In the second chapter of this treatise, religion was defined as a free acknowledgment of man's dependence on his Creator. The correctness of this definition will hardly be called in question by any one who takes the trouble to analyze such human acts as the common consent of mankind has always classed among acts of religion. They one and all are expressive of the submission which a creature owes to its Creator. Apparently, however, an objection might be raised on the ground that if the given definition were correct, religion would be coextensive with morality. For every human action, that is morally good, expresses in some way the agent's dependence on and submission to God; because it implies an acknowledgment of God's sovereign will as the supreme law that governs all rational activity. The inference is perfectly legitimate, but it cannot be urged as an objection against the definition in question; for religion includes not only the law of divine worship, as was explained above, but also the law of morality, as we shall endeavor to show in the present chapter.
In regard to this point there is a widespread error, which has infected even those who would resent the imputation of being irreligious. Many there are who consider themselves good Christians, yet who make religion merely a matter of Sunday observance. They seem to regard it as a sort of holiday garb, that is put on once a week, and then carefully laid aside for six days to come. That it must find a place in their work-a-day life; that it must accompany them to the market-place, influence their business transactions, regulate their social intercourse, and be the guardian spirit of the hearthstone, is something altogether foreign to their idea of religion. God and His law have no more bearing upon their plans and schemes and speculations, than the enactments of the Jewish Law-giver had upon the conduct of the Israelites when he tarried upon Mt. Sinai, whilst they adored the golden calf in the valley below. With men of this stamp, as has been well said, religion is a formula, and nothing more. They say, Lord, Lord, and then elbow the Lord out of His own creation.
That such persons disgrace the religion which they profess, and are in reality its enemies, is quite obvious. In fact, the greatest enemies of religion are not those who wage open war against it, but rather those other sanctimonious hypocrites who lock it up in their wardrobes. When a person speaks openly against religion, men of sense know that he is only exposing his own ignorance and folly; they know better than to hold religion responsible for his crooked ways: but when a man prays like a saint and lives like a rogue; when of a Sunday he acts like a Christian and on week-days carries on worse than a pagan, the world puts the blame not so much on the man, but rather on the religion which he professes. It is this glaring contradiction between belief and practice, as witnessed in vast multitudes of our so-called Christians, that is leading the world into unbelief.
In this condition of things, it becomes a matter of absolute necessity to bring home to the conscience of the individual and of society men's accountability to God for the actions of their daily lives. It becomes again necessary to insist upon a truth that is plainer than daylight, namely, that the Creator exacts of His creatures not only the worship of prayer, but also the homage of virtue. Yet this can be done only by going back to first principles; by bringing man face to face with his Creator, and pointing out to him the law engraven upon his heart in the very act of creation. Men have forgotten the full bearing of the creative act; they have lost sight of the far-reaching consequences which that act necessarily involves, and hence they have ruled religion out of their daily lives. Let a man be practically conscious of the plain fact that he is a creature, not only on Sundays, but on week-days as well, and he will recognize at once the utter folly of divorcing religion from morality.
Now, to prove the assertion implied in the foregoing remarks, namely, that the fact of creation makes the Creator's will the source of moral obligation, and that this obligation is inseparably bound up with religion, I might insist upon the evident truth that a creature belongs more absolutely to the Creator than a slave belongs to his master. For this being clearly understood, it will readily be admitted that man must consult God's will in all he does. However, for clearness' sake, we shall approach the subject from another point of view, examining somewhat in detail the manner in which a creature exercises its activity.
In the preceding chapter allusion was made to the fact that a being which derived its existence from a creative cause, is dependent on that same cause for the use of its natural powers. In this the creative act differs from other modes of production; the dependence of the effect on its cause is more absolute, and hence the consequences of that act are necessarily more far-reaching. The nature of this dependence may perhaps be made somewhat clearer by means of an illustration, though, of course, the illustration is necessarily inadequate. The very fact, for example, that a watchmaker puts together the mechanism of a watch, does not enable it to keep time; he must supply other necessary conditions. He must impart to the spring a portion of his own energy, which is there stored up in the form of tension, and only in virtue of this tension can the mechanism be put into operation. Similarly, though not in the same manner, must the Creator place His own energy at the disposal of His creatures that they may be able to use the powers which they have in virtue of their natural constitution. I say, not in the same manner, because the watchmaker, in the example given, has only an indirect influence upon the action of the watch; he modifies the spring, and the spring thus modified sets the mechanism in motion: but God's influence upon the actions of His creatures is direct; He not only sustains their powers whilst they act, but He exerts an immediate and physical influence upon the action itself. He and His creatures act together, and it is by these combined efforts, so to speak, that finite causes produce their effects. As these causes are dependent in their essence, so must they also be dependent in their operation; else the effects of finite causes would be superior to the causes themselves, which is impossible. Hence no action proceeding from a finite being is independent of the Creator's co-operation. He has a part in every one of them, even in such as are sinful, though in that case, it is only the physical goodness of the action, and not its moral depravity, that can be referred to Him as its partial cause.
Perhaps this last remark needs a word of explanation, so as to prevent misunderstanding its real import. In every rational action we may consider two parts; the action itself as a physical entity, and its relation to the law of moral rectitude. Thus if a man tells a lie, we have first the physical act of speaking, and secondly, the falsehood of the statement made. The speaking in itself, as a merely physical act, is in its moral aspect neither good nor bad; its morality comes from the free will of the speaker, who uses his power of speech either in accordance with or opposed to right reason. Now it is only with the first part, namely, the physical act of speaking, and not with its moral aspect, that God co-operates, for the moral aspect in itself has no physical reality, and therefore it does not need God's active concurrence. And so in every other evil act; its physical goodness comes partially from God, its moral depravity proceeds entirely from man.
Now from this follows a very important consequence. As God is infinite wisdom and holiness, it cannot be a matter of indifference to Him with what manner of act He shall co-operate. He Himself must necessarily act in accordance with His own infinitely perfect nature, and, therefore, He must necessarily will that the creature, with whose action He concurs, shall also act in harmony with that same nature. As Creator He is both Lord and King; He is absolute owner and proprietor of all His works; He can do with them as He pleases: but as He is infinitely perfect, it must necessarily please Him to do what is in keeping with His own perfection; and as He takes part in the activity of His creatures, He must exercise sovereign authority over them, and direct their actions by His own divine will. On the other hand, as creatures depend on their Creator both for their being and for the exercise of their activity, they must be subject to His authority in all they do, and must make His will the norm of their actions. Consequently the Creator's will is the creature's law -- a law that is universal in its extension and absolute in its binding force. What has thus far been said applies to all creatures, irrespective of their specific natures. They are one and all under the Creator's jurisdiction, whether they be rational or irrational, living or inanimate. God must direct them all to their appointed end, though that direction is necessarily accommodated to the nature of each single being. In beings that are devoid of reason, this direction finds expression in the physical determination of their specific powers, whereby they are constrained to act in a certain predefined way, from which they cannot swerve by so much as a hair's breadth; but in beings endowed with intellect and free will, this same direction assumes the form of a law, enunciated by the practical reason, which manifests at once the existence of the law and its binding force. The law thus enunciated is the moral law, to which man's actions must be conformable. It is a law written in the intellect after the manner of knowledge, and communicated to the will as a moral obligation. It leaves man, indeed, physically free, yet morally it binds him down to a line of conduct from which he may not swerve. The binding force of this law is identical with the binding force of the Creator's sovereign will, for it is but the manifestation of that will in rational nature.
Taking this view of the matter, as we necessarily must, it is quite manifest that morality and religion are linked in a union that is inseparable. Nay, in a certain sense, morality is religion and religion is morality, because both consist essentially in a free acknowledgment of man's dependence on God. In ordinary parlance a distinction is drawn between the two, but that is because men ordinarily judge of human actions as they appear outwardly and in themselves, not as they are specified by motives that influence the will. But even if we take religion in a more restricted sense, its connection with morality is necessarily inferred from what has been said in the preceding paragraph. As a system of belief, religion teaches man his true relations to the Author of his existence, and inclines his will to act in accordance with these relations. It points to God as the Supreme Being, the beginning and end of all that was made, and thus it enjoins the duty of divine worship; it points to the same God as the Sovereign Ruler, the fountainhead of all law and order, and thereby it enforces the law of morality. Hence morality is but the fruit that grows upon the tree of religion; and both the tree and its fruit, religion and morality, derive their life and force and vigor from the creative act as their common root.
The same conclusion is reached, when we consider the need of adequate sanction to make the law effective. This sanction consists both in a proportionate reward for the observance of the law, and a condign punishment for its violation. The very fact that the moral law extends itself to all rational activity, as shown above, implies that its sanction must extend itself to the same. Yet if religion be set aside, this is impossible. Human justice cannot reach what escapes human knowledge, and the vast majority of men's actions, whether good or bad, escape all detection. With regard to merely internal acts, and most of those that are of a private character, this is always the case; hence in respect to them, the law would practically be left without sanction. It is, indeed, sometimes said that virtue is its own reward and vice its own punishment, yet that axiom, like many others of its kind, is only half true, and that half exerts little influence on men's conduct. Will the average person keep his heart pure and his mind clean, or respect his own body, if he be unmindful of the God of purity, Whose all-seeing eye reads the most secret thoughts and discerns the most hidden actions, and Whose all-powerful hand metes out for them either reward or punishment according as they are good or evil? Will he struggle against feelings of anger and envy and covetousness, if he does not fear the God Who has uttered His solemn, "Thou shalt not," against the indulgence of all inordinate thoughts and emotions? What will keep him from yielding to the promptings of his corrupt nature? Perhaps you say that the dignity and majesty of human nature forbid such breaches of the moral order. Suppose they did, what difference would that make? Are you unaware that the dignity and majesty of human nature count for little in the presence of strong passions. or under the influence of powerful extrinsic motives? Besides it is not true that human nature, when considered without reference to God, forbids the violation of the moral order. No one can be his own superior, yet it is only a superior who can forbid or command. The most that human nature as such can do, is to suggest rules of propriety; it cannot make laws or formulate precepts; and what force is there in rules of propriety? They yield to human passions as a straw bends to the wind. Hence if religion be ruled out, man's will is not restrained by any law, and his heart becomes the sporting ground of unruly passions.{1}
Nor do matters look more encouraging when we consider external or public morality. Will the poor man bear patiently the burden of want and suffering, when unseen by human eye he can stretch forth his hand to his neighbor's possessions, and does not dread the justice of Him from Whom nothing is hidden? Will merchants and tradesmen and public officials regulate their conduct by any other form than the "rules of the game" if they cast aside the thought of Him Who is not a respecter of persons? To what an extent clever scoundrels, who usually pass under the more honorable appellation of shrewd business men, are able to elude human justice is sufficiently evident from the disgraceful scandals that have lately filled the columns of our daily papers. Colossal fortunes are amassed by deliberately planning and encompassing the ruin of thousands, yet the perpetrators of these crimes enjoy without let or hindrance all the honors and comforts that their ill-gotten wealth can bestow. And what happens in the business world has its counterpart in every other sphere of social and industrial activity. Where there are no other safeguards of morality than the laws of the state and the majesty of human nature, there is recognized but one virtue and one crime, the former of the two spelling success, and the latter failure.
Hence religion must step in and bring home to each individual, and to society as well, this most certain truth, that the present life is in all its parts and aspects but a preparation for the life to come. It must teach man that the chief purpose of his earthly existence is not to root and dig and delve, but by virtuous acts to perfect the image of the Godhead, which was engraven upon his being by the hand of his Creator. It is only when religion, with its sacramental influences, lays its hand upon both heart and mind, that man finds the strength and courage to shake off the unruly passions that dog his every step. Only when religious conviction brings home to him the undeniable fact that there is a silent witness to his every action, Who will in His own good time exact a strict account of all his doings, can he walk with unfaltering step in the ways of righteousness. Only when he realizes that virtue shall not fail of its reward and that crime shall not go without its punishment, will he find it worth his while to practice the one and to eschew the other. Then, and then only, can he rise superior to personal expediency and self-interest, so that whatever his intellect may judge to be the right course of action, his will shall forthwith be ready to pursue the same. Even then he may have his moments of weakness; he may stumble and fall; but he has that within him which will make him rise again, and live a wiser and a stronger man.
From this it will be readily understood, how sad a mistake is made by those who would set up a sort of independent morality, as is done by the advocates of our so-called Ethical Culture Societies. There are, indeed, well-meaning men among the promoters of this new fad, but, in spite of their good intention, they lead to inevitable destruction the society which they professedly endeavor to save. "Religion," they say, "has failed as a moral regenerator, now let us put the dignity and majesty of human nature in its place. Let man be a law unto himself, and in subjection to this law, let him work out his destiny. Instead of consecrating human attention and enthusiasm to worship, we are to concentrate it rather on the way we live and work. We are to pay regard to human character more than to what men believe. The moral ideal is the only object worthy of our religious veneration; it must take the place which Christ or God holds in the prevalent view."{2} From these and similar statements, made by the leaders of the Ethical Culture fad, it is sufficiently manifest that they aim at nothing less than to banish religion from the sphere of morality, and what is this but adding fuel to the flame? It is true enough that we must concentrate human attention on the way we live and work; it is true enough that we must pay regard to the formation of character; but this cannot be done by relegating religious worship and religious beliefs to the background. Ethical Culture Societies are much to be recommended for insisting upon the Law of Righteousness, but they must be utterly condemned for removing the foundation upon which alone that law can rest securely. It is sheer folly to make human nature the source of obligations which can receive force only from the Author of that nature. The world has been doing this ever since it turned its back upon God, and see what we are to-day -- a people Christian in name but pagan in deed. It is not that religion has failed, but that men have cast religion to the winds.
Sadder still is the spectacle presented to the world by the course pursued in the Public School system. Nowhere is religious influence of more vital importance than in the education of the young. Banish God from the class-room, and moral training, which is the chief part of education, becomes an impossibility What room is there for moral training where the very principles from which the moral law derives its binding force are studiously set aside? Where the forceful mandate of the Supreme Lawgiver: "Thou shalt do this; thou shalt not do that," yields its place to the meaningless counsel suggested by self-respect: "It is becoming to do this; it is unbecoming to do that." It is precisely this ungodly education, if education it may be called, that peoples the country with moral weaklings. Years ago, Horace Mann, a strong advocate of our Common Schools, pointedly remarked: "If the intellect, however gifted, be not governed by a sense of justice, a love of mankind, and a devotion to duty, its possessor is only a more splendid, as he is a more dangerous barbarian. For we are fully persuaded that the salt of religious truth can alone preserve education from abuse." Well, our schools have rejected the salt of religious truth, and as a result both public and private morality are fast reaching so low an ebb, that even the most enthusiastic advocates of our Public School system begin to doubt the wisdom of their ways.
With reference to morality, therefore, there is set us a twofold task: First, we must widen and deepen our knowledge of God and of our relations to Him; second, we must train our will so that it may ever act in accordance with this knowledge. In regard to the first, it may possibly be objected that knowledge of God does not necessarily imply moral perfection. That is true; even the greatest theologian may, from a moral point of view, be a very imperfect man. Nevertheless, all else being equal, of two given men, the one who strives more earnestly to store his mind with the sacred truths of religion is the better man. Morally considered we are such as our thoughts and affections are, and they are necessarily colored by the objects that busy our memory. Of old there stood in the desert of Egypt a famous statue of Memnon. Whilst the darkness of night held the earth enshrouded, it stood there silent and forbidding in that lonely waste; but as soon as the first rays of the morning sun fell softly and warmly athwart its brow, there issued from its interior strains of sweetest music. So it is with the soul of man. When she busies herself exclusively with things of this world, she is enveloped in darkness; she is spiritually dead: but when quickened by the warmth of God's beauty and love, she gives forth the music of holy thoughts, which almost invariably end in the sweet refrain: Our Father, who art in heaven. It has been said that to know God aright is to love Him, and to do His holy will; and nothing is truer. Not that knowledge is love; not that knowledge is virtue: but such is the beauty of God's perfections, such the loveableness of His being, that from a right understanding of them, love springs forth as naturally as a flower from its stem, and then blossoms into virtue.
But aside from the fact that religious knowledge, as a rule, improves the moral condition of the soul, it is an indispensable prerequisite to the right ordering of the will, in which true morality essentially consists. The whole moral order may be summed up in this one supreme law: Do good and avoid evil; but the keeping of this law necessarily presupposes knowledge of the good that is to be done, and the evil that is to be avoided. The will is a blind faculty; it does not see by its own light, nor is it guided by instinct, but it must be directed by the understanding. Consequently it is incumbent upon every one to acquaint himself fully and thoroughly with all the duties of his state in life; with the whole law of God as far as it applies to Him, and with the motives he has for keeping that law. Our first duty to God is to know Him; not in a vague, undefined sort of a way, but with a knowledge that will bear fruit in a life of prayer and virtue. Through this knowledge religion lays its hand gently but firmly upon the tumultuous passions of the human heart and bids them be still. It lays its hand upon the will itself, directs it to follow the dictates of right reason, supplies it with motives to withstand the promptings of corrupt nature, and encourages it to rise superior to every difficulty in the way of righteousness. Thus a moral instinct is developed, the character is fortified against temptations, love of justice springs up in the heart, and by doing and suffering man weaves, perfect in warp and woof, the beauteous fabric of a godly life.
This double task, set us in reference to morality, is necessarily the work of a life-time. It must begin in childhood's earliest day, when through the warmth of a mother's love the childish heart expands and feels the first sweet influence of the greater love of God; it must receive fairer form and more enduring strength during the long years of religious school education; and must finally arrive at full perfection through the unceasing struggles for moral rectitude that make up a life of practical faith. Hence not only is it the most sacred duty of parents to provide for their children a thorough religious education, but there rests upon every single human being the solemn obligation to continue in his own behalf the moral training begun in childhood days. As the days of our life steal silently by, and year is added to year, we must keep our eyes ever fixed upon Him Who made us to His own image and likeness, and like unto His own divine Son, we must grow in wisdom and grace, even as we advance in age.
{1} Even J. J. Rousseau appears to have realized this, when he wrote in Emile: "Attempts have been made to constitute reason the basis of virtue, but I find that religion is the only solid basis for morality. Virtue, it is said, is the love of order. But am I bound to sacrifice my happiness to this order? Granted that wherever intelligence exists, there is a certain moral order; but the difference is that the just man subjects himself to the whole moral order, whilst the unjust man subordinates the whole moral order to himself, and constitutes himself the center of all things. If God does not exist, then the unjust man reasons rightly in thus regarding himself."
{2} Ethics and Religion, pp. 19 foll.; 298 foll. This work is a symposium of twelve addresses, by nine of the foremost representatives of the Ethical Culture movement in England, Scotland, the United States and Germany.