The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-10-16

in the act or form, which indicates.
Is not the mentioned recognition the
cause rather than the effect OF the
act?
In the second definition, we dis
cover there are really two, materially
differing in their nature. By the
first it is the Feeling OF human love,
fear, or awe, of some superhuman
and overruliug power" ETC.; in the
second it is "the expression of these
feelings" etc. Which of these is the
correct definition? Can the mere ex-
preston of thought or feeling, be
either? As little can the mere form,
the outward show of it, be religion.
Can the expression of anything be
the thing expressed9 1t seems most
evident the expression of human love,
fear, or awe, by various objective de-
nominations, is not and cannot be
religion; it is rather the feeling of
these emotions which constitutes re
ligion resulting in its outward ex-
preston. Are the objective acts the
cause and the subjective conscious
ness the effect? Is the process of
mans movements, acts first, and i'm
pulses after?
Then we would say "a system of
faith and worship, or the manifesto
ton of piety" is not religion; they
are both the result of religion and
not religion itself; or its cause.
The convent or religious order, or
institution is not religion. The church
and it's members are not religion. A
worshiping assembly, the ceremo-
malls, rites, or creeds and professions
of faith are not religion. The Old
and New Testaments are not; even
prayer and praise are not religion,
they are all only the form of it; the
objective expression of the subjective
fact of consciousness. All construc-
tions, orders, organizations, state
ments of faith, theories of religion,
words of prayer and songs of praise;
-liturgies, catechisms and outward
observances relating to religion, are
man made; facilitating the suitable
and harmonious expression of reiig
ion-G cd made in human nature.
1t seems evident, then, religion
does not consist of outward acts, is
not objective in its nature, though it
naturally manifests itself in, or
through those acts. Hence, it is not
morality, nor in nature related to it.
Morality is man made, wholly objec-
tive in its character and influence;
relating to and regulating our con-
duct towards each other; while re-
ligion, on the contrary, is subjective
in it's nature, and relates to our feel
ings toward, and the recognition of,
the superhuman power, the Infinite
Father-the conscious relation be-
tween man and God.
There seems to be quite preva
lent misconception on this point; a
vague impression that religion and
morality are one-synonymous words;
or. at most, merely expressing differ
ent modes of the same human ele-
ment, both merely relating to human
conduct, and indistinguishable from
each other. While in truth the one
so relates, the other consists only of
being and related feeling. Morality,
being man made, its character is de-
termined by the prevailing opinion of
the times and people, and is as va
rious in its standards as they. That
which may be considered moral by
one community may be quite other
wise in another. Yet, as with all
other human traits, or conceptions, it
is more or less enthroned, becoming
an efficient regulator of conduct
when connected with religion, which
imparts consistency of action and
steadfastness of character to all hui
man doing. We too little appreciate
this fact and the importance of it, as
related to the progressive develop
ment of mankind. No element in
human nature exercises greater in
fuence in moulding mans character
and determining his actions, that the
religious. 1t gives strong conviction,
fixedness of purpose, consistency in
action, stability of character and con.
tempt of danger in the most trying
conditions of life, in the proportion
of its dominance.
From all of which we conclude re-
ligion is purely subjective in its
nature. 1t is in man, of man, and
consists in the recognition of God
or gods having power over our des-
tinies-over all things; a feeling of
alteration, awe, fear, or love for, or
toward a superhuman over ruling