Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Discourse volume 1.djvu/44

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

THE INTRODUCTION.

Idols; the Bible, a record of men's words and works; and Jesus of Nazareth, a man who lived divinely some centuries ago. These are the Idols of the religious; our standard of truth; the gods in whom we trust. Mammon, the great Idol of men not religious—who overtops them both, and has the sincerest worshippers—need not now be named. His votaries know they are idolaters; the other worship in ignorance, their faith fixed mainly on transient things.

I know there are exceptions to this rule. Saints never fail from the earth. Reason will claim some deserted niche in every church. But wise men grieve over our notions of Religion—so poor, so alien to Reason. Pious men weep over our practice of Religion—so far from Christianity. What passes for Christianity in our times is not reasonable; no man pretends it. It can only be defended by forbidding a reasonable man to open his mouth. We go from the street to the church. What a change! Reason and good sense and manly energy, which do their work in the world, have here little to do; their voice is not heard. The morality, however, is the same in both places; it has only laid off its working dress, smoothed its face, put on its Sunday clothes.

The popular theology is hostile to man; tells us he is an outcast; not a child of God, but a spurious issue of the devil. He must not even pray in his own name. His duty is an impossible thing. No man can do it. He deserves nothing but damnation. Theology tells him that is all he is sure of. It teaches the doctrine of immortality; but in such guise that, if true, it is a misfortune to mankind. Its Heaven is a place no man has a right to. Would a good man willingly accept what is not his? Pray for it? This theology rests on a lie. Men have made it out of assumptions. The conclusions came from the premises; but the premises were made for the sake of the conclusions. Each vouches for the other's truth. But what else will vouch for either? The historical basis of popular doctrines, such as Depravity, Redemption, Resurrection, the Incarnation—is it formed of Facts or of No-Facts? Who shall tell us? Do not the wise men look after these things? One must needs blush for the patience of mankind.