Orthodoxy and Liberalism Compared.
1. Orthodoxy has a creed, but Liberalism has none. A creed is something you do not understand, but it is nevertheless necessary for you to profess that you believe it—and the more unreasonable and impossible this something is the greater merit you have in saying you believe it.
2. Orthodoxy has a Bible. Liberalism accepts all bibles and books for what they are worth.
3. Orthodoxy has a savior—Liberalism seeks to make all men saviors.
It should not be forgotten that the orthodox savior has failed after trying for eighteen centuries. He even fails to save his own professed people and to make them any better than other folks.
4. Orthodoxy has a prospective heaven. Liberalism takes no stock in harps and crowns in the sky country—and is not terrorized by smoke from the sulphur lake.
5. Orthodoxy insists that the most imperative duty is to believe, while Liberalism teaches that man should think, question, and investigate, and always be governed by reason.
The one preaches “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear (us the preachers);” the other teaches that “he who has brains to think, let him think.”
6. Orthodoxy commands you to obey. Liberalism inspires you to defy despotism and to love liberty.
7. Orthodoxy tells you that there is merit in believing. Liberalism shows you that there is no merit in belief.
8. Orthodoxy maintains that belief is subject to one’s will. Liberalism proves that intelligent belief depends upon evidence, and that religious beliefs are inherited.
9. Orthodoxy hinges most of its teachings upon the traditions of the past, the mysteries of the present and the hopes of an imaginary future.
Liberalism admits of no postponement. “One world at a time,” and now is the time.
10. Orthodoxy is opposed to the teachings of science. See the lives of Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus.
11. Orthodoxy persecutes her own followers; for example: Dr. Thomas, Professor Swing, Professor William Robertson Smith of Aberdeen College, Scotland, Professor Winchell of Vanderbilt University, Professor Blauvelt, Professor John Miller of Princeton, New Jersey, and hosts of others.
12. Orthodoxy seeks to guide men by authority, mottoes, and texts. Liberalism inspires man to govern and guide himself through the exercise of his own reason.
13. Orthodoxy teaches that the innocent must suffer that the guilty may escape. Liberalism teaches that justice should be meted out to all. The great scheme of salvation failed because it was a “scheme.” It is now pretty well known as a “bankrupt scheme.”
14. “The Bible has stood the attack of Infidelity during eighteen centuries.” Ignorance has stood the attack of knowledge for a much longer time, and yet ignorance has not so very materially suffered—it is still ignorance.
Vice has stood the attacks of virtue ever since the world began. Superstition has been besieged by science for many centuries, and yet superstition seems hale and hearty and bids fair to have a long life. Is it true that those who believe in the Bible are willing to have it tested by reason, justice, or humanity? It is not true that it has stood the test of science. Christians are not willing to have the Bible tested.
“The Infidel rejects the religion of his mother.” Not always; but even suppose it were true, did not Jesus reject the religion of his mother? Did not Paul, Peter, Luther, Wesley—did they not all reject the religion of their mothers?
Does not preaching consist in asking people to reject the religion of their mothers and to come over to the preacher’s religion?
“Freethinkers are ruthless, and do not care how much they hurt our feelings. They speak coarsely upon sacred subjects.” Yes; but do not Christians hurt our feelings? They send us to hell, and then put on a look of injured innocence if we do not sweetly return them “thanks.”
It is often charged that Freethinkers do not believe anything. While it is true that we are not strong in any form of religious beliefs, yet it is true that we have most positive and decided convictions in regard to this world. We advocate freedom, truth, justice, equity, and every known human virtue. These all have an existence, we believe in all these present existing virtues. We believe in the realities, but the saint believes in the unrealities. He relishes as the meat and drink of his soul, such airy nothings as: dreams, visions, trances, inspirations, revelations, mysteries, miracles, witches, evil spirits, demons, devils, angels, immaculate conception, raising of the dead, drinking poison with impunity, omens, signs, sorcery, magic, resurrection, and ascension.
“We are fools for Christ’s sake,” says the apostle, and in the language of the Quaker, we must say, we have not the heart to contradict him.
It is objected that “Freethought has no moral standard.”—Yes it has—it has Reason the only true lamp to man’s path. “But Reason is fallible, you can not always trust it.” You cannot always trust the reason of him who is not well developed mentally and well informed. But the Bible is fallible, and always fallible, and you can trust it in but very few places except where it presents truth; and this moral truth is older than it. So we could get along without the Bible, but we could hardly get along without Reason, although some people try to.
“There is no agreement among Freethinkers.” That is their glory. Freethought has no procrustean bed upon which it may bring all of its constituency to one and the same size. The glory of Freethought is that it inspires man to become free and possess his liberty against all invaders. To be free is to be a man, and not to be free is to be a slave.
Is there, let me ask, anything like agreement among the creeds? Have the Bible expounders always seen eye to eye? Do the biblical critics all harmonize? Where, I would like to know, can you find more disagreement than in the Christian church?