CHAPTER XXVIII.

FAMILY RELIGIOUS TRAINING.

There are few women who have charge of servants or of children, in the family and school, who do not suffer anxiety and perplexity, and sometimes remorse, in attempts to perform their duty as chief ministers of religion in the family state. The following suggestions may aid in diminishing these difficulties:

The main foundation of these troubles is the endless diversities of instruction as to what is right in character and conduct, and especially as to what is taught in the Bible on these points. For there are few practical questions on which persons of equal intelligence and moral worth are not in antagonism as to what _is_ the right; and all the Christian sects are in equal controversy as to what are the teachings of the Bible. And yet every housekeeper, every mother, and every teacher, practically, must decide these questions for herself and her dependants, when, in the kitchen, nursery, and school-room she teaches what actions and feelings are right or wrong, or when she decides to what religious denomination she, and those she can influence, shall belong.

There is one consoling consideration in view of these conflicting opinions, and that is, that nothing tends more directly to cultivate both the intellect and moral feelings, than the study, reflection, and discussion resulting from this trying dilemma. For, were every human being infallibly directed by a superior mind as to every step and every decision, it would greatly diminish mental effort, and the moral discipline of life. All would remain as mere children, guided and upheld at every step. Instead of this, the whole moral and intellectual world is kept vigorous, earnest, and bright by conflict and discussion, while many moral virtues are cultivated by this turmoil.

The difficulties thus encountered may be much reduced by gaining clear ideas as to _what it is_ which constitutes voluntary action _right_. To settle this more clearly, we introduce again a portion of Chapter XXV., with additional considerations. The definition of _right_, in its widest use, is “any rule or method which will _best_ accomplish any plan or design.” It is a fact, also, that there is a created intuitive belief in all rational minds that happiness-making on the largest scale possible is the end or purpose for which all things are made.

This is proved by the fact that whenever men perceive that a given course will secure the most and the best good for both the individual and for society, all decide that it is _right_. The main difficulty is in discovering what _is_ the best for all concerned.

There are two ways in which mankind learn this. The first is, by the trial of experience. Man learns “to know good and evil” by good lost or gained, and evil suffered. This experimenting has been going on in all ages, each generation gaining by the experience of the past. The other mode is, by revelations from God made in human language, and to be interpreted by the common rules of the language employed.

But one distinction is very important, and that is, the two relations in which an action is to be judged as right, viz., first, with reference to the action as best for all concerned, and next in reference to the motive or intention of the actor. For it is best and right that every mind should choose what it believes to be right; and thus it often happens that the same action is right as to motive or intention, and wrong as to actual result. So, also, an action may be right in tendency and result, while it is wrong as to motive. There is often much confusion from not recognizing this distinction.

There are many cases where experience will not avail in deciding what is best for all, especially in reference to our prospects after death, and our relations and duties toward our Creator. For all this we are dependent on revelations made in human language, to be interpreted by the rules of language. And as almost all words have more than one literal meaning, and are also used sometimes in a literal, and sometimes in a figurative sense, the chief labor in gaining God’s teaching is in applying rightly the laws of language.

One difficulty in this attempt is the fact that the true interpretation of language depends greatly on the habits of thought, the prejudices of education, and the influence of excited feelings and wishes. So strong are these influences in the common affairs of life, that it has been a maxim of courts that a man is not qualified to testify where his own interests are concerned. And in all daily affairs, men always make allowances for deviation from a true judgment in what greatly interests the feelings. This accounts for the fact that such a variety of interpretations are put on the plain and natural meaning of the Bible, when such a meaning controverts favorite opinions or interferes with important plans or hopes. It is not because it is difficult to interpret the Bible correctly by the proper use of those rules men employ in daily life; it is because men’s feelings, prejudices, and wishes interfere. No less is it the case that the bias of feeling constantly sways the judgment of men in deciding what is right and best, where experience and reason are the chief guides.

Another embarrassment in gaining the true teachings of the Bible is the fact that the doctrines of churches and creeds have consisted extensively of philosophical theories to explain the _how_ and the _why_ of the facts made known by revelation; and men have been educated to believe that these theories should be accepted as authoritative, the same as the revealed facts, and thus feeling and prejudice interfere. For example, that the sacrifice and death of Jesus Christ was needful to secure redemption to our race from sin and its penalties, is the revealed fact. _Why_ it was needed, and _how_ it avails to save men, is a question which men have invented various theories to answer and explain, and belief in these theories has been deemed as sacred and obligatory as if they were matters of revelation.

Another, and the chief difficulty, is the fact that the great mass, even of educated minds, have never been trained to use the rules of language in the interpretation of the Bible as they do in common life. Although it is the great and distinctive principle of Protestantism that every man is to form his own creed, and to interpret the Bible for himself, responsible not to man but to God alone, the common people have not been trained properly to use this right and privilege. And this is not because it is not as easy and practical a matter as any other duty requiring intellectual culture, practical exercises, and an honest desire for the truth. In consequence of this, much that is only figurative in the Bible has been received as literal, and repellent doctrines thus established.

It is probable that no one thing could so effectually promote unity of opinion among churches, and consequent harmony of action, as the proper training of the common people in the nursery and school-room to use the laws of language with the Bible as they do in common life. Such training would also bring confidence and peace to minds so extensively perplexed by supposed contradictions as to its teachings. It was by this method that the writer overcame difficulties, and gained such confidence and peace as can be secured in no other way. Without stating the results of her own efforts in interpreting the Bible, a few examples will follow, to illustrate the position that any woman of ordinary capacity can find relief and comfort by the same method.

We will take, first, the great question of this life. What are our dangers in the future life, and what must we do to be saved from them?

The following is a brief statement of the views of mankind on this question. Among the heathen, especially among the wisest and best, it was held that the virtuous would fare better after death than the wicked. The seventy-third Psalm shows in most terrific language the misery of the wicked, and as clearly the blessedness of the righteous at death, as believed by the Jews in all ages.

Among Christian nations, a large class have no definite opinions on this question, but by their practice assume that there is no danger at all, and so give all their thoughts and aims to the things of this life.

A large class who profess to obtain their opinions from the Bible hold that, either at death or at some period after, all mankind will be forever good and happy in heaven.

Another large class hold that a portion of mankind will, at death, go to everlasting misery, to be tormented with literal fire and brimstone, and that all the rest will finally go to heaven; but previously the good must suffer temporary punishment for sins committed here—this period of suffering being more or less diminished by penances, and by the sacrifices and good works of Jesus Christ and the good on earth.

Another class believe that at death every human being passes directly to perfect happiness in heaven, or to dreadful sufferings in hell which are never to end. One part of this class hold that the punishment is literally existing forever in fire and brimstone, and the other part hold that the suffering will be the natural result of an endless character that insures misery, and that the language of the Bible expresses this figuratively.

Finally, another class hold that, in the life to come, happiness and misery depend on _character_; that a portion of our race in this life forms one that insures immediate and endless happiness at death; that another portion form a character that involves great suffering after death; and that in _some_ cases this character is perpetuated forever, involving consequent endless suffering. But they claim that the Bible nowhere teaches that with _all_ mankind character is fixed at death. Instead of this, what intervenes between death and the final day, when the righteous and wicked are to be reclothed in bodies and forever separated, is left in wise darkness.

But the most striking fact in these diverse opinions is, that Christian sects all agree that the number who will escape from whatever dangers there may be, depends upon the self-denying labor and sacrifices of the followers of Jesus Christ.

In view of these facts, the first duty of every housekeeper, of every mother, and of every teacher, is to decide which of these views as to the dangers awaiting us all at death are taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles. For if it be true that scholars, children, and servants must be trained to self-sacrifice and self-denying labor, in order to save themselves and their fellow-men from dreadful risks and dangers in the life to come, all the practical duties of daily life will be diverse from the methods pursued by those who believe in no such dangers.

To illustrate this, suppose several families recently settled near a deep, unexplored wood in a new country. The children ramble in its shades, and every day find new beauties and curiosities to attract them farther into its reserves. On a certain day a man arrives from a distant place, all torn and bleeding in efforts to reach them. He tells them that there is a frightful ravine in the unexplored depths; that pleasant but slippery paths lead to it; that it is the resort of fierce and cruel animals, which come forth and roam through its beautiful shades, and that there is no safety but in keeping the children from entering these dangerous woods.

Now these points would be clear to common sense: first, that the man, though an entire stranger, is a benevolent person, because he evidently has suffered severely to save; next, that he tells what he believes is the truth, or he would not encounter this suffering; and lastly, as he says he has long lived in that vicinity, that he has had the means of knowing the truth, and his representations are to be received as true.

Suppose, then, one family have perfect faith in this messenger, they will use every possible precaution to avoid the dangers revealed. Suppose another family is skeptical about the danger, and yet has some fear it may be true, they would use some care, and yet not be so anxious and earnest as the family which had perfect faith. Suppose another family to have no belief at all as to the danger, they would allow their children to roam as before, and give no care or thought to the matter. This illustrates the position that belief in danger modifies all rules of duty, and that faith is proved by men’s conduct or works.

In like manner faith in Jesus Christ, who came in suffering and sorrow to tell of dangers in the unseen world, is proved by the way men live. If they have perfect faith in the dangers he reveals, then the most earnest efforts to save themselves and their fellow-men from ignorance and sin will follow. If they have little faith, they will make less exertions; if they have no fears for the future life, all their plans will terminate in gaining the good things of this life for themselves and those they love, sure that all the rest of mankind will be happy when they die, and that their troubles here will only serve to make rest and enjoyment the greater in the coming life.

The following is the method by which any woman may decide what is truth on this great question, so as to be at rest.

It is first assumed that the Bible is written for the common people, and is to be interpreted by the rules of language men employ in common life, which, briefly, are these:

The first is, all expressions are literal when they do not contradict the known nature of things, or known facts, or the known opinions of the writer; in which latter case they usually are figurative, but have as definite a meaning as if literal. For example, “everlasting” and “forever” mean “time without end,” unless contrary to known facts, or the known nature of things, or the known opinions of the writer. So “punishment” _always_ signifies “pain consequent either on violating a natural or some instituted law.”

The second rule is, when any expression has several significations, that is to be taken as the right one which has _the most_ evidence in its favor. Let any woman of ordinary ability and education apply these rules to the texts on this subject, and she will find little difficulty in deciding what the Bible teaches as the dangers of the future life.

Another example will be given on a subject which causes great anxiety and perplexity, and which may be relieved by the same method. The question is, Why does a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness allow the dreadful miseries that oppress mankind, and, still more, why will he allow sin and suffering to reach through eternal ages? Many suppose that revelation gives no reply to this longing inquiry.

But when we take the language of the Bible in its common and literal sense, we find a satisfactory answer. For _perfect wisdom_ is “that which chooses the _best_ means for the _best_ ends,” and _perfect benevolence_ is “that which seeks to make the most possible happiness with the least possible suffering.” Therefore, when God reveals himself as perfect in wisdom and goodness, it is the same as saying that he has done, and will do, _all in his power_ to save from sin and suffering. Almighty power does not signify power to work contradictions or absurdities; and all theologians teach that there is a limitation of power in the _nature of things_. Thus some say God can not forgive sin without an atonement; others, that he can not lie; others, that he “can not govern the stars by the ten commandments, nor free agents by the attraction of gravity.” And God says of his people Israel, “What _could_ I have done that I have not done” to secure their obedience.

God’s inability to save _all_ is expressly stated when he declares that he is “not willing that any should perish.” The only proof of want of power to do something is to _will_ it done, and yet it remains undone. And God declares that he is not willing to have any one perish. Still more effectively is this proved by his suffering and that of his dear Son, when Christ came. No sane mind ever suffers pain to gain an end when it could be gained without suffering; and the revelation of God as having suffered so greatly, is the highest proof that can be given that his power is limited in controlling free agents by the very nature of free agency. In his hour of extremity, our Lord prayed, “_If it be possible_, remove this cup;” thus indicating that almighty power signifies power to do all possible things, and that some things are _not_ possible even to God.

The first question being settled, that there are _dangers_ to be met after death, the next is, “What must we do to be saved?”

Here the Christian churches are divided, and on a fundamental point, which briefly is this: One class claims that God has the power to create minds so that, without any previous knowledge or training, they shall not only know what is right, but have a controlling principle that in all cases will secure right choice, and that the minds of all angels and of our first parents were made on this pattern. But owing to Adam’s sin, all infants are born without this perfect organization, and so depraved that eternal sin and suffering in hell is the portion of all who are not regenerated before they die, while there is no _certain_ way revealed by which parents can insure this boon for all their offspring.

The other class claim that the assumption that God can, or ever did, create minds on this pattern, is a theological theory for which no evidence exists in revelation or in nature; that it destroys the evidence of the benevolence of God, making him prefer the sin and suffering of infants, when he has power to make them with such minds. They claim also that if a holy mind consists in a controlling purpose or choice to do right, that it is a contradiction in terms to say that a free agent can be created with such a purpose or choice. For the distinctive feature of a free agent is intellect to perceive right and wrong, and power to choose in either of two courses; and choice can not be created. It is also objected that by this theory the chief aim of an educator is not so much to teach what is right and wrong, and secure motives and training to induce such habits of obedience to God’s laws as eventually will secure a controlling purpose of obedience, but rather to employ means by which God shall regenerate the depraved mind.

Let it be particularly noticed that these two classes do not differ as to the _facts_ revealed. Both recognize the fact taught, as much by experience as by revelation, that every child has such a nature as insures the constant violation of natural law, while it is entirely destitute of a controlling principle of love to God and man. They differ mainly as to a theory of accounting for this fact. One teaches that it is because the mind at birth is ignorant, undeveloped, and untrained; the other teaches that it is owing to an imperfect constitutional nature, for which God or Adam, or both, are responsible.

Every woman must examine and decide for herself on which of these systems she will train her family. In this attempt women have one advantage, and that is, they are not so liable to embarrassment and prejudice as they would be were they, as are most of their religious teachers, trained in systematic theology.

The writer has had an experience in both methods, which may have some influence in regard to belief in the teachings of the Bible as to the dreadful dangers to be met in the life to come. This was the mainspring of feeling and effort in her father, who trained a large family to believe and to feel that the great object of life should be _to save as many as possible from eternal ruin_. Wealth, honor, power, and every earthly good, in his mind, was as the dust of the balance compared with this overmastering passion. It was this dreadful danger to herself, and to those she loved best, that changed a frolicsome, hopeful, light-hearted girl to a serious, hard-working woman as nothing else could have done. It was this that stimulated a mind whose natural tendency was to works of taste, light literature, and fun, to anxious investigation in theology, metaphysics, and Biblical science.

And the results in family and personal training are equally manifest in the history of Christian sects. It is those which are most deeply convinced of dreadful dangers in the life to come which have been most advanced in mental development, and in benevolent labor and self-sacrifice. Such heroic suffering and devotion to the best interests of humanity have never been witnessed on a large scale, except in denominations whose fundamental and motive power is belief in dreadful dangers to be encountered after death. The great difficulty in many of these denominations has been a theological theory as to the created constitution of mind, which tended to lessen hope and exertion in that training by which escape from these dangers is most readily and happily secured.

The course here suggested does not imply independent investigation, without aid from men of learning and piety. Every doctrine of theology, and every antagonistic mode of Biblical interpretation, has been sustained by such men. But with a reference Bible and Concordance, any woman of ordinary capacity can collect all that the Bible contains on a given topic, and form a decision as to which view has the most evidence in its favor. Then she can learn what has been offered both for and against this view. This having been done with a prayerful spirit, the result will rarely fail in bringing satisfaction and peace; while both intellectually and morally such exercises will have an elevating tendency.