... "Ne'er a peevish boy Would break the bowl from which he drank in joy; And he that with his hand the vessel made Will not in after wrath destroy."

_REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT_

It is hardly necessary to the purpose of this work, to say anything at all on these subjects. If man was never lost, kidnapped or stolen from G.o.d, he needed no _redeemer_, to _buy him back_ with a price. If man never "fell" from the favor of G.o.d by disobedience, and thereby incurred his anger, illwill and wrath that sought vengeance on his life, he needed no one to mediate, propitiate or atone for him by shedding his own blood as a subst.i.tute. The whole doctrine of redemption and atonement falls flat when the doctrine of the fall of man is removed from under it. But as this is the very crux of the whole orthodox Christian system, the reader may be interested to know what conclusions I reached concerning it, after some years of study, as to both its origin and meaning. These conclusions I reached, not only from the study of the Bible, but from the study of history generally; and especially the history of religion, in other races as well as the Jews. It must be remembered that this doctrine of atonement by the shedding of blood, is--or rather was,--in one form or another, common to many ancient religions and nations. It was by no means exclusively Jewish or Christian. It probably had a common origin and purpose in all.

I have already intimated that all religious doctrine and practice had their origin in man's attempt to solve the problem of evil, sin, suffering and death; and to remedy it. I will treat this more fully when I come to consider the subject of religion specifically.

The general solution of this problem, if not the almost universal one, was, that men had offended the G.o.ds and incurred their anger and illwill; and for this reason the G.o.ds continually afflicted them thru life and ultimately destroyed them. Thus death was the final penalty for sin. The G.o.ds could be finally satisfied only with the life,--the blood,--of the transgressor. "For the blood is the life." This doctrine is not confined to Genesis and the Jews. In fact, the best Biblical scholars of today are of the opinion that this story of Eden and the fall were not originally Jewish at all; but that the tradition was learned during the exile in Babylonia and Persia, where, it has been learned from recent excavations, the tradition existed centuries before the time of the captivity. It is believed that this tradition so fitted into the Jewish history and gave them such a satisfactory solution of their own sufferings and misery that it was brought back by them, and, with some adaptations, incorporated into their own sacred literature as a part of their own history. Thus, Genesis is now believed by the best scholars and most competent critics, not to be the first book of the Bible written, but in its present form, one of the last written of the Old Testament. But this is a digression.

Quite early, however, tho the time and the exact reason why are both unknown, it is evident that man conceived the idea that, tho he could not escape ultimate death, yet, he might in some way appease the wrath of the G.o.ds, and thus at least mitigate his afflictions in this life, by offering them the life--the blood--of a subst.i.tute. Thus originated the practice of offering burnt offerings to the G.o.ds, so common among so many ancient tribes and nations besides Israel. It was believed that the G.o.ds would be satisfied, at least for the time being, with the blood of an innocent victim, especially if it was the best, or the most precious the offerer had. And from this grew the offering of human sacrifices, especially one's own children, as Abraham offering Isaac, Jephtha his daughter, and the practice in Israel so severely condemned by some of the earlier prophets, of making "their children pa.s.s the fire unto Moloch."

Other offerings in the course of time grew up, such as fruits, vegetables, incense, etc.; but no offering was acceptable as an _atonement for sin_, except the offering of blood. Thus Cain brought an offering "of the fruit of the ground" and Jehovah rejected it. But Abel came with "the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.

And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and unto his offering."

The later Levitical ritual with its organized priesthood, tabernacle, temple, etc., was by no means the beginning of this idea of appeasing the wrath of Jehovah by blood atonement; but was only the more perfect and systematic organization and administration of it. Blood was considered so precious, because it was the life, that the children of Israel were forbidden to eat it on penalty of death. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your sins: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." Lev. xvii, 11.

I shall a.s.sume here that the reader is already sufficiently familiar with the practices of the Jews, as recorded thruout the Old Testament, concerning this matter of blood atonement, to render it unnecessary to go into further details. If he is not already familiar with it, he can easily become so.

The question has been asked, why _burn_ the offering? Why was it not sufficient simply to shed the blood? Perhaps in the beginning this was the practice. There is nothing said about burning the offerings of either Cain or Abel. It is highly probable they were not burnt.

Jehovah was satisfied with the mere _sight_ of blood, the destruction of a life. But this, Cain did not offer. There was no _blood_ in his fruit-offering; hence Jehovah was not only unappeased, but insulted.

The first mention of "burnt-offerings" in the Bible is the offering made by Noah after the flood. From this on they are common. The purpose of burning the offering was simply to cook it,--to roast it.

The offering was nearly always eaten. Sometimes only the fat, considered the choicest part, was burnt as an offering to the G.o.d; while the people and priests ate the balance, either roasted or boiled.

See a full account of this in 1 Sam. ii, 12f. As man has always made his G.o.ds in his own image he imagined the G.o.ds, like himself, loved to eat. Therefore, in addition to appeasing the wrath of the G.o.d by the sight of the blood of the victim, his favor was supposed to be further obtained by feeding him. As the good host always sets the best he has before his guest, so the best part of the sacrificed victim was placed on the altar for the G.o.d. Altho invisible, it was firmly believed that the G.o.d consumed the burning flesh or fat, as it was reduced to smoke and ascended to heaven. The parties making the offering,--sometimes only an individual, or a family, but often the whole tribe,--ate the balance. They were therefore, "eating with the G.o.d," and consequently on good terms with him, just as eating together today is an indication of friendship, or the taking of salt together among certain savage tribes is a token of peace and friendship, or the smoking from the common pipe among the early American Indians. Later in Israel, the whole offering was burnt. Jehovah was ent.i.tled to it all. Men had outgrown the idea of "eating with Jehovah."

We now come back more specifically to the _purpose_ of this blood atonement. We have no account in all the Old Testament where it was ever offered with direct reference to a future life,--for the purpose of escaping h.e.l.l. We have already seen that there is absolutely nothing in the story of Eden and the fall of man, upon which to predicate any thought of immortality after physical death, either a heaven or h.e.l.l. We now come to note that there is nowhere any _direct_ reference to a life after death, in any book of the Old Testament, written _before_ the exile. The account of Saul having the witch of Endor call up Samuel after his death; and David's faith that he could go to his dead child, indeed indicate some belief at this time in an after-life; but nowhere is there the remotest reference to a h.e.l.l, a separate place of torment for the wicked. In the case of Samuel being recalled to converse with Saul, he says, that altho Jehovah had departed from Saul, and notwithstanding Saul's great wickedness, "Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,"--the saintly Samuel, all in the same place. There are a few direct references to a future life, _in a few places only_, in some of the books written _during_ or _after_ the exile. But nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a single reference to the offering of the sacrifice of atonement with any reference whatever to a future life. To ancient Israel, Jehovah was a G.o.d of the present,--not the future. He did things _then_,--in the present tense. He was the G.o.d of the _living_,--not of the dead. And Jesus affirmed the same thing.

He was exclusively a G.o.d for this world and this life. The atoning sacrifice was offered to appease his wrath against them for their past sins, not the sin of the individual only, but the sins of the whole nation. The benefits they expected to receive from this remission of sins thru the blood of the atonement were _here_ and _now_,--not in some future life.

We pa.s.s rapidly now to the time of the Christ. Altho the canonical books of the Old Testament give us no clue to any definite, fixed beliefs among the Jews concerning a future life, heaven, h.e.l.l or the resurrection of the dead, yet, according to the New Testament literature, these views were all quite clearly defined, and generally believed among all the Jews, except the party of the Sadducees, relatively a very small party. Whence came these beliefs? If they had come by some divine revelation they would certainly have been recorded in some of their sacred books. But they were not. The only rational answer is that they learned all these things from their Eastern masters during the captivity, where all these beliefs are now known to have been current centuries before the captivity, and brought them back on their return; and with some modifications incorporated them into their own system. Yet there is no indication in the New Testament, nor any contemporary literature now extant, that the atoning sacrifice that was continually offered in the temple, even down to the destruction of Jerusalem, was ever offered with any view, or reference to a future life; much less as a means of escaping h.e.l.l.

We turn now to the Christ. It has already been said that he nowhere makes the least reference to a vicarious atonement to be made by himself for the sins of world. True, he warns his disciples that he must needs go up to Jerusalem, there to suffer and be put to death; but nowhere does he say that this death is to _redeem back_ mankind from the devil; nor appease the wrath of G.o.d against mankind by the sight of his blood; nor to vindicate the majesty of a broken law, for the benefit of mankind. It is all but universally acknowledged that his disciples had no such conception of his mission, but followed him up to Jerusalem expecting to see him made King, sit on the "throne of David"

and restore Israel to her pristine glory, according to the universal interpretation of the Messianic prophecies. After his tragic death, and alleged resurrection and ascension,--in which his disciples certainly implicitly believed, no matter what the actual facts may be,--we still hear not a word about his death being a vicarious atonement for sin. When Peter preached that great sermon on the day of Pentecost he says not one word about a vicarious atonement in the death of Christ, but lays the whole emphasis on his resurrection and ascension. Let the reader turn here to that sermon in the second chapter of Acts and read it; and he will find that the whole burden of Peter's sermon is to the effect, that since the Jews had put Jesus to death, he had broken the bonds of death and hades, they being powerless to hold him, and had ascended to the right hand of G.o.d, whereby he had conquered both death and hades, and for which "G.o.d hath made him both Lord and Christ." Note, that because of this resurrection and ascension he had _been made_ both Lord and Christ,--and not by any virtue in his death itself. Not the remotest hint of vicarious atonement! The natural inference is--tho Peter is not quoted as saying so in so many words,--that men are to be saved from death and hades hereafter, because Jesus had escaped from both, and thus not only paved the way, but himself thereby became able to save others also.

As is well known, for half a century or more, the followers of the new faith, who for fifteen years were all Jews, or Jewish proselytes, looked with anxious expectancy for the return of this Jesus, with the power and glory of heaven, to set up his earthly kingdom on the throne of David in Jerusalem. Not a word yet about saving men's soul's from h.e.l.l thru vicarious atonement. No need for a vicarious atonement to save men from h.e.l.l hereafter, if they were soon to live on this earth forever--those who died before his return to be raised from the dead as he was, while those that remained were to be "caught up in the clouds to meet him in the air and live forever,"--under the benign reign of the Messiah of G.o.d.

But we are approaching its development. There appears upon the scene one Saul of Tarsus, afterwards known as Paul the Apostle. It is generally conceded that he never saw Jesus in his lifetime; in fact knew nothing of him while he lived. He early became a violent persecutor of the new sect, which for years was only another Jewish sect, as exclusively Jewish in its views and outlook as were the priests and Rabbis. But Paul was a well educated man, a scholar in his day,--and a philosopher. He was a Jew to the core, and lived and died one. We need not consider the story of his trip to Damascus, the supposed miracle on the way, and his conversion to the new faith. He soon became the greatest leader and exponent it had thus far produced; and he put a new interpretation on it, _entirely unchristian_, if we are to take the recorded teachings of the Christ himself as our standard for Christianity. And the Christianity of the world today is much more Pauline than Christian, judged by this standard.

This Paul operated independent of the other Apostles. He was a "free lance" and launched forth, both in a field, and with a doctrine all his own. He was thoroly familiar with the whole Jewish system. He knew all about the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice of atonement. Yet he was too wise not to know that there was no _intrinsic merit_ in the blood of bulls and goats to cleanse from sin, or appease the divine wrath. Yet as a loyal Jew he certainly _believed_ these to be of divine origin,--and that they must have a meaning deeper than the physical fact itself. He was a believer in the coming of the long-promised Messiah--to restore Israel. A man of his knowledge and foresight might well be able to read "the signs of the times," and see that the Jewish nation could but little longer maintain its separate ident.i.ty against the overwhelming power of the growing Roman Empire.

It must soon be swallowed up and its separate ident.i.ty lost in the greater whole. No power in Israel seemed to be able to stem the tide of events. Remember that this was now some years after the crucifixion; and after Paul had changed his course towards the new sect, because of the events about Damascus,--no matter what they may have been. At any rate, it is quite clear, no matter what the reasons may have been that induced him to do so, that he had accepted in good faith, as a veritable truth, the belief in the physical resurrection of the crucified Jesus. Paul tells us himself that after his escape from Damascus he went into Arabia for three years,--perhaps to try to think out some rational interpretation of the meaning of the events that he had felt himself forced to accept as true.

After this we find him pa.s.sing thru Jerusalem, stopping a few weeks with Peter and the other Apostles to learn from them all he could; and then going on to his native city, Tarsus, where we lose sight of him for several years before we find him starting on his first great missionary journey from Antioch, in which we begin to get our first glimpses of the doctrine of vicarious atonement made for the sins of the world by the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

During these years of Paul's obscurity, both in Arabia and at Tarsus, what was he probably doing? We do not know. But is it unreasonable to conjecture that he must have spent at least a good portion of his time in profound study, to try to reconcile these new views with the past history, traditions and beliefs of his own people? If this new teaching meant only a new ethical standard of life; that men are saved by what they _are_ and _do_, without any reference to _belief_, then the whole Jewish system of sacrifices had no meaning at all, and never did have. We can hardly conceive of Paul, educated as he was in all the lore and traditions of his people, accepting such a view as this.

To him all the traditions and practices of his people were at least of divine origin; and hence must have a meaning of eternal significance.

Yet, it must have been plain to him that in the natural course of events, as they were then clearly tending, it could not be long until the elaborate temple ritual, with _all_ its sacrifices, oblation, burning bullocks and incense, must soon cease forever!

And now for the interpretation. All the ceremonial of Israel had a meaning; but it was symbolic, typical of some reality to come. The blood of bulls and lambs and goats could not in themselves atone for sin; but they could _point_ to the "Lamb of Calvary," slain for the sins of the world. He that was without sin,--"the lamb without spot or blemish,"--was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of others. The law had its purpose, but it was now fulfilled, all its symbolic meaning was consummated in the death of Jesus, and now it must go. It was only a school master, to keep us in the way until the Christ should come.

When this "lamb" was slain, G.o.d saw his shed blood, and was satisfied.

His anger relented, his wrath cooled and the hand of mercy was extended, on the simple condition,--_of faith_. What was the meaning, intent and purpose of this vicarious atonement? According to the belief of the time, that Jesus would soon return in the power and glory of heaven to set up his everlasting kingdom here on earth, it was to prepare a people for this kingdom. This kingdom was to be composed only of those who had been thus prepared for it, by the remission of their sins, thru this blood atonement. The earliest Christians, all of whom were Jews, led by Peter, held that this new kingdom was to be forever limited to Jews and Jewish proselytes. If any Gentile wanted to have any part or lot in this new kingdom, he must first become a Jew. But Paul took a broader view. To him the whole Jewish system was purely preliminary to a greater dispensation, which was now fulfilled; symbolic and typical of a greater reality which was now here; and had therefore fulfilled its purpose and was ended. All symbolic ceremonial was now past forever. There was no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile as far as G.o.d's grace was concerned. The New Kingdom was open to all upon the same terms,--faith in Jesus as the Messiah of G.o.d, and this particular interpretation of his mission.

This opening of the gates to all the world on equal terms produced a bitter controversy between Peter and Paul and led to a sharp and well defined division in the early church, which continues to this day. The Roman Church is Petrine, narrow, exclusive and given to much elaborate ceremonial, as were the ancient Jews; while Protestantism is generally Pauline, much broader, generally freer from ceremonial, and as a rule much more truly Catholic; yet often narrow enough.

As time went on, and Jesus did not return as expected, faith in his early coming waned; and the idea began to grow that his real Kingdom was not for this world at all, but a heavenly one hereafter. By this time the Apostle Paul was dead and the Fourth Gospel had appeared, supposed to be written by the Apostle John, in which the Master was quoted as saying, "My kingdom is not of this world." Thus the idea took form, grew and developed that the real mission of the Messiah, after all, was not the establishment of a kingdom here on earth, but a heavenly kingdom hereafter; and hence that his death was a vicarious atonement made by the shedding of his blood, to satisfy the divine vengeance against sin, and save souls from h.e.l.l hereafter; and thus fit them for this heavenly kingdom.

And ever since this doctrine became thus established, by the middle of the second century, almost the whole emphasis and entire energies of the church, Catholic and Protestant, have been directed, not towards making this a better world by making mankind better, building up, developing, purifying and uplifting human character; but toward saving them from a h.e.l.l hereafter. And what little energy the church had left after this, has been spent, and is still being spent, in never-ending controversy among themselves over _just how to do it_.

Thus the doctrine of vicarious atonement, thru blood, and blood alone, had its origin in the lowest paganism, away back in the infancy of the human race, was transmitted down thru Judaism, and transplanted from it into Christianity.

But I cannot leave this subject without a few remarks on the various meanings that have been attached to the idea of vicarious atonement, since it became an integral part of the Christian system. We have already seen that the original pagan meaning of blood atonement was based upon the idea that the G.o.ds were angry and out for vengeance, and nothing but blood would appease them; but that the blood of a proper subst.i.tute would answer this purpose. But the earliest Christian doctrine of the atonement made by Christ was in the nature of redemption. In fact the term became so deeply rooted and grounded in early Christian nomenclature that it has never been fully eliminated.

But its use is much less now than formerly. The theory was based upon tradition, partly scriptural and partly not, that in the affair of Eden the devil fairly outwitted G.o.d and became rightfully ent.i.tled to the souls of all mankind forever; but that on account of the great war in heaven, in which the devil and his angels were cast out by the "Eternal Son" of G.o.d (see Milton's "Paradise Lost"), the devil held a bitter grudge against this son, and offered to bargain with G.o.d and give him back all the souls of mankind for the soul of this son. So G.o.d, knowing the power of his son to break the bands of death and h.e.l.l,--which the devil did not know,--accepted the bargain; and in due time, as agreed upon, the Son of G.o.d came into the world, died on the cross and went to h.e.l.l, in fulfillment of this contract; and thus liberated all the souls already there, and obtained a conditional release of all the balance of mankind,---the condition of faith,--and then suddenly broke the bands of death and h.e.l.l and escaped back to heaven. But he literally fulfilled his contract as originally made.

Thus we find the old church creeds reciting--and still reciting--that "he was crucified, dead, buried and descended into h.e.l.l, and the third day rose," etc. This idea may look strange to present day Christians; but all they have to do is to consult the early church literature to find that it was almost the universal belief as to the meaning of the atonement during the first few centuries of Christianity.

The next view that gradually developed as the older one waned, was the old Jewish idea of _subst.i.tuted suffering_ and to which was added that of imputed righteousness. That is to say, that in order to save mankind and yet appease the divine wrath, and satisfy the vengeance of an offended G.o.d, G.o.d sent his son into the world to bear the brunt of his wrath instead of mankind, and tho innocent, to suffer as tho guilty; and finally to die as a malefactor, tho innocent of sin; and because of the dignity and character of the victim and the intensity of his sufferings in both life and death, they were sufficient in both quality and quant.i.ty to satisfy the divine vengeance against all mankind; _provided_ man would avail himself of these provisions for his release by accepting by faith the Son of G.o.d as his suffering subst.i.tute; whereupon, G.o.d would forgive the sins of the faithful and _impute_ to them the benefits of the righteousness of Christ. This doctrine of the atonement dominated the Middle Ages. Upon it was based the doctrine of supererogation, whereby the surplus stock of good works of the holy saints might be laid up for the benefit of the less worthy, who might receive the benefits of them thru the process of indulgences, sold by the church for a money consideration. It is still held in a somewhat modified form in a large part of Christendom to this day.

The more modern doctrine of the atonement is that called the Governmental Theory. That is to say, that G.o.d was not so mad with mankind after all; but having once ordained the law that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," the law could neither be abrogated nor suspended, but must have its penalty. As no mortal man could fulfill it for any one but himself, and that only by his eternal death, only the Son of G.o.d could satisfy it for mankind. Therefore the Eternal Son of G.o.d became incarnate in human flesh, but still remained "Very G.o.d of Very G.o.d," in order that he might meet the demands of this divine law for all mankind, by not being amenable to it himself, being without sin; and yet by his sufferings and death paying its penalty in full for the whole human race; subject, however, to the appropriation of its benefits by the individual, thru faith. In a measure this is the same as that of the subst.i.tution theory; but it does not go to the extent of the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

The only exception to it is in the Roman church, and here the exception is apparent rather than real. In the Roman church salvation is _by faith in the church_, the benefits of which are transmitted to the individual thru the sacraments of the church; but in the ancient church, and in practically all modern Protestant churches, saving faith is held to be individual and personal; and must be not only faith in the atoning sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on the cross for all mankind; but it must be faith _in the correct view of the atonement_.

Hence, no matter which of the views I have herein outlined may be correct, those who have held to either of the others are all lost.

This is the only logical conclusion any one can reach who insists that salvation is impossible except by accepting any prescribed creed. Only those who possess and accept the _right creed_ can be saved. All the balance of mankind must be lost forever. To take either of these views of the atonement, or all of them together, as the only means by which mankind can be saved from h.e.l.l is to make G.o.d a complete failure from beginning to end. As we have already seen, the orthodox view of creation makes G.o.d either a failure or a monster. The attempt to reform man thru the process of elimination by the flood proved a failure. And now if the success of G.o.d's last attempt to save mankind thru the death of his son, is limited to any interpretation orthodox Christianity has ever placed upon it, it is the most stupendous failure of all.

There is but one rational interpretation of any doctrine of salvation by vicarious atonement; and that is that the atonement must be automatically as far-reaching and comprehensive in its results as the sin it is designed to remedy. If sin entered into the world because of the offence of Adam, the head of the race, and thus pa.s.sed upon all men, without their knowledge or consent, simply because they were descendants of Adam, any scheme of redemption, atonement, or salvation that purports in any way to remedy, or obviate the consequences of this original sin, in order to be just must be equally as broad and comprehensive, and operate as automatically and unconditionally in its remedial effects, as did Adam's sin in its consequences.

I have thus gone at some length into this doctrine of atonement and redemption. Perhaps I have wearied the reader. But as it is the most fundamental doctrine of the whole orthodox Christian system, and has been such a bone of contention in all the ages of the Christian church, and was such a stumbling block to me for so long a time, I felt that my "Confession of Faith" would be incomplete if I did not go into it in some detail.

My final conclusion is, that man never fell, but always has been and still is imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving upward. As man was never lost or stolen from G.o.d, he needed no redeemer to buy him back. As he was never an enemy to G.o.d, but always his child, G.o.d was never angry with him; hence he needed neither mediator, nor any one to make any atonement for him.

CHAPTER VII

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION

What is religion? This over which men have waged the fiercest controversies known to human history; that has been the source of more strife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and perhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined, previous to the recent World War. It will be remembered that I said after finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship, history and character of the Bible and the processes of reasoning which it inspired, "that I gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation, church and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding bra.s.s and tinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the sc.r.a.p-heap of superst.i.tion, legend, fable and mythology." But after several years of study and observation I changed my mind again. I found that what I had always been taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but only a _form of religious expression_. Creeds and beliefs I found were not religion, but the products of religion. That subtle emotional experience which I had always been taught was religion, I found was itself but a form of religious expression. I learned that religion was not something one could "get," by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as I had been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal human being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of.

Then what is religion? While it is the simplest thing on earth, it is yet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for another. Its very simplicity eludes definition. In trying to define it I shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are more expressive than any words of my own that I can frame: "Religion essentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an invisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he is necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions which this apprehension calls forth." Another definition that is perhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: "Religion is an impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward. It is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own narrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where it may become identified with the n.o.ble, the lofty, the divine."

Another has said that "Religion is simply the zest of life." To these I will add that I understand religion to be that _inner urge_ in all humanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the desire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve his condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the lowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement and culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to heights yet invisible and undreamed of.

This _inner urge_ is common to all humanity, different only in degree, and not in kind. It is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in latent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and action, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some form of missionary effort. From the time that man first emerged above the brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about him, thought, and recognized that _somehow_ and _somewhere_ there was a Power above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own mind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve and better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been such ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind.

All religion is therefore one and the same. There may be many religions. But back of all these is religion. Religion is one in its origin. It is a part of the fundamental essence of human character.

It is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will. It is one and the same with these. Man without these faculties of thought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute. So without this _inner urge_, and the faculty of _aspiration upward_, which I have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man would still only be a brute. He would not be man at all. Religion is one in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all human nature.

All religion is one in that it recognizes SOMETHING above man. I use this word advisedly. If I had said, "Because all men recognize the existence of G.o.d, or a Supreme Being," I would have been misunderstood and the statement challenged. Men have become so habituated to calling all other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of G.o.d, that I omit the word entirely until I can further define my meaning. Because Voltaire did not believe in the G.o.d of Moses and the Pope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man, and built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it "to the worship of G.o.d." Man instinctively recognizes _something_ above him. It is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether Jehovah, Elohim, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, or Jove; nor what attributes we give it, whether we call it Person or Principle, the Great Unknown or the Ultimate Cause; or whether it be a mere abstract Ideal, the creation of one's own fancy; it is still that "_Something_" which man recognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain.

Man also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of personal relationship to this "Something," that for want of a better name, we call G.o.d. It is necessary in this connection to repeat what we have already said: That very early in the history of the human race man was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and obligation to G.o.d, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem of evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death. The only possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn from his own nature and experience. He knew himself as being alive, as a conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force.

Thus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating overhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of the wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and life about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering, and the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these things in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual, or individuals behind, and directing it all. These became man's first G.o.ds.