forefathers, join in this unholy carnival. The sound of our church bells is powerless to call them off; they are dead to the inspirations of culture, to the grand sympathies of moral life; they are content to bequeath to their children a corrupted state, diseased by the impurity of their own lives.

I have visited a great many Roman Catholic churches and listened attentively to the sermons, but have never heard a priest denounce to his congregation the political corruption from which we are suffering. I have heard Protestant ministers speak upon the subject but very rarely, and never with the warmth which it demands. The Roman Catholics cannot be blamed for not becoming political reformers. The great stem of the Church of Christ which they represent has always had distinct political ambitions, impossible to reconcile with the highest ideas of government, and they cannot be expected to resign these ambitions in America. The Protestant denominations are too divided to control any great political influence; so that, so far as religion takes an interest in our politics, we are in the power of the Church of Rome.

But the Church of Christ has no great and pure political ideals. To Jesus, politics was a thing apart from the kingdom of God, which he represented. He believed that a supernatural change of all earthly conditions was necessary to the establishment of a great moral life. His conception of life was so primitive and unreal that it has ever since been an impossible ideal. The interest which his church has taken in politics through the reign of the popes of Rome has been of such a narrow and selfish order that Protestantism has sprung into existence, mainly as a protest against it; and so inadequate are the Christian ideals of human government, so little do they answer to the real conditions of life, that the separation of church and state has become a fundamental tenet with a large body of Christians, a majority of whom are Protestants.

What have we, then, to look for, from Christianity, in the way of ideals of pure government? With the great Roman

Church actuated by selfish plans for ecclesiastical dominion; with the Protestants jealous of any interference in state affairs on the part of their religion, holding up the sickly visions of a sect of Latter-Day Saints as a model for human life;-what have we to look for, from Christianity, in the way of ideals of pure government?

Political ideals are but enlargements of personal existence. Purity in the sphere of government must spring from personal purity, hence the high value which is placed upon character in public life.

A true religion can alone give us true politics; a great and good national life can come only from discipline of character and mind.

Morality is the study of divine law with respect to social duties. It is the casting of the true perspectives of life and mind. There is a popular notion that religion is something higher and even purer than morality.

Religion and morality are different views of the same thing; true religion is the highest thought and feeling; morality, the embodiment of both in action. The religion of philosophy is broad enough to shape the future of humanity, to secure to our children the advantages of freedom and the true glory of a moral life. This religion would exalt principles, not persons; methods of life, not individuals; it enshrines no saints, it bows to no mystery, for it gathers its inspiration from the general life and mind.

CHAPTER XXIV.

APPEAL TO THE WOMEN OF AMERICA IN BEHALF OF THE

RELIGION OF PHILOSOPHY.

The Question Considered with Regard to Nations and Men-The Question Considered with Regard to Children-Religion is the Highest or Most General Thought and Feeling; Morality, the Embodiment of Both in ActionThe Home is the Citadel of Individual and National Purity.

PHILOSOPHY claims no prerogatives; its organization is purely intellectual and moral; it is the critic of succeeding civilizations, of social progress, and of moral development. Occupying this position, it has a right to demand reasonable reforms. Not unmindful of the slow methods of actual life, or of the disparities of intelligence and sensibility between nations and classes, it regards organized religion as indispensable to the world,-as the central feature of every civilization. But religion must always represent the highest knowledge of the race, the purest view of life interpreted in the most fitting language for each nation of worshippers. As the thought and feeling of the world learn to respond to those symphonies of life which declare the human race to be a great unit, and its origin and destiny but obverse aspects of the single fact of development, religion must take up this refrain and repeat it to its followers. It must repeat it in language which has the dignity of simplicity, the power of truth. A religion which under any pretext falsifies life is immoral and must decay. As the realm of religion is that of thought and feeling voiced in language, purity and integrity of speech should be its first consideration. It has no right to employ vague symbols when the ideas which they represent can be more truthfully expressed by the use of

direct terms. If a creed has life, it must progress; if it is wholly dead, it must be discarded. Philosophy would do no violence to living faiths, but it will ever seek to remove those decaying structures of belief which encumber society and threaten its welfare. The extent of the religious reform which each age demands can be measured by the degree of confusion which prevails among the people with regard to their most general conceptions. However simple and primitive the religious ideas of a people may be, providing harmony prevails, morality is comparatively unaffected. But when from great disparities in intelligence and education there is a continual clashing of religious opinion, morality, which is the expression of the highest logical harmony of our lives, is sure to suffer. Above all, when that class which represents the widest culture and deepest thought of a nation withdraws from its dominant faith a reaction is sure to follow, for this class embraces the true religionists of each age. In response to their deeper thoughts and purer feelings creeds must yield, beliefs must widen and deepen; nothing can resist the silent energy of their reforms. The language, the sentiment, the life of their epoch they unconsciously control; they fix the ideals, pass the judgments, determine the scope of their civilization, for their convictions and their lives constitute the philosophy, the morality, and the religion of their time. In the past, this class has belonged chiefly to the church in our time, through the medium of general culture and the higher refinements of life, this class is entering and transforming the homes of America; and the day is approaching, if it has not already come, when women shall constitute its most numerous members.

The Christian religion is widely understood to be a religion of love, and is therefore supposed to have peculiar claims upon women. It is by no means manifest, however, that woman has had a greater share in the sentiment of love than man, for history shows that she has wielded its power rather than submitted to it. But can a

religion be successfully based upon this sentiment of love? Does experience show that in this respect Christianity has succeeded? Have the passions of men and the intrigues of nations been controlled by its power? Is it not rather to the broader sentiments of justice and humanity that we are slowly yielding? Are not justice and humanity truer names. for that universal solicitude for our race which makes it physically and morally a single being? In a word, does not that affection which extends itself until it recognizes no individuals, until its object is the single individual of humanity, cease to be what we call love? For the purpose of illustrating this principle, contemporaneous events are quite as useful as history. Let us, therefore, look about us and examine the degree of moral authority which the religion of love exercises over Christian nations.

The practice of bleeding, which was once so popular in medicine, has been discontinued, because the doctors came to the conclusion that the physical strength of a patient could be utilized in his treatment, and was seldom if ever an obstacle to his recovery. Might not the same reform be adopted in the domain of international pathology? It is well known that no Christian people ever engage in a war which has not a distinct humanitarian principle at bottom, or, at the least, which cannot be clearly identified with some of the designs of Providence. Is it not a well-known fact that modern wars are principally undertaken for the spiritual amelioration of the weaker nation? Have we not abundant evidence for this view of the case in the justifications which Christian nations almost always offer for such wars as they may feel called upon to wage? To be impressed with the prevalence of this belief, we need but to glance at that part of contemporary literature which deals with international relations. A striking proof of the existence of this tacit understanding between the nations of Christendom, that all national policies are at bottom humane, and even religious, is to be found in the speech of the Emperor of Germany in commemoration of the results of the benevolent interest which his people so