Had it not been for the doubt of Christ, there had been no Christianity.

What ought to be thought of a religion, the first lesson in which is that you must not doubt?

Dr. Chambers does not practice what he preaches. He was a member of the commission which brought the new version of the Bible into being. What suggested this new version, if not the doubt of Dr. C. and his associates as to the incorrectness of the King James version?

But why this clerical war upon doubt-upon religous doubt? Simply because doubt is the beginning of reason, and because reason is certain annihilation to theology. See what these small beginnings of doubt are doing in all Protestant Churches. Is it anything but reason, induced by doubt, that is making such inroads into the creeds and beliefs of the hitherto Orthodox Churches?

The religious beliefs of to-day are totally different from what they were a generation ago. Who (excepting Spurgeon, De Witt Talmage and Col. Elliot F. Shepard) believes, now, in a literal hell? Who believes in the six days, of twenty-four hours each, story of creation; in the "fall of man" (now that science has demonstrated the rise of man from lower orders of beings?) Who believes, literally, in the stories of Jonah, of Joshua, of Elisha, etc.? What, but doubt, has wrought this change? What, but the workings of doubt in the minds of ecclesiastics themselves, has induced the liberal thought which we now so frequently hear from the clergy? Read the utterances of Rev. Dr. Briggs, in his recent address before the students of the Union Theological Seminary; every liberal saying in which was applauded to the echo. "I rejoice at this age of rationalism, with all its wonderful achievements in philosophy," says Dr. Briggs.

Rev. Phillips Brooks says: "The minister should be the model of tolerance of what is honest doubt,"

Rev. Dr. Rylance says he regards "doubt as a rational thing; a fact to be dealt with rationally, not professionally or by anathema. . The rationalist, agnostic and material

ist, have done good, and have reacted on theology in a healthful way.'

Archbishop Leighton has said: "Never be afraid to doubt. Doubt, in order that you may end in believing."

And what has doubt done for science? Has it not instituted a truer system of thought? Has it not given us Copernicus, Bruno, Newton, Kepler, Humboldt, Darwin and Hæckel; whose brilliant discoveries would have been hid from the world had doubt been silenced?

It is doubt that has done the intelligent and beneficial service of transforming alchemy into chemistry; astrology into astronomy; fiat strata into geology; the biblical origin of man into biology; the confusion of tongues into philology; superstition into philosophy; tradition into history; myth into reality; legend into verity; fable into truth; arrogant dogmatism into unpretentious agnosticism; comatose credulity into vitalized thought; unquestioning faith into the spirit of inquiry; demoniacal possession into dementia; a personal devil into an impersonal evil influence; the capricious gods of old into the immutable laws of nature; creation into evolution. "Doubt is the first step to mental liberty."

"From the first doubt man has continued to advance.". (Ingersoll.)

"The act of doubting is the necessary antecedent to all progress.”—(Buckle.)

"Doubt is the mother of inquiry."

"A man's doubts are the children of his brain.”—(H. O. Pentecost.) They are the offspring of mental activity; would it not be unnatural to devitalize the progeny?

"Each one's prerogative 'tis to doubt :
'How do you know?' is truth's own scout."

"With knowledge doubt increases."-(Goethe.)
"If thou hast honest doubts,

Conceal them not;

For doubt is better than dishonesty.”—(Shakespeare.) "There lives more faith in honest doubt

(Believe me) than in half the creeds."-(Tennyson.)

Doubt of what we do not know to be truth, is the promptings of our highest intellectual and moral nature.

Doubt is a sentinel on the watch-tower of the brain, charged with the duty of sounding an alarm, whenever its enemies— superstition, falsehood, ignorance and unreason-attempt to invade the citadel of truth.

Doubt is the herald of progress; the genius of reason; the pathway to truth; the advance guard in the contest with intellectual darkness.

IN

CAN CHRISTIANS BE JUST?

the February number of the North American Review is an article entitled Can Lawyers be Honest? That interrogatory has suggested the caption to this article, and it seems a pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that my observations have led me to believe that Christians are, as a class, more or less unjust (consciously or unconsciously) to those who differ from them in opinion.

Let me ask the question, can Christians be just who, while insisting that there should be no connection of the Church with the State, are opposed to laws which could make the separation of Church and State a fact as well as a theory?

How few Christians there are who favor equal taxation of church property, non-sectarian public schools, discontinuance. of chaplains, repeal of laws making Sunday a religious day, cessation of the appointment of days for religious observance, no appropriation for sectarian purposes-every one of which are questions involving the principle of equal rights and exact justice to every citizen.

Is it just that those who do not believe in the religion of the Church are compelled, indirectly, to support such churches by reason of their exemption from the operation of the tax law, the effect being precisely the same as though non-churchgoers were compelled to contribute directly to such support? Again. Is it just (as James Parton has expressed it) to tax a workingman's house to its full value and let a million-dollar cathedral or church go untaxed?

(55)

Is it just that appropriations for religious institutions are annually made by our legislatures in the very face of a law positively prohibiting such appropriations?

Are such Christians just as encourage the taking of the government money to disseminate the dogmas of their respective churches among the Indians, when it is done in violation of a provision of the Constitution "respecting the (non) establishment of religion?"

To the honor of one Christian body (the Baptists) be it known that they recently refused to take the portion of the public money which was offered to them, regarding the acceptance of such money as wrong in principle.

Is it just that my children should be taught in the public schools a religion which I regard as the main obstacle to the advancement of knowledge? Did impartial justice suggest the utterance of President Seelye, of Amherst College, that the Christian religion should be taught in our public schools, "whether the consciences of the people approve it or not?"

Is it just that I should be prevented from pursuing my avocations and reasonable pleasures on any day of the week, because certain Christian fanatics have a senseless reverence for a particular day?

Is it just to the tens of thousands of workingmen who have but one day in the week in which to visit our museums of art and natural history, that they are denied this privilege because about a dozen Christian members of each board of trustees of these museums have certain views on the question of Sunday observance? Was the money contributed by the city to these institutions given for the purpose of promulgating certain religious ideas, or was it given for the benefit of, and to exert a moral and refining influence upon, the masses?

Can Christians be just who defend the action of those in control of Girard College in persistently influencing "the tender minds of the orphans" in matters of religion, in utter disregard of the expressed provisions of the great benefactor's will?

Were the Christian trustees of the Columbia, S. C., Semin