alone, for nobody can tell where the boot pinches but the wearer himself. And what a relief, what a pleasure, what peace and happiness will be the result of our having arrived at individual convictions.

But where are we to find such an individual religion? Let us begin with the beginning, that is become conscious of our faith in God, the Creator, Preserver, and Ruler-the cause of every thing in the universe; and then by meditation let us grasp His qualities as far as it is in our power. This is not difficult; on the contrary we merely follow our spiritual instincts in this process. Then let us strip ourselves boldly, nay violently if need be, of all and everything that seems to us unnatural, absurd, and contrary to common sense in the teachings we have received. Let us study our relationship to God and the world around us, rather than revelations which make God man-like instead of making man God-like; and when we have destroyed, then let us build up on the ruins of superstitious legends and fallible dogmas the structure of our own individual convictions, our peculiar creed. This may be a slow process, and we may have sometimes to retrace our footsteps. We may find ourselves sometimes groping in the dark, sometimes battling with doubts and fears; but at any rate we have the consolation that we never can be as miserable as we were, when we endeavoured to believe what we could not believe, when we were compelled to hear excommunications and anathemas thundered against us, and when all that was forced down our throat, was in distinct contradiction to our reason. Let us be men, which God meant us to be, that is, discerning agents, and let not devilish priestcraft frighten us into absurdities.

Christianity teaches that all those who do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus must, of necessity, be damned eternally, that is to say, all the millions who lived anterior to Jesus, all the millions of Jews, Mussulmans, and Heathen, who lived after him, and who ever will live hereafter, besides all the Christians who have doubts in the absolute and literal truth of every tittle of the Christian dogma, or who are in the slightest degree sinful, only "the pure in heart shall see God"-in fact, the whole human race since the creation of the world until the doom thereof, except a small number of elect ones; all-all are damned eternally, and thus souls are pouring into hell at the rate of a lac a day.

Paul calls himself "chief of sinners." Well, being considered inspired, ie, infallible, he must have spoken the truth, in which case we must wonder that he was considered worthy of inspiration, and that he trusted to being admitted into paradise, or, he spoke these words hypocritically which also would not reflect much credit on him. It strikes us that neither Peter nor Paul were happy men, and how could they be happy when the one whiningly exclaims, "If the righteous hardly be saved, what are the unrighteous to do?" and when the other calls himself "chief of sinners?" Hope, fear, constant suspense and anxiety are not emotions which constitute happiIt is foolish to give up the one bird in our hands for two in the bush; it is foolish trusting entirely to the future for happiness,

ness.

when it is given to us to be happy already at the present time. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The individual who has been unable to be happy here, has small chances being so hereafter; and reversing the reasoning, the man who has secured his happiness on earth (only acquirable by piety and morality) may look trustful into the future. As standard Christians like Peter and Paul expressed themselves so dissatisfied with life here on earth, and as the vast majority of mankind is consigned to hell by the Christian dogma, we cannot regard Christianity as having tended to increase the sum total of happiness in the world. The founder himself was far from being a happy man. "He was seen seldom to smile, never to laugh, often to weep." Solon, in his famous interlocution with Croesus, tested the happiness of man by the manner of his death. Now, what was the latter end of Jesus, in the first place? Then, what character has the death-bed of the majority of Christians? A hubbub is raised and goody-goody tracts are written for the edification of the sinner, whenever a Christian departs this life, calmly and peacefully, dying like a man. This proves the scarcity of such occurrences; for an every-day event would not be held up to the admiration of the world. Now, look at the Jew, the Moslem, the Hindu-how resigned are they in the hour of death! It is because they look forward to something better than what this life offered, while the majority of Christians have been frightened into hysterics by threats of eternal damnation, the bottomless pit, and other

nonsense.

And only imagine the blasphemy of the thought. "God has created the human race, has laid a curse upon them, has led them the life of a dog here on earth, sentences them to an eternal life of torment afterwards, and allows the vast majority of souls (not to reckon the devil and his angels) to remain in eternal rebellion against him." A fine caricature of an Almighty King, who is satisfied with the fealty of a few thousand souls, while uncounted millions are locked in prison eternally, cursing and blaspheming Him-a pityful picture; an Almighty King indeed. A loving father of the human race indeed? Every one in everlasting rebellion against him, and He unwilling or incapable of altering this state of affairs.

Are such dogmas calculated to promote peace and happiness on earth? We think not! Judging from experience we know that there are many earnest and intelligent men who have attempted believing in the pestiferous absurdities thus taught. However what but the grossest ignorance, who but the most superstitious, can adopt these teachings as saving truths? The crassness and darkness of this creed must be experienced by every one, and even in the camp of the clergy there are rising up honest men to combat it. An Episcopalian Bishop, at a crowded open-air meeting, promised £500 reward to the person who would "prove from the Bible that there is taught in it the doctrine of eternal punishment." Every preacher, with a well-regulated mind, has ceased fulminating from the pulpit threats of hell and devil; and the Methodist ranter, or the

street preacher, or else the half-educated missionary, are the only champions who still refuse relinquishing what they regard their most effective weapons.

A religious system that promises salvation to so very few, that is more liberal with threats than with promises, that founds its whole righteousness upon dogmatic faith-a quality not under the control of many; a creed, the promises even of which are equivocal for "He giveth both to will and to do, of His good pleasure," (Phil. ii., 13); for "though ye have done all, ye are only unprofitable servants, (Math. xxii., 14); though ye are called ye may not be elected (Math. xx., 16);—such a system is not calculated to promulgate peace and happiness among the masses. The Christian is

so heavily handicapped, the course is so sloppy, and the prize such an uncertain one, that he more likely has his name scratched than risk life and limb for nothing.

Then, again, one hears of the high standard of morality that the Christian religion enjoins, and which is represented as superior to the moral code of other creeds, proving thus its excellency. We know, however, that the standard of morality is equally high in every creed, and that creed should bear off the palm that succeeds, in not merely teaching, but in enforcing morality on its adherents. In this Christianity has failed as every religion must fail that demands blind faith. Accidentally Christianity has been associated with civilisation some time since, and the latter has softened down the tigerish propensities of human kind by restrictive laws. But these laws are entirely independent, nay often contradictory, to Christianity. Moreover, Sin or Vice has not been checked at all, and the Hindu of Benares is not more sinful than the dweller in the back slums of a western metropolis. The Heathen Hindu in reality is generally regarded even by Christians as of purer metal than the native pervert to Christianity; and leaving the dregs of the population alone, who would be so bold as to assert that the middle class Mussulman, Parsee or Bengalee is more deeply stained with vice than his Christian fellow? We may rather assume that vice in the abstract is more prevalent among civilised races than among the barbarous ones; and where legal force, ie., the strong hand of executive law is wanting, there Christianity by itself has absolutely no power to improve the morals of a people.

A creed altogether has very little influence with the masses as to restricting vice. Wherever there is a strong Government, capable of enforcing its laws, there crime will decrease; where this force is wanting, there crime will increase, as statistics can prove with the utmost accuracy. And what the relative position of State laws and crime is on the one hand, that is religion and vice on the other hand. The creed that can enforce its morality is the only one that claims our acknowledgment. But none of the existing creeds exercise this power, and they are therefore useless institutions of a ponderous nature, which we should be much better without. Now, the object of religion being the increase of happiness among the human race, by raising the standard of morality, and restricting

F

crime (by means of civilization), it is evident that Christianity, no more than any other known creed, fulfils its object; and consequently (by their fruits ye shall know them) as to its effects on the masses this religion cannot claim superiority over other religions. It is only the individual religion that is the mother of morality. Then, what power will produce an amelioration in the moral state of society? We might answer that, as long as the world lasts, there will be unhappiness and crime, and that one nation and one age differs very little from the other in the matter. This we know, and where such as Moses, Zoroaster, Confucius, the Hebrew prophets, Socrates, Plato, Jesus, and Mohamed, and others have worked without any perceptible result, it would be the height of conceit to imagine that we can effect what they could not. All we can do is to speculate as to what conditions and circumstances are required to effect an amelioration.

We know that morality is a result of true, ie., individual religion, that from it springs happiness to individuals and commonwealths. We know also that an earnest Jew, Dualist, Mussulman, or Christian is a moral man, so that we perceive morality does not depend at all on the name of any particular religious system (creed). An earnest adherent to any religious system, however, is a man of convictions, so that morality will be exercised in the same degree in which individual convictions are held even if these convictions should diverge from those of others in every direction. But while humanity is tied down and fettered to certain creeds, which are opposed to their convictions, while they are frightened by fearful threats of an interested priesthood, if awful penalties be instituted against such as may secede from the opinions of their surroundings, and follow the bent of their own convictions, it is evident that they will, in only exceptional cases, hold opinions self consciously. Blind faith, as imposed by all religious teachers, is the great rock against which the morality, and therewith the happiness of humanity, suffers shipwreck. Under existing circumstances, you are either a blind follower of an uncomprehended system of dogmas, or you will turn to the other extreme; and because you cannot put faith in the said dogmas, and being disinclined or incapable of finding truth for yourself, you will give up the struggle in disgust, float down the stream of indifference, and be a man without settled convictions at all. We should think it, therefore, necessary, in order to improve morality, to, in the first place, abandon all religious systems absolutely, then to encourage each individual to seek and test for himself, without impediment being thrown in his way, so that the convictions growing up within him, whatever their nature, might ripen and become an integral portion of himself. Only imagine what would have become of us if we had, from the first, eschewed innovations and development! We should still be clad in fig leaves, and still be Cains and Abels. Such terms as astronomy, geography, geology, and of all the other sciences, would have been without meaning. We should resemble the Zulus and the Andamanese. And if physical and mental development be not

objected to, why should then the more important spiritual improvement find so many antagonists? An invention, a discovery is made in the physical sciences, that revolutionizes the world, and the inventor or discoverer is regarded as a benefactor to humanity. He has become such, because he was permitted to leave the path of conservatism, to obey the bent of his genius and follow up his inspiration by means of observation, experiment, and induction. Then, why should the discoverer on spiritual grounds be anathemized? Why should the world be deprived of the fruit of his revelation and study? Or why is humanity not left to judge for themselves of the fitness to accept these discoveries or to condemn them, as in the case of scientific discoveries? Why should any innovation on spiritual ground be cursed as an emanation from the evil one? The reply is easy.*

The conservative fury is owing to the great vested interests of the clergy, of the priesthood. These are the source of all spiritual misery in the world, they are the obstacle to a free spiritual development, to a general religious toleration.

One of the greatest errors, and one of the most inveterate that humanity has been labouring under from its cradle, is the confusion there exists, of what priesthood is in connection with religion. These two terms were considered all along, and are regarded up to this day, as synonymous. The priest teaches you that "priesthood is religion, and religion priesthood. They are one and cannot be separated. If the one falls, the other will be dragged down also. Imagine religion without priesthood, and we will show you priesthood without religion. Religion is our domain. We are the sanctified servants of our God, especially appointed by Him. Any thought directed against us is profanation, sacrilege, blasphemy. The fierce wrath of God is sure to fall upon any one who dares shake the foundation on which our order is placed. Why, look at all the sacred books of all times and of all religions,-you will find our sacred calling upheld, etc." However by whom were these sacred books written, but by priests? Who has taught us all this nonsense about the sacredness of priesthood, but priests themselves? We perceive, however, priesthood and religion not being controvertible terms, why religion, or rather the established creeds on earth, have failed to produce those happy results which we are justified in expecting from them? The vested interests of the priesthood demanded that humanity should be held in chains, that free development should be checked, that diverging thought and discussion should have the names of sacrilege and blasphemy attached to them. What would become of the millions of imposters that call themselves priests, from the Pope in Rome to the Buddhist Rehan, if each man had his own religion and were his own priest? They would be stripped of their usurped and pretended sanctity, deprived of their revenue, thrown upon their own resources, and obliged to

*Also in political, social and scientific matters great obstacles are thrown in the way of progress, as the lives of the Hampdens, the Harringtons, the Galileos prove, but this resistance is weak, wavering and uncertain, compared with that of the monopolists of religious thought.