Even in the enlightened to-day is being carried on the same fierce wars, the same frightful carnage, by Christians, Mohammedans, Hindoos, and other religious sects, and all with the same fanatical zeal, the same delusive superstition, the same ignorant faith. What wonder that religious people are more bitter, intolerant, persecuting and cruel than others, when they regard as authority the creeds in which they profess to believe. For example, take the revolting creed or doctrine formulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It has been repudiated by very many of the communion who apparently accept it, and it has forced from some of its more liberal and kindly members expressions of contempt and disgust. Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, of the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, in New York City, speaking of it, says: "It is a horrible doctrine."

Some one has said: "History shows that religion has been more relentless under the auspices of the Christian theology, than under those of all the other theologies of the world combined. . . . It is the only one in the universe cruel enough to burn a man to death for merely holding an opinion." Shelley portrays it thus:

"Prolific fiend,

Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,
And heaven with slaves."

But we are not left to the alternative of selecting such a religion, or of being altogether without one (if one is deemed necessary.) Even in the Bible, with all its unreasonable and inhuman teachings and doctrines, can be found some of the ingredients of a true religion. In the Epistle of James we read that "pure and undefiled religion is to visit the widow and the fatherless in their affliction, and to keep one's self unspotted from the world." How transcendently superior is this to the usual dogmas taught in orthodox churches. In the October number of the Freethinker's Magazine, "Vindex" says that "the Church never was Christian." No more truthful saying was ever uttered. Nothing (or almost nothing) Christ-like, is

taught from any of the so-called Christian pulpits. What is there taught is the theology founded-not by Christ, but by Paul, and the superstructure of which is the work of Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory "the Great," John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Joseph Cook, and others of like sacerdotal fame?

Lincoln said that when he found a Church whose only creed was the "Golden Rule," he would join that Church.

Professor Felix Adler has established just such a Church, or, rather, association, known as the "Society for Ethical Culture, in New York City,"

A temple, neither pagod, mosque, nor church."

Its only creed, or tenet, or teaching, is that of duty each to the other, and its only belief is in beneficence-in deeds of love. His audiences, every Sunday morning, are far in excess of any of the Christian churches. He represents the religion of Christ far more than does Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, Rev. John Hall, D. D., or any other representative of pseudo-Christianity. The congregations of these (falselycalled) Christian churches are in perfect similitude to that pharisaical sect which Christ so earnestly and so constantly rebuked. Rev. Carlos Martyn, D. D., says: "Pharisaism is resurrected and baptized with a Christian name." It is these same Christian Pharisees who continually sneer at what they choose to call "mere morality."

Bishop Latimer said: "Religion, pure religion, standeth not in the wearing of a monk's cowl; but in righteousness, justice and well-doing."

"The one religion, pure and perfect, is fidelity to all the relations in which we are placed to one another."—(Rev. Dr. Furness.)

"True religion is a matter of heart and conduct.”—(Rev. Dr. Alfred Momerie.)

"There is but one religion-the religion of truth.”—(Dr. Paul Carus, President Congress of Religions.)

A religion that is broad, rational, practical, humane, en

nobling, sympathetic, ethical, philanthropic, altruistic; which substitutes Amo for Credo; which subjects faith to reason; which puts natural law in the place of miracle; which subordinates tradition, legend and fable to history, reality and fact; which regards truth as authority (and not "authority as truth;") which disowns superstition and disclaims dogmatism; which revolts at the suppression of inquiry; which rejects the astronomical, geological and biological absurdities taught in the Book of Genesis; but, rather, which invites investigation into every new avenue of thought, which is in harmony with the latest discoveries of science; and which, in fine, insists upon, and will ever persist in demanding, the most comprehensive and complete mental freedom; is a religion such as is in accord with the spirit of the age, and finds constantly increasing adherents among the intelligent, the benevolent, and the truth-loving. Such a religion finds expression in the lines

of Pope :

"To no creed confined,

The world our home, our brothers all mankind;
Do good, love truth, be just and fair withal;
Exalt the right-though every ism fall."

RELIGION AND EDUCATION.

HERE seems to have been an opinion prevailing among

THER

past generations that religion was a necessary part of education. Such opinion is, however, gradually changing, under the influence of modern rational thought. It used to be considered that no person without the prefix of "Reverend" to his name was eligible to the presidency of any college. Now we have two colleges in New York City presided over by gentlemen who are not clergymen, and there are many other colleges in the country of which it is not thought necessary that a clerical should be at the head. Why should not such be the case? What has religion to do, necessarily, with education? What connection is there between religion and any of the primary, or of the higher, branches of education? Young people are not sent to school or to college to learn religion, but to be instructed in those branches of study which will enable them to acquire such knowledge as may be useful in the various avocations to which they may be called, and religion is entirely unnecessary to fit them for any of these avocations, except such as may be inclined to select the ministry as an occupation, and for all such there are theological institutions, where theology is taught as an entirely distinct and separate study.

Rudimentary education consists in the teaching of reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, etc. Why introduce religion into these studies? In the higher branches of mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, microscopy, literature, the languages, etc., why should religion be intruded into these studies? Religion is entirely irrelevant to any such

branches of study. There are schools for the teaching of penmanship, for the learning of trades; law and medical schools; business colleges; in none of which is religion taught, and what an absurdity the introduction of religion would be in connection with any such instructions. Rev. Howard Crosby, D. D., said that "we might as well insist on reading the Bible in a machine shop, as in a public school."

There is a proper place to teach religion, not in any school or college, the studies in which have no necessary connection whatever with religion; but religion (for those who desire it) should (only) be taught in the home, in the Sunday-school, or in the church.

We may not complain so much of the teaching of religion in schools and colleges, where we pay for our children's instruction in the various departments of learning, knowing that religion is there taught; though it is a great wrong to those who do not believe in the prevailing religion, that there are so few educational institutions where religion is not taught; but it certainly is the rankest injustice to compel us to pay (through the tax levy) for the support of schools, academies and colleges, in which is taught a religion that we may abhor. It is a violation of the great principle, which is the boast of our Republic, of equal rights and of exact justice to all; of our constitutional prerogative that we cannot be compelled to contribute to the support of any religion of which we do not approve; of that inestimable, wise and just claim, which so distinguishes us from almost every other nation, the utter and entire separation of Church and State.

The teaching of religion in the public schools and other institutions, under State support, is a wrong, which no consistent person, no one in whose character is the element of justice, no true patriot, can, for a moment, advocate or palliate.

It is not necessary to discuss the question as to whether religion has been, or has not been, a benefit to mankind. There are those who think in the affirmative, and those who think in the negative. It is sufficient to know that the latter class think so and it may be added that it is a very large