Library Collections: Document: Full Text

No, my classmates, the religion of authority has had its day; a reasonable religion, such as will bear the infallible tests of truth, based on arguments drawn from God's word and works, is the religion for us.

Truth should be indorsed by us through our reasoning faculties alone, and therefore should not conflict with our common sense and enlightened reason. And it is my opinion, that the religion God sent to man, is so peculiarly adapted to man's nature, as not to conflict with the common-sense views of the common mass of minds. And ere the bright millennial day dawns upon us, I believe that theologically sectarian views will give place to the common-sense views of mankind, and that this is to be the way there is to be "but one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Now, what can be the harm, dear classmates, in our trying to hasten this day, by bringing our educated belief to this test, by kindly using the scales of free discussion? For myself, I feel willing to have all my opinions tested by these scales, and I am willing to yield any point of belief to a weightier invincible argument in the opposite scale -- that is, those views which seem best supported by sound argument and candid reasoning I willingly indorse, although they may conflict with some of my preconceived ideas, or my educated belief, or even with our sectarian creeds. For it is not impossible but that some simple moral truth may have become perverted by educational influences. And candor and honesty, it seems to me, compel us to admit that there is a mixture of truth and error in the creeds of all denominations of Christians, not even excepting the creed of the Presbyterian church; and what can be the harm in thus testing these views, and thereby separating the precious from the vile, rather than by trying to defend our sectarian creeds by arguments and reasons which are not based in truth for their support, thus perpetuating falsehood or errors.

It is my desire, dear classmates, that this social Bible-class be employed as a means to fit us to become valiant defenders of our faith -- that we here capacitate ourselves to defend all points of our belief by rational and intelligent reasons, that we may be able to meet the common enemy of our holy religion with arguments "such as he cannot gainsay or resist." The truth never suffers by agitation and free discussion. It is error alone that fears the light and shrinks before the scales. Let us dare to judge for ourselves what is right, and let us know what right and truth are, by bringing our religious belief to this test of reason and common sense. Let us throw off the blinding influence of prejudice and sectarian zeal, and come up upon the nobler, higher platform of being simple, sincere, charitable, honest seekers after the real, simple, naked truth.

Having obtained permission from our teacher, Deacon Smith, to read the above article before the class, I commenced reading; but finding it to be a defense of what he had determined to stop -- free discussion -- he interrupted me, by forbidding my reading any farther. Of course I quietly submitted to this mandate with unanswering obedience.

RIGHTS OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

I profess to be no theologian, or to have adopted the creed of any sect or denomination of Christians as infallible. But I do profess to take the works and word of God, or facts and revelation as our only infallible guide in our search for truth, and a "thus saith the Lord," as a settling of all controversy. But since I know it to be a fact that equally sincere and honest Christians put a very different construction upon the same event of Providence, and the same text of Scripture, I feel that we are compelled to assume the responsibility of private judgment. And in so doing, I believe we are obeying Christ's directions in the fifty-seventh verse of the twelfth chapter of Luke, viz.: "And why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?"

I regard this Bible-class as having reached that state of development where God holds us individually responsible for our belief. I therefore esteem it a great privilege to be in a Bible-class where our opinions are called for, rather than the opinions of commentators. Not that I wish to disregard the opinions of commentators or learned theologians in my search for Bible truth; for I do think that their opinions are entitled to great deference and respect. While I at the same time believe that a Bible is a book so peculiar in its nature, that learning and talent are not indispensable to a correct interpretation of it, any more than experience and education are indispensably necessary to our judging correctly of the wants of nature.

For instance, because an adult may choose strong drink to allay his thirst, and the child prefer cold water, I do not think we are justified in concluding that strong drink is the best adapted to meet the wants of nature, simply because a mature man chooses it; for this adult may have perverted his natural appetite, so that his choice may not be so much in accordance with nature as the instincts of the child. As in our physical, so in our moral nature, there may be a liability that a simple moral truth may have been perverted by educational influences. Therefore, I do not think that because a talented and learned theologian advances an opinion, that he is certainly correct; neither because an illiterate layman holds a different opinion, do I think he is certainly wrong. But in both cases we should judge of the opinion upon its own intrinsic merits, independent of the source or medium through which it comes to us.