The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-08-07
IN REPLY TO BRO. OROSLEY.
BY REV. JAMES GoRToN.

MY old friend, Bro. Crosley, has
the misfortune not to agree with me
in my affirmation that "creed or dog
ma, whether true or false, is not re-
ligion, nor is it any part of religion"
The difficulty with nv brother is,
that he entirely fails to apprehend
my position, and, therefore, succeeds
admirably in misrepresenting me. l
am not going to tell him that l have
not agreed to furnish him with ideas,
and then besides that furnish him
with brains to understand them; for
am quite sure he has plenty of
brains to understand me if he will
look again and read my article over
carefully.
defined the pure religion" of St.
James as ian inward life of right
eousness and love, and an outward
life of kindness and mercy, justice
and benefcence." l also illustrated
or elaborated this definition with
other similar definitions. Now it was
of religion as thus defined that l said
creed or dogma constituted no part.
If l have missed the mark, then St.
James has also missed it.
Then, further, although creed or
dogma constitute no part of religion,
as thus defined, l did not intimate
that creed, dogma, were not valuable
aids to such religion, and even es-
sential to it, SO that they were true.
Indeed, I distinctly said that they
we're "helps" in the development of a
religious life.
Now food is essential to the body.
Without it the body would perish.
Nevertheless the food is not the body.
Food is essential to life, but the food
itself is not life. Similarly, creed,
doctrine, truth, religious principles,
may indeed be essential to the relig-
ious life-to religious character and
conduct-but they are not of them
selves religious character and con-
duct. Indeed, man might know
and believe any amount of the most
important religious truth and yet
fail to be religious.
Further, l did not intend or desire
to minimize doctrine or truth, or in
any way to detract from their import
ance. I only intended to made prop
er Observation-Disclosures between
results, and means to result.
did not say, or intimate, that the
result could be had without the
means. l simply said the means
were not the result. l might have
gone further, perhaps. It is by no
means the man who has the most of
truth who has necessarily the most OF
religion.
l am perfectly we'll aware that
there is loose general way of
defining religion which would in
clude not only dogma, creed, in the
definition, but would also include
church government, modes of wor-
ship, ordinances, forms and ceremo-
MES, robings and genufections, and
perhaps many other things. But we
insist, and we think it must be evil
dent, that none of these things, how
ever important they may be as in
struments or as helps, are any part
of religion, as we have defined re-
ligion. We believe it is a matter OF
good sense and sound logic to make
these distinctions. If my definition
OF religion is faulty, then the defni-
ton of St. James is also faulty; and
my brother should first correct his
Bible before he flies at me. If be
shall believe otherwise than l have
here stated then we will agree to
disagree and let it rest there.
But he must not suppose he at
taches greater Importance to truth
than l do, or that he believes more
strongly in it than l, merely because
l regard truth as an instrument,
while he seems to regard it as an end
in itself. Is not this latter position
that which is oy far too apt to charac-
terize the narrow dogmatist and the
bitter sectariani Have not persons
been known to have but little truth,
dogma or creed, and yet to have
much of genuine religioni On the