{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-1:what-must-we-do-to-be-saved",
  "slug": "what-must-we-do-to-be-saved",
  "title": "What Must We Do To Be Saved?",
  "subtitle": "A close reading of the four gospels.",
  "excerpt": "A careful, close reading of the gospels asking what — if anything — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually demand for the salvation of the soul.",
  "year": 1880,
  "volume": 1,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/what-must-we-do-to-be-saved/",
  "wordCount": 11007,
  "body": "<section class=\"work-preface\">\n\n<span class=\"work-preface-kicker\">Author's Front Matter</span>\n<h2 class=\"work-preface-heading\">Preface</h2>\n\nIf what is known as the Christian Religion is true, nothing can be more\nwonderful than the fact that Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about\n\"salvation by faith;\" that they do not even hint at the doctrine of\nthe atonement, and are as silent as empty tombs as to the necessity of\nbelieving anything to secure happiness in this world or another.\n\nFor a good many years it has been claimed that the writers of these\ngospels knew something about the teachings of Christ, and had, at least,\na general knowledge of the conditions of salvation. It now seems to\nbe substantiated that the early Christians did not place implicit\nconfidence in the gospels, and did not hesitate to make such changes and\nadditions as they thought proper. Such changes and additions are about\nthe only passages in the New Testament that the Evangelical Churches\nnow consider sacred. That portion of the last chapter of Mark, in which\nunbelievers are so cheerfully and promptly damned, has been shown to be\nan interpolation, and it is asserted that in the revised edition of the\nNew Testament, soon to be issued, the infamous passages will not appear.\nWith these expunged, there is not one word in Matthew, Mark, or Luke,\neven tending to show that belief in Christ has, or can have, any effect\nupon the destiny of the soul.\n\nThe four gospels are the four corner-stones upon which rests the fabric\nof orthodox Christianity. Three of these stones have crumbled, and the\nfourth is not likely to outlast this generation. The gospel of John\ncannot alone uphold the infinite absurdity of vicarious virtue and vice,\nand it cannot, without the aid of \"interpolation,\" sustain the illogical\nand immoral dogma of salvation by faith. These frightful doctrines must\nbe abandoned; the miraculous must be given up, the wonderful stories\nmust be expunged, and from the creed of noble deeds the forgeries\nof superstition must be blotted out. From the temple of Morality\nand Truth—from the great windows towards the sun—the parasitic and\npoisonous vines of faith and fable must be torn.\n\nThe church will be compelled at last to rest its case, not upon the\nwonders Christ is said to have performed, but upon the system of\nmorality he taught. All the miracles, including the resurrection and\nascension, are, when compared with portions of the \"Sermon on the\nMount,\" but dust and darkness.\n\nThe careful reader of the New Testament will find three Christs\ndescribed:—One who wished to preserve Judaism—one who wished to\nreform it, and one who built a system of his own. The apostles and their\ndisciples, utterly unable to comprehend a religion that did away with\nsacrifices, churches, priests, and creeds, constructed a Christianity\nfor themselves, so that the orthodox churches of to-day rest—first,\nupon what Christ endeavored to destroy—second, upon what he never said,\nand, third, upon a misunderstanding of what he did say.\n\nIf a certain belief is necessary to insure the salvation of the soul,\nthe church ought to explain, and without any unnecessary delay, why such\nan infinitely important fact was utterly ignored by Matthew, Mark\nand Luke. There are only two explanations possible. Either belief is\nunnecessary, or the writers of these three gospels did not understand\nthe Christian system. The \"sacredness\" of the subject cannot longer hide\nthe absurdity of the \"scheme of salvation,\" nor the failure of Matthew,\nMark and Luke to mention, what is now claimed to have been, the entire\nmission of Christ. The church must take from the New Testament the\nsupernatural'; the idea that an intellectual conviction can subject an\nhonest man to eternal pain—the awful doctrine that the innocent can\njustly suffer for the guilty, and allow the remainder to be discussed,\ndenied or believed without punishment and without reward. No one will\nobject to the preaching of kindness, honesty and justice. To preach less\nis a crime, and to practice more is impossible.\n\nThere is one thing that ought to be again impressed upon the average\ntheologian, and that is the utter futility of trying to answer arguments\nwith personal abuse. It should be understood once for all that these\nquestions are in no sense personal. If it should turn out that all the\nprofessed Christians in the world are sinless saints, the question of\nhow Matthew, Mark, and Luke, came to say nothing about the atonement and\nthe scheme of salvation by faith, would still be asked. And if it should\nthen be shown that all the doubters, deists, and atheists, are vile and\nvicious wretches, the question still would wait for a reply.\n\nThe origin of all religions, creeds, and sacred books, is substantially\nthe same, and the history of one, is, in the main, the history of all.\nThus far these religions have been the mistaken explanations of our\nsurroundings. The appearances of nature have imposed upon the ignorance\nand fear of man. But back of all honest creeds was, and is, the desire\nto know, to understand, and to explain, and that desire will, as I\nmost fervently hope and earnestly believe, be gratified at last by\nthe discovery of the truth. Until then, let us bear with the theories,\nhopes, dreams, mistakes, and honest thoughts of all.\n\n<p class=\"work-preface-sign\">Robert G. Ingersoll<small>Washington, D.C. · October 1880</small></p>\n\n</section>\n\nWhat Must We Do to Be Saved\n\n\"THE NUREMBERG MAN WAS OPERATED BY A COMBINATION OF PIPES AND LEVERS,\nAND THOUGH HE COULD BREATHE AND DIGEST PERFECTLY, AND EVEN REASON AS\nWELL AS MOST THEOLOGIANS, WAS MADE OF NOTHING BUT WOOD AND LEATHER.\"\n\nTHE whole world has been filled with fear.\n\nIgnorance has been the refuge of the soul. For thousands of years the\nintellectual ocean was ravaged by the buccaneers of reason. Pious souls\nclung to the shore and looked at the lighthouse. The seas were filled\nwith monsters and the islands with sirens. The people were driven in the\nmiddle of a narrow road while priests went before, beating the hedges on\neither side to frighten the robbers from their lairs. The poor followers\nseeing no robbers, thanked their brave leaders with all their hearts.\n\nI. What We Must Do to Be Saved\n\nHuddled in folds they listened with wide eyes while the shepherds told\nof ravening wolves. With great gladness they exchanged their fleeces for\nsecurity. Shorn and shivering, they had the happiness of seeing their\nprotectors comfortable and warm.\n\nThrough all the years, those who plowed divided with those who prayed.\nWicked industry supported pious idleness, the hut gave to the cathedral,\nand frightened poverty gave even its rags to buy a robe for hypocrisy.\n\nFear is the dungeon of the mind, and superstition is a dagger with which\nhypocrisy assassinates the soul. Courage is liberty. I am in favor of\nabsolute freedom of thought. In the realm of mind every one is monarch;\nevery one is robed, sceptered, and crowned, and every one wears the\npurple of authority. I belong to the republic of intellectual liberty,\nand only those are good citizens of that republic who depend upon reason\nand upon persuasion, and only those are traitors who resort to brute\nforce.\n\nNow, I beg of you all to forget just for a few moments that you are\nMethodists or Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians, and let us for an\nhour or two remember only that we are men and women. And allow me to\nsay \"man\" and \"woman\" are the highest titles that can be bestowed upon\nhumanity.\n\nLet us, if possible, banish all fear from the mind. Do not imagine that\nthere is some being in the infinite expanse who is not willing that\nevery man and woman should think for himself and herself. Do not imagine\nthat there is any being who would give to his children the holy torch of\nreason, and then damn them for following that sacred light. Let us have\ncourage.\n\nPriests have invented a crime called \"blasphemy,\" and behind that\ncrime hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. There is but one\nblasphemy, and that is injustice. There is but one worship, and that is\njustice!\n\nYou need not fear the anger of a god that you cannot injure. Rather\nfear to injure your fellow-men. Do not be afraid of a crime you can not\ncommit. Rather be afraid of the one that you may commit. The reason that\nyou cannot injure God is that the Infinite is conditionless. You cannot\nincrease or diminish the happiness of any being without changing that\nbeing's condition. If God is conditionless, you can neither injure nor\nbenefit him.\n\nDo not imagine for a moment that I think people who disagree with me\nare bad people. I admit, and I cheerfully admit, that a very large\nproportion of mankind, and a very large majority, a vast number are\nreasonably honest. I believe that most Christians believe what they\nteach; that most ministers are endeavoring to make this world better.\nI do not pretend to be better than they are. It is an intellectual\nquestion. It is a question, first, of intellectual liberty, and after\nthat, a question to be settled at the bar of human reason. I do not\npretend to be better than they are. Probably I am a good deal worse than\nmany of them, but that is not the question. The question is: Bad as\nI am, have I the right to think? And I think I have for two reasons:\nFirst, I cannot help it. And secondly, I like it. The whole question is\nright at a point. If I have not a right to express my thoughts, who has?\n\n\"Oh,\" they say, \"we will allow you to think, we will not burn you.\"\n\n\"All right; why won't you burn me?\"\n\n\"Because we think a decent man will allow others to think and to express\nhis thought.\"\n\n\"Then the reason you do not persecute me for my thought is that you\nbelieve it would be infamous in you?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And yet you worship a God who will, as you declare, punish me forever?\"\n\nSurely an infinite God ought to be as just as man. Surely no God can\nhave the right to punish his children for being honest. He should not\nreward hypocrisy with heaven, and punish candor with eternal pain.\n\nThe next question then is: Can I commit a sin against God by thinking?\nIf God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker? For\none, I am convinced, not only that I have the right to think, but that\nit is my duty to express my honest thoughts. Whatever the gods may say\nwe must be true to ourselves.\n\nWe have got what they call the Christian system of religion, and\nthousands of people wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack that\nsystem.\n\nThere are many good things about it, and I shall never attack anything\nthat I believe to be good! I shall never fear to attack anything I\nhonestly believe to be wrong! We have what they call the Christian\nreligion, and I find, just in proportion that nations have been\nreligious, just in the proportion they have clung to the religion of\ntheir founders, they have gone back to barbarism. I find that Spain,\nPortugal, Italy, are the three worst nations in Europe. I find that the\nnation nearest infidel is the most prosperous—France.\n\nAnd so I say there can be no danger in the exercise of absolute\nintellectual freedom. I find among ourselves the men who think are at\nleast as good as those who do not.\n\nWe have, I say, a Christian system, and that system is founded upon\nwhat they are pleased to call the \"New Testament.\" Who wrote the New\nTestament? I do not know. Who does know? Nobody. We have found many\nmanuscripts containing portions of the New Testament. Some of these\nmanuscripts leave out five or six books—many of them. Others more;\nothers less. No two of these manuscripts agree. Nobody knows who wrote\nthese manuscripts. They are all written in Greek. The disciples of\nChrist, so far as we know, knew only Hebrew. Nobody ever saw so far as\nwe know, one of the original Hebrew manuscripts.\n\nNobody ever saw anybody who had seen anybody who had heard of anybody\nthat had ever seen anybody that had ever seen one of the original Hebrew\nmanuscripts. No doubt the clergy of your city have told you these facts\nthousands of times, and they will be obliged to me for having repeated\nthem once more. These manuscripts are written in what are called capital\nGreek letters. They are called Uncial manuscripts, and the New Testament\nwas not divided into chapters and verses, even, until the year of grace\n1551. In the original the manuscripts and gospels are signed by nobody.\nThe epistles are addressed to nobody; and they are signed by the same\nperson. All the addresses, all the pretended ear-marks showing to\nwhom they were written, and by whom they were written, are simply\ninterpolations, and everybody who has studied the subject knows it.\n\nIt is further admitted that even these manuscripts have not been\nproperly translated, and they have a syndicate now making a new\ntranslation; and I suppose that I can not tell whether I really believe\nthe New Testament or not until I see that new translation.\n\nYou must remember, also, one other thing. Christ never wrote a solitary\nword of the New Testament—not one word. There is an account that he\nonce stooped and wrote something in the sand, but that has not been\npreserved. He never told anybody to write a word. He never said:\n\"Matthew, remember this. Mark, do not forget to put that down. Luke, be\nsure that in your gospel you have this. John, do not forget it.\" Not one\nword. And it has always seemed to me that a being coming from another\nworld, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least\nhave verified that message by his own signature. Is it not wonderful\nthat not one word was written by Christ? Is it not strange that he\ngave no orders to have his words preserved—words upon which hung the\nsalvation of a world?\n\nWhy was nothing written? I will tell you. In my judgment they expected\nthe end of the world in a few days. That generation was not to pass away\nuntil the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth\nshould melt with fervent heat. That was their belief. They believed that\nthe world was to be destroyed, and that there was to be another coming,\nand that the saints were then to govern the earth. And they even went so\nfar among the apostles, as we frequently do now before election, as to\ndivide out the offices in advance. This Testament, as it now is, was not\nwritten for hundreds of years after the apostles were dust. Many of the\npretended facts lived in the open mouth of credulity. They were in the\nwastebaskets of forgetfulness. They depended upon the inaccuracy of\nlegend, and for centuries these doctrines and stories were blown about\nby the inconstant winds. And when reduced to writing, some gentleman\nwould write by the side of the passage his idea of it, and the next\ncopyist would put that in as a part of the text. And, when it was mostly\nwritten, and the church got into trouble, and wanted a passage to help\nit out, one was interpolated to order. So that now it is among\nthe easiest things in the world to pick out at least one hundred\ninterpolations in the Testament. And I will pick some of them out before\nI get through.\n\nAnd let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have\ninfinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has\ndied for man is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that\ngreat and serene man I gladly pay, I gladly pay, the tribute of my\nadmiration and my tears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel\nin his time. He was regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed\nby hypocrites, who have, in all ages, done what they could to trample\nfreedom and manhood out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I\nwould have been his friend, and should he come again he will not find a\nbetter friend than I will be.\n\nThat is for the man. For the theological creation I have a different\nfeeling. If he was, in fact, God, he knew there was no such thing as\ndeath. He knew that what we called death was but the eternal opening of\nthe golden gates of everlasting joy; and it took no heroism to face a\ndeath that was eternal life.\n\nBut when a man, when a poor boy sixteen years of age, goes upon the\nfield of battle to keep his flag in heaven, not knowing but that death\nends all; not knowing but that when the shadows creep over him, the\ndarkness will be eternal, there is heroism. For the man who, in the\ndarkness, said: \"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?\"—for that man I\nhave nothing but respect, admiration, and love. Back of the theological\nshreds, rags, and patches, hiding the real Christ, I see a genuine man.\n\nA while ago I made up my mind to find out what was necessary for me to\ndo in order to be saved. If I have got a soul, I want it saved. I do not\nwish to lose anything that is of value.\n\nFor thousands of years the world has been asking that question:\n\n\"What must we do to be saved?\"\n\nSaved from poverty? No. Saved from crime? No. Tyranny? No. But \"What\nmust we do to be saved from the eternal wrath of the God who made us\nall?\"\n\nIf God made us, he will not destroy us. Infinite wisdom never made a\npoor investment. Upon all the works of an infinite God, a dividend must\nfinally be declared. Why should God make failures? Why should he waste\nmaterial? Why should he not correct his mistakes, instead of damning\nthem? The pulpit has cast a shadow over even the cradle. The doctrine\nof endless punishment has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. I\ndespise it, and I defy it.\n\nI made up my mind, I say, to see what I had to do in order to save my\nsoul according to the Testament, and thereupon I read it. I read the\ngospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and found that the church had\nbeen deceiving me. I found that the clergy did not understand their own\nbook; that they had been building upon passages that had been\ninterpolated; upon passages that were entirely untrue, and I will tell\nyou why I think so.\n\nII. The Gospel of Matthew\n\nACCORDING to the church, the first gospel was written by Matthew. As a\nmatter of fact he never wrote a word of it—never saw it, never heard of\nit and probably never will. But for the purposes of this lecture I admit\nthat he wrote years; that he was his constant companion; that he shared\nhis sorrows and his triumphs; that he heard his words by the lonely\nlakes, the barren hills, in synagogue and street, and that he knew his\nheart and became acquainted with his thoughts and aims.\n\nNow let us see what Matthew says we must do in order to be saved. And\nI take it that, if this is true, Matthew is as good authority as any\nminister in the world.\n\nI will admit that he was with Christ for three years.\n\nThe first thing I find upon the subject of salvation is in the fifth\nchapter of Matthew, and is embraced in what is commonly known as the\nSermon on the Mount. It is as follows:\n\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\"\nGood!\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\" Good! Whether\nthey belonged to any church or not; whether they believed the Bible or\nnot?\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\" Good!\n\n\"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the\npeacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are\nthey which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the\nkingdom of heaven.\" Good!\n\nIn the same sermon he says: \"Think not that I am come to destroy the law\nor the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.\" And then he\nmakes use of this remarkable language, almost as applicable to-day as\nit was then: \"For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall\nexceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no\nwise enter into the kingdom of heaven.\" Good!\n\nIn the sixth chapter I find the following, and it comes directly after\nthe prayer known as the Lord's prayer:\n\n\"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also\nforgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will\nyour father forgive your trespasses.\"\n\nI accept the condition. There is an offer; I accept it. If you will\nforgive men that trespass against you, God will forgive your trespasses\nagainst him. I accept the terms, and I never will ask any God to treat\nme better than I treat my fellow-men. There is a square promise. There\nis a contract. If you will forgive others God will forgive you. And it\ndoes not say you must believe in the Old Testament, or be baptized, or\njoin the church, or keep Sunday; that you must count beads, or pray, or\nbecome a nun, or a priest; that you must preach sermons or hear them,\nbuild churches or fill them. Not one word is said about eating or\nfasting, denying or believing. It simply says, if you forgive others God\nwill forgive you; and it must of necessity be true. No god could afford\nto damn a forgiving man. Suppose God should damn to everlasting fire a\nman so great and good, that he, looking from the abyss of hell, would\nforgive God,—how would a god feel then?\n\nNow let me make myself plain upon one subject, perfectly plain. For\ninstance, I hate Presbyterianism, but I know hundreds of splendid\nPresbyterians. Understand me. I hate Methodism, and yet I know hundreds\nof splendid Methodists. I hate Catholicism, and like Catholics. I hate\ninsanity but not the insane.\n\nI do not war against men. I do not war against persons. I war against\ncertain doctrines that I believe to be wrong. But I give to every other\nhuman being every right that I claim for myself.\n\nThe next thing that I find is in the seventh chapter and the second\nverse: \"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with\nwhat measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.\" Good! That\nsuits me!\n\nAnd in the twelfth chapter of Matthew: \"For whosoever shall do the will\nof my Father that is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and\nmother. For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with\nhis angels, and then he shall reward every man according.... To the\nchurch he belongs to? No. To the manner in which he was baptized? No.\nAccording to his creed? No. Then he shall reward every man according to\nhis works.\" Good! I subscribe to that doctrine.\n\nAnd in the eighteenth chapter: \"And Jesus called a little child to him\nand stood him in the midst; and said, 'Verily I say unto you, except ye\nbe converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven.'\" I do not wonder that in his day, surrounded by\nscribes and Pharisees, he turned lovingly to little children.\n\nAnd yet, see what children the little children of God have been. What\nan interesting dimpled darling John Calvin was. Think of that\nprattling babe, Jonathan Edwards! Think of the infants that founded the\nInquisition, that invented instruments of torture to tear human flesh.\nThey were the ones who had become as little children. They were the\nchildren of faith.\n\nSo I find in the nineteenth chapter: \"And behold, one came and said unto\nhim: 'Good master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal\nlife?' And he said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good? There is none\ngood but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the\ncommandments.' He saith unto him, 'which?'\"\n\nNow, there is a fair issue. Here is a child of God asking God what is\nnecessary for him to do in order to inherit eternal life. And God said\nto him: Keep the commandments. And the child said to the Almighty:\n\"Which?\" Now, if there ever has been an opportunity given to the\nAlmighty to furnish a man of an inquiring mind with the necessary\ninformation upon that subject, here was the opportunity. \"He said unto\nhim, which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not\ncommit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false\nwitness; honor thy father and mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbor\nas thyself.\"\n\nHe did not say to him: \"You must believe in me—that I am the only\nbegotten son of the living God.\" He did not say: \"You must be born\nagain.\" He did not say: \"You must believe the Bible.\" He did not say:\n\"You must remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.\" He simply said:\n\"Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt\nnot steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy\nmother; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" And thereupon the\nyoung man, who I think was mistaken, said unto him: \"All these things\nhave I kept from my youth up.\"\n\nWhat right has the church to add conditions of salvation? Why should we\nsuppose that Christ failed to tell the young man all that was necessary\nfor him to do? Is it possible that he left out some important thing\nsimply to mislead? Will some minister tell us why he thinks that Christ\nkept back the \"scheme\"?\n\nNow comes an interpolation.\n\nIn the old times when the church got a little scarce of money, they\nalways put in a passage praising poverty. So they had this young man\nask: \"What lack I yet? And Jesus said unto him: If thou wilt be perfect,\ngo and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have\ntreasure in heaven.\"\n\nThe church has always been willing to swap off treasures in heaven for\ncash down. And when the next verse was written the church must have been\nnearly bankrupt. \"And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel\nto go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into\nthe kingdom of God.\" Did you ever know a wealthy disciple to unload on\naccount of that verse?\n\nAnd then comes another verse, which I believe is an interpolation: \"And\neveryone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father,\nor mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall\nreceive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\"\n\nChrist never said it. Never. \"Whosoever shall forsake father and\nmother.\"\n\nWhy, he said to this man that asked him, \"What shall I do to inherit\neternal life?\" among other things, he said: \"Honor thy father and thy\nmother.\" And we turn over the page and he says again: \"If you will\ndesert your father and mother you shall have everlasting life.\" It will\nnot do. If you will desert your wife and your little children, or your\nlands—the idea of putting a house and lot on equality with wife and\nchildren! Think of that! I do not accept the terms. I will never desert\nthe one I love for the promise of any god.\n\nIt is far more important to love your wife than to love God, and I will\ntell you why. You cannot help him, but you can help her. You can fill\nher life with the perfume of perpetual joy. It is far more important\nthat you love your children than that you love Jesus Christ. And why?\nIf he is God you cannot help him, but you can plant a little flower of\nhappiness in every footstep of the child, from the cradle until you die\nin that child's arms. Let me tell you to-day it is far more important\nto build a home than to erect a church. The holiest temple beneath the\nstars is a home that love has built. And the holiest altar in all the\nwide world is the fireside around which gather father and mother and the\nsweet babes.\n\nThere was a time when people believed the infamy commanded in this\nfrightful passage. There was a time when they did desert fathers and\nmothers and wives and children. St. Augustine says to the devotee: Fly\nto the desert, and though your wife put her arms around your neck, tear\nher hands away; she is a temptation of the devil. Though your father and\nmother throw their bodies athwart your threshold, step over them; and\nthough your children pursue, and with weeping' eyes beseech you to\nreturn, listen not. It is the temptation of the evil one. Fly to the\ndesert and save your soul. Think of such a soul being worth saving.\nWhile I live I propose to stand by the ones I love.\n\nThere is another condition of salvation. I find it in the twenty-fifth\nchapter: \"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come,\nye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the\nfoundation of the world. For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat; I\nwas thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in;\nnaked and ye clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me; I was in prison\nand ye came unto me.\" Good!\n\nI tell you to-night that God will not punish with eternal thirst the man\nwho has put the cup of cold water to the lips of his neighbor. God will\nnot leave in the eternal nakedness of pain the man who has clothed his\nfellow-men.\n\nFor instance, here is a shipwreck, and here is some brave sailor who\nstands aside and allows a woman whom he never saw before to take his\nplace in the boat, and he stands there, grand and serene as the wide\nsea, and he goes down. Do you tell me that there is any God who will\npush the lifeboat from the shore of eternal life, when that man wishes\nto step in? Do you tell me that God can be unpitying to the pitiful,\nthat he can be unforgiving to the forgiving? I deny it; and from the\naspersions of the pulpit I seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity.\n\nNow, I have read you substantially everything in Matthew on the subject\nof salvation. That is all there is. Not one word about believing\nanything. It is the gospel of deed, the gospel of charity, the gospel\nof self-denial; and if only that gospel had been preached, persecution\nnever would have shed one drop of blood. Not one.\n\nAccording to the testimony Matthew was well acquainted with Christ.\nAccording to the testimony, he had been with him, and his companion for\nyears, and if it was necessary to believe anything in order to get to\nheaven, Matthew should have told us. But he forgot it, or he did not\nbelieve it, or he never heard of it. You can take your choice.\n\nIn Matthew, we find that heaven is promised, first, to the poor in\nspirit. Second, to the merciful. Third, to the pure in heart. Fourth, to\nthe peacemakers. Fifth, to those who are persecuted for righteousness'\nsake. Sixth, to those who keep and teach the commandments. Seventh, to\nthose who forgive men that trespass against them. Eighth, that we will\nbe judged as we judge others. Ninth, that they who receive prophets and\nrighteous men shall receive a prophet's reward. Tenth, to those who do\nthe will of God. Eleventh, that every man shall be rewarded according to\nhis works. Twelfth, to those who become as little children. Thirteenth,\nto those who forgive the trespasses of others. Fourteenth, to the\nperfect: they who sell all that they have and give to the poor.\nFifteenth, to them who forsake houses, and brethren, and sisters, and\nfather, and mother, and wife, and children, and lands for the sake of\nChrist's name. Sixteenth, to those who feed the hungry, give drink to\nthe thirsty, shelter to the stranger, clothes to the naked, comfort to\nthe sick, and who visit the prisoner.\n\nNothing else is said with regard to salvation in the gospel according to\nSt. Matthew. Not one word about believing the Old Testament to have been\ninspired; not one word about being baptized or joining a church; not\none word about believing in any miracle; not even a hint that it was\nnecessary to believe that Christ was the son of God, or that he did any\nwonderful or miraculous things, or that he was born of a virgin, or that\nhis coming had been foretold by the Jewish prophets. Not one word\nabout believing in the Trinity, or in foreordination or predestination.\nMatthew had not understood from Christ that any such things were\nnecessary to ensure the salvation of the soul.\n\nAccording to the testimony, Matthew had been in the company of Christ,\nsome say three years and some say one, but at least he had been with him\nlong enough to find out some of his ideas upon this great subject. And\nyet Matthew never got the impression that it was necessary to believe\nsomething in order to get to heaven. He supposed that if a man forgave\nothers God would forgive him; he believed that God would show mercy\nto the merciful; that he would not allow those who fed the hungry to\nstarve; that he would not put in the flames of hell those who had given\ncold water to the thirsty; that he would not cast into the eternal\ndungeon of his wrath those who had visited the imprisoned; and that he\nwould not damn men who forgave others.\n\nMatthew had it in his mind that God would treat us very much as we\ntreated other people; and that in the next world he would treat with\nkindness those who had been loving and gentle in their lives. It may be\nthe apostle was mistaken; but evidently that was his opinion.\n\nIII. The Gospel of Mark\n\nLET us now see what Mark thought it necessary for a man to do to save his\nsoul. In the fourth chapter, after Jesus had given to the multitude by\nthe sea the parable of the sower, his disciples, when they were again\nalone, asked him the meaning of the parable. Jesus replied:\n\n\"Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but\nunto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:\n\n\"That seeing, they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,\nand not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their\nsins should be forgiven them.\"\n\nIt is a little hard to understand why he should have preached to people\nthat he did not intend should know his meaning. Neither is it quite\nclear why he objected to their being converted. This, I suppose, is one\nof the mysteries that we should simply believe without endeavoring to\ncomprehend.\n\nWith the above exception, and one other that I will mention hereafter,\nMark substantially agrees with Matthew, and says that God will be\nmerciful to the merciful, that he will be kind to the kind, that he\nwill pity the pitying, and love the loving. Mark upholds the religion\nof Matthew until we come to the fifteenth and sixteenth verses of\nthe sixteenth chapter, and then I strike an interpolation put in by\nhypocrisy, put in by priests who longed to grasp with bloody hands\nthe sceptre of universal power. Let me read it to you. It is the most\ninfamous passage in the Bible. Christ never said it. No sensible man\never said it.\n\n\"And He said unto them\" (that is, unto his disciples), \"go ye into all\nthe world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and\nis baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\nThat passage was written so that fear would give alms to hypocrisy. Now,\nI propose to prove to you that this is an interpolation. In the first\nplace, not one word is said about belief, in Matthew. In the next place,\nnot one word about belief, in Mark, until I come to that verse, and where is that said to have been spoken? According to\nMark, it is a part of the last conversation of Jesus Christ,—just\nbefore, according to the account, he ascended bodily before their eyes.\nIf there ever was any important thing happened in this world that was\nit. If there is any conversation that people would be apt to recollect,\nit would be the last conversation with a god before he rose visibly\nthrough the air and seated himself upon the throne of the infinite. We\nhave in this Testament five accounts of the last conversation happening\nbetween Jesus Christ and his apostles. Matthew gives it, and yet Matthew\ndoes not state that in that conversation Christ said: \"Whoso believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall be\ndamned.\" And if he did say those words they were the most important that\never fell from lips. Matthew did not hear it, or did not believe it, or\nforgot it.\n\nThen I turn to Luke, and he gives an account of this same last\nconversation, and not one word does he say upon that subject. Luke does\nnot pretend that Christ said that whoso believeth not shall be damned.\nLuke certainly did not hear it. May be he forgot it. Perhaps he did not\nthink that it was worth recording. Now, it is the most important thing,\nif Christ said it, that he ever said.\n\nThen I turn to John, and he gives an account of the last conversation,\nbut not one solitary word on the subject of belief or unbelief. Not one\nsolitary word on the subject of damnation. Not one. John might not have\nbeen listening.\n\nThen I turn to the first chapter of the Acts, and there I find an\naccount of the last conversation; and in that conversation there is not\none word upon this subject. This is a demonstration that the passage in\nMark is an interpolation. What other reason have I got? There is not one\nparticle of sense in it. Why? No man can control his belief. You hear\nevidence for and against, and the integrity of the soul stands at the\nscales and tells which side rises and which side falls. You can not\nbelieve as you wish. You must believe as you must. And he might as well\nhave said: \"Go into the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever has\nred hair shall be saved, and whosoever hath not shall be damned.\"\n\nI have another reason. I am much obliged to the gentleman who\ninterpolated these passages. I am much obliged to him that he put in\nsome more—two more. Now hear:\n\n\"And these signs shall follow them that believe.\" Good!\n\n\"In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new\ntongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing\nit shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall\nrecover.\"\n\nBring on your believer! Let him cast out a devil. I do not ask for a\nlarge one. Just a little one for a cent. Let him take up serpents. \"And\nif they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them.\" Let me mix up a\ndose for the believer, and if it does not hurt him I will join a church.\n\"Oh! but,\" they say, \"those things only lasted through the Apostolic\nage.\" Let us see. \"Go into all the world and preach the gospel, and\nwhosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, and these signs shall\nfollow them that believe.\"\n\nHow long? I think at least until they had gone into all the world.\nCertainly those signs should follow until all the world had been\nvisited. And yet if that declaration was in the mouth of Christ, he then\nknew that one-half of the world was unknown, and that he would be dead\nfourteen hundred and fifty-nine years before his disciples would know\nthat there was another continent. And yet he said, \"Go into all the\nworld and preach the gospel,\" and he knew then that it would be fourteen\nhundred and fifty-nine years before anybody could go. Well, if it was\nworth while to have signs follow believers in the Old World, surely it\nwas worth while to have signs follow believers in the New. And the very\nreason that signs should follow would be to convince the unbeliever,\nand there are as many unbelievers now as ever, and the signs are as\nnecessary to-day as they ever were. I would like a few myself.\n\nThis frightful declaration, \"He that believeth and is baptized shall be\nsaved, but he that believeth not shall be damned,\" has filled the world\nwith agony and crime. Every letter of this passage has been sword and\nfagot; every word has been dungeon and chain. That passage made the\nsword of persecution drip with innocent blood through centuries of agony\nand crime. That passage made the horizon of a thousand years lurid with\nthe fagot's flames. That passage contradicts the Sermon on the Mount;\ntravesties the Lord's prayer; turns the splendid religion of deed\nand duty into the superstition of creed and cruelty. I deny it. It is\ninfamous! Christ never said it!\n\nIV. The Gospel of Luke.\n\nIT is sufficient to say that Luke agrees substantially with Matthew and\nMark.\n\n\"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.\" Good!\n\n\"Judge not and ye shall not be judged: condemn not and ye shall not be\ncondemned: forgive and ye shall be forgiven.\" Good!\n\n\"Give and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and\nshaken together, and running over.\" Good! I like it.\n\n\"For with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to\nyou again.\"\n\nHe agrees substantially with Mark; he agrees substantially with Matthew;\nand I come at last to the nineteenth chapter.\n\n\"And Zaccheus stood and said unto the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, the half of\nmy goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man\nby false accusation, I restore him four fold.' And Jesus said unto him,\n'this day is salvation come to this house.'\"\n\nThat is good doctrine. He did not ask Zaccheus what he believed. He did\nnot ask him, \"Do you believe in the Bible? Do you believe in the five\npoints? Have you ever been baptized—sprinkled? Or immersed?\" \"Half of\nmy goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man\nby false accusation, I restore him four fold.\" \"And Christ said, this\nday is salvation come to this house.\" Good!\n\nI read also in Luke that Christ when upon the cross forgave his\nmurderers, and that is considered the shining gem in the crown of his\nmercy. He forgave his murderers. He forgave the men who drove the nails\nin his hands, in his feet, that plunged a spear in his side; the soldier\nthat in the hour of death offered him in mockery the bitterness to\ndrink. He forgave them all freely, and yet, although he would forgive\nthem, he will in the nineteenth century, as we are told by the orthodox\nchurch, damn to eternal fire a noble man for the expression of his\nhonest thoughts. That will not do. I find, too, in Luke, an account\nof two thieves that were crucified at the same time. The other gospels\nspeak of them. One says they both railed upon him. Another says nothing\nabout it. In Luke we are told that one railed upon him, but one of the\nthieves looked and pitied Christ, and Christ said to that thief:\n\n\"To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.\" Why did he say that? Because\nthe thief pitied him. God can not afford to trample beneath the feet\nof his infinite wrath the smallest blossom of pity that ever shed its\nperfume in the human heart!\n\nWho was this thief? To what church did he belong? I do not know. The\nfact that he was a thief throws no light on that question. Who was he?\nWhat did he believe? I do not know. Did he believe in the Old Testament?\nIn the miracles? I do not know. Did he believe that Christ was God? I\ndo not know. Why then was the promise made to him that he should meet\nChrist in Paradise? Simply because he pitied suffering innocence upon\nthe cross.\n\nGod can not afford to damn any man who is capable of pitying anybody.\n\nV. The Gospel of John\n\nAND now we come to John, and that is where the trouble commences.\n\nThe other gospels teach that God will be merciful to the merciful,\nforgiving to the forgiving, kind to the kind, loving to the loving, just\nto the just, merciful to the good.\n\nNow we come to John, and here is another doctrine. And allow me to say\nthat John was not written until long after the others. John was mostly\nwritten by the church.\n\n\"Jesus answered and said unto him: Verily, verily, I say unto thee,\nExcept a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God.\"\n\nWhy did he not tell Matthew that? Why did he not tell Luke that? Why did\nhe not tell Mark that? They never heard of it, or forgot it, or they did\nnot believe it.\n\n\"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into\nthe kingdom of God.\" Why?\n\n\"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of\nthe Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born\nagain.\" \"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is\nborn of the Spirit is spirit,\" and he might have added, that which is\nborn of water is water.\n\n\"Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'ye must be born again.'\" And then\nthe reason is given, and I admit I did not understand it myself until I\nread the reason, and when you hear the reason, you will understand it\nas well as I do; and here it is: \"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and\nthou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and\nwhither it goeth.\" So, I find in the book of John the idea of the Real\nPresence.\n\n\"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the\nSon of man be lifted up; That whosoever believeth in him should not\nperish, but have eternal life.\"\n\n\"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that\nwhosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.\n\n\"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that\nthe world through him might be saved.\n\n\"He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is\ncondemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only\nbegotten Son of God.\"\n\nSo I find in the book of John, that in order to be saved we must not\nonly believe in Jesus Christ, but we must eat the flesh and we must\ndrink the blood of Jesus Christ. If that gospel is true, the Catholic\nChurch is right. But it is not true. I can not believe it, and yet for\nall that, it may be true. But I do not believe it. Neither do I\nbelieve there is any god in the universe who will damn a man simply for\nexpressing his belief.\n\n\"Why,\" they say to me, \"suppose all this should turn out to be true, and\nyou should come to the day of judgment and find all these things to be\ntrue. What would you do then?\" I would walk up like a man, and say, \"I\nwas mistaken.\"\n\n\"And suppose God was about to pass judgment upon you, what would you\nsay?\" I would say to him, \"Do unto others as you would that others\nshould do unto you.\" Why not?\n\nI am told that I must render good for evil. I am told that if smitten\non one cheek I must turn the other. I am told that I must overcome evil\nwith good. I am told that I must love my enemies; and will it do for\nthis God who tells me to love my enemies to damn his? No, it will not\ndo. It will not do.\n\nIn the book of John all these doctrines of regeneration—that it is\nnecessary to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that salvation depends\nupon belief—in this book of John all these doctrines find their\nwarrant; nowhere else.\n\nRead Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and then read John, and you will agree\nwith me that the three first gospels teach that if we are kind and\nforgiving to our fellows, God will be kind and forgiving to us. In John\nwe are told that another man can be good for us, or bad for us, and that\nthe only way to get to heaven is to believe something that we know is\nnot so.\n\nAll these passages about believing in Christ, drinking his blood\nand eating his flesh, are afterthoughts. They were written by the\ntheologians, and in a few years they will be considered unworthy of the\nlips of Christ.\n\nVI. The Catholics\n\nNOW, upon these gospels that I have read the churches rest; and out of\nthese things, mistakes and interpolations, they have made their\ncreeds. And the first church to make a creed, so far as I know, was the\nCatholic. It was the first church that had any power. That is the church\nthat has preserved all these miracles for us. That is the church that\npreserved the manuscripts for us. That is the church whose word we have\nto take. That church is the first witness that Protestantism brought to\nthe bar of history to prove miracles that took place eighteen hundred\nyears ago; and while the witness is there Protestantism takes pains to\nsay: \"You cannot believe one word that witness says, now.\"\n\nThat church is the only one that keeps up a constant communication with\nheaven through the instrumentality of a large number of decayed saints.\nThat church has an agent of God on earth, has a person who stands in\nthe place of deity; and that church is infallible. That church has\npersecuted to the exact extent of her power—and always will. In Spain\nthat church stands erect, and is arrogant. In the United States that\nchurch crawls; but the object in both countries is the same—and that is\nthe destruction of intellectual liberty. That church teaches us that we\ncan make God happy by being miserable ourselves; that a nun is holier in\nthe sight of God than a loving mother with her child in her thrilled and\nthrilling arms; that a priest is better than a father; that celibacy is\nbetter than that passion of love that has made everything of beauty in\nthis world. That church tells the girl of sixteen or eighteen years of\nage, with eyes like dew and light; that girl with the red of health in\nthe white of her beautiful cheeks—tells that girl, \"Put on the veil,\nwoven of death and night, kneel upon stones, and you will please God.\"\n\nI tell every girl and woman that there is no profit in it. Let the Catholic Church alone. Marry the man you love. Have the children you desire. Make them happy, and let them grow up in the sunlight of your own love, not in the gloom of a cloister.\n\nThousands of volumes could not contain the crimes of the Catholic\nChurch. They could not contain even the names of her victims. With sword\nand fire, with rack and chain, with dungeon and whip she endeavored to\nconvert the world. In weakness a beggar—in power a highwayman,—alms\ndish or dagger—tramp or tyrant.\n\nVII. The Episcopalians\n\nTHE next church I wish to speak of is the Episcopalian. That was\nfounded by Henry VIII., now in heaven. He cast off Queen Catherine and\nCatholicism together, and he accepted Episcopalianism and Annie Boleyn\nat the same time. That church, if it had a few more ceremonies, would be\nCatholic. If it had a few less, nothing. We have an Episcopalian Church\nin this country, and it has all the imperfections of a poor relation. It\nis always boasting of its rich relative.\n\nIn this country the Episcopalians have done some good, and I want\nto thank that church. Having on an average less religion than the\nothers—on an average you have done more good to mankind. You preserved\nsome of the humanities. You did not hate music; you did not absolutely\ndespise painting, and you did not altogether abhor architecture, and you\nfinally admitted that it was no worse to keep time with your feet than\nwith your hands. And some went so far as to say that people could play\ncards, and that God would overlook it, or would look the other way. For\nall these things accept my thanks.\n\nThe Episcopal creed is substantially like the Catholic, containing a few\nadditional absurdities. This church is utterly unsuited to a free people.\n\nVIII. The Methodists\n\nABOUT a hundred and fifty years ago, two men, John Wesley and George\nWhitfield, said, If everybody is going to hell, somebody ought to\nmention it. The Episcopal clergy said: Keep still; do not tear your\ngown. Wesley and Whitfield said: This frightful truth ought to be\nproclaimed from the housetop of every opportunity, from the highway\nof every occasion. They were good, honest men. They believed their\ndoctrine.\n\nThe church that they founded is still active. And probably no church in\nthe world has done so much preaching for as little money as the\nMethodists.\n\nThere is one thing about the Methodist Church in the North that I like.\nBut I find that it is not Methodism that does that. I find that the\nMethodist Church in the South is as much opposed to liberty as the\nMethodist Church North is in favor of liberty. So it is not Methodism\nthat is in favor of liberty or slavery. They differ a little in their\ncreed from the rest. They do not believe that God does everything. They\nbelieve that he does his part, and that you must do the rest, and that\ngetting to heaven is a partnership business.\n\nIX. The Presbyterians\n\nTHE next church is the Presbyterian, and in my judgment the worst of\nall, as far as creed is concerned. This church was founded by John\nCalvin, a murderer!\n\nJohn Calvin, having power in Geneva, inaugurated human torture. Voltaire\nabolished torture in France. The man who abolished torture, if the\nChristian religion be true, God is now torturing in hell, and the man\nwho inaugurated torture, is now a glorified angel in heaven. It will not\ndo.\n\nJohn Knox started this doctrine in Scotland, and there is this\npeculiarity about Presbyterianism—it grows best where the soil is\npoorest.\n\nThat church teaches that infinite innocence was sacrificed for me! I do\nnot want it! I do not wish to go to heaven unless I can settle by the\nbooks, and go there because I ought to go there. I have said, and I say\nagain, I do not wish to be a charity angel. I have no ambition to become\na winged pauper of the skies.\n\nHeaven is where those are we love, and those who love us. And I wish to\ngo to no world unless I can be accompanied by those who love me here.\n\nX. The Evangelical Alliance.\n\nI HAVE not time to speak of the Baptists,—that Jeremy Taylor said\nwere as much to be rooted out as anything that is the greatest pest and\nnuisance on the earth. He hated the Baptists because they represented,\nin some little degree, the liberty of thought.\n\nThe Evangelical Alliance, made up of all orthodox denominations of the\nworld, met only a few years ago, and here is their creed: They believe\nin the divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the holy\nScriptures; the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation\nof the holy Scriptures, but if you interpret wrong you are damned.\nThey believe in the unity of the godhead and the Trinity of the persons\ntherein. They believe in the utter depravity of human nature. There can\nbe no more infamous doctrine than that. They look upon a little child as\na lump of depravity. I look upon it as a bud of humanity, that will, in\nthe air and light of love and joy, blossom into rich and glorious life.\n\nThey believe in the eternal blessedness of the righteous, and in the\neternal punishment of the wicked.\n\nTidings of great joy! They are so good that they will not associate with\nUniversalists. They will not associate with Unitarians; they will not\nassociate with scientists; they will only associate with those who\nbelieve that God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn the\nmost of us.\n\nThe Evangelical Alliance reiterates the absurdities of the Dark\nAges—repeats the five points of Calvin—replenishes the fires of\nhell—certifies to the mistakes and miracles of the Bible—maligns the\nhuman race, and kneels to a god who accepted the agony of the innocent\nas an atonement for the guilty.\n\nXI. What Do You Propose?\n\nTHEN they say to me: \"What do you propose? You have torn this down, what\ndo you propose to give us in place of it?\"\n\nI have not torn the good down. I have only endeavored to trample out the\nignorant, cruel fires of hell. I do not tear away the passage: \"God will\nbe merciful to the merciful.\" I do not destroy the promise; \"If you will\nforgive others, God will forgive you.\" I would not for anything blot out\nthe faintest star that shines in the horizon of human despair, nor in\nthe sky of human hope; but I will do what I can to get that infinite\nshadow out of the heart of man.\n\n\"What do you propose in place of this?\"\n\nWell, in the first place, I propose good fellowship—good friends all\naround. No matter what we believe, shake hands and let it go. That is\nyour opinion; this is mine: let us be friends. Science makes friends;\nreligion, superstition, makes enemies. They say: Belief is important.\nI say: No, actions are important. Judge by deed, not by creed.\n\nI believe in the gospel of Cheerfulness, the gospel of Good Nature; the\ngospel of Good Health. Let us pay some attention to our bodies. Take\ncare of our bodies, and our souls will take care of themselves.\n\nI believe in the gospel of Good Living. You can not make any god happy\nby fasting. Let us have good food, and let us have it well cooked.\n\nI believe in the gospel of good clothes; I believe in the gospel of\ngood houses; in the gospel of water and soap. I believe in the gospel\nof intelligence; in the gospel of education. The school-house is\nmy cathedral. The universe is my Bible. I believe in that gospel of\njustice, that we must reap what we sow.\n\nI do not believe in forgiveness as it is preached by the church. We do\nnot need the forgiveness of God, but of each other and of ourselves. If\nI rob Mr. Smith and God forgives me, how does that help Smith? If I, by\nslander, cover some poor girl with the leprosy of some imputed crime,\nand she withers away like a blighted flower and afterward I get the\nforgiveness of God, how does that help her? If there is another world,\nwe have got to settle with the people we have wronged in this. No\nbankrupt court there. Every cent must be paid.\n\nAnd I believe, too, in the gospel of Liberty, in giving to others what\nwe claim for ourselves. I believe there is room everywhere for thought,\nand the more liberty you give away, the more you will have. In liberty\nextravagance is economy. Let us be just. Let us be generous to each\nother.\n\nI believe in the gospel of Intelligence. That is the only lever capable\nof raising mankind. Intelligence must be the savior of this world.\nHumanity is the grand religion, and no God can put a man in hell in\nanother world, who has made a little heaven in this. God cannot make a\nman miserable if that man has made somebody else happy. God cannot hate\nanybody who is capable of loving anybody. Humanity—that word embraces\nall there is.\n\nSo I believe in this great gospel of Humanity.\n\n\"Oh,\" but they say to me, \"you take away immortality.\" I do not. If we\nare immortal it is a fact in nature, and we are not indebted to priests\nfor it, nor to bibles for it, and it cannot be destroyed by unbelief.\n\nAs long as we love we will hope to live, and when the one dies that we\nlove we will say: \"Oh, that we could meet again,\" and whether we do or\nnot it will not be the work of theology. It will be a fact in nature. I\nwould not for my life destroy one star of human hope, but I want it\nso that when a poor woman rocks the cradle and sings a lullaby to the\ndimpled darling, she will not be compelled to believe that ninety-nine\nchances in a hundred she is raising kindling wood for hell.\n\nOne world at a time is my doctrine.\n\nIt is said in this Testament, \"Sufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof;\" and I say: Sufficient unto each world is the evil thereof.\n\nAnd suppose after all that death does end all. Next to eternal joy, next\nto being forever with those we love and those who have loved us, next to\nthat, is to be wrapt in the dreamless drapery of eternal peace. Next to\neternal life is eternal sleep. Upon the shadowy shore of death the\nsea of trouble casts no wave. Eyes that have been curtained by the\neverlasting dark, will never know again the burning touch of tears. Lips\ntouched by eternal silence will never speak again the broken words of\ngrief. Hearts of dust do not break. The dead do not weep. Within the\ntomb no veiled and weeping sorrow sits, and in the ray-less gloom is\ncrouched no shuddering fear.\n\nI had rather think of those I have loved, and lost, as having returned\nto earth, as having become a part of the elemental wealth of the\nworld—I would rather think of them as unconscious dust, I would rather\ndream of them as gurgling in the streams, floating in the clouds,\nbursting in the foam of light upon the shores of worlds, I would rather\nthink of them as the lost visions of a forgotten night, than to have\neven the faintest fear that their naked souls have been clutched by an\northodox god. I will leave my dead where nature leaves them. Whatever\nflower of hope springs up in my heart I will cherish, I will give it\nbreath of sighs and rain of tears. But I can not believe that there\nis any being in this universe who has created a human soul for eternal\npain. I would rather that every god would destroy himself; I\nwould rather that we all should go to eternal chaos, to black and\nstarless night, than that just one soul should suffer eternal agony.\n\nI have made up my mind that if there is a God, he will be merciful to\nthe merciful.\n\nUpon that rock I stand.—\n\nThat he will not torture the forgiving.—\n\nUpon that rock I stand.—\n\nThat every man should be true to himself, and that there is no world, no\nstar, in which honesty is a crime.\n\nUpon that rock I stand.\n\nThe honest man, the good woman, the happy child, have nothing to fear,\neither in this world or the world to come.\n\nUpon that rock I stand.\n"
}