Besides, if the only difference between Jesus and Confucius, the
one a God, the other a mere man, was that they both said the same thing,
the one in the negative, the other in the positive, it is not enough to
prove Jesus infinitely superior to Confucius. Many of Jesus' own commandments
are in the negative: "Resist not evil," for instance.] And as to his life; it
is in no sense superior or even as large and as many sided as that of
Socrates. I know some consider it blasphemy to compare Jesus with Socrates,
but that must be attributed to prejudice rather than to reason.
And to
the question that if Jesus be mythical, we cannot account for the rise and
progress of the Christian church, we answer that the Pagan gods who occupied
Mount Olympus were all mythical beings--mere shadows, and yet Paganism was
the religion of the most advanced and cultured nations of antiquity. How
could an imaginary Zeus, or Jupiter, draw to his temple the elite of Greece
and Rome? And if there is nothing strange in the rise and spread of the Pagan
church; in the rapid progress of the worship of Osiris, who never existed; in
the wonderful success of the religion of Mithra, who is but a name; if the
worship of Adonis, of Attis, of Isis, and the legends of
Heracles, Prometheus, Hercules, and the Hindoo trinity,--Brahma,
Shiva, Chrishna,--with their rock-hewn temples, can be explained
without believing in the actual existence of these gods--why not
Christianity? Religions, like everything else, are born, they grow old and
die. They show the handiwork of whole races, and of different epochs,
rather than of one man or of one age. Time gives them birth, and
changing environments determine their career. Just as the portrait of Jesus
we see in shops and churches is an invention, so is his character.
The artist gave him his features, the theologian his attributes.
What
are the elements out of which the Jesus story was evolved? The Jewish people
were in constant expectation of a Messiah. The belief prevailed that his name
would be Joshua, which in English is Jesus. The meaning of the word is
_savior_. In ancient Syrian mythology, Joshua was a Sun God. The
Old-Testament Joshua, who "stopped the Sun," was in all probability this same
Syrian divinity. According to tradition this Joshua, or Jesus, was the son of
Mary, a name which with slight variations is found in nearly all the old
mythologies. Greek and Hindoo divinities were mothered by either a Mary,
Meriam, Myrrah, or Merri. Maria or Mares is the oldest word for
sea--the earliest source of life. The ancients looked upon the sea-water as
the mother of every living thing. "Joshua (or Jesus), son of Mary,"
was already a part of the religious outfit of the Asiatic world when
Paul began his missionary tours. His Jesus, or anointed one, crucified
or slain, did in no sense represent a new or original message. It is no
more strange that Paul's mythological "savior" should loom into prominence
and cast a spell over all the world, than that a mythical Apollo or Jupiter
should rule for thousands of years over the fairest portions of the
earth.
It is also well known that there is in the Talmud the story of
a Jesus, Ben, or son, of Pandira, who lived about a hundred years
before the Gospel Jesus, and who was hanged from a tree. I believe this
Jesus is quite as legendary as the Syrian Hesous, or Joshua. But may it
not be that such a legend accepted as true--to the ancients all
legends were true--contributed its share toward marking the outlines of
the later Jesus, hanged on a cross? My idea has been to show that
the materials for a Jesus myth were at hand, and that, therefore,
to account for the rise and progress of the Christian cult is no
more difficult than to explain the widely spread religion of the
Indian Chrishna, or of the Persian Mithra. *
* For a fuller
discussion of the various "Christs" in mythology read Robertson's
Christianity and Mythology and his Pagan Christs.
Now, why have I
given these conclusions to the world? Would I not have made more
friends--provoked a warmer response from the public at large--had I repeated
in pleasant accents the familiar phrases about the glory and beauty and
sweetness of the Savior God, the Virgin-born Christ? Instead of that, I have
run the risk of alienating the sympathies of my fellows by intimating that
this Jesus whom Christendom worships today as a god, this Jesus at whose
altar the Christian world bends its knees and bows its head, is as much of
an idol as was Apollo of the Greeks; and that we--we Americans of
the twentieth century--are an idolatrous people, inasmuch as we worship
a name, or at most, a man of whom we know nothing
provable.
[Illustration: 142 Italian Sculpture of the X
Century.]
IS CHRISTIANITY REAL?
It is assumed, without
foundation, as I hope to show, that the religion of Jesus alone can save the
world. We are not surprised at the claim, because there has never been a
religion which has been too modest to make a similar claim. No religion has
ever been satisfied to be _one_ of the saviors of man. Each religion wants to
be the _only_ savior of man. There is no monopoly like religious monopoly.
The industrial corporations with all their greed are less exacting
than the Catholic church, for instance, which keeps heaven itself
under lock and key.
But what is meant by salvation? Let us consider
its religious meaning first. An unbiased investigation of the dogmas and
their supposed historical foundations will prove that the salvation
which Christianity offers, and the means by which it proposes to effect
the world's salvation, are extremely fanciful in nature. If this
point could be made clear, there will be less reluctance on the part of
the public to listen to the evidence on the un-historicity of the
founder of Christianity.
We are told that God, who is perfect, created
this world about half a hundred centuries ago. Of course, being perfect
himself the world which he created was perfect, too. But the world did not
stay perfect very long. Nay, from the heights it fell, not slowly, but
suddenly, into the lowest depths of degradation. How a world which God
had created perfect, could in the twinkling of an eye become so vile as to
be cursed by the same being who a moment before had pronounced it "good," and
besides be handed over to the devil as fuel for eternal burnings, only
credulity can explain. I am giving the story of what is called the "plan of
salvation," in order to show its mythical nature. In the preceding pages we
have discussed the question, Is Jesus a Myth, but I believe that when we have
reflected upon the story of man's fall and his supposed subsequent salvation
by the blood of Jesus, we shall conclude that the function, or the office,
which Jesus is said to perform, is as mythical as his person.
The
story of Eden possesses all the marks of an allegory. Adam and Eve, and a
perfect world _suddenly_ plunged from a snowy whiteness into the blackness of
hell, are the thoughts of a child who exaggerates because of an as yet
undisciplined fancy. Yet, if Adam and Eve are unreal, theologically speaking,
Jesus is unreal. If they are allegory and myth, so is Jesus. It is claimed
that it was the fall of Adam which necessitated the death of Jesus, but if
Adam's fall be a fiction, as we know it is, Jesus' death as an atonement must
also be a fiction.
In the fall of Adam, we are told, humanity itself
fell. Could anything be more fanciful than that? And what was Adam's sin? He
coveted knowledge. He wished to improve his mind. He experimented
with forbidden things. He dared to take the initiative. And for
that imaginary crime, even the generations not yet born are to be
forever blighted. Even the animals, the flowers and vegetables were cursed
for it. Can you conceive of anything more mythical than that? One of the
English divines of the age of Calvin declared that original sin,--Adam's sin
imputed to us,--was so awful, that "if a man had never been born he would yet
have been damned for it." It is from this mythical sin that a mythical Savior
saves us. And how does he do it? In a very mythical way, as we shall
see.
When the world fell, it fell into the devil's hands. To redeem a
part of it, at least, the deity concludes to give up his only son for a
ransom. This is interesting. God is represented as being greatly offended,
because the world which he had created perfect was all in a heap before him.
To placate himself he sacrificed his son--not himself.
But, as
intimated above, he does not intend to restore the whole world to its
pristine purity, but only a part of it. This is alarming. He creates the
whole world perfect, but now he is satisfied to have only a portion of it
redeemed from the devil. If he can save at all, pray, why not save all? This
is not an irrelevant question when it is remembered that the whole world was
created perfect in the first place.
The refusal of the deity to save
all of his world from the devil would lead one to believe that even when God
created the world perfect he did not mean to keep all of it to himself, but
meant that some of it, the greater part of it, as some theologians contend,
should go to the devil! Surely this is nothing but myth. Let us hope for the
sake of our ideals that all this is no more than the childish prattle
of primitive man.
But let us return to the story of the fall of man;
God decides to save a part of his ruined perfect world by the sacrifice of
his son. The latter is supposed to have said to his father: "Punish me,
kill me, accept my blood, and let it pay for the sins of man." He
thus interceded for the _elect_, and the deity was mollified. As Jesus
is also God, it follows that one God tried to pacify another, which
is pure myth. Some theologians have another theory--there is room here for
many theories. According to these, God gave up his son as a ransom, not to
himself, but to the devil, who now claimed the world as his own. I heard a
distinguished minister explain this in the following manner: A poor man whose
house is mortgaged hears that some philanthropist has redeemed the property
by paying off the mortgage. The soul of man was by the fall of Adam mortgaged
to the devil. God has raised the mortgage by abandoning his son to be killed
to satisfy the devil who held the mortgage. The debt which we owed has been
paid by Jesus. By this arrangement the devil loses his legal right to
our souls and we are saved. All we need to do is to believe in this
story and we'll be sure to go to heaven. And to think that
intelligent Americans not only accept all this as inspired, but denounce
the man who ventures to intimate modestly that it might be a myth, as a
blasphemer! "O, judgment!" cries Shakespeare, "thou hast fled to brutish
beasts, and men have lost their reason."
The morality which the Christian
church teaches is of as mythical a nature as the story of the fall, and the
blood-atonement. It is not natural morality, but something quite
unintelligible and fictitious. For instance, we are told that we cannot of
ourselves be righteous. We must first have the grace of God. Then we are told
that we cannot have the grace of God unless he gives it to us. And he will
not give it to us unless we ask for it. But we cannot ask for it, unless he
moves us to ask for it. And there we are. We shall be damned if we do not
come to God, and we cannot come to God unless he calls us. Besides,
could anything be more mythical than a righteousness which can only
be imputed to us,--any righteousness of our own being but "filthy
rags?"
The Christian religion has the appearance of being one
great myth, constructed out of many minor myths. It is the same
with Mohammedanism, or Judaism, which latter is the mischievous parent
of both the Mohammedan and the Christian faiths. It is the same with all
supernatural creeds. Myth is the dominating element in them all. Compared
with these Asiatic religions how glorious is science! How wholesome, helpful,
and luminous, are her commandments!
If I were to command you to believe
that Mount Olympus was once tenanted by blue-eyed gods and their
consorts,--sipping nectar and ambrosia the live-long day,--you will answer,
"Oh, that is only mythology." If I were to tell you that you cannot be saved
unless you believe that Minerva was born full-fledged from the brain of
Jupiter, you will laugh at me. If I were to tell you that you must punish
your innocent sons for the guilt of their brothers and sisters, you
will answer that I insult your moral sense. And yet, every Sunday,
the preacher repeats the myth of Adam and Eve, and how God killed
his innocent son to please himself, or to satisfy the devil, and
with bated breath, and on your knees, you whisper, _Amen._
How is it
that when you read the literature of the Greeks, the literature of the
Persians, the literature of Hindoostan, or of the Mohammedan world, you
discriminate between fact and fiction, between history and myth, but when it
comes to the literature of the Jews, you stammer, you stutter, you bite your
lips, you turn pale, and fall upon your face before it as the savage before
his fetish? You would consider it unreasonable to believe that everything a
Greek, or a Roman, or an Arab ever said was inspired. And yet, men have
been hounded to death for not believing that everything that a Jew
ever said in olden times was inspired.
I do not have to use arguments,
I hope, to prove to an intelligent public that an infallible book is as much
a myth as the Garden of Eden, or the Star of Bethlehem.
A mythical
Savior, a mythical Bible, a mythical plan of salvation!
When we subject
what are called religious truths to the same tests by which we determine
scientific or historical truths, we discover that they are not truths at all;
they are only opinions. Any statement which snaps under the strain of reason
is unworthy of credence. But it is claimed that religious truth is discovered
by intuition and not by investigation. The believer, it is claimed, feels in
his own soul--he has the witness of the spirit, that the Bible is infallible,
and that Jesus is the Savior of man. The Christian does not have to look
into the arguments for or against his religion, it is said, before he
makes up his mind; he knows by an inward assurance; he has proved it
to his own deepermost being that Jesus is real and that he is the
only Savior. But what is that but another kind of argument? The argument
is quite inadequate to inspire assurance, as you will presently see,
but it is an argument nevertheless. To say that we must believe and not
reason is a kind of reasoning, This device of reasoning against reasoning is
resorted to by people who have been compelled by modern thought to give up,
one after another, the strongholds of their position. They run under shelter
of what they call faith, or the "inward witness of the spirit," or the
intuitive argument, hoping thereby to escape the enemy's fire, if I may use
so objectionable a phrase.
What is called faith, then, or an intuitive
spiritual assurance, is a species of reasoning; let its worth be tested
honestly.
In the first place, faith or the intuitive argument would prove
too much. If Jesus is real, notwithstanding that there is no
reliable historical data to warrant the belief, because the believer feels
in his own soul that He is real and divine, I answer that, the same mode
of reasoning--and let us not forget, it is a kind of _reasoning_--would prove
Mohammed a divine savior, and the wooden idol of the savage a god. The
African Bushman trembles before an image, because he feels in his own soul
that the thing is real. Does that make it real? The Moslem cries unto
Mohammed, because he believes in his innermost heart that Mohammed is near
and can hear him. He will risk his life on that assurance. To quote to him
history and science to prove that Mohammed is dead and unable to save, would
be of no avail, for he has the witness of the spirit in him, an
intuitive assurance, that the great prophet sits on the right hand of Allah.
An argument which proves too much, proves nothing.
In the second
place, an intuition is not communicable. I may have an intuition that I see
spirits all about me this morning. They come, they go, they nod, they brush
my forehead with their wings. But do _you_ see them, too, because I see them?
There is the difference between a scientific demonstration and a purely
metaphysical assumption. I could go to the blackboard and assure you, as I
am myself assured, that two parallel lines running in the same
direction will not and cannot meet. That is demonstration. A fever
patient when in a state of delirium, and a frightened child in the dark,
see things. We do not deny that they do, but their testimony does
not prove that the things they see are real.
"What is this I see
before me?" cries Macbeth, the murderer, and he shrieks and shakes from head
to foot--he draws his sword and rushes upon Banquo's ghost, which he sees
coldly staring at him. But is that any proof that what he saw we could see
also? Yes, we could, if we were in the same frenzy! And it is the
revivalist's aim, by creating a general excitement, to make everybody _see
things_. "Doctor, Doctor, help! they are coming to kill me; there they
are--the assassins,--one, two, three--oh, help," and the patient jumps out of
bed to escape the banditti crowding in upon him. But is that any reason why
the attending physician, his pulse normal and his brow cool,
should believe that the room is filling up with assassins? I observe
people jump up and down, as they do in holiness meetings; I hear them
say they see angels, they see Jesus, they feel his presence. But is
that any evidence for you or me? An intuitive argument is not
communicable, and, therefore, it is no argument at all.
Our orthodox
friends are finally driven by modern thought, which is growing bolder every
day, to the only refuge left for them. It is the one already mentioned.
Granted that Jesus was an imaginary character, even then, as an ideal, they
argue, he is an inspiration, and the most effective moral force the world has
ever known. We do not care, they say, whether the story of his birth, trial,
death, and resurrection is myth or actual history; such a man as Jesus may
never have existed, the things he is reported as saying may have been put in
his mouth by others, but what of that--is not the picture of his
character perfect? Are not the Beatitudes beautiful--no matter who said
them? To strengthen this position they call our attention to
Shakespeare's creations, the majority of whom--Hamlet, Othello, Lear,
Portia, Imogen, Desdemona, are fictitious. Yet where are there grander men,
or finer women? These children of Shakespeare may never have lived,
but, surely, they will never die. In the same sense, Jesus may be just
as ideal a character as those of Shakespeare, they say, and still be
"the light of the world." A New York preacher is reported as saying that
if Christianity is a lie, it is a "glorious lie."
My answer to the
above is that such an argument evades instead of facing the question. It is
receding from a position under cover of a rhetorical manoeuvre. It is a
retreat in disguise. If Christianity is a "glorious lie," then call it such.
The question under discussion is, Is Jesus Historical? To answer that it is
immaterial whether or not he is historical, is to admit that there is no
evidence that he is historical. To urge that, unhistorical though he be, he
is, nevertheless, the only savior of the world, is, I regret to say, not
only evasive,--not only does it beg the question, but it is also clearly
dishonest. How long will the tremendous ecclesiastical machinery last, if it
were candidly avowed that it is doubtful whether there ever was such a
historical character as Jesus, or that in all probability he is no more real
than one of Shakespeare's creations? What! all these prayers, these churches,
these denominations, these sectarian wars which have shed oceans of human
blood--these unfortunate persecutions which have blackened the face of
man--the fear of hell and the devil which has blasted millions of
lives--all these for a Christ who may, after all, be only a
picture!
Neither is it true that this pictorial Jesus saved the world. He
has had two thousand years to do it in, but as missionaries are
still being sent out, it follows that the world is yet to be saved.
The argument presented elsewhere in these pages may here be
recapitulated.
There was war before Christianity; has Jesus abolished
war?
There was poverty and misery in the world before Christianity;
has Jesus removed these evils?
There was ignorance in the world before
Christianity; has Jesus destroyed ignorance?
There were disease,
crime, persecution, oppression, slavery, massacres, and bloodshed in the
world before Christianity; alas, are they not still with us?
_When
Jesus shall succeed in pacifying his own disciples; in healing the sectarian
world of its endless and bitter quarrels, then it will be time to ask what
else Jesus has done for humanity._
If the world is improving at all, and
we believe it is, the progress is due to the fact that man pays now more
attention to _this_ life than formerly. He is thinking less of the other
world and more of this. He no longer sings with the believer:
The
world is all a fleeting show For man's delusion given. Its
smiles of joy, its tears of woe, Deceitful shine, deceitful
flow, There's nothing true but heaven.
How could people with such
feelings labor to improve a world they hated? How could they be in the least
interested in social or political reforms when they were constantly repeating
to themselves--
I'm a pilgrim, and I'm a stranger-- I can
tarry, I can tarry, but a night.
That these same people should now claim
not only a part of the credit for the many improvements, but all of
it--saying that, but for their religion the "world would now have been a
hell," * is really a little too much for even the most serene
temperament.
* Rev. Frank Gunsaulus, of the Central Church, Chicago.
See A New Catechism.--M. M. Mangasarian.
Which of the religions
has persecuted as long and as relentlessly as Christianity?
Which of
the many faiths of the world has opposed Science as stubbornly and as
bitterly as Christianity?
In the name of what other prophets have more
people been burned at the stake than in the names of Jesus and
Moses?
What other revelation has given rise to so many sects, hostile
and irreconcilable, as the Christian?
Which religion has furnished as
many effective texts for political oppression, polygamy, slavery, and the
subjection of woman as the religion of Jesus and Paul?
Is there,--has
there ever been another creed which makes salvation dependent on
belief,--thereby encouraging hypocrisy, and making honest inquiry a
crime?
To send a thief to heaven from the gallows because he believes,
and an honest man to hell because he doubts, is that the virtue which
is going to save the world?
The claim that Jesus has saved the world
is another myth.
A _pictorial_ Christ, then, has not done anything for
humanity to deserve the tremendous expenditure of time, energy, love,
and devotion, which has for two thousand years taxed the resources
of civilization.
The passing away of this imaginary savior will
relieve the world of an unproductive investment.
We conclude: Honesty,
like charity, must begin at home. Unless we can tell the truth in our
churches we will never tell the truth in our shops. Unless our teachers, the
ministers of God, are honest, our insurance companies and corporations will
have to be watched. Permit sham in your religious life, and the disease will
spread to every member of the social body. If you may keep religion in the
dark, and cry "hush," "hush," when people ask that it be brought out into
the light, why may not politics or business cultivate a similar
partiality for darkness? If the king cries, "rebel," when a citizen asks
for justice, it is because he has heard the priest cry, "infidel," when
a member of his church asked for evidence. Religious hypocrisy is
the mother of all hypocrisies. Cure a man of that, and the human
world will recover its health.
Not so long ago, nearly everybody
believed in the existence of a personal devil. People saw him, heard him,
described him, danced with him, and claimed, besides, to have whipped him.
Luther hurled his inkstand at him, and American women accused as witches were
put to death in the name of the devil. Yet all this "evidence" has not
saved the devil from passing out of existence. What has happened to
the devil will happen to the gods. Man is the only real savior. If he
is not a savior, there is no other.
[Illustration: 160 The Hindu
Trinity.]
PART II.
IS THE WORLD INDEBTED
TO CHRISTIANITY?
"But," says the believer, again, as a last resort,
"Jesus, whether real or mythical, has certainly saved the world, and is its
only hope." If this assertion can be supported with facts, then surely
it would matter very little whether Jesus really lived and taught,
or whether he is a mere picture. Although even then it would be
more truthful to say we have no satisfactory evidence that such a
teacher as Jesus ever lived, than to affirm dogmatically his existence,
as it is now done. Whatever Jesus may have done for the world, he
has certainly not freed us from the obligation of telling the truth.
I call special attention to this point. Because Jesus has saved the world,
granting for the moment that he has, is no reason why we should be
indifferent to the truth. Nay, it would show that Jesus has not saved the
world, if we can go on and speak of him as an actual existence, born of a
virgin and risen from the dead, and in his name persecute one another--oppose
the advance of science, deny freedom of thought, terrorize children and women
with pictures of hell-fire and seek to establish a spiritual monopoly in the
world, when the evidence in hand seems clearly to indicate that such a person
never existed.
We shall quote a chapter from Christian history to give
our readers an idea of how much the religion of Jesus, when implicitly
believed in, can do for the world. We have gone to the earliest centuries for
our examples of the influence exerted by Christianity upon the
ambitions and passions of human nature, because it is generally supposed
that Christianity was then at its best. Let us, then, present a picture
of the world, strictly speaking, of the Roman Empire, during the
first four or five hundred years after its conversion to
Christianity.
We select this specific period, because Christianity was at
this time fifteen hundred years nearer to its source, and was more virile
and aggressive than it has ever been since.
Shakespeare speaks of the
uses of adversity; but the uses of prosperity are even greater. The proverb
says that "adversity tries a man." While there is considerable truth in this,
the fact is that prosperity is a much surer criterion of character. It is
impossible to tell, for instance, what a man will do who has neither the
power nor the opportunity to do anything. "Opportunity," says a French
writer, "is the cleverest devil." Both our good and bad qualities wait
upon opportunity to show themselves. It is quite easy to be virtuous
when the opportunity to do evil is lacking. Behind the prison bars,
every criminal is a penitent, but the credit belongs to the iron bars and
not to the criminal. To be good when one cannot be bad, is an indifferent
virtue.
It is with institutions and religions as with individuals--they
should be judged not by what they pretend in their weakness, but by what
they do when they are strong. Christianity, Mohammedanism and Judaism,
the three kindred religions--we call them kindred because they are
related in blood and are the offspring of the same soil and
climate--these three kindred religions must be interpreted not by what they
profess today, but by what they did when they had both the power and
the opportunity to do as they wished.
When Christianity, or
Mohammedanism, was professed only by a small handful of men--twelve
fishermen, or a dozen camel-drivers of the desert--neither party advocated
persecution. The worst punishment which either religion held out was a
distant and a future punishment; but as soon as Christianity converted an
Emperor, or Mohammed became the victorious warrior,--that is to say, as soon
as, springing forth, they picked up the sword and felt their grip sure upon
its hilt, this future and distant punishment materialized into a present
and persistent persecution of their opponents. Is not that
suggestive? Then, again, when in the course of human evolution, both
Christianity and Mohammedanism lost the secular support--the throne, the
favor of the courts, the imperial treasury--they fell back once more
upon future penalties as the sole menace against an unbelieving world.
As religion grows, secularly speaking, weaker, and is more
completely divorced from the temporal, even the future penalties, from being
both literal and frightful, pale into harmless figures of speech.
It
was but a short time after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, that
the following edict was published throughout the provinces of the Roman
Empire:
"O ye enemies of truth, authors and counsellors of death--we
enact by this law that none of you dare hereafter to meet at
your conventicles...nor keep any meetings either in public buildings or
private houses. We have commanded that all your places of meeting--your
temples--be pulled down or confiscated to the Catholic Church."
The
man who affixed his signature to this edict was a monarch, that is to say, a
man who had the power to do as he liked. The man and monarch, then, who
affixed his imperial signature to this _first_ document of persecution in
Europe--the first, because, as Renan has beautifully remarked, "We may search
in vain the whole Roman law before Constantine for a single passage against
freedom of thought, and the history of the imperial government furnishes no
instance of a prosecution for entertaining an abstract doctrine,"--this is
glory enough for the civilization 'which we call _Pagan_ and which
was replaced by the Asiatic religion--the man and the monarch who
fathered the first instrument of persecution in our Europe, who
introduced into our midst the crazed hounds of religious wars, unknown either
in Greece or Rome, Constantine, has been held up by Cardinal Newman as
"a pattern to all succeeding monarchs." Only an Englishman, a
European, infected with the malady of the East, could hold up the author of
such an edict,--an edict which prostitutes the State to the service of
a fad--as "a pattern."
If we asked for a modern illustration of what a
church will do when it has the power, there is the example of Russia. Russia
is today centuries behind the other European nations. She is the
most unfortunate, the most ignorant, the most poverty-pinched country,
with the most orthodox type of Christianity. What is the
difference between Greek Christianity, such as prevails in Russia, and
American Christianity! Only this: The Christian Church in Russia has both
the power and the opportunity to do things, while the Christian church
in America or in France has not. We must judge Christianity as a
religion by what it does in Russia, more than by what it does not do in
France or America. There was a time when the church did in France and in
England what it is doing now in Russia, which is a further confirmation of
the fact that a religion must be judged not by what it pretends in its
weakness, but by what it does when it can. In Russia, the priest can tie a
man's hands and feet and deliver him up to the government; and it does so. In
Protestant countries, the church, being deprived of all its badges and
prerogatives, is more modest and humble. The poet Heine gives eloquent
expression to this idea when he says: "Religion comes begging to us, when it
can no longer burn us."
There will be no revolution in Russia, nor even
any radical improvement of existing conditions, so long as the Greek Church
has the education of the masses in charge. To become politically free, men
must first be intellectually emancipated. If a Russian is not permitted to
choose his own religion, will he be permitted to choose his own form of
government? If he will allow a priest to impose his religion upon him, why
may he not permit the Czar to impose despotism upon him? If it is wrong for
him to question the tenets of his religion, is it not equally wrong for him
to discuss the laws of his government? If a slave of the church, why may he
not be also a slave of the state? If there is room upon his neck for the yoke
of the church, there will be room, also, for the yoke of the autocracy. If
he is in the habit of bending his knees, what difference does it make
to how many or to whom he bends them?
Not until Russia has become
religiously emancipated, will she conquer political freedom. She must first
cast out of her mind the fear of the church, before she can enter into the
glorious fellowship of the free. In Turkey, all the misery of the people will
not so much as cause a ripple of discontent, because the Moslem has been
brought up to submit to the Sultan as to the shadow on earth of Allah. Both
in Russia and Turkey, the protestants are the heretics. The orthodox Turk and
the orthodox Christian permit without a murmur both the priest and
the king to impose upon them at the point of a bayonet, the one
his religion, and the other his government. It is only by taking
the education of the masses out of the hands of the clergy that
either country can enjoy any prosperity. Orthodoxy and autocracy are
twins.
Let me now try to present to you a picture of the world
under Christianity about the year 400 of the present era. Let us
discuss this phase of the subject in a liberal spirit, extenuating
nothing, nor setting down aught in malice. Please interpret what I say in
the next few minutes metaphorically, and pardon me if my picture is
a repellant one.
We are in the year of our Lord, 400:
I rose up
early this morning to go to church. As I approached the building, I saw there
a great multitude of people unable to secure admission into the edifice. The
huge iron doors were closed, and upon them was affixed a notice from the
authorities, to the effect that all who worshiped in this church would, by
the authority of the state, be known and treated hereafter as "infamous
heretics," and be exposed to the extreme penalty of the law if they persisted
in holding services there. But the party to which I belonged heeded not the
prohibition, but beat against the doors furiously and effected an entrance
into the church. The excitement ran high; men and leaders shouted,
gesticulated and came to blows. The Archbishop was urged to ascend his
episcopal throne and officiate at the altar in spite of the formal
interdiction against him. He consented. But he had not proceeded far when
soldiers, with a wild rush, poured into the building and began to
discharge arrows at the panic-stricken people. Instantly pandemonium was
let loose. The officers commanding the soldiers demanded the head of
the offending Archbishop. The worshipers made an attempt to resist;
then blood was shed, the sight of which reeled people's heads, and, in an
instant, the sanctuary was turned into a house of murder. Taking advantage of
the uproar, the Archbishop, assisted by his secretaries, escaped through a
secret door behind the altar.
[Illustration: 170 Engraving of XV Century
Representing the Trinity.]
On my way home from this terrible scene, I
fell upon a procession of monks. They were carrying images and relics, and a
banner upon which were inscribed these words: "The Virgin Mary, Mother of
God." As they marched on, their number increased by new additions. But
suddenly they encountered another band of monks, carrying a different
banner, bearing the same words which were on the other party's banner,
but instead of "The Virgin Mary, Mother of God," their banner read:
"The Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ." The two processions clashed,
and a bloody encounter followed; in an instant images, relics and
banners were all in an indiscriminate heap. The troops were called out
again, but such was the zeal of the conflicting parties that not until the
majority of them were disabled and exhausted, was
tranquility restored.
Looking about me, I saw the spire of a
neighboring church. My curiosity prompted me to wend my steps thither. As
soon as I entered, I was recognized as belonging to the forbidden sect, and
in an instant a hundred fists rained down blows upon my head. "He has
polluted the sanctuary," they cried. "He has committed sacrilege."
"No
quarter to the enemies of the true church," cried others, and it was a
miracle that, beaten, bruised, my clothes torn from my back, I regained the
street. A few seconds later, looking up the streets, I saw another troop of
soldiers, rushing down toward this church at full speed. It seems that while
I was being beaten in the main auditorium, in the baptistry of the church
they were killing, in cold blood, the Archbishop, who was suspected of a
predilection for the opposite party, and who had refused to retract or resign
from his office. The next day I heard that one hundred and thirty-seven
bodies were taken out of this building.
Seized with terror, I now
began to run, but, alas, I had worse experiences in store for me. I was
compelled to pass the principal square in the center of the city before I
could reach a place of safety. When I reached this square, it had the
appearance of a veritable battlefield. It was Sunday morning, and the
partisans of rival bishops, differing in their interpretation of
theological doctrines, were fighting each other like maddened,
malignant creatures. One could hear, over the babel of discordant
yells, scriptural phrases. The words, "The Son is equal to the Father,"
"The Father is greater than the Son," "He is begotten of the same
substance as the Father," "He is of like substance, but not of the
same substance," "You are a heretic," "You are an atheist," were
invariably accompanied with blows, stabs and sword thrusts, until, as
an eye-witness, I can take an oath that I saw the streets leading out
of the square deluged with palpitating human blood. Suddenly the commander
of the cavalry, Hermogenes, rode upon the scene of feud and bloodshed. He
ordered the followers of the rival bishops to disperse, but instead of
minding his authority, the zealots of both sides rushed upon his horse, tore
the rider from the saddle and began to beat him with clubs and stones which
they picked up from the street. He managed to escape into a house close by,
but the religious rabble surrounded the house and set fire to it. Hermogenes
appeared at the window, begging for his life. He was attacked again, and
killed, and his mangled body dragged through the streets and rushed into a
ditch.
The spectacle inflamed me, being a sectarian myself. I felt
ashamed that I was not showing an equal zeal for _my_ party. I, too,
longed to fight, to kill, to be killed, for my religion. And, anon!
the opportunity presented itself. I saw, looking up the street to
my right, a group of my fellow-believers, who, like myself, shut out
of their own church by the orthodox authorities, armed with whips
loaded with lead and with clubs, were entering a house. I followed
them. As we went in, we commanded the head of the family and his wife
to appear. When they did, we asked them if it was true that in
their prayers to Mary they had refrained from the use of the words,
"The mother of God." They hesitated to give a direct answer, whereupon
we used the club, and then, the scourge. Then they said they believed
in and revered the blessed virgin, but would not, even if we killed
them, say that she was the mother of God. This obstinacy exasperated
us and we felt it to be our religious duty, for the honor of our
divine Queen, to perpetrate such cruelties upon them as would shock
your gentle ears to hear. We held them over slowly burning fires,
flung lime into their eyes, applied roasted eggs and hot irons to
the sensitive parts of their bodies, and even gagged them to force
the sacrament into their mouths.....As we went from house to house,
bent upon our mission, I remember an expression of one of the party
who said to the poor woman who was begging for mercy: "What! shall I
be guilty of defrauding the vengeance of God of its victims?" A
sudden chill ran down my back. I felt my flesh creep. Like a drop of
poison the thought embodied in those words perverted whatever of pity
or humanity was left in me, and I felt that I was only helping to
secure victims with which to feed the vengeance of God!
[Illustration:
175 Trinity in XIII Century.]
I was willing to be a monster for the glory
of God!
The Christian sect to which I belonged was one of the oldest
in Christendom. Our ancestors were called the Puritans of the fourth
and fifth centuries. We believe that no one can be saved outside of
our communion. When a Christian of another church joins us, we
re-baptize him, for we do not believe in the validity of other baptisms. We
are so particular that we deny our cemeteries to any other Christians
than our own members. If we find that we have, by mistake, buried a
member of another church in our cemetery, we dig up his bones, that he
may not pollute the soil. When one of the churches of another
denomination falls into our hands, we first fumigate the building, and with a
sharp knife we scrape the wood off the altars upon which other
Christian priests have offered prayers. We will, under no consideration,
allow a brother Christian from another church to commune with us; if
by stealth anyone does, we spare not his life. But we are persecuted
just as severely as we persecute, ourselves. *
* This sect
(Donatist) and others, lasted for a long time, and made Asia and Africa
a hornet's nest,--a blood-stained arena, of feud and riot and massacre,
until Mohammedanism put an end, in these parts of the world, not only to
these sects, but to Christianity itself.
As the sun was setting,
fatigued with the holy Sabbath's religious duties, I started to go home. On
my way back, I saw even wilder, bloodier scenes, between rival ecclesiastical
factions, streets even redder with blood, if possible, yea, certain sections
of the city seemed as if a storm of hail, or tongues of flame had swept over
them. Churches were on fire, cowled monks attacking bishops'
residences, rival prelates holding uproarious debates, which almost
always terminated in bloodshed, and, to cap the day of many
vicissitudes, I saw a bear on exhibition which had been given its freedom by
the ruler, as a reward for his faithful services in devouring
heretics. The Christian ruler kept two fierce bears by his own chamber, to
which those who did not hold the orthodox faith were thrown in his
presence while he listened with delight to their groans.
When I
reached home, I was panting for breath. I had lived through another Sabbath
day. *
* If the reader will take the pains to read Dean
Milman's History of Christianity, and his History of Latin
Christianity; also Gibbon's Downfall of the Roman Empire, and Mosheim's
History of Christianity, he will see that we have exaggerated nothing.
The Athanasian and the Arian, the Donatist and Sabellian, the Nestorian
and Alexandrian factions converted the early centuries into a long reign
of terror.
I feel like covering my face for telling you so
grewsome a tale. But if this were the fourth or the fifth century, instead of
the twentieth, and this were Constantinople, or Alexandria, or
Antioch, instead of Chicago, I would have spent just such a Sunday as I
have described to you. In giving you this concentrated view of
human society in the great capitals of Christendom in the year 400, I
have restrained, rather than spurred, my imagination. Remember, also,
that I have confined my remarks to a specific and short period in
history, and have excluded from my generalization all reference to
the centuries of religious wars which tore Europe limb from
limb,--the wholesale exterminations, the crusades, which represented one of
the maddest spells of misguided and costly zeal which ever struck
our earth, the persecution of the Huguenots, the extermination of
the Albigenses and of the Waldenses,--the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the
Inquisition with its red hand upon the intellect of Europe, the Anabaptist
outrages in Germany, the Smithfield fires in England, the religious outrages
in Scotland, the Puritan excesses in America,--the reign of witchcraft and
superstition throughout the twenty centuries--I have not touched my picture
with any colors borrowed from these terrible chapters in the history of our
unfortunate earth. I have also left out all reference to Papal Rome, with its
dungeons, its stakes, its massacres and its burnings. I have said nothing
of Galileo, Vanini, Campanella or Bruno. I have passed over all this
in silence. You can imagine, now, how much more repellant and
appalling this representation of the Roman world under Christianity would
have been had I stretched my canvas to include also these later
centuries.
But I tremble to be one-sided or unjust, and so I hasten to
say that during the twenty centuries' reign of our religion, the world has
also seen some of the fairest flowers spring out of the soil of our
earth. During the past twenty centuries there have been men and
women, calling themselves Christians, who have been as generous, as
heroic and as deeply consecrated to high ideals as any the world has
ever produced. Christianity has, in many instances, softened the manners
of barbarians and elevated the moral tone of primitive peoples. It gives
us more pleasure to speak of the good which religions have accomplished than
to call attention to the evil they have caused. But this raises a very
important question. "Why do you not confine yourself," we are often asked,
"to the virtues you find in Christianity or Mohammedanism, instead of
discussing so frequently their short-comings? Is it not better to praise than
to blame, to recommend than to find fault?" This is a fair question, and we
may just as well meet it now as at any other time.
Such is the economy
of nature that no man, or institution or religion, can be altogether evil.
The poet spoke the truth when he said: "There is a soul of goodness in things
evil." Evil, in a large sense, is the raw material of the good. All things
contribute to the education of man. The question, then, whether an
institution is helpful or hurtful, is a relative one. The character of an
institution, as that of an individual, is determined by its ruling passion.
Despotism, for instance, is generally considered to be an evil. And yet, a
hundred good things can be said of despotism. The French people, over
a hundred years ago, overthrew the monarchy. And yet the monarchy
had rendered a thousand services to France. It was the monarchy
that created France, that extended her territory, developed her
commerce, built her great cities, defended her frontiers against
foreign invasion, and gave her a place among the first-class nations
of Europe. Was it just, then, to pull down an institution that had done so
much for France? |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기