222 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



in Kingsley was religion " a thing between a man's 

 self and bis Maker," any more than a man's rela- 

 tion to his father is independent and exclusive of 

 his relation to his brothers and sisters and his in- 

 terest in family affairs. 



If the theory which we have endeavored to 

 work out is true, it would appear that the present 

 universal reticence on religious subjects is a not 

 altogether healthy symptom, as indicating that 

 the belief in a kingdom of heaven among men has 

 died out, and given place to a religion of selfish- 

 ness and isolation, a system of same quipcut, in 

 which each one is to do the best he can for him- 

 self, naturally without saying much about it. It 

 is an ignoble phase of religious life, and as long 

 as it lasts the best fruits of Christianity will be 

 blighted and lost. Religion, like all other whole- 

 some growths, loves the sunlight and the air ; if 

 we keep it in our cellars it will wither and die, 

 or else send up a sickly and colorless shoot, that 

 will bear no healthy fruit. The popular religion 

 lacks just what it would gain by light and air and 

 discussion : it would be more tolerant, better pro- 

 portioned, less self-sufficient, and less given to 

 party spirit. At present, if religion is spoken of 

 at all, it is assumed that this can only be between 

 persons holding similar views ; whereas if it were 

 recognized that the essence of religion lies not in 

 views, which are each man's specialty, but in mu- 

 tual affections and common objects, which are the 

 uniting bond of society, it would be possible for 

 men holding quite opposite views to discuss 

 amicably and profitably subjects lying outside 

 their differences, and even those differences them- 

 selves as being of quite subordinate importance. 



There are special cases in which a more free 

 speech on religious subjects such as we have ad- 

 vocated would be of the greatest advantage. It 

 is often said to be one of the characteristics of 

 the present day, that fathers and sons are not on 

 the same confidential footing that they were a 

 generation or two back : that they no longer talk 

 freely and unrestrainedly ; that the father is no 

 longer his son's confidential friend." Many causes 

 may have conspired to produce this effect : the 

 growing love of independence ; the busy lives led 

 by so many fathers, which cuts them off from 

 their families; the free thought of the present 

 day, which makes many a young man silent lest 

 he should shock his father. But if fathers w r ould 

 but bring themselves to make an effort to break 

 through this mischievous reserve — and the first 

 move must come from them — and, without giving 

 themselves airs of superior knowledge which in 

 many cases they do not possess, would take pains 



to understand their sons' point of view and to 

 enter into their difficulties and then talk mat- 

 ters over with them plainly and sensibly as elder 

 friends anxious to help them if possible by the 

 benefit of their experience, they would in most 

 cases find that they had won their sons' confi- 

 dence once for all, and that, even if their sons 

 still took a line which they regretted, they might 

 at any rate be one, if not in opinions, yet in 

 heart. 



To another class of persons the bringing relig- 

 ion out of the mysterious gloom of the sanctuary 

 into the light of day would be a great and unmixed 

 gain. To the clergy, as the authorized religious 

 teachers of the people, it is an absolute necessity 

 to be en rapport with the thoughts of the laity on 

 religious subjects if they would speak from the 

 pulpit to any effect. And yet to a considerable 

 number — probably a large majority — of the cler- 

 gy the minds of the lay people area closed book. 

 Nor is the fault with either class exclusively. 

 The clergy are too apt to adopt a professional 

 tone on religious matters, and to regard a layman 

 who discusses them freely as a presumptuous per- 

 son requiring to be repressed. And the laity are 

 far too shy of expressing their opinions in the 

 presence of their spiritual pastors, lest perchance 

 they tread on a clerical corn. It would be better 

 for all parties if there were more freedom of 

 speech on all sides: if a religious layman might 

 speak out his mind, even to the extent of calling 

 in question the reality of miracles or of suggest- 

 ing a mythical element in Scripture, without 

 arousing the wrath to which '' celestial minds " 

 are prone ; and if clergymen were more ready to 

 recognize the unsettlemeut of men's minds, and 

 to discuss the questions which press upon them 

 without heat and with an earnest desire to help 

 them in their search after truth. As it is, the loss 

 is greater to the clergy than to the people: often 

 sermons which might go straight to the hearts and 

 minds of the hearers are lost in the air, because 

 the preacher looks at things from a clerical- 

 meeting point of view, and so he and his hearers 

 are moving in different planes; often a clergy- 

 man, personally respected and liked, fails utterly 

 to exercise any influence on his people's thoughts, 

 because he has never learned to know their minds 

 and to enter into their ways of looking at things. 



It would, of course, be over-sanguine to sup- 

 pose that we are likely to witness any rapid or 

 even perceptible change in this matter at present. 

 Many may think that, in presence of the wide and 

 widening differences of religious and non-religious 

 opinion, reticence on such matters is likely rather 



