Daily globe., 1878-12-15
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.

blgotry for earnestness, uncharity for stead
fastness in the faith. This, perhaps, is not
to be wondered at, considering the teaching
they have had, but is nevertheless to be con-
demned, for it drives many men away from
tho church and makes of them confirmed un-
world, that if Christianity makes bigots of
men; Christianity is not to be desired Re
hgion, however, is not responsible. 1t is
rather the false Interpretation of it. True
religion and undefled is based upon the
largest toleration, the most liberal ideas.
The zealots of former ages, who sought to
advance the cause of religion by prosecutions
of those who disagreed with them on points
of doctrine; the cavaliers who hunted down
the covenanters like wild beasts; the puri-
tans who imprisoned, exiled and burned at
the stake the dissenters and the witches,
were not doing God service. Neither are
those intolerant men of to-day who lack only
tie opportunity to commit like prosecutions
nominally in the cause of religion, true rep
resentatives of the religion of peace and good
win-the religion Of moderation and charity.
Clerical controversialists are in great
measure responsible for much of the intoler-
ance that disgraces the church to-day. They
hold to their peculiar dognas with tenacity
that is not born of a true Christian spirit
They may believe their Interpretation of the
words of holy writ is the true one, but yet
they cannot deny that the language will
admit of some other terpretation-that
there is room for an honest difference
of opinion. Yet they protest against
all differences of opinion as contrary to the
divine law, and hurl maledictions upon the
heads of those who entertain views not in
accord with their own. They allow no lati-
tude for differences in the temperament of
the Interpreters of the scriptures, for differ
ences in early teachings or modes of reason
ing, but insist that all shall be in entire ac-
cord with themselves on pain of being de-
nounced as heretics and unbeIievers. They
never seem to entertain the thought that
they may be mistaken-that their early
teachings may have been at fault, leading
them to imbibe false theories or a false con-
ception of the divine will. There is too
much of this intolerant Calvinism in all of
the churches for their own good.
The ablest and most honest of bible COM
mentators acknowledge thst the language
used in that book is frequently ambiguous.
The translation from the original tongue is
exceedingly defective, and frequently that
which was spoken as a parable il given
forth as an authoritative command. Then,
the language has been subject to changes in
since it was first penned, and many
commands and many precepts now seem to
have totally different meaning from that
which they were intended to convey. Even
where the language appears to be explicit
there is frequently good ground for differ
ence of opinion by reason of the difference
in the customs in Palestine in ante Christian
times and those in civilized countries to-day
which have bearing on the text. Where
there is, from the very nature of things, such
abundant causes Of disagreement, it would
seem to be the part of good judgment, if not
of religious principle, to tolerate with mod
GRAFTON whatever may seem to be antagonis-
tic to any special reading of the scripture.
To assume dictatorial mein and declare
that you are right and everybody else is
wrong, is tantamount to declaration that
ninety-nine -hundredths of the professed
followers of Christ are guilty of perverting
the word of God for base and ignoble pur-
poses.
We venture to say that no sect in
terprets the scriptures Alright in every
particular. The Baptists may accept the
correct reading in one respect, the Presby-
terians in another, the Episcopalians in
another, and the Roman Catholics in still
another, while on other and various points
of doctrine the sixty other denominations
who differ with those mentioned may have
some particular doctrine in ex-
act accordance with the letter and meaning
of the word.
Where there are so many sects, each diff
fering from all others on some points of
faith, it is, to say the least, presumptuous in
any one of them to set itself up as the only
Christian church. Each, we may presume,
is honest in its belief, and each is entitled
to the benefit of sincerity. But, as long az
each battles with the others, claiming excep-
bional warrant for it's creed, and denounces
all others as striving to defeat the revealed
will of deity, none need expect to win the
confidence and respect of those who owe no
allegiance to sect or creed. The chickering's,
intolerance and bigotry that exist between
The various sects give the lie to all outward
professions of Christian unity. No religion
is more hopelessly divided than is that whose
founder declared that house divided against
itself cannot stand. Sects are almost as
numerous as the hairs on ons's head, and vet
they are multiplying. With the institution
Of each denomination the chickering's and
increase. No two are agreed
upon all articles of faith-few upon any.
The Mohammedans have but one faith, the
Buddhists but one, the Brahmins but one.
The Jews but one; yet the Christians are
divided into more than hundred sects, each
battling with all the others. Is it recon-
to any religion that such latitude
is given to believers? And granting that,
is it recommendation to have the consci-
BUSINESS that, in joining one chuch, one will
be regarded as heretic by all the others?
These thoughts are worthy of attention by
all who have the interests Of the Christian
religion at heart.