the human race. Leave out the history of the church, and there is nothing in this world to prove the depravity of man left.
Everybody that comes is against G.o.d. Every soul, they think, is like the wrecked Irishman. He was wrecked in the sea and drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed up the sh.o.r.e he saw a man, and said to him, ”Have you a government here?” The man said, ”We have.”
”Well,” said he, ”I am agin it!” The church teaches us that that is the att.i.tude of every soul in the universe of G.o.d. Ought a G.o.d to take any credit to himself for making depraved people? A G.o.d that cannot make a soul that is not totally depraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And if a G.o.d has made us, knowing that we would be totally depraved, why should we go to the same being for repairs?
What is the next? ”That all men are so alienated from G.o.d that there is no salvation from the guilt and power of his sin except through G.o.d's redeeming grace.”
Reformation is not enough. If the man who steals becomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his fellow-man changes and loves his fellowman, that is not enough; he must go through the mysterious thing called the second birth; he must be born again. That is not enough unless he has faith; he must believe something that he does not understand. Reformation is not enough; there must be what they call conversion. I deny it. According to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of G.o.d--nothing so corrugates the brows of Jehovah with revenge--as a man relying on his own good works. He must admit that he ought to be d.a.m.ned, and that of the two he prefers it, before G.o.d will consent to save him. I saw a man the other day, and he said to me, ”I am a Unitarian Universalist; that is what I am.” Said I, ”What do you mean by that?” ”Well,” said he, ”here is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be d.a.m.ned, and the Universalist thinks G.o.d is too good to d.a.m.n him, and I believe them both.”
What is the next thing in this great creed?
”We believe that the scriptures of the old and new testaments are the records of G.o.d's revelation of Himself in the work of redemption; that they are written by men, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that they const.i.tute an authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be regulated and judged.”
This is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, it is the result of the high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for churches; and there we have the statement that the bible was written ”by men, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit.” What part of the bible? All of it; all of it; and yet what is this old testament that was written by an infinitely good G.o.d? The being who wrote it did not know the shape of the world He had made. The being who wrote it knew nothing of human nature; He commands men to love Him, as if one could love upon command. The same G.o.d upheld the inst.i.tution of human slavery; and the church says the bible that upholds that inst.i.tution was written by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy Ghost upon that inst.i.tution.
The church tells us that men, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, upheld the inst.i.tution of polygamy--I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Ghost these men upheld wars of extermination and conquest--I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Ghost these men wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife if she happened to differ with him on the subject of religion--I deny it. And yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the Congregational Church. If the devil had written upon the subject of slavery, which side would he have taken? Let every minister answer, honor bright. If you knew the devil had written a little work on human slavery, in your judgment would he uphold slavery or denounce it?
Would you regard it as any evidence that he ever wrote it if he upheld slavery? And yet, here you have a work upholding slavery, and you say that it was written by an infinitely good, wise and beneficent G.o.d! If the devil upheld polygamy would you be surprised? If the devil wanted to kill somebody for differing with him would you be surprised? If the devil told a man to kill his wife, would you be astonished? And yet, you say, that is exactly what the G.o.d of us all did. If there be a G.o.d, then that creed is blasphemy. That creed is a libel upon Him who sits upon heaven's throne. I want--if there be a G.o.d--I want Him to write in the book of his eternal remembrance that I denied these lies for Him.
I do not believe in a slave-holding G.o.d; I do not wors.h.i.+p a polygamous Holy Ghost; I do not get upon my knees before any being who commands a husband to slay his wife because she expresses her honest thought.
Did it ever occur to you that if G.o.d wrote the old testament, and told the Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on religion, and that G.o.d afterward took upon Himself flesh and came to Jerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed Him--did it ever occur to you that He reaped exactly what he had sown?
Did it ever occur to you that He fell a victim to His own tyranny, and was destroyed by His own law! Of course I do not believe that any G.o.d ever was the author of the bible, or that any G.o.d was ever crucified, or that any G.o.d was ever killed or ever will be, but I want to ask you that question.