COR RESP OiVD ENCE. 



2 39 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



"WHAT CONSTITUTES RELIGION?" 



To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



DEAR SIR : The use of my name 

 twice in your notice of Mr. Fiske's 

 new work on "The Unseen World," in 

 your May number, perhaps justifies me in 

 soliciting a small space for comment on 

 some expressions in that notice. 



You are defending Dr. Draper from Mr. 

 Fiske's trenchant attacks. To that there 

 can be no objection. Confederates are jus- 

 tified in standing by one another ; but I do 

 not think that you are justified in saying 

 that " the point of contention is as to what 

 constitutes religion." So far from there 

 being contention on that point, there is 

 really no important difference. All " sects," 

 no matter how much they " eat each other 

 up in their denial of dogmas," as you af- 

 firm, agree as to what religion is. It does 

 not seem edifying to behold in you the tem- 

 per which dictates the first of the following 

 sentences, although the exceeding generos- 

 ity of the careful proposal in the second 

 has a redeeming flavor. " We hope that 

 the agreement of Messrs. Brownson, Hill, 

 Washburn, Deems, Fiske & Co., in de- 

 nouncing the groundlessness of the ' con- 

 flict,' will not be construed as implying 

 any agreement among the parties as to what 

 religion is. If these gentlemen will get to- 

 gether and settle the point, an important 

 step will be gained, and The Popular Sci- 

 ence Monthly will gladly pay the expenses 

 of a convention of reasonable length for 

 such a purpose; but we stipulate not to 

 foot the bills until they reach an agree- 

 ment." 



For the other gentlemen I cannot an- 

 swe-, but I simply say that I never did 

 "denounce the groundlessness of the con- 

 flict," but have announced it and endeav- 

 ored to demonstrate it, and you are witness 

 that I am "vehement in asserting the 

 groundlessness and absurdity of Dr. Dra- 

 per's assumption" of the conflict (page 

 113). 



Why are you so anxious to keep your 

 readers from believing- that the gentlemen 

 whose names you have recited in fact do 

 not and really cannot agree as to what is 

 " religion ? " Have you ever seen anything 

 in our writings or heard anything in our 

 oral teachings to justify the supposition 

 that, we do not agree ? As you challenge 

 U3, I accept the challenge for my part. I 

 will not expose you to the cost of a con- 

 vention, but here, in my study, without 

 consultation with any of the other gentle- 



men you name, I venture to give two defi- 

 nitions of religion, in both of which I vent- 

 ure to predict that all those gentlemen, if 

 they see this letter, will heartily agree, and 

 that these definitions will win the assent 

 also of Archbishop McCloskey, Bishop Pot- 

 ter, Bishop Foster, Bishop Wightman, Chan- 

 cellor Crosby, Rev. Dr. Armitage, and Rev. 

 Dr. Storrs. representatives of the leading 

 " sects." 



To give the least first, here is my own 

 definition: Religion is loving obedience to 

 God's will. No matter bow or where that 

 will is discovered, nor what it is, he is a 

 religious man who does what he believes 

 will please God, because he loves God. 



The second is authoritative. It is that 

 of St. James (i. 27) : " True religion and 

 undefiled before God and the Father is 

 this : To visit the fatherless and widows 

 in their affliction, and to keep himself un- 

 spotted from the world." A life of inward 

 purity and outward beneficence is a reli- 

 gious life. 



I venture to think you may pass these 

 around the whole circle of religionists and 

 find unanimity. But do not we religionists 

 disagree? Certainly. The five gentlemen 

 you have mentioned, and the seven whom I 

 have named, differ more or less, oftener 

 more than less, and on some points appar- 

 ently irreconcilably. But mark : we never 

 differ in our religion ; it is in our science. 

 The moment two men become scientific, 

 whether they are religious or not, they begin 

 to " eat each other up in their denial of dog- 

 mas." So long as we keep to religion, we 

 are one. Our hearts are together. It is 

 only with our heads that we butt one an- 

 other. I have worshiped God in company 

 with each of the seven distinguished cler- 

 gymen whom I have ventured to name, and 

 yet there is not one of them who does not 

 hold some dogma of doctrine or ecclesiasti- 

 cism to which I cannot subscribe. As re- 

 ligionists, we agree. As scientists, we dif- 

 fer. It is on the ground of our theology 

 that we differ, and that is purely a scien- 

 tific ground. Be pleased always to remem- 

 ber that theology is only a science like 

 geology or biology. 



But, my dear sir, we theologians would 

 be out of fashion if we did not " eat each 

 other up in our denial of dogmas." All 

 other scientists do. The dogma of hetero- 

 genesis tries to " eat up " the dogma of 

 homogenesis, while the dogma of pangene- 

 sis is fairly bursting itself to swallow both 

 the others bodily ; and there is no small 

 conflict between spontaneity and heredity, 



