each side of the haddock, near the gills, is the impression of Peter's finger and thumb, when he took the piece of money from the fish's mouth." Which of these two fish stories is the least believable or the less superstitious?

The law given to Moses provided that if a husband became jealous of his wife he could test her guilt or innocence by the peculiar method of bringing her before the priest and of having placed in his hands, in a earthen vessel, some holy (!) watermixed with the dust of the floor-and if the "holy water" turned bitter, then the woman's guilt was proved, and she was compelled to swallow the bitter water, and if the water did not turn bitter, then her innocence was established.

As regards this infallible (!) test, "Behold, is it not written in the fifth chapter of the book of Numbers in "God's infallible word?"

In the days of ancient Rome was a somewhat similarly peculiar method of testing the guilt or innocence of a suspected person by compelling such person to swallow a piece of bread or cheese of a prescribed weight. The person so swallowing, if choked to death, was proved guilty, if not, in

nocent.

Is it possible to determine as to belief in which of these absurdities is the most superstitious and idiotic?

We are told by John of Patmos that "there was war in heaven." If so, may it not again occur? Therefore, can it be that it is not a superstition to believe in the possible turmoil and conflict in heaven, and that it is a superstition to believe in the restfulness and peacefulness of Nirvana?

Is it superstitious to believe in the inspiration of the Vedas, the Zend-avesta, the Tripitaka, the Koran, the Talmud, the book of Mormon, and not equally superstitious to believe in the inspiration of the Bible?

The principle of evil was personalized in India by Mahisasura, in Persia by Ahriman, in Egypt by Typhon, in Scandinavia by Loki, in Madagascar by Nyang.

The Christian religion teaches that the Devil of the Bible is a personality as real as any of the characters in that book, and

as potent for evil as God is for good; indeed more so! Is not belief in all such creations of the imagination (as being actual, real, personalities) intensely superstitious?

If Brahma, and Ormuzd, and Thor, and Zeus, and Jupiter, and Allah were superstitiously worshiped, what reason is there for believing that it is not equally a superstition to worship the Jehovah of the Jews or the God of the Christians?

The superstitions of religion have robbed truth of her birthright; have given cordial welcome to tradition, legend and fable, while repelling verity, reality and fact.

"the truth

With superstitions and tradition taint."-Milton.

It is these religious superstitions that have incited distrust, engendered hate, disaffected families, estranged friends, alienated neighbors, embittered communities, hostilized nations, induced fear, impelled to cruelty, extirpated pity, rewarded hypocrisy, countenanced deception, prevarication and injustice, encouraged ignorance, indolence, improvidence and uncleanliness, sneered at "mere morality," true philanthropy and sound philosophy, repressed mirth, anathematized laughter, ridiculed natural law, perverted human nature, disparaged human goodness, stifled natural affection, perverted history, opposed progress, discountenanced learning, rebuked investigation, discredited discovery, derided invention, persecuted genius, and warred upon science.

The superstitions of no religions have been more detrimental to the well being of mankind than those of the Christian faith.

A vivid, but true, picture of what has resulted from superstitions, distinctively Christian, may be found in Gibbon's Christianity, p. 400, viz. :

"The dark centuries of Christianity succeeded the learning and civilization developed under the freedom and toleration of ancient Paganism. When the creed of Athanasius ruled the European world, humanity was enchained by superstition and fanaticism, freedom expelled, reason dethroned and the light of intellect quenched in the cimmerian gloom of faith."

When will this octopus of superstition release its clutc from the brain of man? When will this destructive parasite cease to feed upon the mental life of the race? When will this blighting curse vanish from the world of intelligence?

Very much has been accomplished in recent years, in encouraging reasonable beliefs and in discountenancing unthinking credulity. Very much more remains to be accomplished. Let those who believe with Milton that "superstition is the greatest burden of the world" be persistent in their efforts to do all they can to lighten such burden, to resist whatever fetters thought, to oppose whatever endangers mental liberty, to war against whatever teachings or inculcations interpose between contemplative, rational, honest thought and the vagaries, hallucinations and phantoms which are sought to be imposed upon the intellect by each and every phase of irresponsible, unjustifiable, unreal, irrational and degrading superstition.

CHURCH AND STATE.

"Religion is a matter which belongs to the churches and not to the state."-Washington.

THE

HE most distinctive feature, and the most important principle, promulgated on the formation of our government, was the complete separation of the church from the

state.

Learning the lessons of experience taught by other nations, of the persecutions, tortures and butcheries, in which this unnatural union has resulted, the founders of our Republic were most pronounced in their determination that this fearful blight upon the prosperity and happiness of older nations should not find entrance on the soil of a people devoted to freedom from all "entangling alliances," be they political or ecclesiastical; and so Washington and Hamilton and Franklin and Jefferson and Paine guarded this sacred principle with the most jealous and anxious care.

In order to emphasize and enforce the declaration of this principle, in Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that "no religious test be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States ;" and in the very first of the amendments to the Constitution we read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Yet, in face of these most positive inhibitions, firmly imbedded in the Constitution of our country, we hear those over

(225)

zealous in the cause of religion insist that "this is a Christian nation." The argument which it is claimed sustains that position being that as we were once colonies of Great Britain, and subject to her laws, we inherited the laws of the United Kingdom. It being maintained that in the absence of positive law to the contrary we are subject to the "common law of England," and (it being further maintained) that as this law is based on the Christian religion, therefore Christianity is the fundamental law of the United States. The fallacy of this method of reasoning has been often exposed; by none, perhaps, more thoroughly than by what is known as the "Committee for Protecting and Perpetuating the Separation of Church and State," a body of gentlemen composed mostly of clergymen and other believers in the Christian religion, whose report on the question may be found on pages 718 and 719 of the New York Churchman of December 11, 1886, which reads, "Neither the Constitution of the United States nor that of the State of New York authorizes or permits any discrimination or preference in favor of Christianity as against any other religion.

With the majority of the people Christians, and no important body of citizens to advance any claims for other religions, it was inevitable that not only legislation but judicial decisions (especially under an elective judiciary) should accord with popular opinion. This usage, which will inevitably continue while the prevailing sentiment is Christian, is the sole foundation for the claim sometimes made that Christianity is established by common law.

Attention has been called to the claim that the United States Constitution recognizes and re-establishes the common law of England, and that this is a Christian land. Various judicial decisions and legislative enactments are pointed out which are distinctly Christian; therefore it is claimed that Christianity in this country is, by law, established. If the argument proves anything it proves too much. The common law of England was not a Christian law, but was the law of a church established by law. The conclusion inevitably would be that