"thou shalt be brought unto the blood of sprinkling, as an

undone helpless, damned sinner."

—john wesley, sermon on "justification by faith."

polite ears, which are often the longest, will be shocked at the title of this article. this is an age in which it is accounted vulgar to express plain doctrines in plain language. spurgeon was the last doctor of a good old school. their theology was hateful: an insult to man and a blasphemy against god—if such a being exists; but they did not beat about the bush, and if they thought you were booked for hell, as was most likely, they took care to let you know it. they called a spade a spade, not a common implement of agricultural industry. they were steeped in bible english, and did not scruple to use its striking substantives and adjectives. when they pronounced "hell" they aspirated the "h" and gave the full weight of the two "l's." "damn" and "damnation" shot from their mouths full and round, like a cannon ball sped with a full blast of gunpowder.

but, alas, how are the mighty fallen! no longer do the men of god indulge in thunderous saxon. they latinise their sermons and diminish the effect of terrible teaching. you shall hear them designate "hell" with twenty roundabout euphemisms, and spin "damnation" into "condemnation" and "damned" into "condemned," until it has not force enough to frighten a cat off a garden wall.

let us not be blamed, however, if we emulate the plain speech of the honest old theologians, and of the english bible which is still used in our public schools. we despise the hypocritical cry of "vulgar!" we are going to write, not on "condemned transgressors," but on "damned sinners." yes, damned sinners.

now, beloved reader, it behoves us to define and distinguish, as well as amplify and expatiate. we must therefore separate the "damned" from the "sinners." not indeed in fact, for they are inseparable, being in truth one and the same thing; for the adjective is the substantive, and the substantive is the adjective, and the "damned" are "sinners" and "sinners" are the "damned." the separation is merely mental, for reasons of convenience; just as we separate the inseparable, length from breadth, in our definition of a line. this is necessary to clear and coherent thought; man's mind being finite, and incapable of operating in all directions at once.

what then are sinners? a simple question, but not so easy to answer. all men are sinners. but what is a man? a featherless biped? so was the plucked fowl of diogenes. a man is—well a man; and a sinner is—well a sinner. and this is near enough for most people. but it does not satisfy a rational investigator, to say nothing of your born critic, who will go on splitting hairs till his head is as bare as a plate, and then borrow materials from his neighbor's cranium.

in ancient egypt it was a sin to kill a cat; in england cats are slain in myriads without a tremor of compunction. among the jews it is a sin to eat pork, but an english humorist writes you a delicious essay on roast pig. bigamy is a sin in the whole of europe but the south-eastern corner, and there it is a virtue, sanctioned by the laws of religion. marrying your deceased wife's sister is a sin in england; four thousand years ago, in another part of the world, it was no sin at all; in fact, a gentleman of remarkable piety, whom god is said to have loved, married his wife's sister without waiting for a funeral. did not jacob take rachel and leah together, and walk out with them, one on each arm?

sin as a fact changes with time and place. sin as an idea is disobedience to the law of god; that is, to the doctrines of religion; that is, to the teaching of priests. crime is quite another thing. it is far less heinous, and far more easily forgiven. of course crime and sin may overlap; they may often be the same thing practically; but this is an accident, for there are crimes that are no sins, and sins that are no crimes. it is a crime, but not a sin, to torture a heretic; it is a sin, but not a crime, to eat meat on a friday.

a sinner is a person on bad terms with his god. but who, it may be asked, is on good terms with him? no one. according to christianity, at any rate, we have all sinned; nay, we are all full of original sin; we derived it from our parents, who derived it from adam, who caught it from old nick, who picked it up god knows where. now every sinner is a damned sinner. he may not know it, but he is so; and the great john wesley advises him to recognise it, and come as a "damned sinner" to god, to be sprinkled or washed with the blood of christ.

what is damned then? we take it that "damned sinners," that is all sinners, are persons to whom god says "damn you!" to whom does he say it? to all sinners; that is, to all men. and why does he say it? because he is wroth with them. and why is he wroth with them? because they are sinners. and why are they sinners? because they are men. and why are they men? because they cannot help it. they were born in sin and shapen in iniquity, and in sin did their mothers conceive them.

every christian admits this—theoretically. he goes to church and confesses himself a "miserable sinner," but if you called him so as he came out of church he would call you something stronger.

a sinner may be damned here, apparently, without being damned hereafter. he is liable to hell until he dies, but after that event he is sometimes reprieved and sent to heaven. but the vast majority of the human race have no share in the atoning blood of christ. they were "damned sinners" in posse before they were born, they are "damned sinners" in esse while they live, and they will be "damned sinners" for ever when they leap from this life into eternity, and join the immortal fry of almost everybody born to die.

this is a very comfortable doctrine for the narrow, conceited, selfish elect. for other people—all the rest of us—it is calculated to provoke unparliamentary language. why should god "damn" men? and how can men be "sinners"? certainly they can sin against each other, because they can injure each other. but how can they sin against god? can they injure him? he is unchangeable. can they rob him? he is infinite. can they deceive him? he is omniscient.

can they limit his happiness? he is omnipotent. no, they cannot sin against him, but he can sin against them. and if he exists he has sinned against every one of them. not one human being has ever been as strong, healthy, wise, noble, and happy as god might have made him. nor is man indebted to god for his creation. there cannot be a debt where there is no contract. it is the creator and not the creature who is responsible, and the theological doctrine of responsibility is the truth turned upside down.

suppose a man had the power of creating another thinking and feeling being. suppose he could endow him with any qualities he chose. suppose he created him sickly, foolish, and vicious. would he not be responsible for the curse of that being's existence?

man is what he is because he is. he is practically without choice. the cards are dealt out to him, and he must take them as they come. is it just to damn him for holding a bad hand? is it honest to give him hell for not winning the game?

let us use for a moment the cant language of theology. let us imagine the vilest of "damned sinners" in gehenna. does not every scientist, and every philosopher, know that the orb of his fate was predetermined? would not that "lost soul" have the right to curse his maker? might he not justly exclaim "i am holier than thou"?

do not imagine, reader, that this new reading of the book of fate has no practical significance. when we get rid of the idea of "damned sinners," when we abolish the idea of "sin" altogether and its correlative "punishment," and learn to regard man as a complicated effect in a universe of causation, we shall bring wisdom and humanity into our treatment of the "criminal classes," we shall look upon them as moral lunatics and deal with them accordingly. and this spirit will extend itself to all human relations. it will make us less impatient and angry with each other. we shall see that "to know all is to pardon all." thus will the overthrow of theology be the preparation for a new moral development. another link of the old serpent of superstition will be uncoiled from the life of humanity, leaving it freer to learn the splendid truth, taught by that divine man socrates, that wisdom and virtue are one and indivisible.