Chapter XI: Part 11

These things refute those who suppose that the first day of the
week (that is, the Lord's day) was substituted in place of the
Sabbath, for no mention is made of such a thing by Christ or
his Apostles.--Grotius.

It will be plainly seen that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly
violate the Sabbath. The dogma of the assembly of divines at
Westminster, that the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the
moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible.--Archbishop Whately.

As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet
change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,
or make every tenth day a holy day only, if we see cause why. We
may make two every week, if it were expedient, and not one enough
to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it
from Saturday than to put difference between us and the Jews,
and lest we should become servants unto the day, after their
superstition. Neither need we any holy day at all if the people
might be taught without it.--William Tyndall.

The effect of which consideration is, that the Lord's day did
not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was
wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical
institution.--Jeremy Taylor.

The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always
a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the
Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from
them and the early Apostolic church to transfer the laws of the
Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false
application of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear by
that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.--Neander.

Dr. McNight says: The whole law of Moses being abrogated by Christ,
Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish
holidays--not even the Sabbath. (Com. on Epistles, Col.)

Sabbath Engenders Cruelty.

The history of the Sabbatarians proves them to be both ignorant and cruel. We have only to make a few quotations from standard authors to prove the charge.

At the same time that James shocked in so violent a manner,
the religious principles of his Scottish subjects, he acted in
opposition to those of his English. He had observed, in his
progress through England, that a Judaical observance of the
Sunday, chiefly by means of the Puritans, was every day gaining
ground throughout the kingdom; and that the people under color
of religion, were contrary to former practice, debarred such
sports and recreations as contributed both to their health and
amusement. Festivals which in other nations and ages are partly
dedicated to public worship, partly to mirth and society, were
here totally appropriated to the offices of religion and served to
nourish those sullen and gloomy contemplations, to which the people
were of themselves so unfortunately subject. The king imagined
that it would be easy to infuse cheerfulness into the dark spirit
of devotion. He issued a proclamation to allow and encourage,
after divine service, all kinds of lawful games and exercises;
and by his authority he endeavored to give sanction to a practice
which his subjects regarded as the utmost instance of profaneness
and impiety. ("Hume's History of England," vol. 4, p. 447.)

Hume, speaking of the Puritans, remarks:

They [the house of commons] also enacted laws for the strict
observance of Sunday which the Puritans affected to call
the Sabbath, and which, they sanctified by most melancholy
indolence. (Vol. 5, p. 10.)

Besides this, it is important to remark that the Puritans were
more fanatical than superstitious. They were so ignorant of the
real principles of government, as to direct penal laws against
private vices. ("Buckle's History of Civilization in England,"
vol. 1, p. 261.)

The same spirit is rampant now in our prohibition laws, Sunday laws, profane swearing laws, etc. Repressing vices does not extinguish them but causes them to become more deep-seated and wide-spread. Moral natures can be made more moral only by the use of moral means.

The Puritans.

Not dancers go to heaven, but mourners; not laughers but weepers;
whose tune is Lachrymae, whose music sighs for sin; who know
no other cinquepace but this to heaven, to go mourning all the
day long for their iniquities; to mourn in secret like doves,
to chatter like cranes for their own and others' sins. Fastings,
prayers, mourning, tears, tribulations, martyrdom were the only
sounds that led all the saints to heaven. ("Bayne's Chief Actors
in the Puritan Revolution," p. 112.)

Presbyterianism in Scotland was the twin of English Puritanism; Presbyterianism prohibited all sorts of pleasure as being sinful and of the Devil.

The following extracts are copied from Buckle's History of Civilization in England, volume 2, page 304:

Smiling, provided it stopped short of laughter, might occasionally
be allowed; still, being a carnal pastime it was a sin to smile
on Sunday. It was wrong to take pleasure in beautiful scenery;
for a pious man had no concern with such matters which were
beneath him, and which should be left to the unconverted.

The unregenerate might delight in these vanities, but they who were properly instructed saw nature as she really was, and knew that she, for about five thousand years, had been constantly on the move, her vigor was well nigh spent, and her pristine energy had departed. To the eye of ignorance she still seemed fair and fresh; the fact, however, was that she was worn out and decrepit; she was suffering from extreme old age; her frame no longer elastic, was leaning on one side, and she soon would perish.

Owing to the sin of man all things were getting worse, and nature was degenerating so fast that already the lilies were losing their whiteness and the roses their smell.

On this account, it was improper to care for beauty of any kind; or to speak more accurately, there was no real beauty. The world afforded nothing worth looking at save and except the Scotch Kirk, which was incomparably the most beautiful thing under heaven. To look at that was a lawful enjoyment but every other pleasure was sinful. To write poetry, for instance, was a grievous offense, and worthy of special condemnation. To listen to music was equally wrong; for men had no right to disport themselves in such idle recreation. Hence the clergy forbade music to be introduced even during the festivities of a marriage.

Dancing was so extremely sinful that an edict expressly prohibiting it was enacted by the General Assembly, and read in every church in Edinburgh.

It was a sin for any Scotch town to hold a market either on Saturday or Monday, because both days were near Sunday. It was a sin to go from one town to another on Sunday, however pressing the business might be. It was a sin to visit your friend on Sunday; it was likewise sinful either to have your garden watered or your beard shaved.

No one, on Sunday, should pay attention to his health or think of his body at all. On that day horse exercise was sinful; so was walking in the fields or in the meadows, or in the streets, or enjoying the fine weather by sitting at the door of your own house. To go to sleep on Sunday before the duties of the day were over was also sinful and deserved church censure. Bathing, being pleasant as well as wholesome, was a particularly grievous offense; and no man could be allowed to swim on Sunday.

It mattered not what man liked; the mere fact of his liking it made it sinful. Whatever was natural was wrong. The clergy deprived the people of their holidays, their amusements, their shows, their games, and their sports; they repressed every appearance of joy, they forbade all merriment, they stopped all festivities, they choked up every avenue by which pleasure could enter, and spread over the country an universal gloom.

On Sunday, in particular, he must never think of benefitting others; and the Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people that on that day it was sinful to serve a vessel in distress, and that it was a proof of religion to let ship and crew perish. They might go; none but their wives and children would suffer, and that was nothing in comparison with breaking the Sabbath. So, too, did the clergy teach, that on no occasion must food or shelter be given to a starving man, unless his opinions were orthodox.

Sunday Should be Regarded as a day of Rest and Recreation.

But every one should be protected in his individual liberty of choosing how he shall rest and enjoy himself. My neighbors certainly have no right to say how I shall conduct myself on Sunday, nor would they have if they were elected to the state or national legislature. My right to freedom of conscience is inalienable. It is true that I may be robbed of my liberty by those in power. The Sunday laws are the spoliation of the weak by the strong. A most remarkable trait of this nation is that it is constituted more than any other people that the sun ever shone upon of law makers and law breakers. It forebodes national decay. The people who indulge in this spirit are lacking in moral sentiment, and the current history of the politics and religion of this country furnish a lamentable proof of the fact.

Unconstitutionality of Sunday Laws.

There is no provision in the constitution requiring the citizens of the United States to observe Sunday in a religious manner; but there are on the contrary, distinct and unqualified guarantees made to secure the religious liberty of every one. Sunday is a day of rest in the eyes of the Constitution but not a day of religious worship. Constitutionally it is every one's privilege to spend Sunday as he chooses. He may, if he wishes, go to Sunday-school, class-meeting, preaching, prayer-meeting, and preaching again, and thus employ all his time on Sunday in religious exercises; or if he prefers, he need go only once to service and fall asleep as soon as it begins. Others who desire it may visit the parks, green fields, ride upon the cool waters or visit the libraries, museums, picture galleries, zoological gardens and such other places of amusement and instruction as they see fit. It is the right of every American citizen to decide in what way he should pursue his own happiness.

We read in Article 6 of the Constitution, that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This foundation principle was supplemented by a provision in the first amendment, which says: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What could be clearer than this, that the framers of the Constitution intended to exclude all religious questions from the charter of liberty? The Constitution recognizes the beliefs of neither Jew nor Gentile--neither Christian nor Infidel.

The one special object of the framers of the Constitution was to establish a free government, and especially did they aim to secure to the people their individual rights, and no right was so greatly in demand by the people as the right of a free conscience; the right to exercise their own judgment upon questions of religion.

"We, the people of the United Slates, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States
of America."

The Declaration of Independence shows us that this question of liberty was that which the framers of the Constitution were seeking to establish: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

With these words of the Declaration of Independence before us and the provision in Article 6 of the Constitution, namely, thus, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public trust under the United States," and the further guarantee in the first amendment, that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"--it is as clear as a sunbeam that all laws seeking to enforce a religious observance of Sunday are unconstitutional, and should not be executed; and where attempts are made to bind religious observance of the day upon Liberal people they should resist it as an intolerable despotism.

The different states of the Union have numerous Sunday laws, which in most cases are a dead letter. Take for instance Massachusetts. In its history seventy-five cases have been decided mostly in favor of a rigid enforcement of its Sunday laws. But both laws and decisions are powerless in controlling the people to observe Sunday as Sabbath.

The present laws of Massachusetts prohibit games, sports, concerts, plays, work, travel, idling, fishing, hunting, buying and selling, but no one feels bound to obey them. Occasionally some new society springs up calling itself "The Society of Law and Order," and goes to work to set the world right. The first thing to be done is to enforce the Sunday laws, preventing barbers from shaving, milkmen from distributing milk, newsdealers from selling papers, flower girls from selling flowers, cigar stores from selling cigars, croquet players from enjoying on their own premises an hour's exercise and amusement, steamboats from carrying excursions from the city, ball players from practicing their games, the angler from taking a few trout, and many others from finding rest and recreation in other ways. But these good people who think that the world is out of joint and they are called to set it right, find it a greater task than they had bargained for, and so they soon tire, and the old world wags along as it did before the "Law and Order" society came into existence.

Sunday laws are a solemn farce, and a burning shame. They are a warfare upon the rights of man, in the interest of ancient traditions and modern despotism.

As for travel on the Lord's day, lo! how the people go their
journeys, take their pleasure rides, rattle over the streets with
their horse-cars, thunder through the villages past churches with
their locomotives, and plow the bogs and coastways with their
yachts and excursion steamers. Who questions the right? In the
line of sport and diversion, how common such things as boating
and fishing and hunting and ball playing and roving over pastures,
through woods, picking berries and gathering nuts, and attending
many a public entertainment to which an admittance fee is charged
and taken for purposes of gain, but whose character, however
sacred in name, is as secular as a banjo concert or a play
of the drama. No complaint. As regards traffic, do not livery
stable keepers let their horses as freely on Sundays as on week
days? Do not druggists sell as freely what they possess, whether
cigars or whisky, hairbrushes or perfumery? Do not hotels ply
their business as freely, always at the tobacco stand and often
at the bar? Do not newsboys run as loose with their shouts of
"Herald and Gazette?" While if you sail down of a Lord's day to
Martha's Vineyard, where "religion is the chief concern," shall you
not see cigar stores, fruit stores, toy stores, souvenir stores,
etc., undisguisedly open for business, and pedlars hawking canes
and gim-cracks unchallenged by any deacon or dignitary? When,
therefore, the legislature (of Massachusetts) enacted as late
as 1863 that whoever does any manner of work or business on the
Lord's day shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars,
instead of a fine not exceeding ten dollars, the former penalty, it
would seem that the intention must have been to provide a penalty
commensurate with the gravest breaches of the statute. What are
these, if they be not the running of passenger and freight railway
trains, whose mercenary noise makes havoc of all Sunday calm and
quiet; the repairing of railway tracks and bridges, the gangs
of workmen oft so large and belligerent enough to take a city;
the repairing of machinery in shops and mills; the racket of the
press turning out Sunday editions of newspapers secular as politics
and earthly as a quack medicine advertisement? These truly are
open and most gross violations of the law, but against them what
murmur has been heard taking the form of prosecution? Nay, the
breaches of the law that are prosecuted and have been are for the
most part the petty breaches, while the more flagrant offenders,
as a rule, have offended with impunity and still so offend.

Considering, therefore, the sturdiness with which the people of
the commonwealth resist the law's repeal, and the indifference
with which they treat its violations, it must be confessed that
Artemus Ward's sarcasm, as applied to "prohibition," applies
here with peculiar force--in favor of the law, but against its
enforcement. ("The Sunday Law of Massachusetts," by a member of
the Massachusetts bar, p. 29.)

Puck, in its history of the United States, says: "The Puritans instituted many beautiful customs, and they had some very remarkable laws. They provided strict penalties against Sabbath breaking. On Sunday, they decreed that every able-bodied man, woman, and child in the country should go to church three times a day. They forbade reading anything except the Bible, forbade walking in the fields, and generally shut down on amusements. Then they called it the Lord's day, and thus strove to make the Lord unpopular."

Ben. Franklin on Connecticut Sundays.

The following is an extract from a letter written by Dr. Franklin to Jared Ingersoll of New Haven. The original is in the possession of the New Haven Colony Historical Society:

Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1762.

I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Connecticut
Religion from common Religion:--communicate, if you please, some of
these particulars that you think will amuse me as a virtuoso. When
I travelled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict
observation of Sunday; and that a man could hardly travel on
that day among you upon this lawful occasion, without Hazard of
Punishment, while where I was every one travelled, if he pleased,
or diverted himself in any other way; and in the afternoon both
high and low went to the Play or to the Opera, where there was
plenty of Singing, Fiddling and Dancing. I looked round for
God's Judgments, but saw no signs of them. The Cities were well
built and full of Inhabitants, the Markets filled with plenty,
the People well favored and well clothed; the Fields well tilled;
the Cattle fat and strong; the Fences, Houses and Windows all in
Repair; and no Old Tenor anywhere in the Country:--which would
almost make one suspect that the Deity is not so angry at that
offence as a New England Justice.

B. Franklin.

If you have any inalienable rights your freedom of conscience must be one of the most fundamental. That is, it is for you to say how you will deport yourself on matters of religion. It is nothing less than despotism for your neighbor to step up to you and say: "Brother Jones, I want to see you at church to-day, and if you are not there I will see to it that there is a law passed which will make you attend church." This is what the Puritans actually did. They did it all for the glory of God, but our modern Puritans, the orthodox, seek to stop milk wagons from delivering milk on Sunday morning, flower girls from selling flowers on the streets of New York, all because of the welfare and purity of society. In several cities in Texas the sale of cigars on Sunday is a violation of the law.

But where do these members of the state and national legislatures get their power from? Do they have any except that which is delegated to them by the people? They do not get the power from the people to usurp their inalienable rights. But here is a legislature passing laws upon the religious observance of Sunday, who have never been instructed to secure the enactment of such laws. And even if ninety-nine out of a hundred should so instruct their representative, the law could not be binding upon the one hundredth person who did not so instruct his (mis)representative in congress. He can be made to obey by their brute force. And this is what legislation amounts to generally. The people are not represented by the law makers, but their interests and rights are invaded one after another until the poor people are subjugated. Among the rights of man perhaps there is none which is more generally recognized abstractly, and more frequently violated practically, than his right to freedom of conscience, or, in other words, his religious liberty. How does this come about? One of the principal reasons for this anomaly is that most people think that we ought to obey without question the will of the majority. They seem to think that an enactment by congress settles the question, whatever it may be.

Here is the secret of the Sunday legislation. The church is a spiritual despotism always seeking to materialize. It is in the nature of power of all kinds to seek for more power. As a spiritual despotism the church is not a success. The nineteenth century has said to this mental and moral Lazarus, "Take up thy bed and walk." But it has no place to walk to, and hence it refuses to obey the voice of humanity. It is slowly, however, undergoing the transformation of a dissolving view.

A Common Sense View of the Sunday Question.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Now, at first sight, this seems a true and wise saying, but upon reflection we are forced to modify our estimate of it. In the first place there is no evidence that the Sabbath was ever made at all. It is the result of many things. The causes assigned for the institution of this day are conflicting. One reason assigned is because the Lord rested on the seventh day and was refreshed. It is a very empty noddle that can believe that statement. Such a childish view of creation would remind us of some one who had carried a heavy load up six flights of stairs, and then sat down puffing and blowing until he was rested and refreshed. Fancy an omnipotent being tired, hungry, and sleepy. A common sense view of the creation story leads us to reject it all as a myth.

Another reason assigned for the origin of the Sabbath is that it was instituted in commemoration of God's deliverance of the Hebrews out of Egypt. But this is a flat contradiction of the previous reason given for observing the Sabbath. This contradiction is enough to invalidate the evidence of both these testimonies; but that is not all--the first story about God Almighty being tired after a week's hard work, and his resting and being refreshed on the seventh day, is so evidently a myth as to need no argument. It is on a par with all stories about the man in the moon, and the bit of legend recounting the escape of the Hebrews from Egypt is full of contradictions and impossibilities which renders the story absolutely useless as a piece of evidence.

No one knows when or where the observance of the seventh day as a day of rest and recreation began. It doubtless had small beginnings in different countries and different times, and has been subject to the law of evolution. The Sabbath was not a man-made product, but grew in character and importance as time rolled on. Therefore it is not true to say the Sabbath was made for man. All the making we see in history is what the priests have done in this direction. While it is not true that the priests originated the Sabbath, yet it is true so far as we can trace the existence of the priesthood that we find them continually making the day a day for themselves. Sunday is priests' day. Everybody must go to church to listen to an ignorant man talk, scold, misrepresent, and abuse everyone who does not believe as he does. And this is called Divine Service. When the priest rests temporarily from his labors upon the sinner and the skeptic, he trains his guns upon some of those who profess as strongly as himself to be true blue Christians. Take the extremes; the Salvation Army saint and a fashionable member of the fashionable Episcopal church. The latter looks down upon the former and calls them "trash, rubbish," and other classical names, while the soldier of the temporal army returns the compliment by styling his brethren of the Episcopal persuasion as "the Devil's dudes." Behold! how these Christians love--to go for one another.

We have seen that there is no history for the institution of the Sabbath. We have learned also that to keep this day holy did not mean to attend preaching or prayer-meetings, or special religious services of any kind.

We have discovered that the Jewish Sabbath was not incorporated into the early Christian church. We have seen also that Jesus repudiated the Jewish Sabbath. That Paul, the founder of the church, also rejects the Sabbath; and that the early fathers did not observe it. That the great men of the middle ages repudiated it. It was left for the Puritans and Scotch Presbyterians to bewilder the undeveloped mind and poison the susceptible hearts of the people, by teaching the gloomy doctrines of Puritanism and Presbyterianism. Puritanism and Presbyterianism die hard. They still live. Their spirit is hostile to freedom. Talk to them of liberty and you will readily wake the remark, "Oh yes, we believe in liberty, but not in license." Now what does license mean with such people? Why it means that you shall conform to their religious notions and practices.

Especially must you remember the Sabbath to keep it holy; that is, you are at liberty to do just as you please, if you please to do as pleases them.

Protestants all agree upon the right of free conscience, the right to believe as one chooses (which however he never can do, because he must believe according to evidence).

It is the great boast of Protestantism that the individual has a free will (another error), and that he must search the scriptures, and decide for himself. They say every man has an open Bible put before him, and he must make up his own mind on the "truth of God." When he has made up his mind, and seeks to enter a church which is full of liberty, what do the officers of the church say to him? Do they tell him that his conscience is free and the Bible is an open book for him to read and interpret as he can? Oh, no! There is no free conscience, or open Bible business when one is getting into a church. On such occasions the candidate is taken by the proper officers into an ante room, and placed upon a Procrustean bed usually called a creed, and if he is the proper length, all right, but if not he must either be stretched or sawed off to the proper dimensions. And these are the people who have such a holy horror of license.

A friend of mine went once to buy a pup. The price was five dollars; but as there were three pups in the basket my friend said he would give five dollars for one if he could have his choice. "Oh yes, you can have your choice," said the owner, "if ye'll choose this pup" [pointing to the most inferior one in the basket]. So it is with the church; you can have all the liberty in the world to believe, if you believe the doctrines of this or that sect. You can have your own choice, if you choose to obey the priesthood. You can have all the liberty to think as freely as you can on all subjects, if you will never mention your thoughts. Here is what M. Guizot, an eminent Christian writer has to say about the liberty granted by the church:

When the question of political securities came into debate
between power and liberty; when any step was taken to establish a
system of permanent institutions, which might effectually protect
liberty from the invasions of power in general; the church always
ranged herself on the side of despotism. ("Guizot's History of
Civilization," p. 130.)

With some people almost every act, if it be not strictly religious, is a desecration of the Lord's day. It is a solemn day, and for one to smile is a desecration of the holy day, while laughing is gross wickedness. To entertain one's friends on Sunday or to enjoy music, is carnal and therefore a desecration of the Lord's day. To love flowers is evidence of depravity; to admire the beauties of nature, as a golden sunset, or a summer's sunrise, are palpable evidences of being a "man of sin." To do anything but attend church, look solemn, mourn and pray, weep and read the Bible, is of the Devil.

What a spectacle that man presents to the world who is struggling for perfection through religious beliefs and exercises. He never gets exactly there, but confidently and complacently thinks himself there or thereabouts. His next great work is to call upon others in life's highway to follow in his footsteps. He gets some followers who join with him in thanking God that they are not as other men are. Their self-righteousness becomes intense, and they become filled with the spirit of the Lord and preach believe (as we do) or be damned. Then begins persecution and torture. It is always your "dead-in-earnest" man that gets up persecutions. He is trying to gain perfection, and the natural ripe fruit of religious perfection is bigotry, intolerance, and despotism. Beware, oh! reader, of him who is seeking perfection, for you are nothing better than a worm under his heel, and if he does not crush you, it is because he is better than his God. God will crush you in the next world for not agonizing for perfection in this.

Everybody's Sunday.

I quote the following from "The Sabbath Question," a very able pamphlet by my esteemed friend, Alfred E. Giles:

We prize Sunday as a Sabbath or rest day. But it is a physiological
fact that the cessation from action that refreshes or rests
some persons on that day, does not so operate on everybody. We
would that Sunday should be a joy, a delight to all the people;
that every man, woman, and child should anticipate its approach
with pleasure. On that day, if on no other, let the edifices of
the church be open free to all who love its praises, prayers, and
instructions. Let the tables and alcoves of the public library be
accessible to such persons as feel that they can find suitable
mental and spiritual food. If the social science association,
now active in promoting good fellowship and liberal feeling,
desire to, let it also add its proportion of good things to
the feast of the day. Let the art museums, halls of science,
academies of music, public parks, and galleries of paintings
disclose their treasures on Sundays freely to visitors. Let all
persons be unmolested on that day to seek the enjoyment and kind of
rest they may respectively need, they alone being judges thereof,
always provided that no one shall infringe on the equal liberty
of any other person.

"Rest is not quitting
The busy career--
Rest is the fitting
Of self to its sphere;
'Tis loving and serving
The highest and best--
'Tis onward, unswerving,
And that is true rest."

WHAT IS CIVILIZATION?

Very many regard it as an entity, a thing, rather than a process. It can no more be called a thing or an entity, than life, growth, or thinking, but like these, it is a process. "Dr. Whately speaks of it as if it were a 'thing' which could be handed about from one nation to another, or hidden away in some dark corner." (Fiske's "Cosmic Philosophy," vol. 2, p. 175.) In general terms we may define it as a progressive movement of the individual and of society. Its results are the highest attainments, the acquisition of the best things, as wealth, culture, and morality. But these "best things" must be shared liberally by the laboring classes or the civilization cannot long survive. Every civilization of the past has been false in this respect. The pyramids of Egypt have a record of kings possessing millions of slaves. Greece produced a civilization inspired by a love of the beautiful, and has consequently contributed more toward the civilization of mankind than any other people. But no nation has conspicuously sought to secure to its people the rights of liberty and justice. And until the time comes when the people get these rights, there can be no true civilization. Humanity must become the supreme purpose of life. The augean stables of legislation must be renovated for the presence of better men who shall take the places of the corrupt demagogues who now fill our highest offices of public trust. The very fact that a dozen of our United States senators represent $160,000,000 speaks volumes of itself. Many of these men have secured the most if not all their great wealth since they have been the custodians of the people's public interests.

A true civilization has never yet appeared in the world. Much that is written in proof of our boasted civilization is twaddle. We are living in many respects as barbarians lived thousands of years ago. But to return to our definitions. It should be borne in mind that civilization is not an end, but a means to higher ends; the results are not therefore fixed and final, as they in turn become causes of other results. If we regard civilization as a refined and cultured state of society, we shall find that it means more than this--that it is rather the activity of mind which leads to higher refinements, to investigation, invention, discovery, and that it constantly inspires man with desires for still nobler achievements. Civilization is the onward and upward movement of the human race. This fermentation of humanity is the product of many factors, and has been effected by all sorts of human activities. War, commerce, agriculture, inventions, crusades, discoveries, literature, art, religion, skepticism, government, languages, science, manufactures, climate, soil, food, and many other things have assisted in developing the mind and heart of man, and in improving his physical condition. In the present century, science has worked wonders by way of discovery and invention, increasing the intellectual activities, thereby widening the knowledge of men and augmenting the sum of human happiness.

We should not overlook the fact that the world's advancement has been vastly more in the line of intellectual improvement and material prosperity than in the development of man's moral nature. Our civilization is much like our dress, it abounds in shoddy and tinsel. There is much in the dome of modern civilization that glares in the sunlight, while its foundations, which are out of sight, are rotten. Our great cities show us that the rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. Where will this end? Can a splendid civilization be established on such a basis?

Distinguished men have entertained widely different notions of the causes of human progress. One writer thinks that government possesses the secret power of progress; another claims all advancement for Christianity, and others that morality is the cause, while yet others attribute the magic power to the forces of nature. Mr. Buckle maintains that man's progress is due to his physical environment. And a moment's reflection will show us that there is much truth in his claim. We know that it is utterly impossible to establish a grand civilization in the tropics or in the polar regions. Suppose we should send all the ministers in the country, all the gold and silver in the United States treasury and millions of our best citizens to Greenland, could they build up a splendid civilization there? Not at all. Nature is too inhospitable. Society flourishes only in a temperate climate. If it were the church that created civilization then we should see similar results in different latitudes and among different races. But the facts are opposed to this claim. Wherever there is a high civilization there is good soil and temperate climate. As an illustration of this fact I may refer the reader to the Abyssinians, who have had the Bible in their possession about twice as long as the Anglo-Saxons; and yet they are all a race of barbarians still.

Christianity was introduced in that country about A.D. 330.

The people still remain rude and barbarous.

Bruce relates how he saw the people cut steaks from living cattle
and eat them raw. (Ency. Brit.)

Mr. Buckle claims that the favorable environment produces progress in the race, and that as man progresses he gains more control over nature and utilizes her forces. He makes the desert to blossom, he overcomes diseases, as plague, leprosy, and prevents famine, and because of his increased knowledge wars are becoming less frequent and less barbarous. From these facts he claims that the advance of civilization is characterized by a diminishing influence of physical laws, and an increasing influence of mental laws. In proof of his position that climate, soil, and food are the determining influences of progress, he refers us to the climate of Asia and Africa as compared with the climate of Europe and America, pointing out the latter as having vast mineral resources and great facilities of travel over highways, rivers, and lakes. The temperate climate is in every way therefore most favorable to the highest civilization.

In the tropics man does not have to exhaust himself in obtaining his food, as it grows spontaneously and in abundance, but the burning sun takes out of him his energy and enterprise; while on the other hand the inhabitant of Greenland has to fight for life against the severe cold. His efforts and manner of life are exhausting, and tend to dwarf him physically, morally, and mentally. However much man may do in overcoming nature, these two hindrances of extreme heat and excessive cold remain insuperable barriers in his way.

War has been a civilizing power, although it has been fearful expensive of blood, treasure, and public morals. The American revolution of 1776 secured the independence of this country. The French revolution of 1789, transformed the whole of Europe. The recent great rebellion in this country emancipated the slave, and has made a more perfect union of the North and South. The crusades were a great revolutionary movement in Europe, beginning in 1096, and lasting about two hundred years. In fact there was no such a thing as Europe before this great epoch. The different countries which constitute Europe, had, prior to the crusades, almost no intercourse with one another, and consequently each was comparatively ignorant of the manners and customs of the others. The uprising of millions of men, women, and children, as warriors of Christ, who set out from time to time, from England, France, Germany, and Spain to rescue the Holy Land from the Infidel, the Mohammedan, brought wonderful experiences to the few thousand who survived to tell their stories. The pathways over which these deluded people thronged were whitened with the bleached bones of those who had fallen victims of disease, exposure, hunger, and the sword. What a monstrous blind sacrifice this was, offered up on the altar of ignorance! Of course it could do the world no good to rescue the Holy Land. If God wanted that land rescued he could do it himself. And that he did not do so is self-evident that he did not want it rescued, besides, he would not allow even his own peculiar people to rescue it. The church is still offering its sacrifices of public weal, of blood, and treasure in trying to rescue, abroad, the Pagan from his Paganism, and at home, the Infidel from his Infidelity, while God could do it himself if he so desired, but he does not, neither does he permit his own "peculiar" people to do it.

The crusaders had no commission from heaven for this business--they were not the agents of God, but only pretenders--and the church of to-day has no more right to pretend to save the world than the crusaders had to deliver the holy sepulchre from the so-called Pagans. The one and the others are alike impostors upon a credulous world. The crusades did nothing in the matter of rescuing the Holy Land. In this respect they were failures. The God of hosts did not lead them on to certain victory. But if they did not secure what they aimed at, they found something infinitely better--a wider knowledge of the world.

The intercourse between these different peoples which was occasioned by the marching of armies through their lands, gave new ideas to all; broke up the feudal system, and serfdom, secured the supremacy of a common law over the independent jurisdiction of the chiefs who claimed the right of private wars. In a word, it was the origin of Europe, the first great awakening of the intellect of the masses.

Not only were the old manners and customs changed, but there was stimulated in society an increased mental activity; and the narrow routine in which it had been accustomed to move was destroyed. Society began its new transformations into governments and nations, which says Guizot, is the characteristic of modern civilization.

Industrial Influences.

The causes which mostly disturbed or accelerated the normal
progress of society in antiquity were the appearance of great
men. In modern times the appearance of great inventions. Printing
has secured the intellectual achievements of the past, and
furnished a sure guarantee of future progress. Gunpowder
and military machinery have rendered the triumph of
barbarians impossible. Steam has united nations in the closest
bonds. Innumerable mechanical contrivances have given a decisive
preponderance to that industrial element which has colored all the
developments of our civilization. The leading characteristics of
modern societies are in consequence marked out much more by the
triumphs of inventive skill than by the sustained energy of moral
causes. ("Lecky's History of European Morals," vol. 1, p. 126.)

It is not necessary to point in what way the printing press, art, commerce, and science, have promoted the progress of the race. It is so apparent to every intelligent reader that these have been the stepping stones over which we have passed from barbarism to civilization, that amplification is unnecessary.

The splendid results of science are everywhere so manifest that we hardly need refer to them. What transformations the world has undergone through the uses of the steam engine, the spinning jenny, telegraph, ocean cable, railroads, sewing machines, photography, spectrum analysis, and thousands of other useful inventions. We see advancement achieved in free government, free schools, free libraries, free trade, labor reform, prison reform, and reform in the treatment of lunatics, paupers and criminals, and reform seeking to adjust the wrongs perpetrated upon women.

Besides all these improvements there is every indication in the spirit of to-day that we are soon to witness greater improvements, if not radical changes in government; changes affecting capital and labor.

Skepticism.

Skepticism played a prominent part in the eighteenth century. Doubt instead of faith, possessed the minds of many of the most distinguished men of thought, such as Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, Rousseau, D'Holbach, Gibbon, and others. Some of the more prominent skeptics rejected Christianity on the common ground of incredibility of the scriptures. But as they had no form of belief or knowledge to substitute in place of the dogmas they rejected, it was not difficult for the clergy with specious explanations to cover up the doubts and disbeliefs which the skeptics raised. Something more was needed to break the spell of superstition and arouse the minds of men to thought and action. In the first part of the present century the philosophy of Evolution began to find place in the minds of most profound thinkers. Science has done what skepticism failed to accomplish; it has given knowledge instead of faith. It has cultivated intense intellectual habits in modern society and given mankind a sure test of truth, in its method of verification, by means of experiment, observation and deduction.

Science.

Science is inexorably hostile to supernaturalism--cannot recognize a particle of it. It knows nothing of a super-nature; with science all is nature, and nature is all. From pre-historic times the race has been under the control of ignorance and superstition, the parents of fear and cruelty; but now that science begins to dispel ignorance and superstition, we find courage, kindness, and other humanities taking their places. And we should say just here that Infidelity is no longer synonymous with mere disbelief; it means more than this. It stands for all that reason approves. Freethought is the first fruits of skepticism, and this means honest inquiry on all subjects, old and new. It means independence and manhood in private as well as public life--the right of everyone to think and express his thought regardless of creeds and customs, the right to live his own life in the enjoyment of the broadest possible liberty compatible with the liberty of others. Freethinkers are the prophets of this age, proclaiming justice as the right of all, and predicting a day of wrath to those who trample upon the rights of a long-suffering people. In the light of science, priestcraft must fade away like snow under the increasing heat of the sun.

Metaphysical Method.

The church made no progress in science and art for a thousand years. The energies of the mind had no outlet except in a few channels which were not fruitful. The scholars of the middle ages exerted great mental force upon empty questions, as "quiddities," "entities," "occult virtues," "efficient causes," "realism and nominalism," and the "essence of things." Were any of these problems ever solved? What corresponding benefit has resulted from these long and zealous discussions? What general conclusions have been reached? What first principles have been established by them?

The speculative philosophy created violent agitation in the church; but from its very nature it offered no positive truth, no verifiable facts to take the place of theology. The metaphysical method was fruitless, because its supporters sought to explain every problem by the process of thought alone.

Tennemann has fairly stated the good and bad of scholastic
philosophy. It gave rise to a great display of address, subtlety,
sagacity in the explanations and distinction of abstract ideas,
but at the same time to many trifling and minute speculations,
to a contempt of positive knowledge and too much unnecessary
refinement. (Hallam, "Middle Ages," vol. 1, p. 33.)

For centuries the church maintained metaphysical discussions about the nature of Christ, one party arguing that he was of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father, and an another as strongly argued that he was of like substance (homoiusion) as the Father. These controversies were attended with bloody conflicts. If one party were in possession of the revealed will of God, it was quite natural that all other parties should listen to them. If they would not they incurred the wrath of God, and if God was angry his people ought to imitate him; if God was going to damn heretics in the next world, his saints, who are his agents here, ought to damn them in this.

RECAPITULATION.

No writer of distinction has been able, publicly, to show that Christianity has been a powerful factor for good in the civilization of the world. The definitions of civilization necessarily exclude superstition. We have seen that civilization is not an "entity" but a progressive movement produced by favorable conditions, for example, temperate climate, good soil, abundance of lakes, rivers, and mineral resources. Human activities upon a large scale have evolved still higher and better conditions for parts of the race. We have shown how war, commerce, agriculture, inventions, crusades, discoveries, literature, art, skepticism, government, languages, science, and philosophy have added to the sum of human well-being in one way and another.

The revival of learning did not spring from the church, but from Pagan literature, and Mohammedan schools. And it requires no great research to learn that the church has never been favorably inclined toward true learning, that is, toward science. It has insisted upon teaching an ignorant world the unknown and unknowable. "Carnal reason" and "blasphemous science" were never pet lessons for its subjects. It chose rather the motto, "Ignorance is the mother of devotion."

Some things Christianity has Not Done.

It has professed to offer the world a revelation of the will of God. And what has this book, the Bible, revealed? What information does it give man of the nature of this earth, of geology, geography, or of the millions of stars seen and unseen; of agriculture? Is it not true that he who invented the plow was a greater man than Moses? What does the Bible teach about government, agriculture, mining, inventions, discoveries, arts, printing, morals, liberty, and all other branches of useful learning? It contains no instructions upon the most important and useful subjects. And of itself, the Bible makes no claim to be an inspired revelation from God. The church, with all its assumptions and presumptions, is not the teacher of the world, as it has nothing but superstition to teach.

The Conflict between Christianity and Civilization.

Christianity is conservative, and, like the bourbon, never gets a new idea or forgets an old one, and it is in its very nature, therefore, non-progressive. The advancement of humanity has been achieved not by and through Christianity, but in conflict with and triumph over it. Christianity itself has been subject to modification and progress from forces without, rather than virtues within itself. The savage doctrine "believe or be damned," is no longer a popular pulpit theme. Eternal torment has ceased to torment or terrify the living, election and reprobation are no longer a commodity greatly in demand, and the divine right of kings is rapidly fading out of mind. Infant damnation is not mentioned--babes do not go to hell in these days--they all crowd into Abraham's capacious bosom. The Devil is not so black as he used to be--it was reported lately that he is dead. Taking it all in all, there has been a great improvement in the doctrines of the church. It should never be forgotten, however, that it professes to save the world, while the truth is just the opposite, that is, the world saves the church. Common sense has taught the church the foolishness and wickedness of these absurd and cruel doctrines, and has saved it from immediate decay by forcing it to give them up. The church makes progress because it must, not because it seeks to do so. The sanity of man is saving him from the insanity of religion. The world moves and Christianity, though it hangs back, must nevertheless move with it. The progressive element is in man, and when he is outside of the church he advances in knowledge and morality; but within its walls he is sure to be conservative and non-progressive. For why should he seek to make any progress? Has he not the revealed will of God--a complete guide to duty here and to destiny hereafter? Surely he needs no books to supersede the Bible or other virtues than those awakened by the grace of God.

The Bible Sanctions Great Crimes.

We come now to look at the crimes perpetrated by the people of God, to show how the Bible and Christianity lie as insuperable obstructions in the pathway of progress.

Wars of Extermination.

And when thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, and
it shall be, if it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee,
then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall
be tributaries unto thee and shall serve thee. And if it will
make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee (that is,
by defending their wives and children) then thou shalt besiege it.

And when the Lord God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou
shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the
women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the
city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself,
and thou shalt eat of the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities
which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of
these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth. (Deut. 20 : 10-17.)