diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:12 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:12 -0700 |
| commit | 84112b77e2a72330005125cbfda7b79530485b2e (patch) | |
| tree | a7c6a62cedf0376763e160366462f009ecb70ee5 /old | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38806-h/images/portrait.jpg | bin | 0 -> 65067 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38806-h/images/titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 65211 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38806-h/main.htm | 15929 |
3 files changed, 15929 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38806-h/images/portrait.jpg b/old/orig38806-h/images/portrait.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f5b1dc --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38806-h/images/portrait.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38806-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38806-h/images/titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..29da4a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38806-h/images/titlepage.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38806-h/main.htm b/old/orig38806-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9c11584 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38806-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,15929 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> +<head> +<meta name="generator" content="HTML-Kit Tools HTML Tidy plugin" /> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= +"text/html; charset=us-ascii" /> +<title>The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Volume 6 (of 12) by Robert +G. Ingersoll</title> + +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[*/ + <!-- + body { text-align:justify} + P { margin:15%; + margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; } + img {border: 0;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 25%; margin-right: 20%;} + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: left; + color: gray; + } /* page numbers */ + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; + margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 25%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + CENTER { padding: 10px;} + PRE { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;} + --> +/*]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div style="height: 8em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<a name="title" id="title"></a> +<h1>THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h1> +<br /> +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> +<br /> +<blockquote> +<p>"ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH INSULTS. KINDNESS IS +STRENGTH; ANGER BLOWS OUT THE LAMP OF THE MIND. IN THE EXAMINATION +OF A GREAT AND IMPORTANT QUESTION, EVERY ONE SHOULD BE SERENE, +SLOW-PULSED AND CALM."</p> +</blockquote> +<h3>IN TWELVE VOLUMES VOLUME VI.</h3> +<br /> +<h3>DISCUSSIONS</h3> +<br /> +<h2>1900</h2> +<br /> +<h3>Dresden Edition</h3> +<br /> +<center><img alt="titlepage (63K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" +height="1239" width="748" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<center><img alt="portrait (63K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" height= +"1015" width="704" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>Contents</h2> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC">DETAILED CONTENTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; +INGERSOLL'S OPENING PAPER</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY +JEREMIAH S. BLACK.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY +ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">FAITH OR AGNOSTICISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE FIELD-INGERSOLL +DISCUSSION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A REPLY TO THE REV. HENRY M. +FIELD, D.D.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">A LAST WORD TO ROBERT G. +INGERSOLL</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">LETTER TO DR. FIELD.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">CONTROVERSY ON +CHRISTIANTY</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. +GLADSTONE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">ROME OR REASON.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">THE CHURCH ITS OWN WITNESS, By +Cardinal Manning.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">ROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO +CARDINAL MANNING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">IS DIVORCE WRONG?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0016">DIVORCE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0017">IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT +DEGRADING?</a></p> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> +<blockquote>THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.<br /> +(1881.)<br /> +I. Col. Ingersoll's Opening Paper—Statement of the +Fundamental Truths<br /> +of Christianity—Reasons for Thinking that Portions of the Old +Testament<br /> +are the Product of a Barbarous People—Passages +upholding<br /> +Slavery, Polygamy, War, and Religious Persecution not Evidences +of<br /> +Inspiration—If the Words are not Inspired, What +Is?—Commands of<br /> +Jehovah compared with the Precepts of Pagans and +Stoics—Epictetus,<br /> +Cicero, Zeno, Seneca, Brahma—II. The New Testament—Why +were<br /> +Four Gospels Necessary?—Salvation by Belief—The +Doctrine of<br /> +the Atonement—The Jewish System Culminating in the Sacrifice +of<br /> +Christ—Except for the Crucifixion of her Son, the Virgin Mary +would be<br /> +among the Lost—What Christ must have Known would Follow the +Acceptance<br /> +of His Teachings—The Wars of Sects, the Inquisition, the +Fields of<br /> +Death—Why did he not Forbid it All?—The Little that he +Revealed—The<br /> +Dogma of Eternal Punishment—Upon Love's Breast the Church has +Placed<br /> +the Eternal Asp—III. The "Inspired" Writers—Why did not +God furnish<br /> +Every Nation with a Bible?<br /> +II. Judge Black's Reply—His Duty that of a +Policeman—The Church not<br /> +in Danger—Classes who Break out into Articulate +Blasphemy—The<br /> +Sciolist—Personal Remarks about Col. +Ingersoll—Chief-Justice Gibson of<br /> +Pennsylvania Quoted—We have no Jurisdiction or Capacity to +Rejudge the<br /> +Justice of God—The Moral Code of the Bible—Civil +Government of the<br /> +Jews—No Standard of Justice without Belief in a +God—Punishments for<br /> +Blasphemy and Idolatry Defended—Wars of +Conquest—Allusion to Col.<br /> +Ingersoll's War Record—Slavery among the Jews—Polygamy +Discouraged by<br /> +the Mosaic Constitution—Jesus of Nazareth and the +Establishment of<br /> +his Religion—Acceptance of Christianity and Adjudication upon +its<br /> +Divinity—The Evangelists and their Depositions—The +Fundamental Truths<br /> +of Christianity—Persecution and Triumph of the +Church—Ingersoll's<br /> +Propositions Compressed and the Compressions +Answered—Salvation as a<br /> +Reward of Belief—Punishment of Unbelief—The Second +Birth, Atonement,<br /> +Redemption, Non-resistance, Excessive Punishment of Sinners, Christ +and<br /> +Persecution, Christianity and Freedom of Thought, Sufficiency of +the<br /> +Gospel, Miracles, Moral Effect of Christianity.<br /> +III. Col. Ingersoll's Rejoinder—How this Discussion Came +About—Natural<br /> +Law—The Design Argument—The Right to Rejudge the +Justice even of a<br /> +God—Violation of the Commandments by Jehovah—Religious +Intolerance<br /> +of the Old Testament—Judge Black's Justification of Wars +of<br /> +Extermination—His Defence of Slavery—Polygamy not +"Discouraged" by the<br /> +Old Testament—Position of Woman under the Jewish System and +under that<br /> +of the Ancients—a "Policeman's" View of God—Slavery +under Jehovah<br /> +and in Egypt—The Admission that Jehovah gave no Commandment +against<br /> +Polygamy—The Learned and Wise Crawl back in +Cribs—Alleged Harmony of<br /> +Old and New Testaments—On the Assertion that the Spread of +Christianity<br /> +Proves the Supernatural Origin of the Gospel—The Argument +applicable to<br /> +All Religions—Communications from Angels ana +Gods—Authenticity of<br /> +the Statements of the Evangelists—Three Important +Manuscripts—Rise<br /> +of Mormonism—Ascension of Christ—The Great Public +Events alleged<br /> +as Fundamental Truths of Christianity—Judge Black's +System<br /> +of "Compression"—"A Metaphysical Question"—Right +and<br /> +Wrong—Justice—Christianity and Freedom of +Thought—Heaven and<br /> +Hell—Production of God and the Devil—Inspiration of the +Bible<br /> +dependent on the Credulity of the Reader—Doubt of +Miracles—The<br /> +World before Christ's Advent—Respect for the Man +Christ—The Dark<br /> +Ages—Institutions of Mercy—Civil Law.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE FIELD-INGERSOLL +DISCUSSION.</a></p> +(1887.)<br /> +An Open Letter to Robert G. +Ingersoll—Superstitions—Basis of<br /> +Religion—Napoleon's Question about the Stars—The Idea +of God—Crushing<br /> +out Hope—Atonement, Regeneration, and Future +Retribution—Socrates and<br /> +Jesus—The Language of Col. Ingersoll characterized as too +Sweeping—The<br /> +Sabbath—But a Step from Sneering at Religion to Sneering at +Morality.<br /> +A Reply to the Rev. Henry M. Field, D. D.—Honest Differences +of<br /> +Opinion—Charles Darwin—Dr. Field's Distinction between +Superstition<br /> +and Religion—The Presbyterian God an Infinite +Torquemada—Napoleon's<br /> +Sensitiveness to the Divine Influence—The Preference of +Agassiz—The<br /> +Mysterious as an Explanation—The Certainty that God is not +what he<br /> +is Thought to Be—Self-preservation the Fibre of +Society—Did<br /> +the Assassination of Lincoln Illustrate the Justice of God's<br /> +Judgments?—Immortality—Hope and the Presbyterian +Creed—To a Mother<br /> +at the Grave of Her Son—Theological Teaching of +Forgiveness—On<br /> +Eternal Retribution—Jesus and Mohammed—Attacking the +Religion of<br /> +Others—Ananias and Sapphira—The Pilgrims and Freedom to +Worship—The<br /> +Orthodox Sabbath—Natural Restraints on Conduct—Religion +and<br /> +Morality—The Efficacy of Prayer—Respect for Belief of +Father and<br /> +Mother—The "Power behind Nature"—Survival of the +Fittest—The Saddest<br /> +Fact—"Sober Second Thought."<br /> +A Last Word to Robert G. Ingersoll, by Dr. Field—God not +a<br /> +Presbyterian—Why Col. Ingersoll's Attacks on Religion are +Resented—God<br /> +is more Merciful than Man—Theories about the Future +Life—Retribution<br /> +a Necessary Part of the Divine Law—The Case of Robinson<br /> +Crusoe—Irresistible Proof of Design—Col. Ingersoll's +View of<br /> +Immortality—An Almighty Friend.<br /> +Letter to Dr. Field—The Presbyterian God—What the +Presbyterians<br /> +Claim—The "Incurably Bad"—Responsibility for not seeing +Things<br /> +Clearly—Good Deeds should Follow even Atheists—No +Credit in<br /> +Belief—Design Argument that Devours Itself—Belief as a +Foundation<br /> +of Social Order—No Consolation in Orthodox Religion—The +"Almighty<br /> +Friend" and the Slave Mother—a Hindu +Prayer—Calvinism—Christ not the<br /> +Supreme Benefactor of the Race.<br /> +COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY.<br /> +(1888.)<br /> +Some Remarks on his Reply to Dr. Field by the Hon. Wm. E.<br /> +Gladstone—External Triumph and Prosperity of the +Church—A Truth Half<br /> +Stated—Col. Ingersoll's Tumultuous Method and lack of +Reverential<br /> +Calm—Jephthah's Sacrifice—Hebrews xii +Expounded—The Case of<br /> +Abraham—Darwinism and the Scriptures—Why God demands +Sacrifices of<br /> +Man—Problems admitted to be Insoluble—Relation of human +Genius<br /> +to Human Greatness—Shakespeare and Others—Christ and +the Family<br /> +Relation—Inaccuracy of Reference in the Reply—Ananias +and<br /> +Sapphira—The Idea of Immortality—Immunity of Error in +Belief from<br /> +Moral Responsibility—On Dishonesty in the Formation of +Opinion—A<br /> +Plausibility of the Shallowest kind—The System of +Thuggism—Persecution<br /> +for Opinion's Sake—Riding an Unbroken Horse.<br /> +Col. Ingersoll to Mr. Gladstone—On the "Impaired" State of +the human<br /> +Constitution—Unbelief not Due to Degeneracy—Objections +to the<br /> +Scheme of Redemption—Does Man Deserve only +Punishment?—"Reverential<br /> +Calm"—The Deity of the Ancient Jews—Jephthah and +Abraham—Relation<br /> +between Darwinism and the Inspiration of the +Scriptures—Sacrifices to<br /> +the Infinite—What is Common Sense?—An Argument that +will Defend every<br /> +Superstition—The Greatness of Shakespeare—The Absolute +Indissolubility<br /> +of Marriage—Is the Religion of Christ for this Age?—As +to Ananias and<br /> +Sapphira—Immortality and People of Low Intellectual +Development—Can<br /> +we Control our Thought?—Dishonest Opinions Cannot be +Formed—Some<br /> +Compensations for Riding an "Unbroken Horse."<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">ROME OR REASON.</a></p> +<br /> +(1888.)<br /> +"The Church Its Own Witness," by Cardinal +Manning—Evidence<br /> +that Christianity is of Divine Origin—The Universality of +the<br /> +Church—Natural Causes not Sufficient to Account for the +Catholic<br /> +Church—-The World in which Christianity Arose—Birth of +Christ—From<br /> +St Peter to Leo XIII.—The First Effect of +Christianity—Domestic<br /> +Life's Second Visible Effect—Redemption of Woman from +traditional<br /> +Degradation—Change Wrought by Christianity upon the Social, +Political<br /> +and International Relations of the World—Proof that +Christianity is of<br /> +Divine Origin and Presence—St. John and the Christian +Fathers—Sanctity<br /> +of the Church not Affected by Human Sins.<br /> +A Reply to Cardinal Manning—I. Success not a Demonstration of +either<br /> +Divine Origin or Supernatural Aid—Cardinal Manning's +Argument<br /> +More Forcible in the Mouth of a Mohammedan—Why Churches Rise +and<br /> +Flourish—Mormonism—Alleged Universality of the Catholic +Church—Its<br /> +"inexhaustible Fruitfulness" in Good Things—The Inquisition +and<br /> +Persecution—Not Invincible—Its Sword used by +Spain—Its Unity not<br /> +Unbroken—The State of the World when Christianity was +Established—The<br /> +Vicar of Christ—A Selection from Draper's "History of the +Intellectual<br /> +Development of Europe"—Some infamous Popes—Part II. How +the Pope<br /> +Speaks—Religions Older than Catholicism and having the Same +Rites<br /> +and Sacraments—Is Intellectual Stagnation a Demonstration of +Divine<br /> +Origin?—Integration and Disintegration—The Condition of +the World 300<br /> +Years Ago—The Creed of Catholicism—The "One true God" +with a Knowledge<br /> +of whom Catholicism has "filled the World"—Did the Catholic +Church<br /> +overthrow Idolatry?—Marriage—Celibacy—Human +Passions—The Cardinal's<br /> +Explanation of Jehovah's abandonment of the Children of Men +for<br /> +four thousand Years—Catholicism tested by +Paganism—Canon Law<br /> +and Convictions had Under It—Rival Popes—Importance of +a Greek<br /> +"Inflection"—The Cardinal Witnesses.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">IS DIVORCE WRONG?</a></p> +(1889.)<br /> +Preface by the Editor of the North American +Review—Introduction, by the<br /> +Rev. S. W. Dike, LL. D.—A Catholic View by Cardinal +Gibbons—Divorce<br /> +as Regarded by the Episcopal Church, by Bishop, Henry C. +Potter—Four<br /> +Questions Answered, by Robert G. Ingersoll.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0016">DIVORCE.</a></p> +Reply to Cardinal Gibbons—Indissolubility of Marriage a +Reaction<br /> +from Polygamy—Biblical Marriage—Polygamy Simultaneous +and<br /> +Successive—Marriage and Divorce in the Light of +Experience—Reply<br /> +to Bishop Potter—Reply to Mr. Gladstone—Justice +Bradley—Senator<br /> +Dolph—The argument Continued in Colloquial +Form—Dialogue between<br /> +Cardinal Gibbons and a Maltreated Wife—She Asks the Advice of +Mr.<br /> +Gladstone—The Priest who Violated his Vow—Absurdity of +the Divorce<br /> +laws of Some States.<br /> +REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.<br /> +(1890)<br /> +Dr. Abbott's Equivocations—Crimes Punishable by Death under +Mosaic<br /> +and English Law—Severity of Moses Accounted for by Dr. +Abbott—The<br /> +Necessity for the Acceptance of Christianity—Christians +should be<br /> +Glad to Know that the Bible is only the Work of Man and that the +New<br /> +Testament Life of Christ is Untrue—All the Good Commandments, +Known<br /> +to the World thousands of Years before Moses—Human Happiness +of<br /> +More Consequence than the Truth about God—The Appeal to +Great<br /> +Names—Gladstone not the Greatest Statesman—What the +Agnostic Says—The<br /> +Magnificent Mistakes of Genesis—The Story of +Joseph—Abraham as a<br /> +"self-Exile for Conscience's Sake."<br /> +REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.<br /> +(1890.)<br /> +Revelation as an Appeal to Man's "Spirit"—What is Spirit and +what is<br /> +"Spiritual Intuition"?—The Archdeacon in Conflict with St. +Paul—II.<br /> +The Obligation to Believe without Evidence—III. Ignorant +Credulity—IV.<br /> +A Definition of Orthodoxy—V. Fear not necessarily +Cowardice—Prejudice<br /> +is Honest—The Ola has the Advantage in an +Argument—St.<br /> +Augustine—Jerome—the Appeal to Charlemagne—Roger +Bacon—Lord Bacon<br /> +a Defender of the Copernican System—The Difficulty of finding +out<br /> +what Great Men Believed—Names Irrelevantly +Cited—Bancroft on the<br /> +Hessians—Original Manuscripts of the Bible—VI. An +Infinite Personality<br /> +a Contradiction in Terms—VII. A Beginningless +Being—VIII. The<br /> +Cruelties of Nature not to be Harmonized with the Goodness of +a<br /> +Deity—Sayings from the Indian—Origen, St. Augustine, +Dante, Aquinas.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0017">IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT +DEGRADING?</a></p> +(1890.)<br /> +A Reply to the Dean of St. Paul—Growing Confidence in the +Power of<br /> +Kindness—Crimes against Soldiers and +Sailors—Misfortunes Punished<br /> +as Crimes—The Dean's Voice Raised in Favor of the Brutalities +of the<br /> +Past—Beating of Children—Of Wives—Dictum of +Solomon.<br /></blockquote> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="link0001" id="link0001"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; INGERSOLL'S OPENING PAPER</h2> +<h3>[Ingersoll-Black]</h3> +<p>By Robert G. Ingersoll</p> +<p>In the presence of eternity the mountains are as transient as +the clouds.</p> +<p>A PROFOUND change has taken place in the world of thought. The +pews are trying to set themselves somewhat above the pulpit. The +layman discusses theology with the minister, and smiles. Christians +excuse themselves for belonging to the church, by denying a part of +the creed. The idea is abroad that they who know the most of nature +believe the least about theology. The sciences are regarded as +infidels, and facts as scoffers. Thousands of most excellent people +avoid churches, and, with few exceptions, only those attend +prayer-meetings who wish to be alone. The pulpit is losing because +the people are growing.</p> +<p>Of course it is still claimed that we are a Christian people, +indebted to something called Christianity for all the progress we +have made. There is still a vast difference of opinion as to what +Christianity really is, although many warring sects have been +discussing that question, with fire and sword, through centuries of +creed and crime. Every new sect has been denounced at its birth as +illegitimate, as a something born out of orthodox wedlock, and that +should have been allowed to perish on the steps where it was found. +Of the relative merits of the various denominations, it is +sufficient to say that each claims to be right. Among the +evangelical churches there is a substantial agreement upon what +they consider the fundamental truths of the gospel. These +fundamental truths, as I understand them, are:</p> +<p>That there is a personal God, the creator of the material +universe; that he made man of the dust, and woman from part of the +man; that the man and woman were tempted by the devil; that they +were turned out of the Garden of Eden; that, about fifteen hundred +years afterward, God's patience having been exhausted by the +wickedness of mankind, he drowned his children with the exception +of eight persons; that afterward he selected from their descendants +Abraham, and through him the Jewish people; that he gave laws to +these people, and tried to govern them in all things; that he made +known his will in many ways; that he wrought a vast number of +miracles; that he inspired men to write the Bible; that, in the +fullness of time, it having been found impossible to reform +mankind, this God came upon earth as a child born of the Virgin +Mary; that he lived in Palestine; that he preached for about three +years, going from place to place, occasionally raising the dead, +curing the blind and the halt; that he was crucified—for the +crime of blasphemy, as the Jews supposed, but that, as a matter of +fact, he was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of all who might +have faith in him; that he was raised from the dead and ascended +into heaven, where he now is, making intercession for his +followers; that he will forgive the sins of all who believe on him, +and that those who do not believe will be consigned to the dungeons +of eternal pain. These—it may be with the addition of the +sacraments of Baptism and the Last Supper—constitute what is +generally known as the Christian religion.</p> +<p>It is most cheerfully admitted that a vast number of people not +only believe these things, but hold them in exceeding reverence, +and imagine them to be of the utmost importance to mankind. They +regard the Bible as the only light that God has given for the +guidance of his children; that it is the one star in nature's +sky—the foundation of all morality, of all law, of all order, +and of all individual and national progress. They regard it as the +only means we have for ascertaining the will of God, the origin of +man, and the destiny of the soul.</p> +<p>It is needless to inquire into the causes that have led so many +people to believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In my +opinion, they were and are mistaken, and the mistake has hindered, +in countless ways, the civilization of man. The Bible has been the +fortress and defence of nearly every crime. No civilized country +could re-enact its laws, and in many respects its moral code is +abhorrent to every good and tender man. It is admitted that many of +its precepts are pure, that many of its laws are wise and just, and +that many of its statements are absolutely true.</p> +<p>Without desiring to hurt the feeling? of anybody, I propose to +give a few reasons for thinking that a few passages, at least, in +the Old Testament are the product of a barbarous people.</p> +<p>In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but it is +passionately asserted, that slavery is and always was a hideous +crime; that a war of conquest is simply murder; that polygamy is +the enslavement of woman, the degradation of man, and the +destruction of home; that nothing is more infamous than the +slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless women, and of prattling +babes; that captured maidens should not be given to soldiers; that +wives should not be stoned to death on account of their religious +opinions, and that the death penalty ought not to be inflicted for +a violation of the Sabbath. We know that there was a time, in the +history of almost every nation, when slavery, polygamy, and wars of +extermination were regarded as divine institutions; when women were +looked upon as beasts of burden, and when, among some people, it +was considered the duty of the husband to murder the wife for +differing with him on the subject of religion. Nations that +entertain these views to-day are regarded as savage, and, probably, +with the exception of the South Sea Islanders, the Feejees, some +citizens of Delaware, and a few tribes in Central Africa, no human +beings can be found degraded enough to agree upon these subjects +with the Jehovah of the ancient Jews. The only evidence we have, or +can have, that a nation has ceased to be savage is the fact that it +has abandoned these doctrines. To every one, except the theologian, +it is perfectly easy to account for the mistakes, atrocities, and +crimes of the past, by saying that civilization is a slow and +painful growth; that the moral perceptions are cultivated through +ages of tyranny, of want, of crime, and of heroism; that it +requires centuries for man to put out the eyes of self and hold in +lofty and in equal poise the scales of justice; that conscience is +born of suffering; that mercy is the child of the +imagination—of the power to put oneself in the sufferer's +place, and that man advances only as he becomes acquainted with his +surroundings, with the mutual obligations of life, and learns to +take advantage of the forces of nature.</p> +<p>But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to +declare that there was a time when slavery was right—when men +could buy, and women could sell, their babes. He is compelled to +insist that there was a time when polygamy was the highest form of +virtue; when wars of extermination were waged with the sword of +mercy; when religious toleration was a crime, and when death was +the just penalty for having expressed an honest thought. He must +maintain that Jehovah is just as bad now as he was four thousand +years ago, or that he was just as good then as he is now, but that +human conditions have so changed that slavery, polygamy, religious +persecutions, and wars of conquest are now perfectly devilish. Once +they were right—once they were commanded by God himself; now, +they are prohibited. There has been such a change in the conditions +of man that, at the present time, the devil is in favor of slavery, +polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That is to +say, the devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah held +four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained +exactly the same—changeless and incapable of change.</p> +<p>We find that other nations beside the Jews had similar laws and +ideas; that they believed in and practiced slavery and polygamy, +murdered women and children, and exterminated their neighbors to +the extent of their power. It is not claimed that they received a +revelation. It is admitted that they had no knowledge of the true +God. And yet, by a strange coincidence, they practised the same +crimes, of their own motion, that the Jews did by the command of +Jehovah. From this it would seem that man can do wrong without a +special revelation.</p> +<p>It will hardly be claimed, at this day, that the passages in the +Bible upholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution +are evidences of the inspiration of that book. Suppose that there +had been nothing in the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would +any modern Christian suspect that it was not inspired, on account +of the omission? Suppose that there had been nothing in the Old +Testament but laws in favor of these crimes, would any intelligent +Christian now contend that it was the work of the true God? If the +devil had inspired a book, will some believer in the doctrine of +inspiration tell us in what respect, on the subjects of slavery, +polygamy, war, and liberty, it would have differed from some parts +of the Old Testament? Suppose that we should now discover a Hindu +book of equal antiquity with the Old Testament, containing a +defence of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious +persecution, would we regard it as evidence that the writers were +inspired by an infinitely wise and merciful God? As most other +nations at that time practiced these crimes, and as the Jews would +have practiced them all, even if left to themselves, one can hardly +see the necessity of any inspired commands upon these subjects. Is +there a believer in the Bible who does not wish that God, amid the +thunders and lightnings of Sinai, had distinctly said to Moses that +man should not own his fellow-man; that women should not sell their +babes; that men should be allowed to think and investigate for +themselves, and that the sword should never be unsheathed to shed +the blood of honest men? Is there a believer in the world, who +would not be delighted to find that every one of these infamous +passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God were never +reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there a believer +who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his wife +to death for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon? Surely, the +light of experience is enough to tell us that slavery is wrong, +that polygamy is infamous, and that murder is not a virtue. No one +will now contend that it was worth God's while to impart the +information to Moses, or to Joshua, or to anybody else, that the +Jewish people might purchase slaves of the heathen, or that it was +their duty to exterminate the natives of the Holy Land. The deists +have contended that the Old Testament is too cruel and barbarous to +be the work of a wise and loving God. To this, the theologians have +replied, that nature is just as cruel; that the earthquake, the +volcano, the pestilence and storm, are just as savage as the Jewish +God; and to my mind this is a perfect answer.</p> +<p>Suppose that we knew that after "inspired" men had finished the +Bible, the devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; +what part of the sacred Scriptures would Christians now pick out as +being probably his work? Which of the following passages would +naturally be selected as having been written by the +devil—"Love thy neighbor as thyself," or "Kill all the males +among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all the women +children keep alive for yourselves."?</p> +<p>It may be that the best way to illustrate what I have said of +the Old Testament is to compare some of the supposed teachings of +Jehovah with those of persons who never read an "inspired" line, +and who lived and died without having received the light of +revelation. Nothing can be more suggestive than a comparison of the +ideas of Jehovah—the inspired words of the one claimed to be +the infinite God, as recorded in the Bible—with those that +have been expressed by men who, all admit, received no help from +heaven.</p> +<p>In all ages of which any record has been preserved, there have +been those who gave their ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love +and law. Now, if the Bible is really the work of God, it should +contain the grandest and sublimest truths. It should, in all +respects, excel the works of man. Within that book should be found +the best and loftiest definitions of justice; the truest +conceptions of human liberty; the clearest outlines of duty; the +tenderest, the highest, and the noblest thoughts,—not that +the human mind has produced, but that the human mind is capable of +receiving. Upon every page should be found the luminous evidence of +its divine origin. Unless it contains grander and more wonderful +things than man has written, we are not only justified in saying, +but we are compelled to say, that it was written by no being +superior to man. It may be said that it is unfair to call attention +to certain bad things in the Bible, while the good are not so much +as mentioned. To this it may be replied that a divine being would +not put bad things in a book. Certainly a being of infinite +intelligence, power, and goodness could never fall below the ideal +of "depraved and barbarous" man. It will not do, after we find that +the Bible upholds what we now call crimes, to say that it is not +verbally inspired. If the words are not inspired, what is? It may +be said that the thoughts are inspired. But this would include only +the thoughts expressed without words. If ideas are inspired, they +must be contained in and expressed only by inspired words; that is +to say, the arrangement of the words, with relation to each other, +must have been inspired. For the purpose of this perfect +arrangement, the writers, according to the Christian world, were +inspired. Were some sculptor inspired of God to make a statue +perfect in its every part, we would not say that the marble was +inspired, but the statue—the relation of part to part, the +married harmony of form and function. The language, the words, take +the place of the marble, and it is the arrangement of these words +that Christians claim to be inspired. If there is one uninspired +word,—that is, one word in the wrong place, or a word that +ought not to be there,—to that extent the Bible is an +uninspired book. The moment it is admitted that some words are not, +in their arrangement as to other words, inspired, then, unless with +absolute certainty these words can be pointed out, a doubt is cast +on all the words the book contains. If it was worth God's while to +make a revelation to man at all, it was certainly worth his while +to see that it was correctly made. He would not have allowed the +ideas and mistakes of pretended prophets and designing priests to +become so mingled with the original text that it is impossible to +tell where he ceased and where the priests and prophets began. +Neither will it do to say that God adapted his revelation to the +prejudices of mankind. Of course it was necessary for an infinite +being to adapt his revelation to the intellectual capacity of man; +but why should God confirm a barbarian in his prejudices? Why +should he fortify a heathen in his crimes? If a revelation is of +any importance whatever, it is to eradicate prejudices from the +human mind. It should be a lever with which to raise the human +race. Theologians Have exhausted their ingenuity in finding excuses +for God. It seems to me that they would be better employed in +finding excuses for men. They tell us that the Jews were so cruel +and ignorant that God was compelled to justify, or nearly to +justify, many of their crimes, in order to have any influence with +them whatever. They tell us that if he had declared slavery and +polygamy to be criminal, the Jews would have refused to receive the +Ten Commandments. They insist that, under the circumstances, God +did the best he could; that his real intention was to lead them +along slowly, step by step, so that, in a few hundred years, they +would be induced to admit that it was hardly fair to steal a babe +from its mother's breast. It has always seemed reasonable that an +infinite God ought to have been able to make man grand enough to +know, even without a special revelation, that it is not altogether +right to steal the labor, or the wife, or the child, of another. +When the whole question is thoroughly examined, the world will find +that Jehovah had the prejudices, the hatreds, and superstitions of +his day.</p> +<p>If there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is the air +of the soul, the sunshine of life. Without it the world is a prison +and the universe an infinite dungeon.</p> +<p>If the Bible is really inspired, Jehovah commanded the Jewish +people to buy the children of the strangers that sojourned among +them, and ordered that the children thus bought should be an +inheritance for the children of the Jews, and that they should be +bondmen and bondwomen forever. Yet Epictetus, a man to whom no +revelation was made, a man whose soul followed only the light of +nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish God, was great enough +to say: "Will you not remember that your servants are by nature +your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you have bought +them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the wretched +law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the +gods."</p> +<p>We find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured +them that their bondmen and their bondmaids must be "of the heathen +that were round about them." "Of them," said Jehovah, "shall ye buy +bondmen and bondmaids." And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had +never been enlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral +grandeur to declare: "They who say that we should love our +fellow-citizens, but not foreigners, destroy the universal +brotherhood of mankind, with which benevolence and justice would +perish forever."</p> +<p>If the Bible is inspired, Jehovah, God of all worlds, actually +said: "And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and +he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; +notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be +punished, for he is his money." And yet Zeno, founder of the +Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted that no man +could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad, whether +the slave had become so by conquest, or by purchase. Jehovah +ordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others, this +command: "When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou +shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no +covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them." And yet Epictetus, +whom we have already quoted, gave this marvelous rule for the +guidance of human conduct: "Live with thy inferiors as thou +would'st have thy superiors live with thee."</p> +<p>Is it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and +wisdom said: "I will heap mischief upon them: I will spend mine +arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured +with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send +the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the +dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the +young man and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of gray +hairs"; while Seneca, an uninspired Roman, said: "The wise man will +not pardon any crime that ought to be punished, but he will +accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought in pardoning. He +will spare some and watch over some, because of their youth, and +others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not fall +short of justice, but will fulfill it perfectly."</p> +<p>Can we believe that God ever said of any one: "Let his children +be fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually +vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their +desolate places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath and let +the stranger spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy +unto him, neither let there be any to favor his fatherless +children." If he ever said these words, surely he had never heard +this line, this strain of music, from the Hindu: "Sweet is the lute +to those who have not heard the prattle of their own children."</p> +<p>Jehovah, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the +Jews: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.... Thou shalt not +bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, +am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the +children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate +me." Contrast this with the words put by the Hindu into the mouth +of Brahma:</p> +<p>"I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other +gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all +worship, and I am the reward of all worshipers."</p> +<p>Compare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the +things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed +firmament inlaid with suns.</p> +<center>II.</center> +<p>WAIVING the contradictory statements in the various books of the +New Testament; leaving out of the question the history of the +manuscripts; saying nothing about the errors in translation and the +interpolations made by the fathers; and admitting, for the time +being, that the books were all written at the times claimed, and by +the persons whose names they bear, the questions of inspiration, +probability, and absurdity still remain.</p> +<p>As a rule, where several persons testify to the same +transaction, while agreeing in the main points, they will disagree +upon many minor things, and such disagreement upon minor matters is +generally considered as evidence that the witnesses have not agreed +among themselves upon the story they should tell. These differences +in statement we account for from the facts that all did not see +alike, that all did not have the same opportunity for seeing, and +that all had not equally good memories. But when we claim that the +witnesses were inspired, we must admit that he who inspired them +did know exactly what occurred, and consequently there should be no +contradiction, even in the minutest detail. The accounts should be +not only substantially, but they should be actually, the same. It +is impossible to account for any differences, or any +contradictions, except from the weaknesses of human nature, and +these weaknesses cannot be predicated of divine wisdom. Why should +there be more than one correct account of anything? Why were four +gospels necessary? One inspired record of all that happened ought +to be enough.</p> +<p>One great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to +have been commanded by God, but all the cruelties recounted in the +Old Testament ceased with death. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped +at the portal of the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself +upon the dead; and not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis +to the last curse of Malachi, contains the slightest intimation +that God will punish in another world. It was reserved for the New +Testament to make known the frightful doctrine of eternal pain. It +was the teacher of universal benevolence who rent the veil between +time and eternity, and fixed the horrified gaze of man on the lurid +gulfs of hell. Within the breast of non-resistance was coiled the +worm that never dies.</p> +<p>One great objection to the New Testament is that it bases +salvation upon belief. This, at least, is true of the Gospel +according to John, and of many of the Epistles. I admit that +Matthew never heard of the atonement, and died utterly ignorant of +the scheme of salvation. I also admit that Mark never dreamed that +it was necessary for a man to be born again; that he knew nothing +of the mysterious doctrine of regeneration, and that he never even +suspected that it was necessary to believe anything. In the +sixteenth chapter of Mark, we are told that "He that believeth and +is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be +damned"; but this passage has been shown to be an interpolation, +and, consequently, not a solitary word is found in the Gospel +according to Mark upon the subject of salvation by faith. The same +is also true of the Gospel of Luke. It says not one word as to the +necessity of believing on Jesus Christ, not one word as to the +atonement, not one word upon the scheme of salvation, and not the +slightest hint that it is necessary to believe anything here in +order to be happy hereafter.</p> +<p>And I here take occasion to say, that with most of the teachings +of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke I most heartily agree. +The miraculous parts must, of course, be thrown aside. I admit that +the necessity of belief, the atonement, and the scheme of salvation +are all set forth in the Gospel of John,—a gospel, in my +opinion, not written until long after the others.</p> +<p>According to the prevailing Christian belief, the Christian +religion rests upon the doctrine of the atonement. If this doctrine +is without foundation, if it is repugnant to justice and mercy, the +fabric falls. We are told that the first man committed a crime for +which all his posterity are responsible,—in other words, that +we are accountable, and can be justly punished for a sin we never +in fact committed. This absurdity was the father of another, +namely, that a man can be rewarded for a good action done by +another. God, according to the modern theologians, made a law, with +the penalty of eternal death for its infraction. All men, they say, +have broken that law. In the economy of heaven, this law had to be +vindicated. This could be done by damning the whole human race. +Through what is known as the atonement, the salvation of a few was +made possible. They insist that the law—whatever that +is—demanded the extreme penalty, that justice called for its +victims, and that even mercy ceased to plead. Under these +circumstances, God, by allowing the innocent to suffer, +satisfactorily settled with the law, and allowed a few of the +guilty to escape. The law was satisfied with this arrangement. To +carry out this scheme, God was born as a babe into this world. "He +grew in stature and increased in knowledge." At the age of +thirty-three, after having lived a life filled with kindness, +charity and nobility, after having practiced every virtue, he was +sacrificed as an atonement for man. It is claimed that he actually +took our place, and bore our sins and our guilt; that in this way +the justice of God was satisfied, and that the blood of Christ was +an atonement, an expiation, for the sins of all who might believe +on him.</p> +<p>Under the Mosaic dispensation, there was no remission of sin +except through the shedding of blood. If a man committed certain +sins, he must bring to the priest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a +pair of turtle-doves. The priest would lay his hands upon the +animal, and the sin of the man would be transferred. Then the +animal would be killed in the place of the real sinner, and the +blood thus shed and sprinkled upon the altar would be an atonement. +In this way Jehovah was satisfied. The greater the crime, the +greater the sacrifice—the more blood, the greater the +atonement. There was always a certain ratio between the value of +the animal and the enormity of the sin. The most minute directions +were given about the killing of these animals, and about the +sprinkling of their blood. Every priest became a butcher, and every +sanctuary a slaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking +to a refined and loving soul. Nothing could have been better +calculated to harden the heart than this continual shedding of +innocent blood. This terrible system is supposed to have culminated +in the sacrifice of Christ. His blood took the place of all other. +It is necessary to shed no more. The law at last is satisfied, +satiated, surfeited. The idea that God wants blood is at the bottom +of the atonement, and rests upon the most fearful savagery. How can +sin be transferred from men to animals, and how can the shedding of +the blood of animals atone for the sins of men?</p> +<p>The church says that the sinner is in debt to God, and that the +obligation is discharged by the Savior. The best that can possibly +be said of such a transaction is, that the debt is transferred, not +paid. The truth is, that a sinner is in debt to the person he has +injured. If a man injures his neighbor, it is not enough for him to +get the forgiveness of God, but he must have the forgiveness of his +neighbor. If a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives him, +his hand will smart exactly the same. You must, after all, reap +what you sow. No god can give you wheat when you sow tares, and no +devil can give you tares when you sow wheat.</p> +<p>There are in nature neither rewards nor punishments—there +are consequences. The life of Christ is worth its example, its +moral force, its heroism of benevolence.</p> +<p>To make innocence suffer is the greatest sin; how then is it +possible to make the suffering of the innocent a justification for +the criminal? Why should a man be willing to let the innocent +suffer for him? Does not the willingness show that he is utterly +unworthy of the sacrifice? Certainly, no man would be fit for +heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for +his sin. What would we think of a man who would allow another to +die for a crime that he himself had committed? What would we think +of a law that allowed the innocent to take the place of the guilty? +Is it possible to vindicate a just law by inflicting punishment on +the innocent? Would not that be a second violation instead of a +vindication?</p> +<p>If there was no general atonement until the crucifixion of +Christ, what became of the countless millions who died before that +time? And it must be remembered that the blood shed by the Jews was +not for other nations. Jehovah hated foreigners. The Gentiles were +left without forgiveness What has become of the millions who have +died since, without having heard of the atonement? What becomes of +those who have heard but have not believed? It seems to me that the +doctrine of the atonement is absurd, unjust, and immoral. Can a law +be satisfied by the execution of the wrong person? When a man +commits a crime, the law demands his punishment, not that of a +substitute; and there can be no law, human or divine, that can be +satisfied by the punishment of a substitute. Can there be a law +that demands that the guilty be rewarded? And yet, to reward the +guilty is far nearer justice than to punish the innocent.</p> +<p>According to the orthodox theology, there would have been no +heaven had no atonement been made. All the children of men would +have been cast into hell forever. The old men bowed with grief, the +smiling mothers, the sweet babes, the loving maidens, the brave, +the tender, and the just, would have been given over to eternal +pain. Man, it is claimed, can make no atonement for himself. If he +commits one sin, and with that exception lives a life of perfect +virtue, still that one sin would remain unexpiated, unatoned, and +for that one sin he would be forever lost. To be saved by the +goodness of another, to be a redeemed debtor forever, has in it +something repugnant to manhood.</p> +<p>We must also remember that Jehovah took special charge of the +Jewish people; and we have always been taught that he did so for +the purpose of civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing +the Jews, he would have made the damnation of the entire human race +a certainty; because, if the Jews had been a civilized people when +Christ appeared,—a people whose hearts had not been hardened +by the laws and teachings of Jehovah,—they would not have +crucified him, and, as a consequence, the world would have been +lost. If the Jews had believed in religious freedom,—in the +right of thought and speech,—not a human soul could ever have +been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary, some brave, +heroic soul had rescued him from the holy mob, he would not only +have been eternally damned for his pains, but would have rendered +impossible the salvation of any human being, and, except for the +crucifixion of her son, the Virgin Mary, if the church is right, +would be to-day among the lost.</p> +<p>In countless ways the Christian world has endeavored, for nearly +two thousand years, to explain the atonement, and every effort has +ended in an admission that it cannot be understood, and a +declaration that it must be believed. Is it not immoral to teach +that man can sin, that he can harden his heart and pollute his +soul, and that, by repenting and believing something that he does +not comprehend, he can avoid the consequences of his crimes? Has +the promise and hope of forgiveness ever prevented the commission +of a sin? Should men be taught that sin gives happiness here; that +they ought to bear the evils of a virtuous life in this world for +the sake of joy in the next; that they can repent between the last +sin and the last breath; that after repentance every stain of the +soul is washed away by the innocent blood of another; that the +serpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the +saved will not even pity the victims of their own crimes; that the +goodness of another can be transferred to them; and that sins +forgiven cease to affect the unhappy wretches sinned against?</p> +<p>Another objection is that a certain belief is necessary to save +the soul. It is often asserted that to believe is the only safe +way. If you wish to be safe, be honest. Nothing can be safer than +that. No matter what his belief may be, no man, even in the hour of +death, can regret having been honest. It never can be necessary to +throw away your reason to save your soul. A soul without reason is +scarcely worth saving. There is no more degrading doctrine than +that of mental non-resistance. The soul has a right to defend its +castle—the brain, and he who waives that right becomes a serf +and slave. Neither can I admit that a man, by doing me an injury, +can place me under obligation to do him a service. To render +benefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between +actions. He who treats his friends and enemies alike has neither +love nor justice. The idea of non-resistance never occurred to a +man with power to protect himself. This doctrine was the child of +weakness, born when resistance was impossible. To allow a crime to +be committed when you can prevent it, is next to committing the +crime yourself. And yet, under the banner of non-resistance, the +church has shed the blood of millions, and in the folds of her +sacred vestments have gleamed the daggers of assassination. With +her cunning hands she wove the purple for hypocrisy, and placed the +crown upon the brow of crime. For a thousand years larceny held the +scales of justice, while beggars scorned the princely sons of toil, +and ignorant fear denounced the liberty of thought.</p> +<p>If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him, +like a panorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how +his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, +what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the +fires of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless +martyrs. He knew that brave men would languish in dungeons, in +darkness, filled with pain; that the church would use instruments +of torture, that his followers would appeal to whip and chain. He +must have seen the horizon of the future red with the flames of the +<i>auto da fe</i>. He knew all the creeds that would spring like +poison fungi from every text. He saw the sects waging war against +each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, +building dungeons for their fellow-men. He saw them using +instruments of pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with +agony, the tears, the blood—heard the shrieks and sobs of all +the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would +be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of +fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of teachings +attributed to him. He saw all the interpolations and falsehoods +that hypocrisy would write and tell. He knew that above these +fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings, for a thousand +years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that in +his name his followers would trade in human flesh, that cradles +would be robbed, and women's breasts unbabed for gold, and yet he +died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not +tell his disciples, and through them the world, that man should not +persecute, for opinion's sake, his fellow-man? Why did he not cry, +You shall not persecute in my name; you shall not burn and torment +those who differ from you in creed? Why did he not plainly say, I +am the Son of God? Why did he not explain the doctrine of the +Trinity? Why did he not tell the manner of baptism that was +pleasing to him? Why did he not say something positive, definite, +and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the +tear-stained hope of heaven to the glad knowledge of another life? +Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and +to doubt?</p> +<p>He came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he +reveal? "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? That was in the Old +Testament. "Love God with all thy heart"? That was in the Old +Testament. "Return good for evil"? That was said by Buddha seven +hundred years before he was born. "Do unto others as ye would that +they should do unto you"? This was the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he +come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster had done this long before: +"Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, +abstain from it." Did he come to teach us of another world? The +immortality of the soul had been taught by Hindus, Egyptians, +Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was born. Long +before, the world had been told by Socrates that: "One who is +injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be +right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, +or to do evil to any man, however much we may have suffered from +him." And Cicero had said:</p> +<p>"Let us not listen to those who think that we ought to be angry +with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly: +nothing is more praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and +noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive."</p> +<p>Is there anything nearer perfect than this from Confucius: "For +benefits return benefits; for injuries return justice without any +admixture of revenge"?</p> +<p>The dogma of eternal punishment rests upon passages in the New +Testament. This infamous belief subverts every idea of justice. +Around the angel of immortality the church has coiled this serpent. +A finite being can neither commit an infinite sin, nor a sin +against the infinite. A being of infinite goodness and wisdom has +no right, according to the human standard of justice, to create any +being destined to suffer eternal pain. A being of infinite wisdom +would not create a failure, and surely a man destined to +everlasting agony is not a success.</p> +<p>How long, according to the universal benevolence of the New +Testament, can a man be reasonably punished in the next world for +failing to believe something unreasonable in this? Can it be +possible that any punishment can endure forever? Suppose that every +flake of snow that ever fell was a figure nine, and that the first +flake was multiplied by the second, and that product by the third, +and so on to the last flake. And then suppose that this total +should be multiplied by every drop of rain that ever fell, calling +each drop a figure nine; and that total by each blade of grass that +ever helped to weave a carpet for the earth, calling each blade a +figure nine; and that again by every grain of sand on every shore, +so that the grand total would make a line of nines so long that it +would require millions upon millions of years for light, traveling +at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles per +second, to reach the end. And suppose, further, that each unit in +this almost infinite total stood for billions of ages—still +that vast and almost endless time, measured by all the years +beyond, is as one flake, one drop, one leaf, one blade, one grain, +compared with all the flakes and drops and leaves and blades and +grains. Upon love's breast the church has placed the eternal asp. +And yet, in the same book in which is taught this most infamous of +doctrines, we are assured that "The Lord is good to all, and his +tender mercies are over all his works."</p> +<center>III.</center> +<p>SO FAR as we know, man is the author of all books. If a book had +been found on the earth by the first man, he might have regarded it +as the work of God; but as men were here a good while before any +books were found, and as man has produced a great many books, the +probability is that the Bible is no exception.</p> +<p>Most nations, at the time the Old Testament was written, +believed in slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious +persecution; and it is not wonderful that the book contained +nothing contrary to such belief. The fact that it was in exact +accord with the morality of its time proves that it was not the +product of any being superior to man. "The inspired writers" upheld +or established slavery, countenanced polygamy, commanded wars of +extermination, and ordered the slaughter of women and babes. In +these respects they were precisely like the uninspired savages by +whom they were surrounded. They also taught and commanded religious +persecution as a duty, and visited the most trivial offences with +the punishment of death. In these particulars they were in exact +accord with their barbarian neighbors. They were utterly ignorant +of geology and astronomy, and knew no more of what had happened +than of what would happen; and, so far as accuracy is concerned, +their history and prophecy were about equal; in other words, they +were just as ignorant as those who lived and died in nature's +night.</p> +<p>Does any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, +he would uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has +Jehovah improved? Has infinite mercy-become more merciful? Has +infinite wisdom intellectually-advanced? Will any one claim that +the passages upholding slavery have liberated mankind; that we are +indebted for our modern homes to the texts that made polygamy a +virtue; or that religious liberty found its soil, its light, and +rain in the infamous verse wherein the husband is commanded to +stone to death the wife for worshiping an unknown god?</p> +<p>The usual answer to these objections is that no country has ever +been civilized without the Bible.</p> +<p>The Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah made his will +directly known,—the only people who had the Old Testament. +Other nations were utterly neglected by their Creator. Yet, such +was the effect of the Old Testament on the Jews, that they +crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly innocent man. They could +not have done much worse without a Bible. In the crucifixion of +Christ, they followed the teachings of his Father. If, as it is now +alleged by the theologians, no nation can be civilized without a +Bible, certainly God must have known the fact six thousand years +ago, as well as the theologians know it now. Why did he not furnish +every nation with a Bible?</p> +<p>As to the Old Testament, I insist that all the bad passages were +written by men; that those passages were not inspired. I insist +that a being of infinite goodness never commanded man to enslave +his fellow-man, never told a mother to sell her babe, never +established polygamy, never ordered one nation to exterminate +another, and never told a husband to kill his wife because she +suggested the worshiping of some other God.</p> +<p>I also insist that the Old Testament would be a much better book +with all of these passages left out; and, whatever may be said of +the rest, the passages to which attention has been drawn can with +vastly more propriety be attributed to a devil than to a god.</p> +<p>Take from the New Testament all passages upholding the idea that +belief is necessary to salvation; that Christ was offered as an +atonement for the sins of the world; that the punishment of the +human soul will go on forever; that heaven is the reward of faith, +and hell the penalty of honest investigation; take from it all +miraculous stories,—and I admit that all the good passages +are true. If they are true, it makes no difference whether they are +inspired or not. Inspiration is only necessary to give authority to +that which is repugnant to human reason. Only that which never +happened needs to be substantiated by miracles. The universe is +natural.</p> +<p>The church must cease to insist that the passages upholding the +institutions of savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of the +atonement must be abandoned. Good deeds must take the place of +faith. The savagery of eternal punishment must be renounced. +Credulity is not a virtue, and investigation is not a crime. +Miracles are the children of mendacity. Nothing can be more +wonderful than the majestic, unbroken, sublime, and eternal +procession of causes and effects.</p> +<p>Reason must be the final arbiter. "Inspired" books attested by +miracles cannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A religion that +does not command the respect of the greatest minds will, in a +little while, excite the mockery of all. Every civilized man +believes in the liberty of thought. Is it possible that God is +intolerant? Is an act infamous in man one of the virtues of the +Deity? Could there be progress in heaven without intellectual +liberty? Is the freedom of the future to exist only in perdition? +Is it not, after all, barely possible that a man acting like Christ +can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded for believing +according to evidence, without evidence, or against evidence? Are +we to be saved because we are good, or because another was +virtuous? Is credulity to be winged and crowned, while honest doubt +is chained and damned?</p> +<p>Do not misunderstand me. My position is that the cruel passages +in the Old Testament are not inspired; that slavery, polygamy, wars +of extermination, and religious persecution always have been, are, +and forever will be, abhorred and cursed by the honest, the +virtuous, and the loving; that the innocent cannot justly suffer +for the guilty, and that vicarious vice and vicarious virtue are +equally absurd; that eternal punishment is eternal revenge; that +only the natural can happen; that miracles prove the dishonesty of +the few and the credulity of the many; and that, according to +Matthew, Mark, and Luke, salvation does not depend upon belief, nor +the atonement, nor a "second birth," but that these gospels are in +exact harmony with the declaration of the great Persian: "Taking +the first footstep with the good thought, the second with the good +word, and the third with the good deed, I entered paradise."</p> +<p>The dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest +thought, nor satisfy the hunger of the heart. While dusty faiths, +embalmed and sepulchered in ancient texts, remain the same, the +sympathies of men enlarge; the brain no longer kills its young; the +happy lips give liberty to honest thoughts; the mental firmament +expands and lifts; the broken clouds drift by; the hideous dreams, +the foul, misshapen children of the monstrous night, dissolve and +fade.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY JEREMIAH S. BLACK.</h2> +<p>"Gratiano speaks of an infinite deal of nothing, more than any +man in all Venice: his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in +two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and +when you have them they are not worth the +search."—<i>Merchant of Venice</i>.</p> +<p>THE request to answer the foregoing paper comes to me, not in +the form but with the effect of a challenge, which I cannot decline +without seeming to acknowledge that the religion of the civilized +world is an absurd superstition, propagated by impostors, professed +by hypocrites, and believed only by credulous dupes.</p> +<p>But why should I, an unlearned and unauthorized layman, be +placed in such a predicament? The explanation is easy enough. This +is no business of the priests. Their prescribed duty is to preach +the word, in the full assurance that it will commend itself to all +good and honest hearts by its own manifest veracity and the +singular purity of its precepts. They cannot afford to turn away +from their proper work, and leave willing hearers uninstructed, +while they wrangle in vain with a predetermined opponent. They were +warned to expect slander, indignity, and insult, and these are +among the evils which they must not resist.</p> +<p>It will be seen that I am assuming no clerical function. I am +not out on the forlorn hope of converting Mr. Ingersoll. I am no +preacher exhorting a sinner to leave the seat of the scornful and +come up to the bench of the penitents. My duty is more analogous to +that of the policeman who would silence a rude disturber of the +congregation by telling him that his clamor is false and his +conduct an offence against public decency.</p> +<p>Nor is the Church in any danger which calls for the special +vigilance of its servants. Mr. Ingersoll thinks that the +rock-founded faith of Christendom is giving way before his +assaults, but he is grossly mistaken. The first sentence of his +essay is a preposterous blunder. It is not true that "<i>a profound +change</i> has taken place in the world of <i>thought,</i>" unless +a more rapid spread of the Gospel and a more faithful observance of +its moral principles can be called so. Its truths are everywhere +proclaimed with the power of sincere conviction, and accepted with +devout reverence by uncounted multitudes of all classes. Solemn +temples rise to its honor in the great cities; from every hill-top +in the country you see the church-spire pointing toward heaven, and +on Sunday all the paths that lead to it are crowded with +worshipers. In nearly all families, parents teach their children +that Christ is God, and his system of morality absolutely perfect. +This belief lies so deep in the popular heart that, if every +written record of it were destroyed to-day, the memory of millions +could reproduce it to-morrow. Its earnestness is proved by its +works. Wherever it goes it manifests itself in deeds of practical +benevolence. It builds, not churches alone, but almshouses, +hospitals, and asylums. It shelters the poor, feeds the hungry, +visits the sick, consoles the afflicted, provides for the +fatherless, comforts the heart of the widow, instructs the +ignorant, reforms the vicious, and saves to the uttermost them that +are ready to perish. To the common observer, it does not look as if +Christianity was making itself ready to be swallowed up by +Infidelity. Thus far, at least, the promise has been kept that "the +gates of hell shall not prevail against it."</p> +<p>There is, to be sure, a change in the party hostile to +religion—not "a profound change," but a change entirely +superficial—which consists, not in thought, but merely in +modes of expression and methods of attack. The bad classes of +society always hated the doctrine and discipline which reproached +their wickedness and frightened them by threats of punishment in +another world. Aforetime they showed their contempt of divine +authority only by their actions; but now, under new leadership, +their enmity against God breaks out into articulate blasphemy. They +assemble themselves together, they hear with passionate admiration +the bold harangue which ridicules and defies the Maker of the +universe; fiercely they rage against the Highest, and loudly they +laugh, alike at the justice that condemns, and the mercy that +offers to pardon them. The orator who relieves them by assurances +of impunity, and tells them that no supreme authority has made any +law to control them, is applauded to the echo and paid a high price +for his congenial labor; he pockets their money, and flatters +himself that he is a great power, profoundly moving "the world of +thought."</p> +<p>There is another totally false notion expressed in the opening +paragraph, namely, that "they who know most of nature believe the +least about theology." The truth is exactly the other way. The more +clearly one sees "the grand procession of causes and effects," the +more awful his reverence becomes for the author of the "sublime and +unbroken" law which links them together. Not self-conceit and +rebellious pride, but unspeakable humility, and a deep sense of the +measureless distance between the Creator and the creature, fills +the mind of him who looks with a rational spirit upon the works of +the All-wise One. The heart of Newton repeats the solemn confession +of David: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, +the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that +thou art mindful of him or the son of man that thou visitest him?" +At the same time, the lamentable fact must be admitted that "a +little learning is a dangerous thing" to some persons. The sciolist +with a mere smattering of physical knowledge is apt to mistake +himself for a philosopher, and swelling with his own importance, he +gives out, like Simon Magus, "that himself is some great one." His +vanity becomes inflamed more and more, until he begins to think he +knows all things. He takes every occasion to show his +accomplishments by finding fault with the works of creation* and +Providence; and this is an exercise in which he cannot long +continue without learning to disbelieve in any Being greater than +himself. It was to such a person, and not to the unpretending +simpleton, that Solomon applied his often quoted aphorism: "The +fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." These are what Paul +refers to as "vain babblings and the opposition of science, falsely +so called;" but they are perfectly powerless to stop or turn aside +the great current of human thought on the subject of Christian +theology. That majestic stream, supplied from a thousand unfailing +fountains, rolls on and will roll forever.</p> +<p><i>Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum</i>.</p> +<p>Mr. Ingersoll is not, as some have estimated him, the most +formidable enemy that Christianity has encountered since the time +of Julian the Apostate. But he stands at the head of living +infidels, "by merit raised to that bad eminence." His mental +organization has the peculiar defects which fit him for such a +place. He is all imagination and no discretion. He rises sometimes +into a region of wild poetry, where he can color everything to suit +himself. His motto well expresses the character of his +argumentation—"mountains are as unstable as clouds:" a fancy +is as good as a fact, and a high-sounding period is rather better +than a logical demonstration. His inordinate self-confidence makes +him at once ferocious and fearless. He was a practical politician +before he "took the stump" against Christianity, and at all times +he has proved his capacity to "split the ears of the groundlings," +and make the unskillful laugh. The article before us is the least +objectionable of all his productions. Its style is higher, and +better suited to the weight of the theme. Here the violence of his +fierce invective is moderated; his scurrility gives place to an +attempt at sophistry less shocking if not more true; and his coarse +jokes are either excluded altogether, or else veiled in the decent +obscurity of general terms. Such a paper from such a man, at a time +like the present, is not wholly unworthy of a grave +contradiction.</p> +<p>He makes certain charges which we answer by an explicit denial, +and thus an issue is made, upon which, as a pleader would say, we +"put ourselves upon the country." He avers that a certain +"something called Christianity" is a false faith imposed on the +world without evidence; that the facts it pretends to rest on are +mere inventions; that its doctrines are pernicious; that its +requirements are unreasonable, and that its sanctions are cruel. I +deny all this, and assert, on the contrary, that its doctrines are +divinely revealed; its fundamental facts incontestably proved; its +morality perfectly free from all taint of error, and its influence +most beneficent upon society in general, and upon all individuals +who accept it and make it their rule of action.</p> +<p>How shall this be determined? Not by what we call divine +revelation, for that would be begging the question; not by +sentiment, taste, or temper, for these are as likely to be false as +true; but by inductive reasoning from evidence, of which the value +is to be measured according to those rules of logic which +enlightened and just men everywhere have adopted to guide them in +the search for truth. We can appeal only to that rational love of +justice, and that detestation of falsehood, which fair-minded +persons of good intelligence bring to the consideration of other +important subjects when it becomes their duty to decide upon them. +In short, I want a decision upon sound judicial principles.</p> +<p>Gibson, the great Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania, once said to +certain skeptical friends of his: "Give Christianity a common-law +trial; submit the evidence <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i> to an +impartial jury under the direction of a competent court, and the +verdict will assuredly be in its favor." This deliverance, coming +from the most illustrious judge of his time, not at all given to +expressions of sentimental piety, and quite incapable of speaking +on any subject for mere effect, staggered the unbelief of those who +heard it. I did not know him then, except by his great reputation +for ability and integrity, but my thoughts were strongly influenced +by his authority, and I learned to set a still higher value upon +all his opinions, when, in after life, I was honored with his close +and intimate friendship.</p> +<p>Let Christianity have a trial on Mr. Ingersoll's indictment, and +give us a decision <i>secundum allegata et probata</i>. I will +confine myself strictly to the record; that is to say, I will meet +the accusations contained in this paper, and not those made +elsewhere by him or others.</p> +<p>His first specification against Christianity is the belief of +its disciples "that there is a personal God, the creator of the +material universe." If God made the world it was a most stupendous +miracle, and all miracles, according to Mr. Ingersoll's idea are +"the children of mendacity." To admit the one great miracle of +creation would be an admission that other miracles are at least +probable, and that would ruin his whole case. But you cannot catch +the leviathan of atheism with a hook. The universe, he says, is +natural—it came into being of its own accord; it made its own +laws at the start, and afterward improved itself considerably by +spontaneous evolution. It would be a mere waste of time and space +to enumerate the proofs which show that the universe was created by +a pre-existent and self-conscious Being, of power and wisdom to us +inconceivable. Conviction of the fact (miraculous though it be) +forces itself on every one whose mental faculties are healthy and +tolerably well balanced. The notion that all things owe their +origin and their harmonious arrangement to the fortuitous +concurrence of atoms is a kind of lunacy which very few men in +these days are afflicted with. I hope I may safely assume it as +certain that all, or nearly all, who read this page will have sense +and reason enough to see for themselves that the plan of the +universe could not have been designed without a Designer or +executed without a Maker.</p> +<p>But Mr. Ingersoll asserts that, at all events, this material +world had not a good and beneficent creator; it is a bad, savage, +cruel piece of work, with its pestilences, storms, earthquakes, and +volcanoes; and man, with his liability to sickness, suffering, and +death, is not a success, but, on the contrary, a failure. To defend +the Creator of the world against an arraignment so foul as this +would be almost as unbecoming as to make the accusation. We have +neither jurisdiction nor capacity to rejudge the justice of God. +Why man is made to fill this particular place in the scale of +creation—a little lower than the angels, yet far above the +brutes; not passionless and pure, like the former, nor mere +machines, like the latter; able to stand, yet free to fall; knowing +the right, and accountable for going wrong; gifted with reason, and +impelled by self-love to exercise the faculty—these are +questions on which we may have our speculative opinions, but +knowledge is out of our reach. Meantime, we do not discredit our +mental independence by taking it for granted that the Supreme Being +has done all things well. Our ignorance of the whole scheme makes +us poor critics upon the small part that comes within our limited +perceptions. Seeming defects in the structure of the world may be +its most perfect ornament—all apparent harshness the +tenderest of mercies.</p> +<pre> + "All discord, harmony not understood, + All partial evil, universal good." +</pre> +<p>But worse errors are imputed to God as moral ruler of the world +than those charged against him as creator. He made man badly, but +governed him worse; if the Jehovah of the Old Testament was not +merely an imaginary being, then, according to Mr. Ingersoll, he was +a prejudiced, barbarous, criminal tyrant. We will see what ground +he lays, if any, for these outrageous assertions.</p> +<p>Mainly, principally, first and most important of all, is the +unqualified assertion that the "moral code" which Jehovah gave to +his people "is in many respects abhorrent to every good and tender +man." Does Mr. Ingersoll know what he is talking about? The moral +code of the Bible consists of certain immutable rules to govern the +conduct of all men, at all times and all places, in their private +and personal relations with one another. It is entirely separate +and apart from the civil polity, the religious forms, the sanitary +provisions, the police regulations, and the system of international +law laid down for the special and exclusive observance of the +Jewish people. This is a distinction which every intelligent man +knows how to make. Has Mr. Ingersoll fallen into the egregious +blunder of confounding these things? or, understanding the true +sense of his words, is he rash and shameless enough to assert that +the moral code of the Bible excites the abhorrence of good men? In +fact, and in truth, this moral code, which he reviles, instead of +being abhorred, is entitled to, and has received, the profoundest +respect of all honest and sensible persons. The second table of the +Decalogue is a perfect compendium of those duties which every man +owes to himself, his family, and his neighbor. In a few simple +words, which he can commit to memory almost in a minute, it teaches +him to purify his heart from covetousness; to live decently, to +injure nobody in reputation, person, or property, and to give every +one his own. By the poets, the prophets, and the sages of Israel, +these great elements are expanded into a volume of minuter rules, +so clear, so impressive, and yet so solemn and so lofty, that no +pre-existing system of philosophy can compare with it for a moment. +If this vain mortal is not blind with passion, he will see, upon +reflection, that he has attacked the Old Testament precisely where +it is most impregnable.</p> +<p>Dismissing his groundless charge against the moral code, we come +to his strictures on the civil government of the Jews, which he +says was so bad and unjust that the Lawgiver by whom it was +established must have been as savagely cruel as the Creator that +made storms and pestilences; and the work of both was more worthy +of a devil than a God. His language is recklessly bad, very +defective in method, and altogether lacking in precision. But, +apart from the ribaldry of it, which I do not feel myself bound to +notice, I find four objections to the Jewish constitution—not +more than four—which are definite enough to admit of an +answer. These relate to the provisions of the Mosaic law on the +subjects of (1) Blasphemy and Idolatry; (2) War; (3) Slavery; (4) +Polygamy. In these respects he pronounces the Jewish system not +only unwise but criminally unjust.</p> +<p>Here let me call attention to the difficulty of reasoning about +justice with a man who has no acknowledged standard of right and +wrong. What is justice? That which accords with law; and the +supreme law is the will of God. But I am dealing with an adversary +who does not admit that there is a God. Then for him there is no +standard at all; one thing is as right as another, and all things +are equally wrong. Without a sovereign ruler there is no law, and +where there is no law there can be no transgression. It is the +misfortune of the atheistic theory that it makes the moral world an +anarchy; it refers all ethical questions to that confused tribunal +where chaos sits as umpire and "by decision more embroils the +fray." But through the whole of this cloudy paper there runs a vein +of presumptuous egotism which says as plainly as words can speak it +that the author holds <i>himself</i> to be the ultimate judge of +all good and evil; what he approves is right, and what he dislikes +is certainly wrong. Of course I concede nothing to a claim like +that. I will not admit that the Jewish constitution is a thing to +be condemned merely because he curses it. I appeal from his profane +malediction to the conscience of men who have a rule to judge by. +Such persons will readily see that his specific objections to the +statesmanship which established the civil government of the Hebrew +people are extremely shallow, and do not furnish the shade of an +excuse for the indecency of his general abuse.</p> +<p><i>First</i>. He regards the punishments inflicted for blasphemy +and idolatry as being immoderately cruel. Considering them merely +as religious offences,—as sins against God alone,—I +agree that civil laws should notice them not at all. But sometimes +they affect very injuriously certain social rights which it is the +duty of the state to protect. Wantonly to shock the religious +feelings of your neighbor is a grievous wrong. To utter blasphemy +or obscenity in the presence of a Christian woman is hardly better +than to strike her in the face. Still, neither policy nor justice +requires them to be ranked among the highest crimes in a government +constituted like ours. But things were wholly different under the +Jewish theocracy, where God was the personal head of the state. +There blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance; idolatry was +an overt act of treason; to worship the gods of the hostile heathen +was deserting to the public enemy, and giving him aid and comfort. +These are crimes which every independent community has always +punished with the utmost rigor. In our own very recent history, +they were repressed at the cost of more lives than Judea ever +contained at any one time.</p> +<p>Mr. Ingersoll not only ignores these considerations, but he goes +the length of calling God a religious persecutor and a tyrant +because he does not encourage and reward the service and devotion +paid by his enemies to the false gods of the pagan world. He +professes to believe that all kinds of worship are equally +meritorious, and should meet the same acceptance from the true God. +It is almost incredible that such drivel as this should be uttered +by anybody. But Mr. Ingersoll not only expresses the thought +plainly—he urges it with the most extravagant figures of his +florid rhetoric. He quotes the first commandment, in which Jehovah +claims for himself the exclusive worship of His people, and cites, +in contrast, the promise put in the mouth of Brahma, that he will +appropriate the worship of all gods to himself, and reward all +worshipers alike. These passages being compared, he declares the +first "a dungeon, where crawl the things begot of jealous slime;" +the other, "great as the domed firmament, inlaid with suns." Why is +the living God, whom Christians believe to be the Lord of liberty +and Father of lights, denounced as the keeper of a loathsome +dungeon? Because he refuses to encourage and reward the worship of +Mammon and Moloch, of Belial and Baal; of Bacchus, with its drunken +orgies, and Venus, with its wanton obscenities; the bestial +religion which degraded the soul of Egypt and the "dark idolatries +of alienated Judah," polluted with the moral filth of all the +nations round about.</p> +<p>Let the reader decide whether this man, entertaining such +sentiments and opinions, is fit to be a teacher, or at all likely +to lead us in the way we should go.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. Under the constitution which God provided for the +Jews, they had, like every other nation, the war-making power. They +could not have lived a day without it. The right to exist implied +the right to repel, with all their strength, the opposing force +which threatened their destruction. It is true, also, that in the +exercise of this power they did not observe those rules of courtesy +and humanity which have been adopted in modern times by civilized +belligerents. Why? Because their enemies, being mere savages, did +not understand and would not practise, any rule whatever; and the +Jews were bound <i>ex necessitate rei</i>—not merely +justified by the <i>lex talionis</i>—to do as their enemies +did. In your treatment of hostile barbarians, you not only may +lawfully, but must necessarily, adopt their mode of warfare. If +they come to conquer you, they may be conquered by you; if they +give no quarter, they are entitled to none; if the death of your +whole population be their purpose, you may defeat it by +exterminating theirs. This sufficiently answers the silly talk of +atheists and semi-atheists about the warlike wickedness of the +Jews.</p> +<p>But Mr. Ingersoll positively, and with the emphasis of supreme +and all-sufficient authority, declares that "a war of conquest is +simply murder." He sustains this proposition by no argument founded +in principle. He puts sentiment in place of law, and denounces +aggressive fighting because it is offensive to his "tender and +refined soul;" the atrocity of it is therefore proportioned to the +sensibilities of his own heart. He proves war a desperately wicked +thing by continually vaunting his own love for small children. +Babes—sweet babes—the prattle of babes—are the +subjects of his most pathetic eloquence, and his idea of music is +embodied in the commonplace expression of a Hindu, that the lute is +sweet only to those who have not heard the prattle of their own +children. All this is very amiable in him, and the more so, +perhaps, as these objects of his affection are the young ones of a +race in his opinion miscreated by an evil-working chance. But his +<i>philoprogenitiveness</i> proves nothing against Jew or Gentile, +seeing that all have it in an equal degree, and those feel it most +who make the least parade of it. Certainly it gives him no +authority to malign the God who implanted it alike in the hearts of +us all. But I admit that his benevolence becomes peculiar and ultra +when it extends to beasts as well as babes. He is struck with +horror by the sacrificial solemnities of the Jewish religion. "The +killing of those animals was," he says, "a terrible system," a +"shedding of innocent blood," "shocking to a refined and sensitive +soul." There is such a depth of tenderness in this feeling, and +such a splendor of refinement, that I give up without a struggle to +the superiority of a man who merely professes it. A carnivorous +American, full of beef and mutton, who mourns with indignant sorrow +because bulls and goats were killed in Judea three thousand years +ago, has reached the climax of sentimental goodness, and should be +permitted to dictate on all questions of peace and war. Let +Grotius, Vattel, and Pufendorf, as well as Moses and the prophets, +hide their diminished heads.</p> +<p>But to show how inefficacious, for all practical purposes, a +mere sentiment is when substituted for a principle, it is only +necessary to recollect that Mr. Ingersoll is himself a warrior who +staid not behind the mighty men of his tribe when they gathered +themselves together for a war of conquest. He took the lead of a +regiment as eager as himself to spoil the Philistines, "and out he +went a-coloneling." How many Amale-kites, and Hittites, and +Amorites he put to the edge of the sword, how many wives he +widowed, or how many mothers he "unbabed" cannot now be told. I do +not even know how many droves of innocent oxen he condemned to the +slaughter.</p> +<p>But it is certain that his refined and tender soul took great +pleasure in the terror, conflagration, blood, and tears with which +the war was attended, and in all the hard oppressions which the +conquered people were made to suffer afterwards. I do not say that +the war was either better or worse for his participation and +approval. But if his own conduct (for which he professes neither +penitence nor shame) was right, it was right on grounds which make +it an inexcusable outrage to call the children of Israel savage +criminals for carrying on wars of aggression to save the life of +their government. These inconsistencies are the necessary +consequence of having no rule of action and no guide for the +conscience. When a man throws away the golden metewand of the law +which God has provided, and takes the elastic cord of feeling for +his measure of righteousness, you cannot tell from day to day what +he will think or do.</p> +<p><i>Third</i>. But Jehovah permitted his chosen people to hold +the captives they took in war or purchased from the heathen as +servants for life. This was slavery, and Mr. Ingersoll declares +that "in all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but it is +passionately asserted, that slavery is, and always was, a hideous +crime," therefore he concludes that Jehovah was a criminal. This +would be a <i>non sequitur</i>, even if the premises were true. But +the premises are false; civilized countries have admitted no such +thing. That slavery is a crime, under all circumstances and at all +times, is a doctrine first started by the adherents of a political +faction in this country, less than forty years ago. They denounced +God and Christ for not agreeing with them, in terms very similar to +those used here by Mr. Ingersoll. But they did not constitute the +civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very +respectable portion of it. Politically, they were successful; I +need not say by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of +the country. Doubtless Mr. Ingersoll gets a great advantage by +invoking their passions and their interests to his aid, and he +knows how to use it. I can only say that, whether American +Abolitionism was right or wrong under the circumstances in which we +were placed, my faith and my reason both assure me that the +infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when he authorized +slavery in Judea. Subordination of inferiors to superiors is the +groundwork of human society. All improvement of our race, in this +world and the next, must come from obedience to some master better +and wiser than ourselves. There can be no question that, when a Jew +took a neighboring savage for his bond-servant, incorporated him +into his family, tamed him, taught him to work, and gave him a +knowledge of the true God, he conferred upon him a most beneficent +boon.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. Polygamy is another of his objections to the +Mosaic constitution. Strange to say, it is not there. It is neither +commanded nor prohibited; it is only discouraged. If Mr. Ingersoll +were a statesman instead of a mere politician, he would see good +and sufficient reasons for the forbearance to legislate directly +upon the subject. It would be improper for me to set them forth +here. He knows, probably, that the influence of the Christian +Church alone, and without the aid of state enactments, has +extirpated this bad feature of Asiatic manners wherever its +doctrines were carried. As the Christian faith prevails in any +community, in that proportion precisely marriage is consecrated to +its true purpose, and all intercourse between the sexes refined and +purified. Mr. Ingersoll got his own devotion to the principle of +monogamy—his own respect for the highest type of female +character—his own belief in the virtue of fidelity to one +good wife—from the example and precept of his Christian +parents. I speak confidently, because these are sentiments which do +not grow in the heart of the natural man without being planted. +Why, then, does he throw polygamy into the face of the religion +which abhors it? Because he is nothing if not political. The +Mormons believe in polygamy, and the Mormons are unpopular. They +are guilty of having not only many wives but much property, and if +a war could be hissed up against them, its fruits might be more +"gaynefull pilladge than wee doe now conceyve of." It is a cunning +maneuver, this, of strengthening atheism by enlisting anti-Mormon +rapacity against the God of the Christians. I can only protest +against the use he would make of these and other political +interests. It is not argument; it is mere stump oratory.</p> +<p>I think I have repelled all of Mr. Ingersoll's accusations +against the Old Testament that are worth noticing, and I might stop +here. But I will not close upon him without letting him see, at +least, some part of the case on the other side.</p> +<p>I do not enumerate in detail the positive proofs which support +the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible, though they are at hand in +great abundance, because the evidence in support of the new +dispensation will establish the verity of the old—the two +being so connected together that if one is true the other cannot be +false.</p> +<p>When Jesus of Nazareth announced himself to be Christ, the Son +of God, in Judea, many thousand persons who heard his words and saw +his works believed in his divinity without hesitation. Since the +morning of the creation, nothing has occurred so wonderful as the +rapidity with which this religion spread itself abroad. Men who +were in the noon of life when Jesus was put to death as a +malefactor lived to see him worshiped as God by organized bodies of +believers in every province of the Roman empire. In a few more +years it took complete possession of the general mind, supplanted +all other religions, and wrought a radical change in human society. +It did this in the face of obstacles which, according to every +human calculation, were insurmountable. It was antagonized by all +the evil propensities, the sensual wickedness, and the vulgar +crimes of the multitude, as well as the polished vices of the +luxurious classes; and was most violently opposed even by those +sentiments and habits of thought which were esteemed virtuous, such +as patriotism and military heroism. It encountered not only the +ignorance and superstition, but the learning and philosophy, the +poetry, eloquence, and art of the time. Barbarism and civilization +were alike its deadly enemies. The priesthood of every established +religion and the authority of every government were arrayed against +it. All these, combined together and roused to ferocious hostility, +were overcome, not by the enticing words of man's wisdom, but by +the simple presentation of a pure and peaceful doctrine, preached +by obscure strangers at the daily peril of their lives. Is it Mr. +Ingersoll's idea that this happened by chance, like the creation of +the world? If not, there are but two other ways to account for it; +either the evidence by which the Apostles were able to prove the +supernatural origin of the gospel was overwhelming and +irresistible, or else its propagation was provided for and carried +on by the direct aid of the Divine Being himself. Between these +two, infidelity may make its own choice.</p> +<p>Just here another dilemma presents its horns to our adversary. +If Christianity was a human fabrication, its authors must have been +either good men or bad. It is a moral impossibility—a mere +contradiction in terms—to say that good, honest, and true men +practised a gross and willful deception upon the world. It is +equally incredible that any combination of knaves, however base, +would fraudulently concoct a religious system to denounce +themselves, and to invoke the curse of God upon their own conduct. +Men that love lies, love not such lies as that. Is there any way +out of this difficulty, except by confessing that Christianity is +what it purports to be—a divine revelation?</p> +<p>The acceptance of Christianity by a large portion of the +generation contemporary with its Founder and his apostles was, +under the circumstances, an adjudication as solemn and +authoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce. The record of +that judgment has come down to us, accompanied by the depositions +of the principal witnesses. In the course of eighteen centuries +many efforts have been made to open the judgment or set it aside on +the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support it. But on +every rehearing the wisdom and virtue of mankind have re-affirmed +it. And now comes Mr. Ingersoll, to try the experiment of another +bold, bitter, and fierce reargument. I will present some of the +considerations which would compel me, if I were a judge or juror in +the cause, to decide it just as it was decided originally.</p> +<p><i>First</i>. There is no good reason to doubt that the +statements of the evangelists, as we have them now, are genuine. +The multiplication of copies was a sufficient guarantee against any +material alteration of the text. Mr. Ingersoll speaks of +interpolations made by the fathers of the Church. All he knows and +all he has ever heard on that subject is that some of the +innumerable transcripts contained errors which were discovered and +corrected. That simply proves the present integrity of the +documents.</p> +<p><i>Second</i>. I call these statements <i>depositions</i>, +because they are entitled to that kind of credence which we give to +declarations made under oath—but in a much higher degree, for +they are more than sworn to. They were made in the immediate +prospect of death. Perhaps this would not affect the conscience of +an atheist,—neither would an oath,—but these people +manifestly believed in a judgment after death, before a God of +truth, whose displeasure they feared above all things.</p> +<p><i>Third</i>. The witnesses could not have been mistaken. The +nature of the facts precluded the possibility of any delusion about +them. For every averment they had "the sensible and true avouch of +their own eyes" and ears. Besides, they were plain-thinking, sober, +unimaginative men, who, unlike Mr. Ingersoll, always, under all +circumstances, and especially in the presence of eternity, +recognized the difference between mountains and clouds. It is +inconceivable how any fact could be proven by evidence more +conclusive than the statement of such persons, publicly given and +steadfastly persisted in through every kind of persecution, +imprisonment and torture to the last agonies of a lingering +death.</p> +<p><i>Fourth</i>. Apart from these terrible tests, the more +ordinary claims to credibility are not wanting. They were men of +unimpeachable character. The most virulent enemies of the cause +they spoke and died for have never suggested a reason for doubting +their personal honesty. But there is affirmative proof that they +and their fellow-disciples were held by those who knew them in the +highest estimation for truthfulness. Wherever they made their +report it was not only believed, but believed with a faith so +implicit that thousands were ready at once to seal it with their +blood.</p> +<p><i>Fifth</i>. The tone and temper of their narrative impress us +with a sentiment of profound respect. It is an artless, +unimpassioned, simple story. No argument, no rhetoric, no epithets, +no praises of friends, no denunciation of enemies, no attempts at +concealment. How strongly these qualities commend the testimony of +a witness to the confidence of judge and jury is well known to all +who have any experience in such matters.</p> +<p><i>Sixth</i>. The statements made by the evangelists are alike +upon every important point, but are different in form and +expression, some of them including details which the others omit. +These variations make it perfectly certain that there could have +been no previous concert between the witnesses, and that each spoke +independently of the others, according to his own conscience and +from his own knowledge. In considering the testimony of several +witnesses to the same transaction, their substantial agreement upon +the main facts, with circumstantial differences in the detail, is +always regarded as the great characteristic of truth and honesty. +There is no rule of evidence more universally adopted than +this—none better sustained by general experience, or more +immovably fixed in the good sense of mankind. Mr. Ingersoll, +himself, admits the rule and concedes its soundness. The logical +consequence of that admission is that we are bound to take this +evidence as incontestably true. But mark the infatuated perversity +with which he seeks to evade it. He says that when we claim that +the witnesses were inspired, the rule does not apply, because the +witnesses then speak what is known to him who inspired them, and +all must speak exactly the same, even to the minutest detail. Mr. +Ingersoll's notion of an inspired witness is that he is no witness +at all, but an irresponsible medium who unconsciously and +involuntarily raps out or writes down whatever he is prompted to +say. But this is a false assumption, not countenanced or even +suggested by anything contained in the Scriptures. The apostles and +evangelists are expressly declared to be witnesses, in the proper +sense of the word, called and sent to testify the truth according +to their knowledge. If they had all told the same story in the same +way, without variation, and accounted for its uniformity by +declaring that they were inspired, and had spoken without knowing +whether their words were true or false, where would have been their +claim to credibility? But they testified what they knew; and here +comes an infidel critic impugning their testimony because the +impress of truth is stamped upon its face.</p> +<p><i>Seventh</i>. It does not appear that the statements of the +evangelists were ever denied by any person who pretended to know +the facts. Many there were in that age and afterward who resisted +the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and only +Saviour of man; but his wonderful works, the miraculous purity of +his life, the unapproachable loftiness of his doctrines, his trial +and condemnation by a judge who pronounced him innocent, his +patient suffering, his death on the cross, and resurrection from +the grave,—of these not the faintest contradiction was +attempted, if we except the false and feeble story which the elders +and chief priests bribed the guard at the tomb to put in +circulation.</p> +<p><i>Eighth</i>. What we call the fundamental truths of +Christianity consist of great public events which are sufficiently +established by history without special proof. The value of mere +historical evidence increases according to the importance of the +facts in question, their general notoriety, and the magnitude of +their visible consequences. Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at +Yorktown, and changed the destiny of Europe and America. Nobody +would think of calling a witness or even citing an official report +to prove it. Julius Caesar was assassinated. We do not need to +prove that fact like an ordinary murder. He was master of the +world, and his death was followed by a war with the conspirators, +the battle at Philippi, the quarrel of the victorious triumvirs, +Actium, and the permanent establishment of imperial government +under Augustus. The life and character, the death and resurrection, +of Jesus are just as visibly connected with events which even an +infidel must admit to be of equal importance. The Church rose and +armed herself in righteousness for conflict with the powers of +darkness; innumerable multitudes of the best and wisest rallied to +her standard and died in her cause; her enemies employed the coarse +and vulgar machinery of human government against her, and her +professors were brutally murdered in large numbers, her triumph was +complete; the gods of Greece and Rome crumbled on their altars; the +world was revolutionized and human society was transformed. The +course of these events, and a thousand others, which reach down to +the present hour, received its first propulsion from the +transcendent fact of Christ's crucifixion. Moreover, we find the +memorial monuments of the original truth planted all along the way. +The sacraments of baptism and the supper constantly point us back +to the author and finisher of our faith. The mere historical +evidence is for these reasons much stronger than what we have for +other occurrences which are regarded as undeniable. When to this is +added the cumulative evidence given directly and positively by +eye-witnesses of irreproachable character, and wholly +uncontradicted, the proof becomes so strong that the disbelief we +hear of seems like a kind of insanity.</p> +<pre> + "It is the very error of the moon, + Which comes more near the earth than she was wont, + And makes men mad!" +</pre> +<p>From the facts established by this evidence, it follows +irresistibly that the Gospel has come to us from God. That silences +all reasoning about the wisdom and justice of its doctrines, since +it is impossible, even to imagine that wrong can be done or +commanded by that Sovereign Being whose will alone is the ultimate +standard of all justice.</p> +<p>But Mr. Ingersoll is still dissatisfied. He raises objections as +false, fleeting, and baseless as clouds, and insists that they are +as stable as the mountains, whose everlasting foundations are laid +by the hand of the Almighty. I will compress his propositions into +plain words printed in <i>italics</i>, and, taking a look at his +misty creations, let them roll away and vanish into air, one after +another.</p> +<p><i>Christianity offers eternal salvation as the reward of belief +alone</i>. This is a misrepresentation simple and naked. No such +doctrine is propounded in the Scriptures, or in the creed of any +Christian church. On the contrary, it is distinctly taught that +faith avails nothing without repentance, reformation, and newness +of life.</p> +<p><i>The mere failure to believe it is punished in hell</i>. I +have never known any Christian man or woman to assert this. It is +universally agreed that children too young to understand it do not +need to believe it. And this exemption extends to adults who have +never seen the evidence, or, from weakness of intellect, are +incapable of weighing it. Lunatics and idiots are not in the least +danger, and for aught I know, this category may, by a stretch of +God's mercy, include minds constitutionally sound, but with +faculties so perverted by education, habit, or passion that they +are incapable of reasoning. I sincerely hope that, upon this or +some other principle, Mr. Ingersoll may escape the hell he talks +about so much. But there is no direct promise to save him in spite +of himself. The plan of redemption contains no express covenant to +pardon one who rejects it with scorn and hatred. Our hope for him +rests upon the infinite compassion of that gracious Being who +prayed on the cross for the insulting enemies who nailed him +there.</p> +<p><i>The mystery of the second birth is incomprehensible</i>. +Christ established a new kingdom in the world, but not of it. +Subjects were admitted to the privileges and protection of its +government by a process equivalent to naturalization. To be born +again, or regenerated is to be naturalized. The words all mean the +same thing. Does Mr. Ingersoll want to disgrace his own intellect +by pretending that he cannot see this simple analogy?</p> +<p><i>The doctrine of the atonement is absurd, unjust, and +immoral</i>. The plan of salvation, or any plan for the rescue of +sinners from the legal operation of divine justice, could have been +framed only in the councils of the Omniscient. Necessarily its +heights and depths are not easily fathomed by finite intelligence. +But the greatest, ablest, wisest, and most virtuous men that ever +lived have given it their profoundest consideration, and found it +to be not only authorized by revelation, but theoretically +conformed to their best and highest conceptions of infinite +goodness. Nevertheless, here is a rash and superficial man, without +training or habits of reflection, who, upon a mere glance, declares +that it "must be abandoned," because it <i>seems to him</i> +"absurd, unjust, and immoral." I would not abridge his freedom of +thought or speech, and the <i>argumentum ad verecundiam</i> would +be lost upon him. Otherwise I might suggest that, when he finds all +authority, human and divine, against him, he had better speak in a +tone less arrogant.</p> +<p><i>He does not comprehend how justice and mercy can be blended +together in the plan of redemption, and therefore it cannot be +true</i>. A thing is not necessarily false because he does not +understand it: he cannot annihilate a principle or a fact by +ignoring it. There are many truths in heaven and earth which no man +can see through; for instance, the union of man's soul with his +body, is not only an unknowable but an unimaginable mystery. Is it +therefore false that a connection does exist between matter and +spirit?</p> +<p><i>How, he asks, can the sufferings of an innocent person +satisfy justice for the sins of the guilty?</i> This raises a +metaphysical question, which it is not necessary or possible for me +to discuss here. As matter of fact, Christ died that sinners might +be reconciled to God, and in that sense he died for them; that is, +to furnish them with the means of averting divine justice, which +their crimes had provoked..</p> +<p><i>What, he again asks, would we think of a man who allowed +another to die for a crime which he himself had committed?</i> I +answer that a man who, by any contrivance, causes his own offence +to be visited upon the head of an innocent person is unspeakably +depraved. But are Christians guilty of this baseness because they +accept the blessings of an institution which their great benefactor +died to establish? Loyalty to the King who has erected a most +beneficent government for us at the cost of his life—fidelity +to the Master who bought us with his blood—is not the +fraudulent substitution of an innocent person in place of a +criminal.</p> +<p><i>The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of injuries, +reconciliation with enemies, as taught in the New Testament, is the +child of weakness, degrading and unjust</i>. This is the whole +substance of a long, rambling diatribe, as incoherent as a sick +man's dream. Christianity does not forbid the necessary defense of +civil society, or the proper vindication of personal rights. But to +cherish animosity, to thirst for mere revenge, to hoard up wrongs, +real or fancied, and lie in wait for the chance of paying them +back; to be impatient, unforgiving, malicious, and cruel to all who +have crossed us—these diabolical propensities are checked and +curbed by the authority and spirit of the Christian religion, and +the application of it has converted men from low savages into +refined and civilized beings.</p> +<p><i>The punishment of sinners in eternal hell is excessive</i>. +The future of the soul is a subject on which we have very dark +views. In our present state, the mind takes no idea except what is +conveyed to it through the bodily senses. All our conceptions of +the spiritual world are derived from some analogy to material +things, and this analogy must necessarily be very remote, because +the nature of the subjects compared is so diverse that a close +similarity cannot be even supposed. No revelation has lifted the +veil between time and eternity; but in shadowy figures we are +warned that a very marked distinction will be made between the good +and the bad in the next world. Speculative opinions concerning the +punishment of the wicked, its nature and duration, vary with the +temper and the imaginations of men. Doubtless we are many of us in +error; but how can Mr. Ingersoll enlighten us? Acknowledge ing no +standard of right and wrong in this world, he can have no theory of +rewards and punishments in the next. The deeds done in the body, +whether good or evil, are all morally alike in his eyes, and if +there be in heaven a congregation of the just, he sees no reason +why the worst rogue should not be a member of it. It is supposed, +however, that man has a soul as well as a body, and that both are +subject to certain laws, which cannot be violated without incurring +the proper penalty—or consequence, if he likes that word +better.</p> +<p><i>If Christ was God, he knew that his followers would persecute +and murder men for their opinions; yet he did not forbid it</i>. +There is but one way to deal with this accusation, and that is to +contradict it flatly. Nothing can be conceived more striking than +the prohibition, not only of persecution, but of all the passions +which lead or incite to it. No follower of Christ indulges in +malice even to his enemy without violating the plainest rule of his +faith. He cannot love God and hate his brother: if he says he can, +St. John pronounces him a liar. The broadest benevolence, universal +philanthropy, inexhaustible charity, are inculcated in every line +of the New Testament. It is plain that Mr. Ingersoll never read a +chapter of it; otherwise he would not have ventured upon this +palpable falsification of its doctrines. Who told him that the +devilish spirit of persecution was authorized, or encouraged, or +not forbidden, by the Gospel? The person, whoever it was, who +imposed upon his trusting ignorance should be given up to the just +reprobation of his fellow-citizens.</p> +<p><i>Christians in modern times carry on wars of detraction and +slander against one another</i>. The discussions of theological +subjects by men who believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christ +are singularly free from harshness and abuse. Of course I cannot +speak with absolute certainty, but I believe most confidently that +there is not in all the religious polemics of this century as much +slanderous invective as can be found in any ten lines of Mr. +Ingersoll's writings. Of course I do not include political +preachers among my models of charity and forbearance. They are a +mendacious set, but Christianity is no more responsible for their +misconduct than it is for the treachery of Judas Iscariot or the +wrongs done to Paul by Alexander the coppersmith.</p> +<p><i>But, says he, Christians have been guilty of wanton and +wicked Persecution</i>. It is true that some persons, professing +Christianity, have violated the fundamental principles of their +faith by inflicting violent injuries and bloody wrongs upon their +fellow-men. But the perpetrators of these outrages were in fact not +Christians: they were either hypocrites from the beginning or else +base apostates—infidels or something worse—hireling +wolves, whose gospel was their maw. Not one of them ever pretended +to find a warrant for his conduct in any precept of Christ or any +doctrine of his Church. All the wrongs of this nature which history +records have been the work of politicians, aided often by priests +and ministers who were willing to deny their Lord and desert to the +enemy, for the sake of their temporal interests. Take the cases +most commonly cited and see if this be not a true account of them. +The <i>auto da fé</i> of Spain and Portugal, the burnings at +Smithfield, and the whipping of women in Massachusetts, were the +outcome of a cruel, false, and antichristian policy. Coligny and +his adherents were killed by an order of Charles IX., at the +instance of the Guises, who headed a hostile faction, and merely +for reasons of state. Louis XIV. revoked the edict of Nantes, and +banished the Waldenses under pain of confiscation and death; but +this was done on the declared ground that the victims were not safe +subjects. The brutal atrocities of Cromwell and the outrages of the +Orange lodges against the Irish Catholics were not persecutions by +religious people, but movements as purely political as those of the +Know-Nothings, Plug-Uglys, and Blood-Tubs of this country. If the +Gospel should be blamed for these acts in opposition to its +principles, why not also charge it with the cruelties of Nero, or +the present persecution of the Jesuits by the infidel republic of +France?</p> +<p><i>Christianity is opposed to freedom of thought</i>. The +kingdom of Christ is based upon certain principles, to which it +requires the assent of every one who would enter therein. If you +are unwilling to own his authority and conform your moral conduct +to his laws, you cannot expect that he will admit you to the +privileges of his government. But naturalization is not forced upon +you if you prefer to be an alien. The Gospel makes the strongest +and tenderest appeal to the heart, reason, and conscience of +man—entreats him to take thought for his own highest +interest, and by all its moral influence provokes him to good +works; but he is not constrained by any kind of duress to leave the +service or relinquish the wages of sin. Is there anything that +savors of tyranny in this? A man of ordinary judgment will say, no. +But Mr. Ingersoll thinks it as oppressive as the refusal of Jehovah +to reward the worship of demons.</p> +<p><i>The gospel of Christ does not satisfy the hunger of the +heart</i>. That depends upon what kind of a heart it is. If it +hungers after righteousness, it will surely be filled. It is +probable, also, that if it hungers for the filthy food of a godless +philosophy it will get what its appetite demands. That was an +expressive phrase which Carlyle used when he called modern +infidelity "the gospel of dirt." Those who are greedy to swallow it +will doubless be supplied satisfactorily.</p> +<p><i>Accounts of miracles are always false</i>. Are miracles +impossible? No one will say so who opens his eyes to the miracles +of creation with which we are surrounded on every hand. You cannot +even show that they are <i>a priori</i> improbable. God would be +likely to reveal his will to the rational creatures who were +required to obey it; he would authenticate in some way the right of +prophets and apostles to speak in his name; supernatural power was +the broad seal which he affixed to their commission. From this it +follows that the improbability of a miracle is no greater than the +original improbability of a revelation, and that is not improbable +at all. Therefore, if the miracles of the New Testament are proved +by sufficient evidence, we believe them as we believe any other +established fact. They become deniable only when it is shown that +the great miracle of making the world was never performed. +Accordingly Mr. Ingersoll abolishes creation first, and thus clears +the way to his dogmatic conclusion that <i>all</i> miracles are +"the children of mendacity."</p> +<p><i>Christianity is pernicious in its moral effect, darkens the +mind, narrows the soul, arrests the progress of human society, and +hinders civilization</i>. Mr. Ingersoll, as a zealous apostle of +"the gospel of dirt," must be expected to throw a good deal of mud. +But this is too much: it injures himself instead of defiling the +object of his assault. When I answer that all we have of virtue, +justice, intellectual liberty, moral elevation, refinement, +benevolence, and true wisdom came to us from that source which he +reviles as the fountain of evil, I am not merely putting one +assertion against the other; for I have the advantage, which he has +not, of speaking what every tolerably well-informed man knows to be +true. Reflect what kind of a world this was when the disciples of +Christ undertook to reform it, and compare it with the condition in +which their teachings have put it. In its mighty metropolis, the +center of its intellectual and political power, the best men were +addicted to vices so debasing that I could not even allude to them +without soiling the paper I write upon. All manner of unprincipled +wickedness was practiced in the private life of the whole +population without concealment or shame, and the magistrates were +thoroughly and universally corrupt. Benevolence in any shape was +altogether unknown. The helpless and the weak got neither justice +nor mercy. There was no relief for the poor, no succor for the +sick, no refuge for the unfortunate. In all pagandom there was not +a hospital, asylum, almshouse, or organized charity of any sort. +The indifference to human life was literally frightful. The order +of a successful leader to assassinate his opponents was always +obeyed by his followers with the utmost alacrity and pleasure. It +was a special amusement of the populace to witness the shows at +which men were compelled to kill one another, to be torn in pieces +by wild beasts, or otherwise "butchered, to make a Roman holiday." +In every province paganism enacted the same cold-blooded cruelties; +oppression and robbery ruled supreme; murder went rampaging and red +over all the earth. The Church came, and her light penetrated this +moral darkness like a new sun. She covered the globe with +institutions of mercy, and thousands upon thousands of her +disciples devoted themselves exclusively to works of charity at the +sacrifice of every earthly interest. Her earliest adherents were +killed without remorse—beheaded, crucified, sawn asunder, +thrown to the beasts, or covered with pitch, piled up in great +heaps, and slowly burnt to death. But her faith was made perfect +through suffering, and the law of love rose in triumph from the +ashes of her martyrs. This religion has come down to us through the +ages, attended all the way by righteousness, justice, temperance, +mercy, transparent truthfulness, exulting hope, and white-winged +charity. Never was its influence for good more plainly perceptible +than now. It has not converted, purified, and reformed all men, for +its first principle is the freedom of the human will, and there are +those who choose to reject it. But to the mass of mankind, directly +and indirectly, it has brought uncounted benefits and blessings. +Abolish it—take away the restraints which it imposes on evil +passions—silence the admonitions of its preachers—let +all Christians cease their labors of charity—blot out from +history the records of its heroic benevolence—repeal the laws +it has enacted and the institutions it has built up—let its +moral principles be abandoned and all its miracles of light be +extinguished—what would we come to? I need not answer this +question: the experiment has been partially tried. The French +nation formally renounced Christianity, denied the existence of the +Supreme Being, and so satisfied the hunger of the infidel heart for +a time. What followed? Universal depravity, garments rolled in +blood, fantastic crimes unimagined before, which startled the earth +with their sublime atrocity. The American people have and ought to +have no special desire to follow that terrible example of guilt and +misery.</p> +<p>It is impossible to discuss this subject within the limits of a +review. No doubt the effort to be short has made me obscure. If Mr. +Ingersoll thinks himself wronged, or his doctrines misconstrued, +let him not lay my fault at the door of the Church, or cast his +censure on the clergy.</p> +<p>"<i>Adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum</i>."</p> +<p>J. S. Black.</p> +<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.</h2> +<center>III.</center> +<p>"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to +do, in order to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and +religious folly." Kant.</p> +<p>"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to +do, in order to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and +religious folly." Kant.</p> +<p>SEVERAL months ago, The North American Review asked me to write +an article, saying that it would be published if some one would +furnish a reply. I wrote the article that appeared in the August +number, and by me it was entitled "Is All of the Bible Inspired?" +Not until the article was written did I know who was expected to +answer. I make this explanation for the purpose of dissipating the +impression that Mr. Black had been challenged by me. To have struck +his shield with my lance might have given birth to the impression +that I was somewhat doubtful as to the correctness of my position. +I naturally expected an answer from some professional theologian, +and was surprised to find that a reply had been written by a +"policeman," who imagined that he had answered my arguments by +simply telling me that my statements were false. It is somewhat +unfortunate that in a discussion like this any one should resort to +the slightest personal detraction. The theme is great enough to +engage the highest faculties of the human mind, and in the +investigation of such a subject vituperation is singularly and +vulgarly out of place. Arguments cannot be answered with insults. +It is unfortunate that the intellectual arena should be entered by +a "policeman," who has more confidence in concussion than +discussion. Kindness is strength. Good-nature is often mistaken for +virtue, and good health sometimes passes for genius. Anger blows +out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and +important question, every one should be serene, slow-pulsed, and +calm. Intelligence is not the foundation of arrogance. Insolence is +not logic. Epithets are the arguments of malice. Candor is the +courage of the soul. Leaving the objectionable portions of Mr. +Black's reply, feeling that so grand a subject should not be blown +and tainted with malicious words, I proceed to answer as best I may +the arguments he has urged.</p> +<p>I am made to say that "the universe is natural"; that "it came +into being of its own accord"; that "it made its own laws at the +start, and afterward improved itself considerably by spontaneous +evolution."</p> +<p>I did say that "the universe is natural," but I did not say that +"it came into being of its own accord"; neither did I say that "it +made its own laws and afterward improved itself." The universe, +according to my idea, is, always was, and forever will be. It did +not "come into being," it is the one eternal being,—the only +thing that ever did, does, or can exist. It did not "make its own +laws." We know nothing of what we call the laws of nature except as +we gather the idea of law from the uniformity of phenomena +springing from like conditions. To make myself clear: Water always +runs down-hill. The theist says that this happens because there is +behind the phenomenon an active law. As a matter of fact, law is +this side of the phenomenon. Law does not cause the phenomenon, but +the phenomenon causes the idea of law in our minds; and this idea +is produced from the fact that under like circumstances the same +phenomenon always happens. Mr. Black probably thinks that the +difference in the weight of rocks and clouds was created by law; +that parallel lines fail to unite only because it is illegal that +diameter and circumference could have been so made that it would be +a greater distance across than around a circle; that a straight +line could enclose a triangle if not prevented by law, and that a +little legislation could make it possible for two bodies to occupy +the same space at the same time. It seems to me that law cannot be +the cause of phenomena, but is an effect produced in our minds by +their succession and resemblance. To put a God back of the +universe, compels us to admit that there was a time when nothing +existed except this God; that this God had lived from eternity in +an infinite vacuum, and in absolute idleness. The mind of every +thoughtful man is forced to one of these two conclusions: either +that the universe is self-existent, or that it was created by a +self-existent being. To my mind, there are far more difficulties in +the second hypothesis than in the first.</p> +<p>Of course, upon a question like this, nothing can be absolutely +known. We live on an atom called Earth, and what we know of the +infinite is almost infinitely limited; but, little as we know, all +have an equal right to give their honest thought. Life is a +shadowy, strange, and winding road on which we travel for a little +way—a few short steps—-just from the cradle, with its +lullaby of love, to the low and quiet way-side inn, where all at +last must sleep, and where the only salutation +is—Good-night.</p> +<p>I know as little as any one else about the "plan" of the +universe; and as to the "design," I know just as little. It will +not do to say that the universe was designed, and therefore there +must be a designer. There must first be proof that it was +"designed." It will not do to say that the universe has a "plan," +and then assert that there must have been an infinite maker. The +idea that a design must have a beginning and that a designer need +not, is a simple expression of human ignorance. We find a watch, +and we say: "So curious and wonderful a thing must have had a +maker." We find the watch-maker, and we say: "So curious and +wonderful a thing as man must have had a maker." We find God, and +we then say: "He is so wonderful that he must <i>not</i> have had a +maker." In other words, all things a little wonderful must have +been created, but it is possible for something to be so wonderful +that it always existed. One would suppose that just as the wonder +increased the necessity for a creator increased, because it is the +wonder of the thing that suggests the idea of creation. Is it +possible that a designer exists from all eternity without design? +Was there no design in having an infinite designer? For me, it is +hard to see the plan or design in earthquakes and pestilences. It +is somewhat difficult to discern the design or the benevolence in +so making the world that billions of animals live only on the +agonies of others. The justice of God is not visible to me in the +history of this world. When I think of the suffering and death, of +the poverty and crime, of the cruelty and malice, of the +heartlessness of this "design" and "plan," where beak and claw and +tooth tear and rend the quivering flesh of weakness and despair, I +cannot convince myself that it is the result of infinite wisdom, +benevolence, and justice.</p> +<p>Most Christians have seen and recognized this difficulty, and +have endeavored to avoid it by giving God an opportunity in another +world to rectify the seeming mistakes of this. Mr. Black, however, +avoids the entire question by saying: "We have neither jurisdiction +nor capacity to rejudge the justice of God." In other words, we +have no right to think upon this subject, no right to examine the +questions most vitally affecting human kind. We are simply to +accept the ignorant statements of barbarian dead. This question +cannot be settled by saying that "it would be a mere waste of time +and space to enumerate the proofs which show that the Universe was +created by a preexistent and self-conscious Being." The time and +space should have been "wasted," and the proofs should have been +enumerated. These "proofs" are what the wisest and greatest are +trying to find. Logic is not satisfied with assertion. It cares +nothing for the opinions of the "great,"—nothing for the +prejudices of the many, and least of all for the superstitions of +the dead. In the world of Science, a fact is a legal tender. +Assertions and miracles are base and spurious coins. We have the +right to rejudge the justice even of a god. No one should throw +away his reason—the fruit of all experience. It is the +intellectual capital of the soul, the only light, the only guide, +and without it the brain becomes the palace of an idiot king, +attended by a retinue of thieves and hypocrites.</p> +<p>Of course it is admitted that most of the Ten Commandments are +wise and just. In passing, it may be well enough to say, that the +commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or +any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the +earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," was the +absolute death of Art, and that not until after the destruction of +Jerusalem was there a Hebrew painter or sculptor. Surely a +commandment is not inspired that drives from the earth the living +canvas and the breathing stone—leaves all walls bare and all +the niches desolate. In the tenth commandment we find woman placed +on an exact equality with other property, which, to say the least +of it, has never tended to the amelioration of her condition.</p> +<p>A very curious thing about these commandments is that their +supposed author violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to +the account, he said: "Thou shalt not kill," and yet he ordered the +murder of millions; "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and yet he +gave captured maidens to gratify the lust of captors; "Thou shalt +not steal," and yet he gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and +herds of others; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor +his wife," and yet he allowed his chosen people to destroy the +homes of neighbors and to steal their wives; "Honor thy father and +thy mother," and yet this same God had thousands of fathers +butchered, and with the sword of war killed children yet unborn; +"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," and yet +he sent abroad "lying spirits" to deceive his own prophets, and in +a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit. So far as we know, Jehovah +kept only one of these commandments—he worshiped no other +god.</p> +<p>The religious intolerance of the Old Testament is justified upon +the ground that "blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance," +that "idolatry was an act of overt treason," and that "to worship +the gods of the hostile heathen was deserting to the public enemy, +and giving him aid and comfort." According to Mr. Black, we should +all have liberty of conscience except when directly governed by +God. In that country where God is king, liberty cannot exist. In +this position, I admit that he is upheld and fortified by the +"sacred" text. Within the Old Testament there is no such thing as +religious toleration. Within that volume can be found no mercy for +an unbeliever. For all who think for themselves, there are +threatenings, curses, and anathemas. Think of an infinite being who +is so cruel, so unjust, that he will not allow one of his own +children the liberty of thought! Think of an infinite God acting as +the direct governor of a people, and yet not able to command their +love! Think of the author of all mercy imbruing his hands in the +blood of helpless men, women, and children, simply because he did +not furnish them with intelligence enough to understand his law! An +earthly father who cannot govern by affection is not fit to be a +father; what, then, shall we say of an infinite being who resorts +to violence, to pestilence, to disease, and famine, in the vain +effort to obtain even the respect of a savage? Read this passage, +red from the heart of cruelty:</p> +<p>"<i>If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy +daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as +thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve +other gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers,... thou +shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shalt +thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou +conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be +first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all +the people; and thou shalt stone him with stones, that he +die</i>."</p> +<p>This is the religious liberty of the Bible. If you had lived in +Palestine, and if the wife of your bosom, dearer to you than your +own soul, had said: "I like the religion of India better than that +of Palestine," it would have been your duty to kill her.</p> +<p>"Your eye must not pity her, your hand must be first upon her, +and afterwards the hand of all the people." If she had said: "Let +us worship the sun—the sun that clothes the earth in garments +of green—the sun, the great fireside of the world—the +sun that covers the hills and valleys with flowers—that gave +me your face, and made it possible for me to look into the eyes of +my babe—let us worship the sun," it was your duty to kill +her. You must throw the first stone, and when against her +bosom—a bosom filled with love for you—you had thrown +the jagged and cruel rock, and had seen the red stream of her life +oozing from the dumb lips of death, you could then look up and +receive the congratulations of the God whose commandment you had +obeyed. Is it possible that a being of infinite mercy ordered a +husband to kill his wife for the crime of having expressed an +opinion on the subject of religion? Has there been found upon the +records of the savage world anything more perfectly fiendish than +this commandment of Jehovah? This is justified on the ground that +"blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance, and idolatry an +act of overt treason." We can understand how a human king stands in +need of the service of his people. We can understand how the +desertion of any of his soldiers weakens his army; but were the +king infinite in power, his strength would still remain the same, +and under no conceivable circumstances could the enemy triumph.</p> +<p>I insist that, if there is an infinitely good and wise God, he +beholds with pity the misfortunes of his children. I insist that +such a God would know the mists, the clouds, the darkness +enveloping the human mind. He would know how few stars are visible +in the intellectual sky. His pity, not his wrath, would be excited +by the efforts of his blind children, groping in the night to find +the cause of things, and endeavoring, through their tears, to see +some dawn of hope. Filled with awe by their surroundings, by fear +of the unknown, he would know that when, kneeling, they poured out +their gratitude to some unseen power, even to a visible idol, it +was, in fact, intended for him. An infinitely good being, had he +the power, would answer the reasonable prayer of an honest savage, +even when addressed to wood and stone.</p> +<p>The atrocities of the Old Testament, the threatenings, +maledictions, and curses of the "inspired book," are defended on +the ground that the Jews had a right to treat their enemies as +their enemies treated them; and in this connection is this +remarkable statement: "In your treatment of hostile barbarians you +not only may lawfully, you must necessarily, adopt their mode of +warfare. If they come to conquer you, they may be conquered by you; +if they give no quarter, they are entitled to none; if the death of +your whole population be their purpose, you may defeat it by +exterminating theirs."</p> +<p>For a man who is a "Christian policeman," and has taken upon +himself to defend the Christian religion; for one who follows the +Master who said that when smitten on one cheek you must turn the +other, and who again and again enforced the idea that you must +overcome evil with good, it is hardly consistent to declare that a +civilized nation must of necessity adopt the warfare of savages. Is +it possible that in fighting, for instance, the Indians of America, +if they scalp our soldiers we should scalp theirs? If they ravish, +murder, and mutilate our wives, must we treat theirs in the same +manner? If they kill the babes in our cradles, must we brain +theirs? If they take our captives, bind them to the trees, and if +their squaws fill their quivering flesh with sharpened fagots and +set them on fire, that they may die clothed with flame, must our +wives, our mothers, and our daughters follow the fiendish example? +Is this the conclusion of the most enlightened Christianity? Will +the pulpits of the United States adopt the arguments of this +"policeman"? Is this the last and most beautiful blossom of the +Sermon on the Mount? Is this the echo of "Father, forgive them; +they know not what they do"?</p> +<p>Mr. Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest +because the American people fought for the integrity of their own +country; fought to do away with the infamous institution of +slavery; fought to preserve the jewels of liberty and justice for +themselves and for their children. Is it possible that his mind is +so clouded by political and religious prejudice, by the +recollections of an unfortunate administration, that he sees no +difference between a war of extermination and one of +self-preservation? that he sees no choice between the murder of +helpless age, of weeping women and of sleeping babes, and the +defence of liberty and nationality?</p> +<p>The soldiers of the Republic did not wage a war of +extermination. They did not seek to enslave their fellow-men. They +did not murder trembling age. They did not sheathe their swords in +women's breasts. They gave the old men bread, and let the mothers +rock their babes in peace. They fought to save the world's great +hope—to free a race and put the humblest hut beneath the +canopy of liberty and law.</p> +<p>Claiming neither praise nor dispraise for the part taken by me +in the Civil war, for the purposes of this argument, it is +sufficient to say that I am perfectly willing that my record, poor +and barren as it is, should be compared with his.</p> +<p>Never for an instant did I suppose that any respectable American +citizen could be found willing at this day to defend the +institution of slavery; and never was I more astonished than when I +found Mr. Black denying that civilized countries passionately +assert that slavery is and always was a hideous crime. I was amazed +when he declared that "the doctrine that slavery is a crime under +all circumstances and at all times was first started by the +adherents of a political faction in this country less than forty +years ago." He tells us that "they denounced God and Christ for not +agreeing with them," but that "they did not constitute the +civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very +respectable portion of it. Politically they were successful; I need +not say by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of the +country."</p> +<p>Slavery held both branches of Congress, filled the chair of the +Executive, sat upon the Supreme Bench, had in its hands all +rewards, all offices; knelt in the pew, occupied the pulpit, stole +human beings in the name of God, robbed the trundle-bed for love of +Christ; incited mobs, led ignorance, ruled colleges, sat in the +chairs of professors, dominated the public press, closed the lips +of free speech, and polluted with its leprous hand every source and +spring of power. The abolitionists attacked this monster. They were +the bravest, grandest men of their country and their century. +Denounced by thieves, hated by hypocrites, mobbed by cowards, +slandered by priests, shunned by politicians, abhorred by the +seekers of office,—these men "of whom the world was not +worthy," in spite of all opposition, in spite of poverty and want, +conquered innumerable obstacles, never faltering for one moment, +never dismayed—accepting defeat with a smile born of infinite +hope—knowing that they were right—insisted and +persisted until every chain was broken, until slave-pens became +schoolhouses, and three millions of slaves became free men, women, +and children. They did not measure with "the golden metewand of +God," but with "the elastic cord of human feeling." They were men +the latchets of whose shoes no believer in human slavery was ever +worthy to unloose. And yet we are told by this modern defender of +the slavery of Jehovah that they were not even respectable; and +this slander is justified because the writer is assured "that the +infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when he authorized +slavery in Judea."</p> +<p>Not satisfied with having slavery in this world, Mr. Black +assures us that it will last through all eternity, and that forever +and forever inferiors must be subordinated to superiors. Who is the +superior man? According to Mr. Black, he is superior who lives upon +the unpaid labor of the inferior. With me, the superior man is the +one who uses his superiority in bettering the condition of the +inferior. The superior man is strength for the weak, eyes for the +blind, brains for the simple; he is the one who helps carry the +burden that nature has put upon the inferior. Any man who helps +another to gain and retain his liberty is superior to any +infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea. For my part, I +would rather be the slave than the master. It is better to be +robbed than to be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be +a thief.</p> +<p>According to Mr. Black, there will be slavery in heaven, and +fast by the throne of God will be the auction-block, and the +streets of the New Jerusalem will be adorned with the whipping +post, while the music of the harp will be supplemented by the crack +of the driver's whip. If some good Republican would catch Mr. +Black, "incorporate him into his family, tame him, teach him to +think, and give him a knowledge of the true principles of human +liberty and government, he would confer upon him a most beneficent +boon."</p> +<p>Slavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of +the kidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer, and hypocrite. It degrades +labor and corrupts leisure. To lacerate the naked back, to sell +wives, to steal babes, to breed bloodhounds, to debauch your own +soul—this is slavery. This is what Jehovah "authorized in +Judea." This is what Mr. Black believes in still. He "measures with +the golden metewand of God." I abhor slavery. With me, liberty is +not merely a means—it is an end. Without that word, all other +words are empty sounds.</p> +<p>Mr. Black is too late with his protest against the freedom of +his fellow-man. Liberty is making the tour of the world. Russia has +emancipated her serfs; the slave trade is prosecuted only by +thieves and pirates; Spain feels upon her cheek the burning blush +of shame; Brazil with proud and happy eyes is looking for the dawn +of freedom's day; the people of the South rejoice that slavery is +no more, and every good and honest man (excepting Mr. Black), of +every land and clime, hopes that the limbs of men will never feel +again the weary weight of chains.</p> +<p>We are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded +nor prohibited in the Old Testament—that it is only +"discouraged." It seems to me that a little legislation on that +subject might have tended to its "discouragement." But where is the +legislation? In the moral code, which Mr. Black assures us +"consists of certain immutable rules to govern the conduct of all +men at all times and at all places in their private and personal +relations with others," not one word is found on the subject of +polygamy. There is nothing "discouraging" in the Ten Commandments, +nor in the records of any conversation Jehovah is claimed to have +had with Moses upon Sinai. The life of Abraham, the story of Jacob +and Laban, the duty of a brother to be the husband of the widow of +his deceased brother, the life of David, taken in connection with +the practice of one who is claimed to have been the wisest of +men—all these things are probably relied on to show that +polygamy was at least "discouraged." Certainly, Jehovah had time to +instruct Moses as to the infamy of polygamy. He could have spared a +few moments from a description of the patterns of tongs and basins, +for a subject so important as this. A few words in favor of the one +wife and the one husband—in favor of the virtuous and loving +home—might have taken the place of instructions as to cutting +the garments of priests and fashioning candlesticks and ouches of +gold. If he had left out simply the order that rams' skins should +be dyed red, and in its place had said, "A man shall have but one +wife, and the wife but one husband," how much better would it have +been.</p> +<p>All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express the +filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast, and woman a slave. It +destroys the fireside and makes virtue an outcast. It takes us back +to the barbarism of animals, and leaves the heart a den in which +crawl and hiss the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. And yet +Mr. Black insists that we owe to the Bible the present elevation of +woman. Where will he find in the Old Testament the rights of wife, +and mother, and daughter defined? Even in the New Testament she is +told to "learn in silence, with all subjection;" that she "is not +suffered to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the man, but to +be in silence." She is told that "the head of every man is Christ, +and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." +In other words, there is the same difference between the wife and +husband that there is between the husband and Christ.</p> +<p>The reasons given for this infamous doctrine are that "Adam was +first formed, and then Eve;" that "Adam was not deceived," but that +"the woman being deceived, was in the transgression." These +childish reasons are the only ones given by the inspired writers. +We are also told that "a man, indeed, ought to cover his head, +forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God;" but that "the woman +is the glory of the man," and this is justified from the fact, and +the remarkable fact, set forth in the very next verse—that +"the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man." And the +same gallant apostle says: "Neither was the man created for the +woman, but the woman for the man;" "Wives, submit yourselves unto +your husbands as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the +wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the +savior of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto +Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in +everything." These are the passages that have liberated woman!</p> +<p>According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had +to be purified, for the crime of having borne sons and daughters. +If in this world there is a figure of perfect purity, it is a +mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms her child. The +doctrine that woman is the slave, or serf, of man—whether it +comes from heaven or from hell, from God or a demon, from the +golden streets of the New Jerusalem or from the very Sodom of +perdition—is savagery, pure and simple.</p> +<p>In no country in the world had women less liberty than in the +Holy Land, and no monarch held in less esteem the rights of wives +and mothers than Jehovah of the Jews. The position of woman was far +better in Egypt than in Palestine. Before the pyramids were built, +the sacred songs of Isis were sung by women, and women with pure +hands had offered sacrifices to the gods. Before Moses was born, +women had sat upon the Egyptian throne. Upon ancient tombs the +husband and wife are represented as seated in the same chair. In +Persia women were priests, and in some of the oldest civilizations +"they were reverenced on earth, and worshiped afterward as +goddesses in heaven." At the advent of Christianity, in all pagan +countries women officiated at the sacred altars. They guarded the +eternal fire. They kept the sacred books. From their lips came the +oracles of fate. Under the domination of the Christian Church, +woman became the merest slave for at least a thousand years. It was +claimed that through woman the race had fallen, and that her loving +kiss had poisoned all the springs of life. Christian priests +asserted that but for her crime the world would have been an Eden +still. The ancient fathers exhausted their eloquence in the +denunciation of woman, and repeated again and again the slander of +St. Paul. The condition of woman has improved just in proportion +that man has lost confidence in the inspiration of the Bible.</p> +<p>For the purpose of defending the character of his infallible +God, Mr. Black is forced to defend religious intolerance, wars of +extermination, human slavery, and <i>almost</i> polygamy. He admits +that God established slavery; that he commanded his chosen people +to buy the children of the heathen; that heathen fathers and +mothers did right to sell their girls and boys; that God ordered +the Jews to wage wars of extermination and conquest; that it was +right to kill the old and young; that God forged manacles for the +human brain; that he commanded husbands to murder their wives for +suggesting the worship of the sun or moon; and that every cruel, +savage passage in the Old Testament was inspired by him. Such is a +"policeman's" view of God.</p> +<p>Will Mr. Black have the kindness to state a few of his +objections to the devil?</p> +<p>Mr. Black should have answered my arguments, instead of calling +me "blasphemous" and "scurrilous." In the discussion of these +questions I have nothing to do with the reputation of my opponent. +His character throws no light on the subject, and is to me a matter +of perfect indifference. Neither will it do for one who enters the +lists as the champion of revealed religion to say that "we have no +right to rejudge the justice of God."</p> +<p>Such a statement is a white flag. The warrior eludes the combat +when he cries out that it is a "metaphysical question." He deserts +the field and throws down his arms when he admits that "no +revelation has lifted the veil between time and eternity." Again I +ask, why were the Jewish people as wicked, cruel, and ignorant with +a revelation from God, as other nations were without? Why were the +worshipers of false deities as brave, as kind, and generous as +those who knew the only true and living God?</p> +<p>How do you explain the fact that while Jehovah was waging wars +of extermination, establishing slavery, and persecuting for +opinion's sake, heathen philosophers were teaching that all men are +brothers, equally entitled to liberty and life? You insist that +Jehovah believed in slavery and yet punished the Egyptians for +enslaving the Jews. Was your God once an abolitionist? Did he at +that time "denounce Christ for not agreeing with him"? If slavery +was a crime in Egypt, was it a virtue in Palestine? Did God treat +the Canaanites better than Pharaoh did the Jews? Was it right for +Jehovah to kill the children of the people because of Pharaoh's +sin? Should the peasant be punished for the king's crime? Do you +not know that the worst thing that can be said of Nero, Caligula, +and Commodus is that they resembled the Jehovah of the Jews? Will +you tell me why God failed to give his Bible to the whole world? +Why did he not give the Scriptures to the Hindu, the Greek, and +Roman? Why did he fail to enlighten the worshipers of "Mammon" and +Moloch, of Belial and Baal, of Bacchus and Venus? After all, was +not Bacchus as good as Jehovah? Is it not better to drink wine than +to shed blood? Was there anything in the worship of Venus worse +than giving captured maidens to satisfy the victor's lust? Did +"Mammon" or Moloch do anything more infamous than to establish +slavery? Did they order their soldiers to kill men, women, and +children, and to save alive nothing that had breath? Do not answer +these questions by saying that "no veil has been lifted between +time and eternity," and that "we have no right to rejudge the +justice of God."</p> +<p>If Jehovah was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. +He knew that his Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny +and hypocrisy would crouch; that it would be quoted by tyrants; +that it would be the defence of robbers, called kings, and of +hypocrites called priests. He knew that he had taught the Jewish +people but little of importance. He knew that he found them free +and left them captives. He knew that he had never fulfilled the +promises made to them. He knew that while other nations had +advanced in art and science, his chosen people were savage still. +He promised them the world, and gave them a desert. He promised +them liberty, and he made them slaves. He promised them victory, +and he gave them defeat. He said they should be kings, and he made +them serfs. He promised them universal empire, and gave them exile. +When one finishes the Old Testament, he is compelled to say: +Nothing can add to to the misery of a nation whose king is +Jehovah!</p> +<p>And here I take occasion to thank Mr. Black for having admitted +that Jehovah gave no commandment against the practice of polygamy, +that he established slavery, waged wars of extermination, and +persecuted for opinion's sake even unto death. Most theologians +endeavor to putty, patch, and paint the wretched record of inspired +crime, but Mr. Black has been bold enough and honest enough to +admit the truth. In this age of fact and demonstration it is +refreshing to find a man who believes so thoroughly in the +monstrous and miraculous, the impossible and immoral—who +still clings lovingly to the legends of the bib and +rattle—who through the bitter experiences of a wicked world +has kept the credulity of the cradle, and finds comfort and joy in +thinking about the Garden of Eden, the subtle serpent, the flood, +and Babel's tower, stopped by the jargon of a thousand +tongues—who reads with happy eyes the story of the burning +brimstone storm that fell upon the cities of the plain, and +smilingly explains the transformation of the retrospective Mrs. +Lot—who laughs at Egypt's plagues and Pharaoh's whelmed and +drowning hosts—eats manna with the wandering Jews, warms +himself at the burning bush, sees Korah's company by the hungry +earth devoured, claps his wrinkled hands with glee above the +heathens' butchered babes, and longingly looks back to the +patriarchal days of concubines and slaves. How touching when the +learned and wise crawl back in cribs and ask to hear the rhymes and +fables once again! How charming in these hard and scientific times +to see old age in Superstition's lap, with eager lips upon her +withered breast!</p> +<p>Mr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in +exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are +"connected together;" and "that if one is true the other cannot be +false."</p> +<p>If this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other +cannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a +right-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a +God of infinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to +exterminate another; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, +women, and babes; ever established the institution of human +slavery; ever regarded the auction-block as an altar, or a +bloodhound as an apostle.</p> +<p>Mr. Black contends (after having answered my indictment against +the Old Testament by admitting the allegations to be true) that the +rapidity with which Christianity spread "proves the supernatural +origin of the Gospel, or that it was propagated by the direct aid +of the Divine Being himself."</p> +<p>Let us see. In his efforts to show that the "infallible God +established slavery in Judea," he takes occasion to say that "the +doctrine that slavery is a crime under all circumstances was first +started by the adherents of a political faction in this, country +less than forty years ago;" that "they denounced God and Christ for +not agreeing with them;" but that "they did not constitute the +civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very +respectable portion of it." Let it be remembered that this was only +forty years ago; and yet, according to Mr. Black, a few +disreputable men changed the ideas of nearly fifty millions of +people, changed the Constitution of the United States, liberated a +race from slavery, clothed three millions of people with political +rights, took possession of the Government, managed its affairs for +more than twenty years, and have compelled the admiration of the +civilized world. Is it Mr. Black's idea that this happened by +chance? If not, then according to him, there are but two ways to +account for it; either the rapidity with which Republicanism spread +proves its supernatural origin, "or else its propagation was +provided for and carried on by the direct aid of the Divine Being +himself." Between these two, Mr. Black may make his choice. He will +at once see that the rapid rise and spread of any doctrine does not +even tend to show that it was divinely revealed.</p> +<p>This argument is applicable to all religions. Mohammedans can +use it as well as Christians. Mohammed was a poor man, a driver of +camels. He was without education, without influence, and without +wealth, and yet in a few years he consolidated thousands of tribes, +and made millions of men confess that there is "one God, and +Mohammed is his prophet." His success was a thousand times greater +during his life than that of Christ. He was not crucified; he was a +conqueror. "Of all men, he exercised the greatest influence upon +the human race." Never in the world's history did a religion spread +with the rapidity of his. It burst like a storm over the fairest +portions of the globe. If Mr. Black is right in his position that +rapidity is secured only by the direct aid of the Divine Being, +then Mohammed was most certainly the prophet of God. As to wars of +extermination and slavery, Mohammed agreed with Mr. Black, and upon +polygamy, with Jehovah. As to religious toleration, he was great +enough to say that "men holding to any form of faith might be +saved, provided they were virtuous." In this, he was far in advance +both of Jehovah and Mr. Black.</p> +<p>It will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and spread +of a religion demonstrates its divine character. Years before +Gautama died, his religion was established, and his disciples were +numbered by millions. His doctrines were not enforced by the sword, +but by an appeal to the hopes, the fears, and the reason of +mankind; and more than one-third of the human race are to-day the +followers of Gautama. His religion has outlived all that existed in +his time; and according to Dr. Draper, "there is no other country +in the world except India that has the religion to-day it had at +the birth of Jesus Christ." Gautama believed in the equality of all +men; abhorred the spirit of caste, and proclaimed justice, mercy, +and education for all.</p> +<p>Imagine a Mohammedan answering an infidel; would he not use the +argument of Mr Black, simply substituting Mohammed for Christ, just +as effectually as it has been used against me? There was a time +when India was the foremost nation of the world. Would not your +argument, Mr. Black, have been just as good in the mouth of a +Brahmin then, as it is in yours now? Egypt, the mysterious mother +of mankind, with her pyramids built thirty-four hundred years +before Christ, was once the first in all the earth, and gave to us +our Trinity, and our symbol of the cross. Could not a priest of +Isis and Osiris have used your arguments to prove that his religion +was divine, and could he not have closed by saying: "From the facts +established by this evidence it follows irresistibly that our +religion came to us from God"? Do you not see that your argument +proves too much, and that it is equally applicable to all the +religions of the world?</p> +<p>Again, it is urged that "the acceptance of Christianity by a +large portion of the generation contemporary with its founder and +his apostles was, under the circumstances, an adjudication as +solemn and authoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce." +If this is true, then "the acceptance of Buddhism by a large +portion of the generation contemporary with its founder was an +adjudication as solemn and authoritative as mortal intelligence +could pronounce." The same could be said of Mohammedanism, and, in +fact, of every religion that has ever benefited or cursed this +world. This argument, when reduced to its simplest form, is this: +All that succeeds is inspired.</p> +<p>The old argument that if Christianity is a human fabrication its +authors must have been either good men or bad men, takes it for +granted that there are but two classes of persons—the good +and the bad. There is at least one other class—<i>the +mistaken</i>, and both of the other classes may belong to this. +Thousands of most excellent people have been deceived, and the +history of the world is filled with instances where men have +honestly supposed that they had received communications from angels +and gods.</p> +<p>In thousands of instances these pretended communications +contained the purest and highest thoughts, together with the most +important truths; yet it will not do to say that these accounts are +true; neither can they be proved by saying that the men who claimed +to be inspired were good. What we must say is, that being good men, +they were mistaken; and it is the charitable mantle of a mistake +that I throw over Mr. Black, when I find him defending the +institution of slavery. He seems to think it utterly incredible +that any "combination of knaves, however base, would fraudulently +concoct a religious system to denounce themselves, and to invoke +the curse of God upon their own conduct." How did religions other +than Christianity and Judaism arise? Were they all "concocted by a +combination of knaves"? The religion of Gautama is filled with most +beautiful and tender thoughts, with most excellent laws, and +hundreds of sentences urging mankind to deeds of love and +self-denial. Was Gautama inspired?</p> +<p>Does not Mr. Black know that thousands of people charged with +witchcraft actually confessed in open court their guilt? Does he +not know that they admitted that they had spoken face to face with +Satan, and had sold their souls for gold and power? Does he not +know that these admissions were made in the presence and +expectation of death? Does he not know that hundreds of judges, +some of them as great as the late lamented Gibson, believed in the +existence of an impossible crime?</p> +<p>We are told that "there is no good reason to doubt that the +statements of the Evangelists, as we have them now, are genuine." +The fact is, no one knows who made the "statements of the +Evangelists."</p> +<p>There are three important manuscripts upon which the Christian +world relies. "The first appeared in the catalogue of the Vatican, +in 1475. This contains the Old Testament. Of the New, it contains +the four gospels,—the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles, nine +of the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as far as +the fourteenth verse of the ninth chapter,"—and nothing more. +This is known as the Codex Vatican. "The second, the Alexandrine, +was presented to King Charles the First, in 1628. It contains the +Old and New Testaments, with some exceptions; passages are wanting +in Matthew, in John, and in II. Corinthians. It also contains the +Epistle of Clemens Romanus, a letter of Athanasius, and the +treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms." The last is the Sinaitic +Codex, discovered about 1850, at the Convent of St. Catherine's, on +Mount Sinai. "It contains the Old and New Testaments, and in +addition the entire Epistle of Barnabas, and a portion of the +Shepherd of Hermas—two books which, up to the beginning of +the fourth century, were looked upon by many as Scripture." In this +manuscript, or codex, the gospel of St. Mark concludes with the +eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, leaving out the frightful +passage: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every +creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he +that believeth not shall be damned."</p> +<p>In matters of the utmost importance these manuscripts disagree, +but even if they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest +evidence of their truth. It will not do to call the statements made +in the gospels "depositions," until it is absolutely established +who made them, and the circumstances under which they were made. +Neither can we say that "they were made in the immediate prospect +of death," until we know who made them. It is absurd to say that +"the witnesses could not have been mistaken, because the nature of +the facts precluded the possibility of any delusion about them." +Can it be pretended that the witnesses could not have been mistaken +about the relation the Holy Ghost is alleged to have sustained to +Jesus Christ? Is there no possibility of delusion about a +circumstance of that kind? Did the writers of the four gospels have +"'the sensible and true avouch of their own eyes' and ears" in that +behalf? How was it possible for any one of the four Evangelists to +know that Christ was the Son of God, or that he was God? His mother +wrote nothing on the subject. Matthew says that an angel of the +Lord told Joseph in a dream, but Joseph never wrote an account of +this wonderful vision. Luke tells us that the angel had a +conversation with Mary, and that Mary told Elizabeth, but Elizabeth +never wrote a word. There is no account of Mary or Joseph or +Elizabeth or the angel, having had any conversation with Matthew, +Mark, Luke, or John in which one word was said about the miraculous +origin of Jesus Christ. The persons who knew did not write, so that +the account is nothing but hearsay. Does Mr. Black pretend that +such statements would be admitted as evidence in any court? But how +do we know that the disciples of Christ wrote a word of the +gospels? How did it happen that Christ wrote nothing? How do we +know that the writers of the gospels "were men of unimpeachable +character"?</p> +<p>All this is answered by saying "that nothing was said by the +most virulent enemies against the personal honesty of the +Evangelists." How is this known? If Christ performed the miracles +recorded in the New Testament, why would the Jews put to death a +man able to raise their dead? Why should they attempt to kill the +Master of Death? How did it happen that a man who had done so many +miracles was so obscure, so unknown, that one of his disciples had +to be bribed to point him out? Is it not strange that the ones he +had cured were not his disciples? Can we believe, upon the +testimony of those about whose character we know nothing, that +Lazarus was raised from the dead? What became of Lazarus? We never +hear of him again. It seems to me that he would have been an object +of great interest. People would have said: "He is the man who was +once dead." Thousands would have inquired of him about the other +world; would have asked him where he was when he received the +information that he was wanted on the earth. His experience would +have been vastly more interesting than everything else in the New +Testament. A returned traveler from the shores of +Eternity—one who had walked twice through the valley of the +shadow—would have been the most interesting of human beings. +When he came to die again, people would have said: "He is not +afraid; he has had experience; he knows what death is." But, +strangely enough, this Lazarus fades into obscurity with "the wise +men of the East," and with the dead who came out of their graves on +the night of the crucifixion. How is it known that it was claimed, +during the life of Christ, that he had wrought a miracle? And if +the claim was made, how is it known that it was not denied? Did the +Jews believe that Christ was clothed with miraculous power? Would +they have dared to crucify a man who had the power to clothe the +dead with life? Is it not wonderful that no one at the trial of +Christ said one word about the miracles he had wrought? Nothing +about the sick he had healed, nor the dead he had raised?</p> +<p>Is it not wonderful that Josephus, the best historian the +Hebrews produced, says nothing about the life or death of Christ; +nothing about the massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word +about the wonderful star that visited the sky at the birth of +Christ; nothing about the darkness that fell upon the world for +several hours in the midst of day; and failed entirely to mention +that hundreds of graves were opened, and that multitudes of Jews +arose from the dead, and visited the Holy City? Is it not wonderful +that no historian ever mentioned any of these prodigies? and is it +not more amazing than all the rest, that Christ himself concealed +from Matthew, Mark, and Luke the dogma of the atonement, the +necessity of belief, and the mystery of the second birth?</p> +<p>Of course I know that two letters were said to have been written +by Pilate to Tiberius, concerning the execution of Christ, but they +have been shown to be forgeries. I also know that "various letters +were circulated attributed to Jesus Christ," and that one letter is +said to have been written by him to Abgarus, king of Edessa; but as +there was no king of Edessa at that time, this letter is admitted +to have been a forgery. I also admit that a correspondence between +Seneca and St. Paul was forged.</p> +<p>Here in our own country, only a few years ago, men claimed to +have found golden plates upon which was written a revelation from +God. They founded a new religion, and, according to their +statement, did many miracles. They were treated as outcasts, and +their leader was murdered. These men made their "depositions" "in +the immediate prospect of death." They were mobbed, persecuted, +derided, and yet they insisted that their prophet had miraculous +power, and that he, too, could swing back the hingeless door of +death. The followers of these men have increased, in these few +years, so that now the murdered prophet has at least two hundred +thousand disciples. It will be hard to find a contradiction of +these pretended miracles, although this is an age filled with +papers, magazines, and books. As a matter of fact, the claims of +Joseph Smith were so preposterous that sensible people did not take +the pains to write and print denials. When we remember that +eighteen hundred years ago there were but few people who could +write, and that a manuscript did not become public in any modern +sense, it was possible for the gospels to have been written with +all the foolish claims in reference to miracles without exciting +comment or denial. There is not, in all the contemporaneous +literature of the world, a single word about Christ or his +apostles. The paragraph in Josephus is admitted to be an +interpolation, and the letters, the account of the trial, and +several other documents forged by the zeal of the early fathers, +are now admitted to be false.</p> +<p>Neither will it do to say that "the statements made by the +Evangelists are alike upon every important point." If there is +anything of importance in the New Testament, from the theological +standpoint, it is the ascension of Jesus Christ. If that happened, +it was a miracle great enough to surfeit wonder. Are the statements +of the inspired witnesses alike on this important point? Let us +see.</p> +<p>Matthew says nothing upon the subject. Either Matthew was not +there, had never heard of the ascension,—or, having heard of +it, did not believe it, or, having seen it, thought it too +unimportant to record. To this wonder of wonders Mark devotes one +verse: "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was +received up into heaven, and sat on the right-hand of God." Can we +believe that this verse was written by one who witnessed the +ascension of Jesus Christ; by one who watched his Master slowly +rising through the air till distance reft him from his tearful +sight? Luke, another of the witnesses, says: "And it came to pass, +while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into +heaven." John corroborates Matthew by saying nothing on the +subject. Now, we find that the last chapter of Mark, after the +eighth verse, is an interpolation; so that Mark really says nothing +about the occurrence. Either the ascension of Christ must be given +up, or it must be admitted that the witnesses do not agree, and +that three of them never heard of that most stupendous event.</p> +<p>Again, if anything could have left its "form and pressure" on +the brain, it must have been the last words of Jesus Christ. The +last words, according to Matthew, are: "Go ye, therefore, and teach +all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the +Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things +whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even +unto the end of the world." The last words, according to the +inspired witness known as Mark, are: "And these signs shall follow +them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they +shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if +they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay +hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Luke tells us that the +last words uttered by Christ, with the exception of a blessing, +were: "And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; +but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with +power from on high." The last words, according to John, were: +"Peter, seeing Him, saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man +do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what +is that to thee? follow thou me."</p> +<p>An account of the ascension is also given in the Acts of the +Apostles; and the last words of Christ, according to that inspired +witness, are: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy +Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in +Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost +part of the earth." In this account of the ascension we find that +two men stood by the disciples in white apparel, and asked them: +"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same +Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in +like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Matthew says +nothing of the two men. Mark never saw them. Luke may have +forgotten them when writing his gospel, and John may have regarded +them as optical illusions.</p> +<p>Luke testifies that Christ ascended on the very day of his +resurrection. John deposes that eight days after the resurrection +Christ appeared to the disciples and convinced Thomas. In the Acts +we are told that Christ remained on earth for forty days after his +resurrection. These "depositions" do not agree. Neither do Matthew +and Luke agree in their histories of the infancy of Christ. It is +impossible for both to be true. One of these "witnesses" must have +been mistaken.</p> +<p>The most wonderful miracle recorded in the New Testament, as +having been wrought by Christ, is the resurrection of Lazarus. +While all the writers of the gospels, in many instances, record the +same wonders and the same conversations, is it not remarkable that +the greatest miracle is mentioned alone by John?</p> +<p>Two of the witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give the genealogy of +Christ. Matthew says that there were forty-two generations from +Abraham to Christ. Luke insists that there were forty-two from +Christ to David, while Matthew gives the number as twenty-eight. It +may be said that this is an old objection. An objection-remains +young until it has been answered. Is it not wonderful that Luke and +Matthew do not agree on a single name of Christ's ancestors for +thirty-seven generations?</p> +<p>There is a difference of opinion among the "witnesses" as to +what the gospel of Christ is. If we take the "depositions" of +Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then the gospel of Christ amounts simply +to this: That God will forgive the forgiving, and that he will be +merciful to the merciful. According to three witnesses, Christ knew +nothing of the doctrine of the atonement; never heard of the second +birth; and did not base salvation, in whole nor in part, on belief. +In the "deposition" of John, we find that we must be born again; +that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that an +atonement was made for us. If Christ ever said these things to, or +in the hearing of, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they forgot to mention +them.</p> +<p>To my mind, the failure of the evangelists to agree as tu what +is necessary for man to do in order to insure the salvation of his +soul, is a demonstration that they were not inspired.</p> +<p>Neither do the witnesses agree as to the last words of Christ +when he was crucified. Matthew says that he cried: "My God, my God, +why hast thou forsaken me?" Mark agrees with Matthew. Luke +testifies that his last words were: "Father, into thy hands I +commend my spirit." John states that he cried: "It is +finished."</p> +<p>Luke says that Christ said of his murderers: "Father, forgive +them; for they know not what they do." Matthew, Mark, and John do +not record these touching words. John says that Christ, on the day +of his resurrection, said to his disciples: "Whosesoever sins ye +remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, +they are retained."</p> +<p>The other disciples do not record this monstrous passage. They +did not hear the abdication of God. They were not present when +Christ placed in their hands the keys of heaven and hell, and put a +world beneath the feet of priests.</p> +<p>It is easy to account for the differences and contradictions in +these "depositions" (and there are hundreds of them) by saying that +each one told the story as he remembered it, or as he had heard it, +or that the accounts have been changed, but it will not do to say +that the witnesses were inspired of God. We can account for these +contradictions by the infirmities of human nature; but, as I said +before, the infirmities of human nature cannot be predicated of a +divine being.</p> +<p>Again, I ask, why should there be more than one inspired gospel? +Of what use were the other three? There can be only one true +account of anything. All other true accounts must simply be copies +of that. And I ask again, why should there have been more than one +inspired gospel? That which is the test of truth as to ordinary +witnesses is a demonstration against their inspiration. It will not +do at this late day to say that the miracles worked by Christ +demonstrated his divine origin or mission. The wonderful works he +did, did not convince the people with whom he lived. In spite of +the miracles, he was crucified. He was charged with blasphemy. +"Policemen" denounced the "scurrility" of his words, and the +absurdity of his doctrines. He was no doubt told that it was +"almost a crime to utter blasphemy in the presence of a Jewish +woman;" and it may be that he was taunted for throwing away "the +golden metewand" of the "infallible God who authorized slavery in +Judea," and taking the "elastic cord of human feeling."</p> +<p>Christians tell us that the citizens of Mecca refused to believe +on Mohammed because he was an impostor, and that the citizens of +Jerusalem refused to believe on Jesus Christ because he was +<i>not</i> an impostor.</p> +<p>If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him—if he +had cured the maimed, the leprous, and the halt—if he had +changed the night of blindness into blessed day—if he had +wrested from the fleshless hand of avaricious death the stolen +jewel of a life, and clothed again with throbbing flesh the +pulseless dust, he would have won the love and adoration of +mankind. If ever there shall stand upon this earth the king of +death, all human knees will touch the ground.</p> +<p>We are further informed that "what we call the fundamental +truths of Christianity consist of great public events which are +sufficiently established by history without special proof."</p> +<p>Of course, we admit that the Roman Empire existed; that Julius +Caesar was assassinated; and we may admit that Rome was founded by +Romulus and Remus; but will some one be kind enough to tell us how +the assassination of Caesar even tends to prove that Romulus and +Remus were suckled by a wolf? We will all admit that, in the sixth +century after Christ, Mohammed was born at Mecca; that his +victorious hosts vanquished half the Christian world; that the +crescent triumphed over the cross upon a thousand fields; that all +the Christians of the earth were not able to rescue from the hands +of an impostor the empty grave of Christ. We will all admit that +the Mohammedans cultivated the arts and sciences; that they gave us +our numerals; taught us the higher mathematics; gave us our first +ideas of astronomy, and that "science was thrust into the brain of +Europe on the point of a Moorish lance;" and yet we will not admit +that Mohammed was divinely inspired, nor that he had frequent +conversations with the angel Gabriel, nor that after his death his +coffin was suspended in mid-air.</p> +<p>A little while ago, in the city of Chicago, a gentleman +addressed a number of Sunday-school children. In his address, he +stated that some people were wicked enough to deny the story of the +deluge; that he was a traveler; that he had been to the top of +Mount Ararat, and had brought with him a stone from that sacred +locality. The children were then invited to form in procession and +walk by the pulpit, for the purpose of seeing this wonderful stone. +After they had looked at it, the lecturer said: "Now, children, if +you ever hear anybody deny the story of the deluge, or say that the +ark did not rest on Mount Ararat, you can tell them that you know +better, because you have seen with your own eyes a stone from that +very mountain."</p> +<p>The fact that Christ lived in Palestine does not tend to show +that he was in any way related to the Holy Ghost; nor does the +existence of the Christian religion substantiate the ascension of +Jesus Christ. We all admit that Socrates lived in Athens, but we do +not admit that he had a familiar spirit. I am satisfied that John +Wesley was an Englishman, but I hardly believe that God postponed a +rain because Mr. Wesley wanted to preach. All the natural things in +the world are not sufficient to establish the supernatural. Mr. +Black reasons in this way: There was a hydra-headed monster. We +know this, because Hercules killed him. There must have been such a +woman as Proserpine, otherwise Pluto could not have carried her +away. Christ must have been divine, because the Holy Ghost was his +father. And there must have been such a being as the Holy Ghost, +because without a father Christ could not have existed. Those who +are disposed to deny everything because a part is false, reason +exactly the other way. They insist that because there was no +hydra-headed monster, Hercules did not exist. The true position, in +my judgment, is that the natural is not to be discarded because +found in the company of the miraculous, neither should the +miraculous be believed because associated with the probable. There +was in all probability such a man as Jesus Christ. He may have +lived in Jerusalem. He may have been crucified, but that he was the +Son of God, or that he was raised from the dead, and ascended +bodily to heaven, has never been, and, in the nature of things, can +never be, substantiated.</p> +<p>Apparently tired with his efforts to answer what I really said, +Mr. Black resorted to the expedient of "compressing" my +propositions and putting them in italics. By his system of +"compression" he was enabled to squeeze out what I really said, and +substitute a few sentences of his own. I did not say that +"Christianity offers eternal salvation as the reward of belief +alone," but I did say that no salvation is offered <i>without</i> +belief. There must be a difference of opinion in the minds of Mr. +Black's witnesses on this subject. In one place we are told that a +man is "justified by faith without the deeds of the law;" and in +another, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that +justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for +righteousness;" and the following passages seem to show the +necessity of belief:</p> +<p>"<i>He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that +believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in +the name of the only begotten Son of God." "He that believeth on +the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, +shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." "Jesus +said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that +believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." "And +whosoever liveth and believeth in Me, shall never die." "For the +gifts and calling of God are without repentance." "For by grace are +ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift +of God." "Not of works, lest any man should boast." "Whosoever +shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, +and he in God." "Whosoever believeth not shall be damned.</i>"</p> +<p>I do not understand that the Christians of to-day insist that +simple belief will secure the salvation of the soul. I believe it +is stated in the Bible that "the very devils believe;" and it would +seem from this that belief is not such a meritorious thing, after +all. But Christians do insist that without belief no man can be +saved; that faith is necessary to salvation, and that there is +"none other name under heaven given among men whereby we can be +saved," except that of Christ. My doctrine is that there is only +one way to be saved, and that is to act in harmony with your +surroundings—to live in accordance with the facts of your +being. A Being of infinite wisdom has no right to create a person +destined to everlasting pain. For the honest infidel, according to +the American Evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven. For the +upright atheist, there is nothing in another world but punishment. +Mr. Black admits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of hell. +This being so, his God should have created only lunatics and +idiots. Why should the fatal gift of brain be given to any human +being, if such gift renders him liable to eternal hell? Better be a +lunatic here and an angel there. Better be an idiot in this world, +if you can be a seraph in the next.</p> +<p>As to the doctrine of the atonement, Mr. Black has nothing to +offer except the barren statement that it is believed by the wisest +and the best. A Mohammedan, speaking in Constantinople, will say +the same of the Koran. A Brahmin, in a Hindu temple, will make the +same remark, and so will the American Indian, when he endeavors to +enforce something upon the young of his tribe. He will say: "The +best, the greatest of our tribe have believed in this." This is the +argument of the cemetery, the philosophy of epitaphs, the logic of +the coffin. Who are the greatest and wisest and most virtuous of +mankind? This statement, that it has been believed by the best, is +made in connection with an admission that it cannot be fathomed by +the wisest. It is not claimed that a thing is necessarily false +because it is not understood, but I do claim that it is not +necessarily true because it cannot be comprehended. I still insist +that "the plan of redemption," as usually preached, is absurd, +unjust, and immoral.</p> +<p>For nearly two thousand years Judas Iscariot has been execrated +by mankind; and yet, if the doctrine of the atonement is true, upon +his treachery hung the plan of salvation. Suppose Judas had known +of this plan—known that he was selected by Christ for that +very purpose, that Christ was depending on him. And suppose that he +also knew that only by betraying Christ could he save either +himself or others; what ought Judas to have done? Are you willing +to rely upon an argument that justifies the treachery of that +wretch?</p> +<p>I insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of an innocent man +could satisfy justice for the sins of the guilty. To this, Mr. +Black replies as follows: "This raises a metaphysical question, +which it is not necessary or possible for me to discuss here." Is +this considered an answer? Is it in this way that "my misty +creations are made to roll away and vanish into air one after +another?" Is this the best that can be done by one of the disciples +of the infallible God who butchered babes in Judea? Is it possible +for a "policeman" to "silence a rude disturber" in this way? To +answer an argument, is it only necessary to say that it "raises a +metaphysical question"? Again I say: The life of Christ is worth +its example, its moral force, its heroism of benevolence. And again +I say: The effort to vindicate a law by inflicting punishment on +the innocent is a second violation instead of a vindication.</p> +<p>Mr. Black, under the pretence of "compressing," puts in my mouth +the following: "The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of +injuries, reconciliation with enemies, as taught in the New +Testament, is the child of weakness, degrading and unjust."</p> +<p>This is entirely untrue. What I did say is this: "The idea of +non-resistance never occurred to a man who had the power to protect +himself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born when +resistance was impossible." I said not one word against the +forgiveness of injuries, not one word against the reconciliation of +enemies—not one word. I believe in the reconciliation of +enemies. I believe in a reasonable forgiveness of injuries. But I +do not believe in the doctrine of non-resistance. Mr. Black +proceeds to say that Christianity forbids us "to cherish animosity, +to thirst for mere revenge, to hoard up wrongs real or fancied, and +lie in wait for the chance of paying them back; to be impatient, +unforgiving, malicious, and cruel to all who have crossed us." And +yet the man who thus describes Christianity tells us that it is not +only our right, but our duty, to fight savages as savages fight us; +insists that where a nation tries to exterminate us, we have a +right to exterminate them. This same man, who tells us that "the +diabolical propensities of the human heart are checked and curbed +by the spirit of the Christian religion," and that this religion +"has converted men from low savages into refined and civilized +beings," still insists that the author of the Christian religion +established slavery, waged wars of extermination, abhorred the +liberty of thought, and practiced the divine virtues of retaliation +and revenge. If it is our duty to forgive our enemies, ought not +God to forgive his? Is it possible that God will hate his enemies +when he tells us that we must love ours? The enemies of God cannot +injure him, but ours can injure us. If it is the duty of the +injured to forgive, why should the uninjured insist upon having +revenge? Why should a being who destroys nations with pestilence +and famine expect that his children will be loving and +forgiving?</p> +<p>Mr. Black insists that without a belief in God there can be no +perception of right and wrong, and that it is impossible for an +atheist to have a conscience. Mr. Black, the Christian, the +believer in God, upholds wars of extermination. I denounce such +wars as murder. He upholds the institution of slavery. I denounce +that institution as the basest of crimes. Yet I am told that I have +no knowledge of right and wrong; that I measure with "the elastic +cord of human feeling," while the believer in slavery and wars of +extermination measures with "the golden metewand of God."</p> +<p>What is right and what is wrong? Everything is right that tends +to the happiness of mankind, and everything is wrong that increases +the sum of human misery. What can increase the happiness of this +world more than to do away with every form of slavery, and with all +war? What can increase the misery of mankind more than to increase +wars and put chains upon more human limbs? What is conscience? If +man were incapable of suffering, if man could not feel pain, the +word "conscience" never would have passed his lips. The man who +puts himself in the place of another, whose imagination has been +cultivated to the point of feeling the agonies suffered by another, +is the man of conscience. But a man who justifies slavery, who +justifies a God when he commands the soldier to rip open the mother +and to pierce with the sword of war the child unborn, is controlled +and dominated, not by conscience, but by a cruel and remorseless +superstition.</p> +<p>Consequences determine the quality of an action. If consequences +are good, so is the action. If actions had no consequences, they +would be neither good nor bad. Man did not get his knowledge of the +consequences of actions from God, but from experience and reason. +If man can, by actual experiment, discover the right and wrong of +actions, is it not utterly illogical to declare that they who do +not believe in God can have no standard of right and wrong? +Consequences are the standard by which actions are judged. They are +the children that testify as to the real character of their +parents. God or no God, larceny is the enemy of +industry—industry is the mother of +prosperity—prosperity is a good, and therefore larceny is an +evil. God or no God, murder is a crime. There has always been a law +against larceny, because the laborer wishes to enjoy the fruit of +his toil. As long as men object to being killed, murder will be +illegal.</p> +<p>According to Mr. Black, the man who does not believe in a +supreme being acknowledges no standard of right and wrong in this +world, and therefore can have no theory of rewards and punishments +in the next. Is it possible that only those who believe in the God +who persecuted for opinion's sake have any standard of right and +wrong? Were the greatest men of all antiquity without this +standard? In the eyes of intelligent men of Greece and Rome, were +all deeds, whether good or evil, morally alike? Is it necessary to +believe in the existence of an infinite intelligence before you can +have any standard of right and wrong? Is it possible that a being +cannot be just or virtuous unless he believes in some being +infinitely superior to himself? If this doctrine be true, how can +God be just or virtuous? Does he believe in some being superior to +himself?</p> +<p>It may be said that the Pagans believed in a god, and +consequently had a standard of right and wrong. But the Pagans did +not believe in the "true" God. They knew nothing of Jehovah. Of +course it will not do to believe in the wrong God. In order to know +the difference between right and wrong, you must believe in the +right God—in the one who established slavery. Can this be +avoided by saying that a false god is better than none?</p> +<p>The idea of justice is not the child of superstition—it +was not born of ignorance; neither was it nurtured by the passages +in the Old Testament upholding slavery, wars of extermination, and +religious persecution. Every human being necessarily has a standard +of right and wrong; and where that standard has not been polluted +by superstition, man abhors slavery, regards a war of extermination +as murder, and looks upon religious persecution as a hideous crime. +If there is a God, infinite in power and wisdom, above him, poised +in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice. At the shrine of Justice +the infinite God must bow, and in her impartial scales the actions +even of Infinity must be weighed. There is no world, no star, no +heaven, no hell, in which gratitude is not a virtue and where +slavery is not a crime.</p> +<p>According to the logic of this "reply," all good and evil become +mixed and mingled—equally good and equally bad, unless we +believe in the existence of the infallible God who ordered husbands +to kill their wives. We do not know right from wrong now, unless we +are convinced that a being of infinite mercy waged wars of +extermination four thousand years ago. We are incapable even of +charity, unless we worship the being who ordered the husband to +kill his wife for differing with him on the subject of +religion.</p> +<p>We know that acts are good or bad only as they effect the +actors, and others. We know that from every good act good +consequences flow, and that from every bad act there are only evil +results. Every virtuous deed is a star in the moral firmament. +There is in the moral world, as in the physical, the absolute and +perfect relation of cause and effect. For this reason, the +atonement becomes an impossibility. Others may suffer by your +crime, but their suffering cannot discharge you; it simply +increases your guilt and adds to your burden. For this reason +happiness is not a reward—it is a consequence. Suffering is +not a punishment—it is a result.</p> +<p>It is insisted that Christianity is not opposed to freedom of +thought, but that "it is based on certain principles to which it +requires the assent of all." Is this a candid statement? Are we +only required to give our assent to certain principles in order to +be saved? Are the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, +the atonement, and the Trinity, principles? Will it be admitted by +the orthodox world that good deeds are sufficient unto +salvation—that a man can get into heaven by living in +accordance with certain principles? This is a most excellent +doctrine, but it is not Christianity. And right here, it may be +well enough to state what I mean by Christianity. The morality of +the world is not distinctively Christian. Zoroaster, Gautama, +Mohammed, Confucius, Christ, and, in fact, all founders of +religions, have said to their disciples: You must not steal; You +must not murder; You must not bear false witness; You must +discharge your obligations. Christianity is the ordinary moral +code, <i>plus</i> the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ, his +crucifixion, his resurrection, his ascension, the inspiration of +the Bible, the doctrine of the atonement, and the necessity of +belief. Buddhism is the ordinary moral code, <i>plus</i> the +miraculous illumination of Buddha, the performance of certain +ceremonies, a belief in the transmigration of the soul, and in the +final absorption of the human by the infinite. The religion of +Mohammed is the ordinary moral code, <i>plus</i> the belief that +Mohammed was the prophet of God, total abstinence from the use of +intoxicating drinks, a harem for the faithful here and hereafter, +ablutions, prayers, alms, pilgrimages, and fasts.</p> +<p>The morality in Christianity has never opposed the freedom of +thought. It has never put, nor tended to put, a chain on a human +mind, nor a manacle on a human limb; but the doctrines +distinctively Christian—the necessity of believing a certain +thing; the idea that eternal punishment awaited him who failed to +believe; the idea that the innocent can suffer for the +guilty—these things have opposed, and for a thousand years +substantially destroyed, the freedom of the human mind. All +religions have, with ceremony, magic, and mystery, deformed, +darkened, and corrupted the soul. Around the sturdy oaks of +morality have grown and clung the parasitic, poisonous vines of the +miraculous and monstrous.</p> +<p>I have insisted, and I still insist, that it is impossible for a +finite man to commit a crime deserving infinite punishment; and +upon this subject Mr. Black admits that "no revelation has lifted +the veil between time and eternity;" and, consequently, neither the +priest nor the "policeman" knows anything with certainty regarding +another world. He simply insists that "in shadowy figures we are +warned that a very marked distinction will be made between the good +and bad in the next world." There is "a very marked distinction" in +this; but there is this rainbow on the darkest human cloud: The +worst have hope of reform. All I insist is, if there is another +life, the basest soul that finds its way to that dark or radiant +shore will have the everlasting chance of doing right. Nothing but +the most cruel ignorance, the most heartless superstition, the most +ignorant theology, ever imagined that the few days of human life +spent here, surrounded by mists and clouds of darkness, blown over +life's sea by storms and tempests of passion, fixed for all +eternity the condition of the human race. If this doctrine be true, +this life is but a net, in which Jehovah catches souls for +hell.</p> +<p>The idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation +unsheathed the swords and lighted the fagots of persecution. As +long as heaven is the reward of creed instead of deed, just so long +will every orthodox church be a bastile, every member a prisoner, +and every priest a turnkey.</p> +<p>In the estimation of good orthodox Christians, I am a criminal, +because I am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, +sisters, husbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally +arising from a belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to +tear, break, and scatter to the winds the God that priests erected +in the fields of innocent pleasure—a God made of sticks, +called creeds, and of old clothes, called myths. I have tried to +take from the coffin its horror, from the cradle its curse, and put +out the fires of revenge kindled by the savages of the past. Is it +necessary that heaven should borrow its light from the glare of +hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, +immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, +and pollutes the soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in +the universe, no perfectly good being can be perfectly happy. +Against the heartlessness of this doctrine every grand and generous +soul should enter its solemn protest. I want no part in any heaven +where the saved, the ransomed, and redeemed drown with merry shouts +the cries and sobs of hell—in which happiness forgets +misery—where the tears of the lost increase laughter and +deepen the dimples of joy. The idea of hell was born of ignorance, +brutality, fear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea tends to show +that our remote ancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, +lairs, and caves—only from mouths filled with cruel +fangs—only from hearts of fear and hatred—only from the +conscience of hunger and lust—only from the lowest and most +debased, could come this most cruel, heartless, and absurd of all +dogmas.</p> +<p>Our ancestors knew but little of nature. They were too +astonished to investigate. They could not divest themselves of the +idea that everything happened with reference to them; that they +caused storms and earthquakes; that they brought the tempest and +the whirlwind; that on account of something they had done, or +omitted to do, the lightning of vengeance leaped from the darkened +sky. They made up their minds that at least two vast and powerful +beings presided over this world; that one was good and the other +bad; that both of these beings wished to get control of the souls +of men; that they were relentless enemies, eternal foes; that both +welcomed recruits and hated deserters; that one offered rewards in +this world, and the other in the next. Man saw cruelty and mercy in +nature, because he imagined that phenomena were produced to punish +or to reward him. It was supposed that God demanded worship; that +he loved to be flattered; that he delighted in sacrifice; that +nothing made him happier than to see ignorant faith upon its knees; +that above all things he hated and despised doubters and heretics, +and regarded investigation as rebellion. Each community felt it a +duty to see that the enemies of God were converted or killed. To +allow a heretic to live in peace was to invite the wrath of God. +Every public evil—every misfortune—was accounted for by +something the community had permitted or done. When epidemics +appeared, brought by ignorance and welcomed by filth, the heretic +was brought out and sacrificed to appease the anger of God. By +putting intention behind what man called good, God was produced. By +putting intention behind what man called bad, the Devil was +created. Leave this "intention" out, and gods and devils fade away. +If not a human being existed, the sun would continue to shine, and +tempest now and then would devastate the earth; the rain would fall +in pleasant showers; violets would spread their velvet bosoms to +the sun, the earthquake would devour, birds would sing and daisies +bloom and roses blush, and volcanoes fill the heavens with their +lurid glare; the procession of the seasons would not be broken, and +the stars would shine as serenely as though the world were filled +with loving hearts and happy homes. Do not imagine that the +doctrine of eternal revenge belongs to Christianity alone. Nearly +all religions have had this dogma for a corner-stone. Upon this +burning foundation nearly all have built. Over the abyss of pain +rose the glittering dome of pleasure. This world was regarded as +one of trial. Here, a God of infinite wisdom experimented with man. +Between the outstretched paws of the Infinite, the +mouse—man—was allowed to play. Here, man had the +opportunity of hearing priests and kneeling in temples. Here, he +could read, and hear read, the sacred books. Here, he could have +the example of the pious and the counsels of the holy. Here, he +could build churches and cathedrals. Here, he could burn incense, +fast, wear hair-cloth, deny himself all the pleasures of life, +confess to priests, construct instruments of torture, bow before +pictures and images, and persecute all who had the courage to +despise superstition, and the goodness to tell their honest +thoughts. After death, if he died out of the church, nothing could +be done to make him better. When he should come into the presence +of God, nothing was left except to damn him. Priests might convert +him here, but God could do nothing there. All of which shows how +much more a priest can do for a soul than its creator. Only here, +on the earth, where the devil is constantly active, only where his +agents attack every soul, is there the slightest hope of moral +improvement. Strange! that a world cursed by God, filled with +temptations, and thick with fiends, should be the only place where +man can repent, the only place where reform is possible!</p> +<p>Masters frightened slaves with the threat of hell, and slaves +got a kind of shadowy revenge by whispering back the threat. The +imprisoned imagined a hell for their gaolers; the weak built this +place for the strong; the arrogant for their rivals; the vanquished +for their victors; the priest for the thinker; religion for reason; +superstition for science. All the meanness, all the revenge, all +the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of +which the heart of man is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit +in this one word—Hell. For the nourishment of this dogma, +cruelty was soil, ignorance was rain, and fear was light.</p> +<p>Why did Mr. Black fail to answer what I said in relation to the +doctrine of inspiration? Did he consider that a "metaphysical +question"? Let us see what inspiration really is. A man looks at +the sea, and the sea says something to him. It makes an impression +on his mind. It awakens memory, and this impression depends upon +his experience—upon his intellectual capacity. Another looks +upon the same sea. He has a different brain; he has a different +experience. The sea may speak to him of joy, to the other of grief +and tears. The sea cannot tell the same thing to any two human +beings, because no two human beings have had the same experience. +One may think of wreck and ruin, and another, while listening to +the "multitudinous laughter of the sea," may say: Every drop has +visited all the shores of earth; every one has been frozen in the +vast and icy North, has fallen in snow, has whirled in storms +around the mountain peaks, been kissed to vapor by the sun, worn +the seven-hued robe of light, fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from +springs, and laughed in brooks while lovers wooed upon the banks. +Everything in nature tells a different story to all eyes that see +and to all ears that hear. So, when we look upon a flower, a +painting, a statue, a star, or a violet, the more we know, the more +we have experienced, the more we have thought, the more we +remember, the more the statue, the star, the painting, the violet +has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am capable of +understanding—gives all that I can receive. As with star, or +flower, or sea, so with a book. A thoughtful man reads Shakespeare. +What does he get? All that he has the mind to understand. Let +another read him, who knows nothing of the drama, nothing of the +impersonations of passion, and what does he get? Almost nothing. +Shakespeare has a different story for each reader. He is a world in +which each recognizes his acquaintances. The impression that nature +makes upon the mind, the stories told by sea and star and flower, +must be the natural food of thought. Leaving out for the moment the +impressions gained from ancestors, the hereditary fears and drifts +and trends—the natural food of thought must be the +impressions made upon the brain by coming in contact through the +medium of the senses with what we call the outward world. The brain +is natural; its food is natural; the result, thought, must be +natural. Of the supernatural we have no conception. Thought may be +deformed, and the thought of one may be strange to, and denominated +unnatural by, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be +weak, it may be insane, but it is not supernatural. Above the +natural, man cannot rise. There can be deformed ideas, as there are +deformed persons. There may be religions monstrous and misshapen, +but they were naturally produced. The world is to each man +according to each man. It takes the world as it really is and that +man to make that man's world.</p> +<p>You may ask, And what of all this? I reply, As with everything +in nature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each +reader. Is, then, the Bible a different book to every human being +who reads it? It is. Can God, through the Bible, make precisely the +same revelation to two persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who +reads is not inspired. God should inspire readers as well as +writers.</p> +<p>You may reply: God knew that his book would be understood +differently by each one, and intended that it should be understood +as it is understood by each. If this is so, then my understanding +of the Bible is the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no +right to take the understanding of another. I must take the +revelation made to me through my understanding, and by that +revelation I must stand. Suppose then, that I read this Bible +honestly, fairly, and when I get through am compelled to say, "The +book is not true." If this is the honest result, then you are +compelled to say, either that God has made no revelation to me, or +that the revelation that it is not true is the revelation made to +me, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain are both the +work of the same infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and +brain do not agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my +brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book. The +inspiration of the Bible depends on the credulity of him who reads. +There was a time when its geology, its astronomy, its natural +history, were thought to be inspired; that time has passed. There +was a time when its morality satisfied the men who ruled the world +of thought; that time has passed.</p> +<p>Mr. Black, continuing his process of compressing my +propositions, attributes to me the following statement: "The gospel +of Christ does not satisfy the hunger of the heart." I did not say +this. What I did say is: "The dogmas of the past no longer reach +the level of the highest thought, nor satisfy the hunger of the +heart." In so far as Christ taught any doctrine in opposition to +slavery, in favor of intellectual liberty, upholding kindness, +enforcing the practice of justice and mercy, I most cheerfully +admit that his teachings should be followed. Such teachings do not +need the assistance of miracles. They are not in the region of the +supernatural. They find their evidence in the glad response of +every honest heart that superstition has not touched and stained. +The great question under discussion is, whether the immoral, +absurd, and infamous can be established by the miraculous. It +cannot be too often repeated, that truth scorns the assistance of +miracle. That which actually happens sets in motion innumerable +effects, which, in turn, become causes producing other effects. +These are all "witnesses" whose "depositions" continue. What I +insist on is, that a miracle cannot be established by human +testimony. We have known people to be mistaken. We know that all +people will not tell the truth. We have never seen the dead raised. +When people assert that they have, we are forced to weigh the +probabilities, and the probabilities are on the other side. It will +not do to assert that the universe was created, and then say that +such creation was miraculous, and, therefore, all miracles are +possible. We must be sure of our premises. Who knows that the +universe was created? If it was not; if it has existed from +eternity; if the present is the necessary child of all the past, +then the miraculous is the impossible. Throw away all the miracles +of the New Testament, and the good teachings of Christ +remain—all that is worth preserving will be there still. Take +from what is now known as Christianity the doctrine of the +atonement, the fearful dogma of eternal punishment, the absurd idea +that a certain belief is necessary to salvation, and with most of +the remainder the good and intelligent will most heartily +agree.</p> +<p>Mr. Black attributes to me the following expression: +"Christianity is pernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind, +narrows the soul, arrests the progress of human society, and +hinders civilization." I said no such thing. Strange, that he is +only able to answer what I did not say. I endeavored to show that +the passages in the Old Testament upholding slavery, polygamy, wars +of extermination, and religious intolerance had filled the world +with blood and crime. I admitted that there are many wise and good +things in the Old Testament. I also insisted that the doctrine of +the atonement—that is to say, of moral bankruptcy—the +idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation, and the +frightful dogma of eternal pain, had narrowed the soul, had +darkened the mind, and had arrested the progress of human society. +Like other religions, Christianity is a mixture of good and evil. +The church has made more orphans than it has fed. It has never +built asylums enough to hold the insane of its own making. It has +shed more blood than light.</p> +<p>Mr. Black seems to think that miracles are the most natural +things imaginable, and wonders that anybody should be insane enough +to deny the probability of the impossible. He regards all who doubt +the miraculous origin, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus +Christ, as afflicted with some "error of the moon," and declares +that their "disbelief seems like a kind of insanity."</p> +<p>To ask for evidence is not generally regarded as a symptom of a +brain diseased. Delusions, illusions, phantoms, hallucinations, +apparitions, chimeras, and visions are the common property of the +religious and the insane. Persons blessed with sound minds and +healthy bodies rely on facts, not fancies—on demonstrations +instead of dreams. It seems to me that the most orthodox Christians +must admit that many of the miracles recorded in the New Testament +are extremely childish. They must see that the miraculous draught +of fishes, changing water into wine, fasting for forty days, +inducing devils to leave an insane man by allowing them to take +possession of swine, walking on the water, and using a fish for a +pocket-book, are all unworthy of an infinite being, and are +calculated to provoke laughter—to feed suspicion and engender +doubt.</p> +<p>Mr. Black takes the ground that if a man believes in the +creation of the universe—that being the most stupendous +miracle of which the mind can conceive—he has no right to +deny anything. He asserts that God created the universe; that +creation was a miracle; that "God would be likely to reveal his +will to the rational creatures who were required to obey it," and +that he would authenticate his revelation by giving his prophets +and apostles supernatural power.</p> +<p>After making these assertion, he triumphantly exclaims: "It +therefore follows that the improbability of a miracle is no greater +than the original improbability of a revelation, and that is not +improbable at all."</p> +<p>How does he know that God made the universe? How does he know +what God would be likely to do? How does he know that any +revelation was made? And how did he ascertain that any of the +apostles and prophets were entrusted with supernatural power? It +will not do to prove your premises by assertions, and then claim +that your conclusions are correct, because they agree with your +premises.</p> +<p>If "God would be likely to reveal his will to the rational +creatures who were required to obey it," why did he reveal it only +to the Jews? According to Mr. Black, God is the only natural thing +in the universe.</p> +<p>We should remember that ignorance is the mother of credulity; +that the early Christians believed everything but the truth, and +that they accepted Paganism, admitted the reality of all the Pagan +miracles—taking the ground that they were all forerunners of +their own. Pagan miracles were never denied by the Christian world +until late in the seventeenth century. Voltaire was the third man +of note in Europe who denied the truth of Greek and Roman +mythology. "The early Christians cited Pagan oracles predicting in +detail the sufferings of Christ. They forged prophecies, and +attributed them to the heathen sibyls, and they were accepted as +genuine by the entire church."</p> +<p>St. Irenæus assures us that all Christians possessed the +power of working miracles; that they prophesied, cast out devils, +healed the sick, and even raised the dead. St. Epiphanius asserts +that some rivers and fountains were annually transmuted into wine, +in attestation of the miracle of Cana, adding that he himself had +drunk of these fountains. St. Augustine declares that one was told +in a dream where the bones of St. Stephen were buried, that the +bones were thus discovered, and brought to Hippo, and that they +raised five dead persons to life, and that in two years seventy +miracles were performed with these relics. Justin Martyr states +that God once sent some angels to guard the human race, that these +angels fell in love with the daughters of men, and became the +fathers of innumerable devils.</p> +<p>For hundreds of years, miracles were about the only things that +happened. They were wrought by thousands of Christians, and +testified to by millions. The saints and martyrs, the best and +greatest, were the witnesses and workers of wonders. Even heretics, +with the assistance of the devil, could suspend the "laws of +nature." Must we believe these wonderful accounts because they were +written by "good men," by Christians, "who made their statements in +the presence and expectation of death"? The truth is that these +"good men" were mistaken. They expected the miraculous. They +breathed the air of the marvelous. They fed their minds on +prodigies, and their imaginations feasted on effects without +causes. They were incapable of investigating. Doubts were regarded +as "rude disturbers of the congregation." Credulity and sanctity +walked hand in hand. Reason was danger. Belief was safety. As the +philosophy of the ancients was rendered almost worthless by the +credulity of the common people, so the proverbs of Christ, his +religion of forgiveness, his creed of kindness, were lost in the +mist of miracle and the darkness of superstition.</p> +<p>If Mr. Black is right, there were no virtue, justice, +intellectual liberty, moral elevation, refinement, benevolence, or +true wisdom, until Christianity was established. He asserts that +when Christ came, "benevolence, in any shape, was altogether +unknown."</p> +<p>He insists that "the infallible God who authorized slavery in +Judea" established a government; that he was the head and king of +the Jewish people; that for this reason heresy was treason. Is it +possible that God established a government in which benevolence was +unknown? How did it happen that he established no asylums for the +insane? How do you account for the fact that your God permitted +some of his children to become insane? Why did Jehovah fail to +establish hospitals and schools? Is it reasonable to believe that a +good God would assist his chosen people to exterminate or enslave +his other children? Why would your God people a world, knowing that +it would be destitute of benevolence for four thousand years? +Jehovah should have sent missionaries to the heathen. He ought to +have reformed the inhabitants of Canaan. He should have sent +teachers, not soldiers—missionaries, not murderers. A God +should not exterminate his children; he should reform them.</p> +<p>Mr. Black gives us a terrible picture of the condition of the +world at the coming of Christ; but did the God of Judea treat his +own children, the Gentiles, better than the Pagans treated theirs? +When Rome enslaved mankind—when with her victorious armies +she sought to conquer or to exterminate tribes and nations, she but +followed the example of Jehovah. Is it true that benevolence came +with Christ, and that his coming heralded the birth of pity in the +human heart? Does not Mr. Black know that, thousands of years +before Christ was born, there were hospitals and asylums for +orphans in China? Does he not know that in Egypt, before Moses +lived, the insane were treated with kindness and wooed back to +natural thought by music's golden voice? Does he not know that in +all times, and in all countries, there have been great and loving +souls who wrought, and toiled, and suffered, and died that others +might enjoy? Is it possible that he knows nothing of the religion +of Buddha—a religion based upon equality, charity and +forgiveness? Does he not know that, centuries before the birth of +the great Peasant of Palestine, another, upon the plains of India, +had taught the doctrine of forgiveness; and that, contrary to the +tyranny of Jehovah, had given birth to the sublime declaration that +all men are by nature free and equal? Does he not know that a +religion of absolute trust in God had been taught thousands of +years before Jerusalem was built—a religion based upon +absolute special providence, carrying its confidence to the +extremest edge of human thought, declaring that every evil is a +blessing in disguise, and that every step taken by mortal man, +whether in the rags of poverty or the royal robes of kings, is the +step necessary to be taken by that soul in order to reach +perfection and eternal joy? But how is it possible for a man who +believes in slavery to have the slightest conception of +benevolence, justice or charity? If Mr. Black is right, even Christ +believed and taught that man could buy and sell his fellow-man. +Will the Christians of America admit this? Do they believe that +Christ from heaven's throne mocked when colored mothers, reft of +babes, knelt by empty cradles and besought his aid?</p> +<p>For the man Christ—for the reformer who loved his +fellow-men—for the man who believed in an Infinite Father, +who would shield the innocent and protect the just—for the +martyr who expected to be rescued from the cruel cross, and who at +last, finding that his hope was dust, cried out in the gathering +gloom of death: "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken +me?"—for that great and suffering man, mistaken though he +was, I have the highest admiration and respect. That man did not, +as I believe, claim a miraculous origin; he did not pretend to heal +the sick nor raise the dead. He claimed simply to be a man, and +taught his fellow-men that love is stronger far than hate. His life +was written by reverent ignorance. Loving credulity belittled his +career with feats of jugglery and magic art, and priests, wishing +to persecute and slay, put in his mouth the words of hatred and +revenge. The theological Christ is the impossible union of the +human and divine—man with the attributes of God, and God with +the limitations and weaknesses of man.</p> +<p>After giving a terrible description of the Pagan world, Mr. +Black says: "The church came, and her light penetrated the moral +darkness like a new sun; she covered the globe with institutions of +mercy."</p> +<p>Is this true? Do we not know that when the Roman empire fell, +darkness settled on the world? Do we not know that this darkness +lasted for a thousand years, and that during all that time the +church of Christ held, with bloody hands, the sword of power? These +years were the starless midnight of our race. Art died, law was +forgotten, toleration ceased to exist, charity fled from the human +breast, and justice was unknown. Kings were tyrants, priests were +pitiless, and the poor multitude were slaves. In the name of +Christ, men made instruments of torture, and the <i>auto da +fê</i> took the place of the gladiatorial show. Liberty was +in chains, honesty in dungeons, while Christian superstition ruled +mankind. Christianity compromised with Paganism. The statues of +Jupiter were used to represent Jehovah. Isis and her babe were +changed to Mary and the infant Christ. The Trinity of Egypt became +the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The simplicity of the early +Christians was lost in heathen rites and Pagan pomp. The believers +in the blessedness of poverty became rich, avaricious, and +grasping, and those who had said, "Sell all, and give to the poor," +became the ruthless gatherers of tithes and taxes. In a few years +the teachings of Jesus were forgotten. The gospels were +interpolated by the designing and ambitious. The church was +infinitely corrupt. Crime was crowned, and virtue scourged. The +minds of men were saturated with superstition. Miracles, +apparitions, angels, and devils had possession of the world. "The +nights were filled with incubi and succubi; devils', clad in +wondrous forms, and imps in hideous shapes, sought to tempt or +fright the soldiers of the cross. The maddened spirits of the air +sent hail and storm. Sorcerers wrought sudden death, and witches +worked with spell and charm against the common weal." In every town +the stake arose. Faith carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. +Priests—not "politicians"—fed and fanned the eager +flames. The dungeon was the foundation of the cathedral.</p> +<p>Priests sold charms and relics to their flocks to keep away the +wolves of hell. Thousands of Christians, failing to find protection +in the church, sold their poor souls to Satan for some magic wand. +Suspicion sat in every house, families were divided, wives +denounced husbands, husbands denounced wives, and children their +parents. Every calamity then, as now, increased the power of the +church. Pestilence supported the' pulpit, and famine was the right +hand of faith. Christendom was insane.</p> +<p>Will Mr. Black be kind enough to state at what time "the church +covered the globe with institutions of mercy"? In his reply, he +conveys the impression that these institutions were organized in +the first century, or at least in the morning of Christianity. How +many hospitals for the sick were established by the church during a +thousand years? Do we not know that for hundreds of years the +Mohammedans erected more hospitals and asylums than the Christians? +Christendom was filled with racks and thumbscrews, with stakes and +fagots, with chains and dungeons, for centuries before a hospital +was built. Priests despised doctors. Prayer was medicine. +Physicians interfered with the sale of charms and relics. The +church did not cure—it killed. It practiced surgery with the +sword. The early Christians did not build asylums for the insane. +They charged them with witchcraft, and burnt them. They built +asylums, not for the mentally diseased, but for the mentally +developed. These asylums were graves.</p> +<p>All the languages of the world have not words of horror enough +to paint the agonies of man when the church had power. Tiberius, +Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus were not as cruel, +false, and base as many of the Christians Popes. Opposite the names +of these imperial criminals write John the XII., Leo the VIII., +Boniface the VII., Benedict the IX., Innocent the III., and +Alexander the VI.</p> +<p>Was it under these pontiffs that the "church penetrated the +moral darkness like a new sun," and covered the globe with +institutions of mercy? Rome was far better when Pagan than when +Catholic. It was better to allow gladiators and criminals to fight +than to burn honest men. The greatest of the Romans denounced the +cruelties of the arena. Seneca condemned the combats even of wild +beasts. He was tender enough to say that "we should have a bond of +sympathy for all sentient beings, knowing that only the depraved +and base take pleasure in the sight of blood and suffering." +Aurelius compelled the gladiators to fight with blunted swords. +Roman lawyers declared that all men are by nature free and equal. +Woman, under Pagan rule in Rome, became as free as man. Zeno, long +before the birth of Christ, taught that virtue alone establishes a +difference between men. We know that the Civil Law is the +foundation of our codes. We know that fragments of Greek and Roman +art—a few manuscripts saved from Christian destruction, some +inventions and discoveries of the Moors—were the seeds of +modern civilization. Christianity, for a thousand years, taught +memory to forget and reason to believe. Not one step was taken in +advance. Over the manuscripts of philosophers and poets, priests +with their ignorant tongues thrust out, devoutly scrawled the +forgeries of faith. For a thousand years the torch of progress was +extinguished in the blood of Christ, and his disciples, moved by +ignorant zeal, by insane, cruel creeds, destroyed with flame and +sword a hundred millions of their fellow-men. They made this world +a hell. But if cathedrals had been universities—if dungeons +of the Inquisition had been laboratories—if Christians had +believed in character instead of creed—if they had taken from +the Bible all the good and thrown away the wicked and +absurd—if domes of temples had been observatories—if +priests had been philosophers—if missionaries had taught the +useful arts—if astrology had been astronomy—if the +black art had been chemistry—if superstition had been +science—if religion had been humanity—it' would have +been a heaven filled with love, with liberty, and joy.</p> +<p>We did not get our freedom from the church. The great truth, +that all men are by nature free, was never told on Sinai's barren +crags, nor by the lonely shores of Galilee.</p> +<p>The Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and crime, and +the New gives us a future filled with pain for nearly all the sons +of men. The Old describes the hell of the past, and the New the +hell of the future. The Old tells us the frightful things that God +has done—the New the cruel things that he will do. These two +books give us the sufferings of the past and future—the +injustice, the agony, the tears of both worlds. If the Bible is +true—if Jehovah is God—if the lot of countless millions +is to be eternal pain—better a thousand times that all the +constellations of the shoreless vast were eyeless darkness and +eternal space. Better that all that is should cease to be. Better +that all the seeds and springs of things should fail and wither +from great Nature's realm. Better that causes and effects should +lose relation and become unmeaning phrases and forgotten sounds. +Better that every life should change to breathless death, to +voiceless blank, and every world to blind oblivion and to moveless +naught.</p> +<p>Mr. Black justifies all the crimes and horrors, excuses all the +tortures of all the Christian years, by denouncing the cruelties of +the French Revolution. Thinking people will not hasten to admit +that an infinitely good being authorized slavery in Judea, because +of the atrocities of the French Revolution. They will remember the +sufferings of the Huguenots. They will remember the massacre of St. +Bartholomew. They will not forget the countless cruelties of priest +and king. They will not forget the dungeons of the Bastile. They +will know that the Revolution was an effect, and that liberty was +not the cause—that atheism was not the cause. Behind the +Revolution they will see altar and throne—sword and +fagot—palace and cathedral—king and priest—master +and slave—tyrant and hypocrite. They will see that the +excesses, the cruelties, and crimes were but the natural fruit of +seeds the church had sown. But the Revolution was not entirely +evil. Upon that cloud of war, black with the myriad miseries of a +thousand years, dabbled with blood of king and queen, of patriot +and priest, there was this bow: "Beneath the flag of France all men +are free." In spite of all the blood and crime, in spite of deeds +that seem insanely base, the People placed upon a Nation's brow +these stars:—Liberty, Fraternity, Equality—grander +words than ever issued from Jehovah's lips.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FAITH OR AGNOSTICISM.</h2> +<h3>[Ingersoll-Field.]</h3> +<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION.</h2> +<h3>An Open Letter to Robert G. Ingersoll.</h3> +<p>Dear Sir: I am glad that I know you, even though some of my +brethren look upon you as a monster because of your unbelief. I +shall never forget the long evening I spent at your house in +Washington; and in what I have to say, however it may fail to +convince you, I trust you will feel that I have not shown myself +unworthy of your courtesy or confidence.</p> +<p>Your conversation, then and at other times, interested me +greatly. I recognized at once the elements of your power over large +audiences, in your wit and dramatic talent—personating +characters and imitating tones of voice and expressions of +countenance—and your remarkable use of language, which even +in familiar talk often rose to a high degree of eloquence. All this +was a keen intellectual stimulus. I was, for the most part, a +listener; but as we talked freely of religious matters, I protested +against your unbelief as utterly without reason. Yet there was no +offence given or taken, and we parted, I trust, with a feeling of +mutual respect.</p> +<p>Still further, we found many points of sympathy. I do not +hesitate to say that there are many things in which I agree with +you, in which I love what you love and hate what you hate. A man's +hatreds are not the least important part of him; they are among the +best indications of his character. You love truth, and hate lying +and hypocrisy—all the petty arts and deceits of the world by +which men represent themselves to be other than they are—as +well as the pride and arrogance, in which they assume superiority +over their fellow-beings. Above all, you hate every form of +injustice and oppression. Nothing moves your indignation so much as +"man's inhumanity to man," and you mutter "curses, not loud but +deep," on the whole race of tyrants and oppressors, whom you would +sweep from the face of the earth. And yet, you do not hate +oppression more than I; nor love liberty more. Nor will I admit +that you have any stronger desire for that intellectual freedom, to +the attainment of which you look forward as the last and greatest +emancipation of mankind.</p> +<p>Nor have you a greater horror of superstition. Indeed, I might +say that you cannot have so great, for the best of all reasons, +that you have not seen so much of it; you have not stood on the +banks of the Ganges, and seen the Hindoos by tens of thousands +rushing madly to throw themselves into the sacred river, even +carrying the ashes of their dead to cast them upon the waters. It +seems but yesterday that I was sitting on the back of an elephant, +looking down on this horrible scene of human degradation. Such +superstition overthrows the very foundations of morality. In place +of the natural sense of right and wrong, which is written in men's +consciences and hearts, it introduces an artificial standard, by +which the order of things is totally reversed: right is made wrong, +and wrong is made right. It makes that a virtue which is not a +virtue, and that a crime which is not a crime. Religion consists in +a round of observances that have no relation whatever to natural +goodness, but which rather exclude it by being a substitute for it. +Penances and pilgrimages take the place of justice and mercy, +benevolence and charity. Such a religion, so far from being a +purifier, is the greatest corrupter of morals; so that it is no +extravagance to say of the Hindoos, who are a gentle race, that +they might be virtuous and good if they were not so religious. But +this colossal superstition weighs upon their very existence, +crushing out even natural virtue. Such a religion is an +immeasurable curse.</p> +<p>I hope this language is strong enough to satisfy even your own +intense hatred of superstition. You cannot loathe it more than I +do. So far we agree perfectly. But unfortunately you do not limit +your crusade to the religions of Asia, but turn the same style of +argument against the religion of Europe and America, and, indeed, +against the religious belief and worship of every country and +clime. In this matter you make no distinctions: you would sweep +them all away; church and cathedral must go with the temple and the +pagoda, as alike manifestations of human credulity, and proofs of +the intellectual feebleness and folly of mankind. While under the +impression of that memorable evening at your house, I took up some +of your public addresses, and experienced a strange revulsion of +feeling. I could hardly believe my eyes as I read, so inexpressibly +was I shocked. Things which I held sacred you not only rejected +with unbelief, but sneered at with contempt. Your words were full +of a bitterness so unlike anything I had heard from your lips, that +I could not reconcile the two, till I reflected that in Robert +Ingersoll (as in the most of us) there were two men, who were not +only distinct, but contrary the one to the other—the one +gentle and sweet-tempered; the other delighting in war as his +native element. Between the two, I have a decided preference for +the former. I have no dispute with the quiet and peaceable +gentleman, whose kindly spirit makes sunshine in his home; but it +is <i>that other man</i> over yonder, who comes forth into the +arena like a gladiator, defiant and belligerent, that rouses my +antagonism. And yet I do not intend to <i>stand up</i> even against +him; but if he will only <i>sit down</i> and listen patiently, and +answer in those soft tones of voice which he knows so well how to +use, we can have a quiet talk, which will certainly do him no harm, +while it relieves my troubled mind.</p> +<p>What then is the basis of this religion which you despise? At +the foundation of every form of religious faith and worship, is the +idea of God. Here you take your stand; you do not believe in God. +Of course you do not deny absolutely the existence of a Creative +Power: for that would be to assume a knowledge which no human being +can possess. How small is the distance that we can see before us! +The candle of our intelligence throws its beams but a little way, +beyond which the circle of light is compassed by universal +darkness. Upon this no one insists more than yourself. I have heard +you discourse upon the insignificance of man in a way to put many +preachers to shame. I remember your illustration from the myriads +of creatures that live on plants, from which you picked out, to +represent human insignificance, an insect too small to be seen by +the naked eye, whose world was a leaf, and whose life lasted but a +single day! Surely a creature that can only be seen with a +microscope, cannot <i>know</i> that a Creator does not exist!</p> +<p>This, I must do you the justice to say, you do not affirm. All +that you can say is, that if there be no knowledge on one side, +neither is there on the other; that it is only a matter of +probability; and that, judging from such evidence as appeals to +your senses and your understanding, you do not <i>believe</i> that +there is a God. Whether this be a reasonable conclusion or not, it +is at least an intelligible state of mind.</p> +<p>Now I am not going to argue against what the Catholics call +"invincible ignorance"—an incapacity on account of +temperament—for I hold that the belief in God, like the +belief in all spiritual things, comes to some minds by a kind of +intuition. There are natures so finely strung that they are +sensitive to influences which do not touch others. You may say that +it is mere poetical rhapsody when Shelley writes:</p> +<pre> + "The awful shadow of some unseen power, + Floats, though unseen, among us." +</pre> +<p>But there are natures which are not at all poetical or dreamy, +only most simple and pure, which, in moments of spiritual +exaltation, are almost <i>conscious</i> of a Presence that is not +of this world. But this, which is a matter of experience, will have +no weight with those who do not have that experience. For the +present, therefore, I would not be swayed one particle by mere +sentiment, but look at the question in the cold light of reason +alone.</p> +<p>The idea of God is, indeed, the grandest and most awful that can +be entertained by the human mind. Its very greatness overpowers us, +so that it seems impossible that such a Being should exist. But if +it is hard to conceive of Infinity, it is still harder to get any +intelligible explanation of the present order of things without +admitting the existence of an intelligent Creator and Upholder of +all. Galileo, when he swept the sky with his telescope, traced the +finger of God in every movement of the heavenly bodies. Napoleon, +when the French savants on the voyage to Egypt argued that there +was no God, disdained any other answer than to point upward to the +stars and ask, "Who made all these?" This is the first question, +and it is the last. The farther we go, the more we are forced to +one conclusion. No man ever studied nature with a more simple +desire to know the truth than Agassiz, and yet the more he +explored, the more he was startled as he found himself constantly +face to face with the evidences of mind.</p> +<p>Do you say this is "a great mystery," meaning that it is +something that we do not know anything about? Of course, it is "a +mystery." But do you think to escape mystery by denying the Divine +existence? You only exchange one mystery for another. The first of +all mysteries is, not that God exists, but that <i>we</i> exist. +Here we are. How did we come here? We go back to our ancestors; but +that does not take away the difficulty; it only removes it farther +off. Once begin to climb the stairway of past generations, and you +will find that it is a Jacob's ladder, on which you mount higher +and higher until you step into the very presence of the +Almighty.</p> +<p>But even if we know that there is a God, what can we know of His +character? You say, "God is whatever we conceive Him to be." We +frame an image of Deity out of our consciousness—it is simply +a reflection of our own personality, cast upon the sky like the +image seen in the Alps in certain states of the +atmosphere—and then fall down and worship that which we have +created, not indeed with our hands, but out of our minds. This may +be true to some extent of the gods of mythology, but not of the God +of Nature, who is as inflexible as Nature itself. You might as well +say that the laws of nature are whatever we imagine them to be. But +we do not go far before we find that, instead of being pliant to +our will, they are rigid and inexorable, and we dash ourselves +against them to our own destruction. So God does not bend to human +thought any more than to human will. The more we study Him the more +we find that He is <i>not</i> what we imagined him to be; that He +is far greater than any image of Him that we could frame.</p> +<p>But, after all, you rejoin that the conception of a Supreme +Being is merely an abstract idea, of no practical importance, with +no bearing upon human life. I answer, it is of immeasurable +importance. Let go the idea of God, and you have let go the highest +moral restraint. There is no Ruler above man; he is a law unto +himself—a law which is as impotent to produce order, and to +hold society together, as man is with his little hands to hold the +stars in their courses.</p> +<p>I know how you reason against the Divine existence from the +moral disorder of the world. The argument is one that takes strong +hold of the imagination, and may be used with tremendous effect. +You set forth in colors none too strong the injustice that prevails +in the relations of men to one another—the inequalities of +society; the haughtiness of the rich and the misery of the poor; +you draw lurid pictures of the vice and crime which run riot in the +great capitals which are the centres of civilization; and when you +have wound up your audience to the highest pitch, you ask, "How can +it be that there is a just God in heaven, who looks down upon the +earth and sees all this horrible confusion, and yet does not lift +His hand to avenge the innocent or punish the guilty?" To this I +will make but one answer: Does it convince yourself? I do not mean +to imply that you are conscious of insincerity. But an orator is +sometimes carried away by his own eloquence, and states things more +strongly than he would in his cooler moments. So I venture to ask: +With all your tendency to skepticism, do you really believe that +there is no moral government of the world—no Power behind +nature "making for righteousness?" Are there no retributions in +history? When Lincoln stood on the field of Gettysburg, so lately +drenched with blood, and, reviewing the carnage of that terrible +day, accepted it as the punishment of our national sins, was it a +mere theatrical flourish in him to lift his hand to heaven, and +exclaim, "Just and true are Thy ways, Lord God Almighty!"</p> +<p>Having settled it to your own satisfaction that there is no God, +you proceed in the same easy way to dispose of that other belief +which lies at the foundation of all religion—the immortality +of the soul. With an air of modesty and diffidence that would carry +an audience by storm, you confess your ignorance of what, perhaps, +others are better acquainted with, when you say, "This world is all +that <i>I</i> know anything about, <i>so far as I recollect</i>." +This is very wittily put, and some may suppose it contains an +argument; but do you really mean to say that you do not <i>know</i> +anything except what you "recollect," or what you have seen with +your eyes? Perhaps you never saw your grandparents; but have you +any more doubt of their existence than of that of your father and +mother whom you did see?</p> +<p>Here, as when you speak of the existence of God, you carefully +avoid any positive affirmation: you neither affirm nor deny. You +are ready for whatever may "turn up." In your jaunty style, if you +find yourself hereafter in some new and unexpected situation, you +will accept it and make the best of it, and be "as ready as the +next man to enter on any remunerative occupation!"</p> +<p>But while airing this pleasant fancy, you plainly regard the +hope of another life as a beggar's dream—the momentary +illusion of one who, stumbling along life's highway, sets him down +by the roadside, footsore and weary, cold and hungry, and falls +asleep, and dreams of a time when he shall have riches and plenty. +Poor creature! let him dream; it helps him to forget his misery, +and may give him a little courage for his rude awaking to the hard +reality of life. But it is all a dream, which dissolves in thin +air, and floats away and disappears. This illustration I do not +take from you, but simply choose to set forth what (as I infer from +the sentences above quoted and many like expressions) may describe, +not unfairly, your state of mind. Your treatment of the subject is +one of trifling. You do not speak of it in a serious way, but +lightly and flippantly, as if it were all a matter of fancy and +conjecture, and not worthy of sober consideration.</p> +<p>Now, does it never occur to you that there is something very +cruel in this treatment of the belief of your fellow-creatures, on +whose hope of another life hangs all that relieves the darkness of +their present existence? To many of them life is a burden to carry, +and they need all the helps to carry it that can be found in +reason, in philosophy, or in religion. But what support does your +hollow creed supply? You are a man of warm heart, of the tenderest +sympathies. Those who know you best, and love you most, tell me +that you cannot bear the sight of suffering even in animals; that +your natural sensibility is such that you find no pleasure in +sports, in hunting or fishing; to shoot a robin would make you feel +like a murderer. If you see a poor man in trouble your first +impulse is to help him. You cannot see a child in tears but you +want to take up the little fellow in your arms, and make him smile +again. And yet, with all your sensibility, you hold the most +remorseless and pitiless creed in the world—a creed in which +there is not a gleam of mercy or of hope. A mother has lost her +only son. She goes to his grave and throws herself upon it, the +very picture of woe. One thought only keeps her from despair: it is +that beyond this life there is a world where she may once more +clasp her boy in her arms. What will you say to that mother? You +are silent, and your silence is a sentence of death to her hopes. +By that grave you cannot speak; for if you were to open your lips +and tell that mother what you really believe, it would be that her +son is blotted out of existence, and that she can never look upon +his face again. Thus with your iron heel do you trample down and +crush the last hope of a broken heart.</p> +<p>When such sorrow comes to you, you feel it as keenly as any man. +With your strong domestic attachments one cannot pass out of your +little circle without leaving a great void in your heart, and your +grief is as eloquent as it is hopeless. No sadder words ever fell +from human lips than these, spoken over the coffin of one to whom +you were tenderly attached: "Life is but a narrow vale, between the +cold and barren peaks of two eternities!" This is a doom of +annihilation, which strikes a chill to the stoutest heart. Even you +must envy the faith which, as it looks upward, sees those "peaks of +two eternities," not "cold and barren," but warm with the glow of +the setting sun, which gives promise of a happier to-morrow!</p> +<p>I think I hear you say, "So might it be! Would that I could +believe it!" for no one recognizes more the emptiness of life as it +is. I do not forget the tone in which you said: "Life is very sad +to me; it is very pitiful; there isn't much to it." True indeed! +With your belief, or want of belief, there is very little to it; +and if this were all, it would be a fair question whether life were +worth living. In the name of humanity, let us cling to all that is +left us that can bring a ray of hope into its darkness, and thus +lighten its otherwise impenetrable gloom.</p> +<p>I observe that you not unfrequently entertain yourself and your +audiences by caricaturing certain doctrines of the Christian +religion. The "Atonement," as you look upon it, is simply +"punishing the wrong man"—letting the guilty escape and +putting the innocent to death. This is vindicating justice by +permitting injustice. But is there not another side to this? Does +not the idea of sacrifice run through human life, and ennoble human +character? You see a mother denying herself for her children, +foregoing every comfort, enduring every hardship, till at last, +worn out by her labor and her privation, she folds her hands upon +her breast. May it not be said truly that she gives her life for +the life of her children? History is full of sacrifice, and it is +the best part of history. I will not speak of "the noble army of +martyrs," but of heroes who have died for their country or for +liberty—what is it but this element of devotion for the good +of others that gives such glory to their immortal names? How then +should it be thought a thing without reason that a Deliverer of the +race should give His life for the life of the world?</p> +<p>So, too, you find a subject for caricature in the doctrine of +"Regeneration." But what is regeneration but a change of character +shown in a change of life? Is that so very absurd? Have you never +seen a drunkard reformed? Have you never seen a man of impure life, +who, after running his evil course, had, like the prodigal, "come +to himself"—that is, awakened to his shame, and turning from +it, come back to the path of purity, and finally regained a true +and noble manhood? Probably you would admit this, but say that the +change was the result of reflection, and of the man's own strength +of will. The doctrine of regeneration only adds to the will of man +the power of God. We believe that man is weak, but that God is +mighty; and that when man tries to raise himself, an arm is +stretched out to lift him up to a height which he could not attain +alone. Sometimes one who has led the worst life, after being +plunged into such remorse and despair that he feels as if he were +enduring the agonies of hell, turns back and takes another course: +he becomes "a new creature," whom his friends can hardly recognize +as he "sits clothed and in his right mind." The change is from +darkness to light, from death to life; and he who has known but one +such case will never say that the language is too strong which +describes that man as "born again."</p> +<p>If you think that I pass lightly over these doctrines, not +bringing out all the meaning which they bear, I admit it. I am not +writing an essay in theology, but would only show, in passing, by +your favorite method of illustration, that the principles involved +are the same with which you are familiar in everyday life.</p> +<p>But the doctrine which excites your bitterest animosity is that +of Future Retribution. The prospect of another life, reaching on +into an unknown futurity, you would contemplate with composure were +it not for the dark shadow hanging over it. But to live only to +suffer; to live when asking to die; to "long for death, and not be +able to find it"—is a prospect which arouses the anger of one +who would look with calmness upon death as an eternal sleep. The +doctrine loses none of its terrors in passing through your hands; +for it is one of the means by which you work upon the feelings of +your hearers. You pronounce it "the most horrible belief that ever +entered the human mind: that the Creator should bring beings into +existence to destroy them! This would make Him the most fearful +tyrant in the universe—a Moloch devouring his own children!" +I shudder when I recall the fierce energy with which you spoke as +you said, "Such a God I hate with all the intensity of my +being!"</p> +<p>But gently, gently, Sir! We will let this burst of fury pass +before we resume the conversation. When you are a little more +tranquil, I would modestly suggest that perhaps you are fighting a +figment of your imagination. I never heard of any Christian teacher +who said that "the Creator brought beings into the world to destroy +them!" Is it not better to moderate yourself to exact statements, +especially when, with all modifications, the subject is one to +awaken a feeling the most solemn and profound?</p> +<p>Now I am not going to enter into a discussion of this doctrine. +I will not quote a single text. I only ask you whether it is not a +scientific truth that <i>the effect of everything which is of the +nature of a cause is eternal</i>. Science has opened our eyes to +some very strange facts in nature. The theory of vibrations is +carried by the physicists to an alarming extent. They tell us that +it is literally and mathematically true that you cannot throw a +ball in the air but it shakes the solar system. Thus all things act +upon all. What is true in space may be true in time, and the law of +physics may hold in the spiritual realm. When the soul of man +departs out of the body, being released from the grossness of the +flesh, it may enter on a life a thousand times more intense than +this: in which it will not need the dull senses as avenues of +knowledge, because the spirit itself will be all eye, all ear, all +intelligence; while memory, like an electric flash, will in an +instant bring the whole of the past into view; and the moral sense +will be quickened as never before. Here then we have all the +conditions of retribution—a world which, however shadowy it +may be seem, is yet as real as the homes and habitations and +activities of our present state; with memory trailing the deeds of +a lifetime behind it, and conscience, more inexorable than any +judge, giving its solemn and final verdict.</p> +<p>With such conditions assumed, let us take a case which would +awaken your just indignation—that of a selfish, hardhearted, +and cruel man; who sacrifices the interests of everybody to his +own; who grinds the faces of the poor, robbing the widow and the +orphan of their little all; and who, so far from making +restitution, dies with his ill-gotten gains held fast in his +clenched hand. How long must the night be to sleep away the memory +of such a hideous life? If he wakes, will not the recollection +cling to him still? Are there any waters of oblivion that can +cleanse his miserable soul? If not—if he cannot +forget—surely he cannot forgive himself for the baseness +which now he has no opportunity to repair. Here, then, is a +retribution which is inseparable from his being, which is a part of +his very existence. The undying memory brings the undying pain.</p> +<p>Take another case—alas! too sadly frequent. A man of +pleasure betrays a young, innocent, trusting woman by the promise +of his love, and then casts her off, leaving her to sink down, +down, through every degree of misery and shame, till she is lost in +depths, which plummet never sounded, and disappears. Is he not to +suffer for this poor creature's ruin? Can he rid himself of it by +fleeing beyond "that bourne from whence no traveler returns"? Not +unless he can flee from himself: for in the lowest depths of the +under-world—a world in which the sun never shines—that +image will still pursue him. As he wanders in its gloomy shades a +pale form glides by him like an affrighted ghost. The face is the +same, beautiful even in its sorrow, but with a look upon it as of +one who has already suffered an eternity of woe. In an instant all +the past comes back again. He sees the young, unblessed mother +wandering in some lonely place, that only the heavens may witness +her agony and her despair. There he sees her holding up in her arms +the babe that had no right to be born, and calling upon God to +judge her betrayer. How far in the future must he travel to forget +that look? Is there any escape except by plunging into the gulf of +annihilation?</p> +<p>Thus far in this paper I have taken a tone of defence. But I do +not admit that the Christian religion needs any apology,—it +needs only to be rightly understood to furnish its own complete +vindication. Instead of considering its "evidences," which is but +going round the outer walls, let us enter the gates of the temple +and see what is within. Here we find something better than "towers +and bulwarks" in the character of Him who is the Founder of our +Religion, and not its Founder only but its very core and being. +Christ is Christianity. Not only is He the Great Teacher, but the +central subject of what He taught, so that the whole stands or +falls with Him.</p> +<p>In our first conversation, I observed that, with all your sharp +comments on things sacred, you professed great respect for the +ethics of Christianity, and for its author. "Make the Sermon on the +Mount your religion," you said, "and there I am with you." Very +well! So far, so good. And now, if you will go a little further, +you may find still more food for reflection.</p> +<p>All who have made a study of the character and teachings of +Christ, even those who utterly deny the supernatural, stand in awe +and wonder before the gigantic figure which is here revealed. Renan +closes his "Life of Jesus" with this as the result of his long +study: "Jesus will never be surpassed. His worship will be renewed +without ceasing; his story [légende] will draw tears from +beautiful eyes without end; his sufferings will touch the finest +natures; all the ages will proclaim</p> +<center>THAT AMONG THE SONS OF MEN THERE HAS NOT RISEN A GREATER +THAN JESUS;"</center> +<p>while Rousseau closes his immortal eulogy by saying, "Socrates +died like a philosopher, but Jesus Christ like a God!"</p> +<p>Here is an argument for Christianity to which I pray you to +address yourself. As you do not believe in miracles, and are ready +to explain everything by natural causes, I beg you to tell us how +came it to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born among the hills of +Judea, had a wisdom above that of Socrates or Plato, of Confucius +or Buddha? This is the greatest of miracles, that such a Being has +lived and died on the earth.</p> +<p>Since this is the chief argument for Religion, does it not +become one who undertakes to destroy it to set himself first to +this central position, instead of wasting his time on mere +outposts? When you next address one of the great audiences that +hang upon your words, is it unfair to ask that you lay aside such +familiar topics as Miracles or Ghosts, or a reply to Talmage, and +tell us what you think of Jesus Christ; whether you look upon Him +as an impostor, or merely as a dreamer—a mild and harmless +enthusiast; or are you ready to acknowledge that He is entitled to +rank among the great teachers of mankind?</p> +<p>But if you are compelled to admit the greatness of Christ, you +take your revenge on the Apostles, whom you do not hesitate to say +that you "don't think much of." In fact, you set them down in a +most peremptory way as "a poor lot." It did seem rather an +unpromising "lot," that of a boat-load of fishermen, from which to +choose the apostles of a religion—almost as unpromising as it +was to take a rail-splitter to be the head of a nation in the +greatest crisis of its history! But perhaps in both cases there was +a wisdom higher than ours, that chose better than we. It might +puzzle even you to give a better definition of religion than this +of the Apostle James: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and +the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their +affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world," or to +find among those sages of antiquity, with whose writings you are +familiar, a more complete and perfect delineation of that which is +the essence of all goodness and virtue, than Paul's description of +the charity which "suffereth long and is kind;" or to find in the +sayings of Confucius or of Buddha anything more sublime than this +aphorism of John: "God is love, and he that dwelleth in love +dwelleth in God, and God in him."</p> +<p>And here you must allow me to make a remark, which is not +intended as a personal retort, but simply in the interest of that +truth which we both profess to seek, and to count worth more than +victory. Your language is too sweeping to indicate the careful +thinker, who measures his words and weighs them in a balance. Your +lectures remind me of the pictures of Gustave Doré, who +preferred to paint on a large canvas, with figures as gigantesque +as those of Michael Angelo in his Last Judgment. The effect is very +powerful, but if he had softened his colors a little,—if +there were a few delicate touches, a mingling of light and shade, +as when twilight is stealing over the earth,—the landscape +would be more true to nature. So, believe me, your words would be +more weighty if they were not so strong. But whenever you touch +upon religion you seem to lose control of yourself, and a +vindictive feeling takes possession of you, which causes you to see +things so distorted from their natural appearance that you cannot +help running into the broadest caricature. You swing your sentences +as the woodman swings his axe. Of course, this "slashing" style is +very effective before a popular audience, which does not care for +nice distinctions, or for evidence that has to be sifted and +weighed; but wants opinions off hand, and likes to have its +prejudices and hatreds echoed back in a ringing voice. This carries +the crowd, but does not convince the philosophic mind. The +truth-seeker cannot cut a road through the forest with sturdy +blows; he has a hidden path to trace, and must pick his way with +slow and cautious step to find that which is more precious than +gold.</p> +<p>But if it were possible for you to sweep away the "evidences of +Christianity," you have not swept away Christianity itself; it +still lives, not only in tradition, but in the hearts of the +people, entwined with all that is sweetest in their domestic life, +from which it must be torn out with unsparing hand before it can be +exterminated. To begin with, you turn your back upon history. All +that men have done and suffered for the sake of religion was folly. +The Pilgrims, who crossed the sea to find freedom to worship God in +the forests of the New World, were miserable fanatics. There is no +more place in the world for heroes and martyrs. He who sacrifices +his life for a faith, or an idea, is a fool. The only practical +wisdom is to have a sharp eye to the main chance. If you keep on in +this work of demolition, you will soon destroy all our ideals. +Family life withers under the cold sneer—half pity and half +scorn—with which you look down on household worship. Take +from our American firesides such scenes as that pictured in the +<i>Cotter's Saturday Night</i>, and you have taken from them their +most sacred hours and their tenderest memories.</p> +<p>The same destructive spirit which intrudes into our domestic as +well as our religious life, would take away the beauty of our +villages as well as the sweetness of our homes. In the weary round +of a week of toil, there comes an interval of rest; the laborer +lays down his burden, and for a few hours breathes a serener air. +The Sabbath morning has come:</p> +<pre> + "Sweet day I so cool, so calm, so bright, + The bridal of the earth and sky." +</pre> +<p>At the appointed hour the bell rings across the valley, and +sends its echoes among the hills; and from all the roads the people +come trooping to the village church. Here they gather, old and +young, rich and poor; and as they join in the same act of worship, +feel that God is the maker of them all? Is there in our national +life any influence more elevating than this—one which tends +more to bring a community together; to promote neighborly feeling; +to refine the manners of the people; to breed true courtesy, and +all that makes a Christian village different from a cluster of +Indian wigwams—a civilized community different from a tribe +of savages?</p> +<p>All this you would destroy: you would abolish the Sabbath, or +have it turned into a holiday; you would tear down the old church, +so full of tender associations of the living and the dead, or at +least have it "razeed," cutting off the tall spire that points +upward to heaven; and the interior you would turn into an Assembly +room—a place of entertainment, where the young people could +have their merry-makings, except perchance in the warm' +Summer-time, when they could dance on the village green! So far you +would have gained your object. But would that be a more orderly +community, more refined or more truly happy?</p> +<p>You may think this a mere sentiment—that we care more for +the picturesque than for the true. But there is one result which is +fearfully real: the destructive creed, or no creed, which despoils +our churches and our homes, attacks society in its first principles +by taking away the support of morality. I do not believe that +general morality can be upheld without the sanctions of religion. +There may be individuals of great natural force of character, who +can stand alone—men of superior intellect and strong will. +But in general human nature is weak, and virtue is not the +spontaneous growth of childish innocence. Men do not become pure +and good by instinct. Character, like mind, has to be developed by +education; and it needs all the elements of strength which can be +given it, from without as well as from within, from the government +of man and the government of God. To let go of these restraints is +a peril to public morality.</p> +<p>You feel strong in the strength of a robust manhood, well poised +in body and mind, and in the centre of a happy home, where loving +hearts cling to you like vines round the oak. But many to whom you +speak are quite otherwise. You address thousands of young men who +have come out of country homes, where they have been brought up in +the fear of God, and have heard the morning and evening prayer. +They come into a city full of temptations, but are restrained from +evil by the thought of father and mother, and reverence for Him who +is the Father of us all—a feeling which, though it may not +have taken the form of any profession, is yet at the bottom of +their hearts, and keeps them from many a wrong and wayward step. A +young man, who is thus "guarded and defended" as by unseen angels, +some evening when he feels very lonely, is invited to "go and hear +Ingersoll," and for a couple of hours listens to your caricatures +of religion, with descriptions of the prayers and the +psalm-singing, illustrated by devout grimaces and nasal tones, +which set the house in roars of laughter, and are received with +tumultuous applause. When it is all over, and the young man finds +himself again under the flaring lamps of the city streets, he is +conscious of a change; the faith of his childhood has been rudely +torn from him, and with it "a glory has passed away from the +earth;" the Bible which his mother gave him, the morning that he +came away, is "a mass of fables;" the sentence which she wished him +to hang on the wall, "Thou, God, seest me," has lost its power, for +there is no God that sees him, no moral government, no law and no +retribution. So he reasons as he walks slowly homeward, meeting the +temptations which haunt these streets at night—temptations +from which he has hitherto turned with a shudder, but which he now +meets with a diminished power of resistance. Have you done that +young man any good in taking from him what he held sacred before? +Have you not left him morally weakened? From sneering at religion, +it is but a step to sneering at morality, and then but one step +more to a vicious and profligate career. How are you going to stop +this downward tendency? When you have stripped him of former +restraints, do you leave him anything in their stead, except indeed +a sense of honor, self-respect, and self-interest?—worthy +motives, no doubt, but all too feeble to withstand the fearful +temptations that assail him. Is the chance of his resistance as +good as it was before? Watch him as he goes along that street at +midnight! He passes by the places of evil resort, of drinking and +gambling—those open mouths of hell; he hears the sound of +music and dancing, and for the first time pauses to listen. How +long will it be before he will venture in?</p> +<p>With such dangers in his path, it is a grave responsibility to +loosen the restraints which hold such a young man to virtue. These +gibes and sneers which you utter so lightly, may have a sad echo in +a lost character and a wretched life. Many a young man has been +thus taunted until he has pushed off from the shore, under the idea +of gaining his "liberty," and ventured into the rapids, only to be +carried down the stream, and left a wreck in the whirlpool +below.</p> +<p>You tell me that your object is to drive fear out of the world. +That is a noble ambition; if you succeed, you will be indeed a +deliverer. Of course you mean only irrational fears. You would not +have men throw off the fear of violating the laws of nature; for +that would lead to incalculable misery. You aim only at the terrors +born of ignorance and superstition. But how are you going to get +rid of these? You trust to the progress of science, which has +dispelled so many fears arising from physical phenomena, by showing +that calamities ascribed to spiritual agencies are explained by +natural causes. But science can only go a certain way, beyond which +we come into the sphere of the unknown, where all is dark as +before. How can you relieve the fears of others—indeed how +can you rid yourself of fear, believing as you do that there is no +Power above which can help you in any extremity; that you are the +sport of accident, and may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency +of nature? If I believed this, I should feel that I was in the +grasp of some terrible machinery which was crushing me to atoms, +with no possibility of escape.</p> +<p>Not so does Religion leave man here on the earth, helpless and +hopeless—in abject terror, as he is in utter darkness as to +his fate—but opening the heaven above him, it discovers a +Great Intelligence, compassing all things, seeing the end from the +beginning, and ordering our little lives so that even the trials +that we bear, as they call out the finer elements of character, +conduce to our future happiness. God is our Father. We look up into +His face with childlike confidence, and find that "His service is +perfect freedom." "Love casts out fear." That, I beg to assure you, +is the way, and the only way, by which man can be delivered from +those fears by which he is all his lifetime subject to bondage.</p> +<p>In your attacks upon Religion you do violence to your own +manliness. Knowing you as I do, I feel sure that you do not realize +where your blows fall, or whom they wound, or you would not use +your weapons so freely. The faiths of men are as sacred as the most +delicate manly or womanly sentiments of love and honor. They are +dear as the beloved faces that have passed from our sight. I should +think myself wanting in respect to the memory of my father and +mother if I could speak lightly of the faith in which they lived +and died. Surely this must be mere thoughtlessness, for I cannot +believe that you find pleasure in giving pain. I have not forgotten +the gentle hand that was laid upon your shoulder, and the gentle +voice which said, "Uncle Robert wouldn't hurt a fly." And yet you +bruise the tenderest sensibilities, and trample down what is most +cherished by millions of sisters and daughters and mothers, little +heeding that you are sporting with "human creatures' lives."</p> +<p>You are waging a hopeless war—a war in which you are +certain only of defeat. The Christian Religion began to be nearly +two thousand years before you and I were born, and it will live two +thousand years after we are dead. Why is it that it lives on and +on, while nations and kingdoms perish? Is not this "the survival of +the fittest?" Contend against it with all your wit and eloquence, +you will fail, as all have failed before you. You cannot fight +against the instincts of humanity. It is as natural for men to look +up to a Higher Power as it is to look up to the stars. Tell them +that there is no God! You might as well tell them that there is no +Sun in heaven, even while on that central light and heat all life +on earth depends.</p> +<p>I do not presume to, think that I have convinced you, or changed +your opinion; but it is always right to appeal to a man's "sober +second thought"—to that better judgment that comes with +increasing knowledge and advancing years; and I will not give up +hope that you will yet see things more clearly, and recognize the +mistake you have made in not distinguishing Religion from +Superstition—two things as far apart as "the hither from the +utmost pole." Superstition is the greatest enemy of Religion. It is +the nightmare of the mind, filling it with all imaginable +terrors—a black cloud which broods over half the world. +Against this you may well invoke the light of science to scatter +its darkness. Whoever helps to sweep it away, is a benefactor of +his race. But when this is done, and the moral atmosphere is made +pure and sweet, then you as well as we may be conscious of a new +Presence coming into the hushed and vacant air, as Religion, +daughter of the skies, descends to earth to bring peace and good +will to men.</p> +<p>Henry M. Field.</p> +<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE REV. HENRY M. FIELD, D.D.</h2> +<pre> + "Doubt is called the beacon of the wise." +</pre> +<p>My Dear Mr. Field:</p> +<p>I answer your letter because it is manly, candid and generous. +It is not often that a minister of the gospel of universal +benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in terms of reproach, +contempt and hatred. The meek are often malicious. The statement in +your letter, that some of your brethren look upon me as a monster +on account of my unbelief, tends to show that those who love God +are not always the friends of their fellow-men.</p> +<p>Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be +eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and +that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arrogantly +egotistic as to look upon others as "monsters"? And yet "some of +your brethren," who regard unbelievers as infamous, rely for +salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect to +receive as alms an eternity of joy.</p> +<p>The first question that arises between us, is as to the +innocence of honest error—as to the right to express an +honest thought.</p> +<p>You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many important +subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the advocates of +protection. There are honest Democrats and sincere Republicans. How +do you account for these differences? Educated men, presidents of +colleges, cannot agree upon questions capable of +solution—questions that the mind can grasp, concerning which +the evidence is open to all and where the facts can be with +accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this? If such differences +can exist consistently with the good faith of those who differ, can +you not conceive of honest people entertaining different views on +subjects about which nothing can be positively known?</p> +<p>You do not regard me as a monster. "Some of your brethren" do. +How do you account for this difference? Of course, your +brethren—their hearts having been softened by the +Presbyterian God—are governed by charity and love. They do +not regard me as a monster because I have committed an infamous +crime, but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest +thoughts.</p> +<p>What should I have done? I have read the Bible with great care, +and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only that it +is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to speak +or act contrary to this conclusion? Was it my duty to remain +silent? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined the +majority,—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word +of God,—would your brethren still have regarded me as a +monster? Has religion had control of the world so long that an +honest man seems monstrous?</p> +<p>According to your creed—according to your Bible—the +same Being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and +sowed within those wondrous fields the seeds of every thought and +deed, inspired the Bible's every word, and gave it as a guide to +all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the brain. And yet, +there are millions who do not believe in the inspiration of the +Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best have held the claim of +inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian ever stood higher in the +realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar with Nature from +sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries and +conclusions, "more precious than the tested gold," to all mankind. +Yet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied +the existence of their God. Certainly, Charles Darwin was one of +the greatest and purest of men,—as free from prejudice as the +mariner's compass,—desiring only to find amid the mists and +clouds of ignorance the star of truth. No man ever exerted a +greater influence on the intellectual world. His discoveries, +carried to their legitimate conclusion, destroy the creeds and +sacred Scriptures of mankind. In the light of "Natural Selection," +"The Survival of the Fittest," and "The Origin of Species," even +the Christian religion becomes a gross and cruel superstition. Yet +Darwin was an honest, thoughtful, brave and generous man.</p> +<p>Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with the +founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of Spinoza, the +loving pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and tell me, +candidly, which, in your opinion, was a "monster." Even your +brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished for +having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy, or +mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of the +earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular +hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and +yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same freedom +of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason is the +supreme and final test.</p> +<p>If God has made a revelation to man, it must have been addressed +to his reason. There is no other faculty that could even decipher +the address. I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a +flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless +night,—blown and flared by passion's storm,—and yet it +is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.</p> +<p>You draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call +"superstition" and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo mother +when she gives her child to death at the supposed command of her +God. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah? What is your +opinion of Jehovah himself? Is not the sacrifice of a child to a +phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India? Why should a God +demand a sacrifice from man? Why should the infinite ask anything +from the finite? Should the sun beg of the glow-worm, and should +the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light?</p> +<p>You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her child +will be forever blest—that it will become the especial care +of the God to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through a +false belief on the part of the mother. She breaks her heart for +the love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian mother +who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a convict in the +eternal prison—a prison in which none die, and from which +none escape? What do you say of those Christians who believe that +they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstasy that all the loved +of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred relations of +life, and all the passions of the heart, will fade and die, so that +they will look with stony, un-replying, happy eyes upon the +miseries of the lost?</p> +<p>You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be +distinguished from religion. It is this: "It makes that a crime +which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue." Let +us test your religion by this rule.</p> +<p>Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe? +Is it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and +is it infamous to express your honest thought? There is also +another question: Is credulity a virtue? Is the open mouth of +ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise?</p> +<p>According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and +those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you condemn +men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say, for +acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—do +you not make that a crime which is not a crime? And when you reward +men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that which happens +to be in accord with their minds, do you not make that a virtue +which is not a virtue? In other words, do you not bring your own +religion exactly within your own definition of superstition?</p> +<p>The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his +thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, +or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a +result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn +in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of being +honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The conclusion +is entirely independent of desire. We must believe, or we must +doubt, in spite of what we wish.</p> +<p>That which must be, has the right to be.</p> +<p>We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart +beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old +accustomed ways.</p> +<p>The question then is, not have we the right to think,—that +being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our +honest thoughts? You certainly have the right to express yours, and +you have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who regard me +as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question now is, have I +the right to express mine? In other words, have I the right to +answer your letter? To make that a crime in me which is a virtue in +you, certainly comes within your definition of superstition. To +exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is simply the act of +a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your honest +thoughts? When, and where, and how did I lose mine?</p> +<p>You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because I +differ with you on a subject about which neither of us knows +anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof of +the depravity of man. You are far better than your creed. You +believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing the frightful +feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw are legitimate +arguments, calculated to convince those upon whom they are used, +that the religion of those who use them was founded by a God of +infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now persecutes for +opinion's sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship will, +according to your creed, torture through all the endless years the +man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is the +foundation and cause of all religious persecution. You may reply +that only the belief in a false God causes believers to be inhuman. +But you must admit that the Jews believed in the true God, and you +are forced to say that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, +that they crucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This +crime was Committed, not in spite of their religion, but in +accordance with it. They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And +the followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, +have denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on +account of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of +their fellow-men for differing with them. And this same Sinless +Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for +the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At this +point absurdity becomes infinite.</p> +<p>Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making it +eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, +who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of death. And +this you call "a consolation."</p> +<p>You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea +of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those +entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are +not called upon to defend the Gods of the nations dead; nor the +Gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the +Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks +doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your +church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the +salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According +to your creed, man must believe in your God. All the nations dead +believed in gods, and all the worshipers of Zeus, and Jupiter, and +Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in vain. Their +petitions were not answered, and their souls were not saved. Surely +you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe in any one of the +heathen gods.</p> +<p>What right have you to occupy the position of the deists, and to +put forth arguments that even Christians have answered? The deist +denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and at the +same time lauded the God of Nature. The Christian replied that the +God of Nature was as cruel as the God of the Bible. This answer was +complete.</p> +<p>I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have +been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the +supernatural; and I freely give you the advantage of this +admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest, and +purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous +myths. Yet a belief in "the true God" does not seem to make men +charitable or just. For most people, theism is the easiest solution +of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that there must be +a Being who created and who governs the world. But the universality +of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The belief in the +existence of a malignant Devil has been as universal as the belief +in a beneficent God, yet few intelligent men will say that the +universality of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to +prove his existence. In the world of thought, majorities count for +nothing. Truth has always dwelt with the few.</p> +<p>Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has +been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and +hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man has +sacrificed his fellow-man. He has shed the blood of wife and child; +he has fasted and prayed; he has suffered beyond the power of +language to express, and yet he has received nothing from these +gods—they have heard no supplication, they have answered no +prayer.</p> +<p>You may reply that your God "sends his rain on the just and on +the unjust," and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all +alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just and +on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones +rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest and the +criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is cruel to all +alike? In other words, do they not demonstrate the absolute +impartiality of divine negligence?</p> +<p>Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence, +having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is +being done? Certainly there would be no droughts or floods; the +crops would not be permitted to wither and die, while rain was +being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good man with +power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones? Would you +not rather trust a wise and honest man with the lightning?</p> +<p>Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good +and preserve the vile? Why should he treat all alike here, and in +another world make an infinite difference? Why should your God +allow his worshipers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his enemies? +Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at +the stake? Can you answer these questions? Does it not seem to you +that your God must have felt a touch of shame when the poor slave +mother—one that had been robbed of her babe—knelt and +with clasped hands, in a voice broken with sobs, commenced her +prayer with the words "Our Father"?</p> +<p>It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed, +you are philosophical enough to say that some men are +incapacitated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the +existence of God. Now, if a belief in God is necessary to the +salvation of the soul, why should God create a soul without this +capacity? Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost? +You seem to think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, +in order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny +certain qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for +the atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you +quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being +he so passionately denied? Is it possible that Napoleon—one +of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely strung +that he was sensitive to the divine influences? Are you driven to +the necessity of proving the existence of one tyrant by the words +of another? Personally, I have but little confidence in a religion +that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his ambition, +filled half the world with widows and orphans. In regard to +Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast amount of +testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of Charles Darwin, +and then denied the correctness of these theories—preferring +the good opinions of Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause +of the intellectual world.</p> +<p>I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that +everything in nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no +way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the +crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constellations. +But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the universe by the +mystery of God, you do not even exchange mysteries—you simply +make one more.</p> +<p>Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.</p> +<p>The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God. +That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it +cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond +the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that man can be +convinced by any evidence of the existence of that which he cannot +in any measure comprehend. Such evidence would be equally +incomprehensible with the incomprehensible fact sought to be +established by it, and the intellect of man can grasp neither the +one nor the other.</p> +<p>You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your +God—is as inflexible as nature itself. Why should man worship +the inflexible? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable? You say +that your God "does not bend to human thought any more than to +human will," and that "the more we study him, the more we find that +he is not what we imagined him to be." So that, after all, the only +thing you are really certain of in relation to your God is, that he +is not what you think he is. Is it not almost absurd to insist that +such a state of mind is necessary to salvation, or that it is a +moral restraint, or that it is the foundation of social order?</p> +<p>The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the +cruelest and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the Popes +than under the Cæsars. Was there ever a barbarian nation more +savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century? Certainly you must +know that what you call religion has produced a thousand civil +wars, and has severed with the sword all the natural ties that +produce "the unity and married calm of States." Theology is the +fruitful mother of discord; order is the child of reason. If you +will candidly consider this question—if you will for a few +moments forget your preconceived opinions—you will instantly +see that the instinct of self-preservation holds society together. +Religion itself was born of this instinct. People, being ignorant, +believed that the Gods were jealous and revengeful. They peopled +space with phantoms that demanded worship and delighted in +sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms that could be flattered by praise +and changed by prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve +themselves. They supposed that they could in this way avoid +pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do +you not see that self-preservation lies at the foundation of +worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and protect themselves. +Nations, like individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for +the accomplishment of certain ends. Men defend their property +because it is of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men, as a +rule, desire to live, and for that reason murder is a crime. Fraud +is hateful to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce +the necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish +to retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the +instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of value. +This is the foundation of social order, and this holds society +together.</p> +<p>Religion has been the enemy of social order, because it directs +the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its +votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The +effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and States +together. Of what consequence is anything in this world compared +with eternal joy?</p> +<p>You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and that +God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in +other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by your +God, and that your God produces order, and establishes and +preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your God is +responsible for the government of this world. Does he preserve +order in Russia? Is he accountable for Siberia? Did he establish +the institution of slavery? Was he the founder of the +Inquisition?</p> +<p>You answer all these questions by calling my attention to "the +retributions of history." What are the retributions of history? The +honest were burned at the stake; the patriotic, the generous, and +the noble were allowed to die in dungeons; whole races were +enslaved; millions of mothers were robbed of their babes. What were +the retributions of history? They who committed these crimes wore +crowns, and they who justified these infamies were adorned with the +tiara.</p> +<p>You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg said: +"Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty." Something +like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he +says,—speaking of his hope that the war might soon be +ended,—"If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn +by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, still it +must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous +altogether.'" But admitting that you are correct in the assertion, +let me ask you one question: Could one standing over the body of +Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman's wound, have +truthfully said: "Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God +Almighty"?</p> +<p>Do you really believe that this world is governed by an +infinitely wise and good God? Have you convinced even yourself of +this? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice? Why should +the loving be tortured? Why should the noblest be destroyed? Why +should the world be filled with misery, with ignorance, and with +want? What reason have you for believing that your God will do +better in another world than he has done and is doing in this? Will +he be wiser? Will he have more power? Will he be more merciful?</p> +<p>When I say "your God," of course I mean the God described in the +Bible and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. But again I say, +that in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of the +existence of an infinite being.</p> +<p>An infinite being must be conditionless, and for that reason +there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any +possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being +so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an +infinite being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do nothing +for a being who wants nothing. A conditioned being can be made +happy, or miserable, by changing conditions, but the conditionless +is absolutely independent of cause and effect.</p> +<p>I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a +God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can +be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a being, and +that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an +infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe God as +"without body, parts, or passions." This, to my mind, is simply a +description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no experience with +gods. This world is the only one with which I am acquainted, and I +was surprised to find in your letter the expression that "perhaps +others are better acquainted with that of which I am so ignorant." +Did you, by this, intend to say that you know anything of any other +state of existence—that you have inhabited some other +planet—that you lived before you were born, and that you +recollect something of that other world, or of that other +state?</p> +<p>Upon the question of immortality you have done me, +unintentionally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I +have never uttered "a flippant or a trivial" word. I have said a +thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality, +that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its +countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and +rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, +nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will +continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and +darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death.</p> +<p>I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not +know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the +beginning, or end, of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, +or the folding forever of wings—the rise or the set of a sun, +or an endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one.</p> +<p>The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. +Thousands of years before Christ was born billions of people had +lived and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in +love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven of the New +Testament was to be in this world. The dead, after they were +raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word was said to +have been uttered by Christ—nothing philosophic, nothing +clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the cloud of +doubt.</p> +<p>According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead +for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did +not some one of his disciples ask him where he had been? Why did he +not tell them what world he had visited? There was the opportunity +to "bring life and immortality to light." And yet he was as silent +as the grave that he had left—speechless as the stone that +angels had rolled away.</p> +<p>How do you account for this? Was it not infinitely cruel to +leave the world in darkness and in doubt, when one word could have +filled all time with hope and light?</p> +<p>The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have +climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not +supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long as +men live and love and die, this hope will blossom in the human +heart.</p> +<p>All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope +and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look have I +expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those who hope to +live again—for those who bend above their dead and dream of +life to come. But I have denounced the selfishness and +heartlessness of those who expect for themselves an eternity of +joy, and for the rest of mankind predict, without a tear, a world +of endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible than such a +hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of +the human race.</p> +<p>When I say that I do not know—when I deny the existence of +perdition, you reply that "there is something very cruel in this +treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures."</p> +<p>You have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which a +mother bends and weeps for her only son. I accept your invitation. +We will go together. Do not, I pray you, deal in splendid +generalities. Be explicit. Remember that the son for whom the +loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer in the +inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The +mother turns to you for consolation, for some star of hope in the +midnight of her grief. What must you say? Do not desert the +Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus Christ. +What must you say? Will you read a portion of the Presbyterian +Confession of Faith? Will you read this?</p> +<p>"Although the light of Nature, and the works of creation and +Providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of +God as to leave man inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to +give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary to +salvation."</p> +<p>Or, will you read this?</p> +<p>"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some +men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others +foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus +predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably +designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it +cannot be either increased or diminished."</p> +<p>Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say: +"My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life for +me. Is there no hope for him?" Would you then put this serpent in +her breast?</p> +<p>"Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in +any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform +their lives according to the light of Nature. We cannot by our best +works merit pardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it +deserves damnation. Works done by unregenerate men, although, for +the matter of that, they may be things which God commands, and of +good use both to themselves and others, are sinful and cannot +please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God."</p> +<p>And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask: "What has +become of my son? Where is he now?" Would you still read from your +Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism—this?</p> +<p>"The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain +in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the +great day. At the last day the righteous shall come into +everlasting life, but the wicked shall be cast into eternal torment +and punished with everlasting destruction. The wicked shall be cast +into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torment, both of body +and soul, with the devil and his angels forever."</p> +<p>If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, +would you thrust this dagger in her heart?</p> +<p>"At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the +clouds, shall be seated at his right hand and there openly +acknowledged and acquitted, and you shall join with him in the +damnation of your son."</p> +<p>If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would +you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of +Christ?</p> +<p>"They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and they who +believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into +everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."</p> +<p>Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell +this mother that "there is but one name given under heaven and +among men whereby" the souls of men can enter the gates of +Paradise? Would you not be compelled to say: "Your son lived in a +Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach. He died +not having experienced a change of heart, and your son is forever +lost. You can meet your son again only by dying in your sins; but +if you will give your heart to God you can never clasp him to your +breast again."</p> +<p>What could I say? Let me tell you:</p> +<p>"My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of another +world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply stated to you +the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear. If there be in +this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you are. Why should +he have loved your son in life—loved him, according to this +reverend gentleman, to that degree that he gave his life for him; +and why should that love be changed to hatred the moment your son +was dead?</p> +<p>"My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no +rewards—there are consequences; and of one thing you may rest +assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere it may +inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing right.</p> +<p>"If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you +weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not +within the power of this reverend gentleman's God—that is +something. Your son does not suffer. Next to a life of joy is the +dreamless sleep of death."</p> +<p>Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox +Christianity "a consolation"? Here in this world, where every human +being is enshrouded in cloud and mist,—where all lives are +filled with mistakes,—where no one claims to be perfect, is +it "a consolation" to say that "the smallest sin deserves eternal +pain"? Is it possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from the +doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of "consolation"? If that +doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal? Why should +he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer forever? Why +did he not leave them unconscious dust? Compared with this crime, +any crime that man can by any possibility commit is a virtue.</p> +<p>Think for a moment of your God,—the keeper of an infinite +penitentiary filled with immortal convicts,—your God an +eternal turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of +this infinite horror, you complacently speak of the +atonement,—a scheme that has not yet gathered within its +horizon a billionth part of the human race,—an atonement with +one-half the world remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years +after it was made.</p> +<p>If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To +unjustly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God +accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of +the guilty?</p> +<p>According to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will, +makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong exist +in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man, and +to sentient beings. You have already admitted that "Nature is +inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences." I +insist that no God can step between an act and its natural effects. +If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment, nothing to do +with reward. From certain acts flow certain consequences; these +consequences increase or decrease the happiness of man; and the +consequences must be borne.</p> +<p>A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be +pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own +well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power. +The laws of the State are made, and, being made, can be changed; +but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation of +act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all power, and, +consequently, there is no analogy between the laws of the State and +the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not change the relation +between the diameter and circumference of the circle.</p> +<p>A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny the +right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of the +pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be to +suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in +Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end +that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all: +Nature cannot pardon.</p> +<p>You have recognized this truth. You have asked me what is to +become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with the +blood of his victim upon his hands? Without the slightest +hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another must, +to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if there +be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition must bear +the natural consequences of his offence. No man can be perfectly +happy, either in this world or in any other, who has by his perfidy +broken a loving and confiding heart. No power can step between acts +and consequences—no forgiveness, no atonement.</p> +<p>But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if you are +a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man may seduce +and betray, and that the poor victim, driven to insanity, leaping +from some wharf at night where ships strain at their anchors in +storm and darkness—you have taught that this poor girl may be +tormented forever by a God of infinite compassion. This is not all +that you have taught. You have said to the seducer, to the +betrayer, to the one who would not listen to her wailing +cry,—who would not even stretch forth his hand to catch her +fluttering garments,—you have said to him: "Believe in the +Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be happy forever; you shall live +in the realm of infinite delight, from which you can, without a +shadow falling upon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim, +writhing in the agonies of hell." You have taught this. For my +part, I do not see how an angel in heaven meeting another angel +whom he had robbed on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go +further. Any decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand +of God, should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave +heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of +the damned.</p> +<p>You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commencement of +your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—that he +bends not to human thought nor to human will. You seem to have +forgotten the line which you emphasized with italics: "<i>The +effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause, is +eternal</i>." In the light of this sentence, where do you find a +place for forgiveness—for your atonement? Where is a way to +escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not see +that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands? +The scientific part of your letter destroys the theological. You +have put "new wine into old bottles," and the predicted result has +followed. Will the angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose +their memory? Will not all the redeemed rascals remember their +rascality? Will not all the redeemed assassins remember the faces +of the dead? Will not all the seducers and betrayers remember her +sighs, her tears, and the tones of her voice, and will not the +conscience of the redeemed be as inexorable as the conscience of +the damned?</p> +<p>If memory is to be forever "the warder of the brain," and if the +redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain and +anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly happy; and if +the lost can never forget the good they did, the kind actions, the +loving words, the heroic deeds; and if the memory of good deeds +gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost can never be perfectly +miserable. Ought not the memory of a good action to live as long as +the memory of a bad one? So that the undying memory of the good, in +heaven, brings undying pain, and the undying memory of those in +hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done +good and bad, the future can have neither a perfect heaven nor a +perfect hell?</p> +<p>I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must bear +the consequences of his acts, and that no man can be justly saved +or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness of +another.</p> +<p>If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice, +the effects following a noble and disinterested action; if you mean +that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the +human race,—which your letter seems to show,—then there +is no question between us. If you have thrown away the old and +barbarous idea that a law had been broken, that God demanded a +sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered up for us, +and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our place, then I +congratulate you with all my heart.</p> +<p>It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous +to any one who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and +its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the globe, +so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men. According to your +creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here, the vicious +may reform; here, the wicked may repent; here, a few gleams of +sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in your future state, +for countless billions of the human race, there will be no reform, +no opportunity of doing right, and no possible gleam of sunshine +can ever touch their souls. Do you not see that your future state +is infinitely worse than this? You seem to mistake the glare of +hell for the light of morning.</p> +<p>Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us +"cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of +this life."</p> +<p>You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for +caricature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, +you mean reformation,—if you mean that there comes a time in +the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility, +and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, and concludes to +act like an honest man,—if this is what you mean by +regeneration, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of +regeneration in your creed—that is not Christian +regeneration. There is some mysterious, miraculous, supernatural, +invisible agency, called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters +and changes the heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like +the wind, under the control, apparently, of no one, coming and +going when and whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd +view of regeneration that I have attacked.</p> +<p>You ask me how it came to' pass that a Hebrew peasant, born +among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates or +Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying, "This is +the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live and +die on the earth."</p> +<p>I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that +Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter of +fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said +nothing against the institution of slavery; nothing against the +tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals; nothing +about education, about intellectual progress; nothing of art, +declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the rights and +duties of nations.</p> +<p>You may reply that all this is included in "Do unto others as +you would be done by;" and "Resist not evil." More than this is +necessary to educate the human race. It is not enough to say to +your child or to your pupil, "Do right." The great question still +remains: What is right? Neither is there any wisdom in the idea of +non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny. Mercy without force +is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue the right of self-defence +and vice becomes the master of the world.</p> +<p>Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of +camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of +hundreds of millions of human beings? How is it that he conquered +and overran more than half of the Christian world? How is it that +on a thousand fields the banner of the cross went down in blood, +while that of the crescent floated in triumph? How do you account +for the fact that the flag of this impostor floats to-day above the +sepulchre of Christ? Was this a miracle? Was Mohammed inspired? How +do you account for Confucius, whose name is known wherever the sky +bends? Was he inspired—this man who for many centuries has +stood first, and who has been acknowledged the superior of all men +by hundreds and thousands of millions of his fellow-men? How do you +account for Buddha,—in many respects the greatest religious +teacher this world has ever known,—the broadest, the most +intellectual of them all; he who was great enough, hundreds of +years before Christ was born, to declare the universal brotherhood +of man, great enough to say that intelligence is the only lever +capable of raising mankind? How do you account for him, who has had +more followers than any other? Are you willing to say that all +success is divine? How do you account for Shakespeare, born of +parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of +ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do +you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the +wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human thought; +Shakespeare, who was perfectly acquainted with the human heart, +knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and in whose mind +were the fruit of all thought, of all experience, and a prophecy of +all to be; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty and depth of whose +words increase with the intelligence and civilization of mankind? +How do you account for this miracle? Do you believe that any +founder of any religion could have written "Lear" or "Hamlet"? Did +Greece produce a man who could by any possibility have been the +author of "Troilus and Cressida"? Was there among all the countless +millions of almighty Rome an intellect that could have written the +tragedy of "Julius Cæsar"? Is not the play of "Antony and +Cleopatra" as Egyptian as the Nile? How do you account for this +man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of every race, +and in whose brain there were the poetry and philosophy of a +world?</p> +<p>You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here, once +for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the +darkness, cried out, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me!" +—for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let +me say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is +holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I gladly +pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in +his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theological mask, +and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a +great and genuine man.</p> +<p>It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course +pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness "the +religion of others." It did not occur to him that "there was +something very cruel in this treatment of the belief of his +fellow-creatures." He denounced the chosen people of God as a +"generation of vipers." He compared them to "whited sepulchres." +How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries? They go to other +lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They tell the people +of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their religion is +a lie, not only that their gods are myths, but that the ancestors +of these people—their fathers and mothers who never heard of +God, of the Bible, or of Christ—are all in perdition. Is not +this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature?</p> +<p>A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack +with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or +brain. A religion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries +out: "Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my +feelings," is fit only for asylums.</p> +<p>You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power. +While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the dead, +and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these things because he +loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to establish the +fact that he was the very Christ? If he was actuated by love, is he +not as powerful now as he was then? Why does he not open the eyes +of the blind now? Why does he not with a touch make the leper +clean? If you had the power to give sight to the blind, to cleanse +the leper, and would not exercise it, what would be thought of you? +What is the difference between one who can and will not cure, and +one who causes disease?</p> +<p>Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and +yet her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of +her body like morning on the desert. What would I think of myself, +had I the power by a word to send the blood through all her +withered limbs freighted again with life, should I refuse?</p> +<p>Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been +produced by and are really the children of religion.</p> +<p>Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties +and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct +by means of which happiness can be attained in another world. The +result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular. They have +nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and are of no kindred +to any religion. A man may be honest, courageous, charitable, +industrious, hospitable, loving and pure, without being +religious—that is to say, without any belief in the +supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same +time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is to +say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the +Scriptures and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes +in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a man who is +kind and loving in his family may or may not believe in the +Bible.</p> +<p>In order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation +of character, it is only necessary to call your attention to the +fact that your Bible shows that the devil himself is a believer in +the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the Scriptures, +and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these +things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains +a devil still.</p> +<p>Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural +goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of +superstition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in +the heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of +Christianity—or at least crimes that involved the commission +of all others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made +blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in the +slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship was +called "The Jehovah." Those who pursued with hounds the fugitive +led by the Northern star prayed fervently to Christ to crown their +efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just before +falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of the Most +High.</p> +<p>As you have mentioned the apostles, let me call your attention +to an incident.</p> +<p>You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The apostles, +having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of having all things +in common. Their followers who had something were to sell what +little they had, and turn the proceeds over to these theological +financiers. It seems that Ananias and Sapphira had a piece of land. +They sold it, and after talking the matter over, not being entirely +satisfied with the collaterals, concluded to keep a +little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good +and pious bankers should abscond.</p> +<p>When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had kept +back a part of the price. He said that he had not. Whereupon God, +the compassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the corpse was +removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They did not tell her that +her husband had been killed. They deliberately set a trap for her +life. Not one of them was good enough or noble enough to put her on +her guard; they allowed her to believe that her husband had told +his story, and that she was free to corroborate what he had said. +She probably felt that they were giving more than they could +afford, and, with the instinct of woman, wanted to keep a little. +She denied that any part of the price had been kept back. That +moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart.</p> +<p>Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles +in the light of this story? Certainly murder is a greater crime +than mendacity.</p> +<p>You have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give me +some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and that my +words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you really desire +that I should add weight to my words? Do you really wish me to +succeed? If the commander of one army should send word to the +general of the other that his men were firing too high, do you +think the general would be misled? Can you conceive of his changing +his orders by reason of the message?</p> +<p>I deny that "the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to +worship God in the forests of the new world." They came not in the +interest of freedom. It never entered their minds that other men +had the same right to worship God according to the dictates of +their consciences that the Pilgrims themselves had. The moment they +had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison and burn. +They did not believe in religious freedom. They had no more idea of +liberty of conscience than Jehovah.</p> +<p>I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and +martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have +was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these +martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or +assassinated by the church of God. The heroism was shown in +fighting the hordes of religious superstition.</p> +<p>Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed in no +God, in no heaven, and in no hell, yet he perished by fire. He was +offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There was no God +to please, no heaven to expect, no hell to fear, and yet he died by +fire, simply to preserve the unstained whiteness of his soul.</p> +<p>For hundreds of years every man who attacked the church was a +hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many centuries +with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been ready with +whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the earth.</p> +<p>Neither is it true that "family life withers under the cold +sneer—half pity and half scorn—with which I look down +on household worship."</p> +<p>Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they +are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in +this life, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have +my entire respect. Never have I said one word against the spirit of +thankfulness. I understand the feeling of the man who gathers his +family about him after the storm, or after the scourge, or after +long sickness, and pours out his heart in thankfulness to the +supposed God who has protected his fireside. I understand the +spirit of the savage who thanks his idol of stone, or his fetich of +wood. It is not the wisdom of the one or of the other that I +respect, it is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt the +prayer.</p> +<p>I believe in the family. I believe in family life; and one of my +objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this +subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the +roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, +cool clasp of earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom +to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its perfume to the air. +The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart +of fire, the fairest flower in all this world.</p> +<p>What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home? +What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorification +of celibacy done for the family? Do you not know that Christ +himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happiness in +another to those who would desert their wives and children and +follow him? What effect has that promise had upon family life?</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. +Christianity teaches that there is but one family, the family of +Christ, and that all other relations are as nothing compared with +that. Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife +to desert the husband, children to desert their parents, for the +miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shriveled +souls.</p> +<p>It is far better for a man to love his fellow-men than to love +God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ. It +is better to serve your neighbor than to serve your God—even +if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing for God. +You can do something for wife and children. You can add to the +sunshine of a life. You can plant flowers in the pathway of +another.</p> +<p>It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox Sabbath. It is +true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the +service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be +understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why should he waste a +seventh of his whole life in hearing the same thoughts repeated +again and again?</p> +<p>Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The mechanic +who has worked during the week in heat and dust, the laboring man +who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul in his body, the poor +woman who has been sewing for the rich, may go to the village +church which you have described. They answer the chimes of the +bell, and what do they hear in this village church? Is it that God +is the Father of the human race; is that all? If that were all, you +never would have heard an objection from my lips. That is not all. +If all ministers said: Bear the evils of this life; your Father in +heaven counts your tears; the time will come when pain and death +and grief will be forgotten words; I should have listened with the +rest. What else does the minister say to the poor people who have +answered the chimes of your bell? He says: "The smallest sin +deserves eternal pain." "A vast majority of men are doomed to +suffer the wrath of God forever." He fills the present with fear +and the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the +many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to heaven, +where travelers are "few and far between," and a great highway worn +with countless feet that leads to everlasting death.</p> +<p>Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real savages. +Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I turn it into +a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get acquainted with +your wife and children, a day to exchange civilities with your +neighbors; and gladly would I see the church in which such sermons +are preached changed to a place of entertainment. Gladly would I +have the echoes of orthodox sermons—the owls and bats among +the rafters, the snakes in crevices and corners—driven out by +the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the +Sunday school where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed +to a happy dance upon the village green.</p> +<p>Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades. +Science civilizes. Superstition looks longingly back to +savagery.</p> +<p>You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without +the sanctions of religion.</p> +<p>Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on a credit. +It has taught, and it still teaches, that there is forgiveness for +all. Of course it teaches morality. It says: "Do not steal, do not +murder;" but it adds, "but if you do both, there is a way of +escape: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." +I insist that such a religion is no restraint. It is far better to +teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every human being must +bear the consequences of his acts.</p> +<p>The first great step toward national reformation is the +universal acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the +consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their country +homes into a city filled with temptations, may be restrained by the +thought of father and mother. This is a natural restraint. They may +be restrained by their knowledge of the fact that a thing is evil +on account of its consequences, and that to do wrong is always a +mistake. I cannot conceive of such a man being more liable to +temptation because he has heard one of my lectures in which I have +told him that the only good is happiness—that the only way to +attain that good is by doing what he believes to be right. I cannot +imagine that his moral character will be weakened by the statement +that there is no escape from the consequences of his acts. You seem +to think that he will be instantly led astray—that he will go +off under the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. Do you think +the Bible calculated to restrain him? To prevent this would you +recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, +and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament? Should he read +the life of David, and of Solomon? Do you think this would enable +him to withstand temptation? Would it not be far better to fill the +young man's mind with facts so that he may know exactly the +physical consequences of such acts? Do you regard ignorance as the +foundation of virtue? Is fear the arch that supports the moral +nature of man?</p> +<p>You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that +the best chemists are most likely to poison themselves.</p> +<p>You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering +at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious +and profligate.</p> +<p>The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of +Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have +entertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say to +you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality +has nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the +supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles. +Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing +about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends upon +facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product of +which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no +mummery. It believes in the freedom of the human mind. It asks for +investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy of all +religion, because it has to do with this world, and with this world +alone.</p> +<p>My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the jailer +of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is to say, the +supernatural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a +convict. Under the government of a personal deity, consequences +partake of the nature of punishments and rewards.</p> +<p>Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments and +rewards are simply consequences. Nature does not punish. Nature +does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do +not think: "This is being done by a tyrant." When the sun shines, I +do not say: "This is being done by a friend." Liberty means freedom +from personal dictation. It does not mean escape from the relations +we sustain to other facts in Nature. I believe in the restraining +influences of liberty. Temperance walks hand in hand with freedom. +To remove a chain from the body puts an additional responsibility +upon the soul. Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit +yourself; you increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a +question of intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or +to infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those +you injure, and to none other.</p> +<p>I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power +above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do +that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any +extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or +that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature. There +is no accident, and there is no agency. That which happens must +happen. The present is the necessary child of all the past, the +mother of all the future.</p> +<p>Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some +God who will help them in extremity? What evidence have they on +which to found this belief? When has any God listened to the prayer +of any man? The water drowns, the cold freezes, the flood destroys, +the fire burns, the bolt of heaven falls—when and where has +the prayer of man been answered?</p> +<p>Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of +prayer? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United States. +The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their +knees and asked God to spare the life of one man. You know the +result. You know just as well as I that the forces of Nature +produce the good and bad alike. You know that the forces of Nature +destroy the good and bad alike. You know that the lightning feels +the same keen delight in striking to death the honest man that it +does or would in striking the assassin with his knife lifted above +the bosom of innocence.</p> +<p>Did God hear the prayers of the slaves? Did he hear the prayers +of imprisoned philosophers and patriots? Did he hear the prayers of +martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his followers, +to pile the fagots round the forms of glorious men? Did he allow +the flames to devour the flesh of those whose hearts were his? Why +should any man depend on the goodness of a God who created +countless millions, knowing that they would suffer eternal +grief?</p> +<p>The faith that you call sacred—"sacred as the most +delicate manly or womanly sentiment of love and honor"—is the +faith that nearly all of your fellow-men are to be lost. Ought an +honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith because +those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt? You say to +me: "There is a hell. A man advocating the opinions you advocate +will go there when he dies." I answer: "There is no hell. The Bible +that teaches it is not true." And you say: "How can you hurt my +feelings?"</p> +<p>You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his +parents is wanting in respect to his father and his mother.</p> +<p>Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers +and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless +sons and daughters? What have you to say of the apostles? Did they +not heap contempt upon the religion of their fathers and mothers? +Did they not join with him who denounced their people as a +"generation of vipers"? Did they not follow one who offered a +reward to those who would desert fathers and mothers? Of course you +have only to go back a few generations in your family to find a +Field who was not a Presbyterian. After that you find a +Presbyterian. Was he base enough and infamous enough to heap +contempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All the +Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the +religion of their fathers and mothers. According to your idea, +Progress is a Prodigal Son. If one is bound by the religion of his +father and mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and +his mother a Catholic, what is he to do? Do you not see that your +doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings?</p> +<p>If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of +forgiveness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, +and the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not +agree with you when you say that "Christ is Christianity and that +it stands or falls with him." You have narrowed unnecessarily the +foundation of your religion. If it should be established beyond +doubt that Christ never existed, all that is of value in +Christianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that we +should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as +mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who painted or +chiseled the greatest pictures and statues, so long as we have the +pictures and statues. When he who has given the world a truth +passes from the earth, the truth is left. A truth dies only when +forgotten by the human race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, +honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in the human heart, were +known and practiced for uncounted ages before the birth of +Christ.</p> +<p>You insist that religion does not leave man in "abject +terror"—does not leave him "in utter darkness as to his +fate."</p> +<p>Is it possible to know who will be saved? Can you read the names +mentioned in the decrees of the Infinite? Is it possible to tell +who is to be eternally lost? Can the imagination conceive a worse +fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the race? Why +should not every human being be in "abject terror" who believes +your doctrine? How many loving and sincere women are in the asylums +to-day fearing that they have committed "the unpardonable +sin"—a sin to which your God has attached the penalty of +eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe the offence? Can +tyranny go beyond this—fixing the penalty of eternal pain for +the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the +secrecy of infinite darkness? How much happier it is to know +nothing about it, and to believe nothing about it! How much better +to have no God!</p> +<p>You discover a "Great Intelligence ordering our little lives, so +that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer +elements of character, conduce to our future happiness." This is an +old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is, that +this world is a school in which man becomes educated through +tribulation—the muscles of character being developed by +wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this life in +order to develop character, in order to become worthy of a better +world, how do you account for the fact that billions of the human +race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this necessary +education and development? What would you think of a schoolmaster +who should kill a large proportion of his scholars during the first +day, before they had even had the opportunity to look at "A"?</p> +<p>You insist that "there is a power behind Nature making for +righteousness."</p> +<p>If Nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of +Nature? If you mean by "a power making for righteousness" that man, +as he becomes civilized, as he becomes intelligent, not only takes +advantage of the forces of Nature for his own benefit, but +perceives more and more clearly that if he is to be happy he must +live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony with +the facts by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the relations +he sustains to others and to things; if this is what you mean, then +there is "a power making for righteousness." But if you mean that +there is something supernatural back of Nature directing events, +then I insist that there can by no possibility be any evidence of +the existence of such a power.</p> +<p>The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall. +There is a limit to the life of a race; so that it can be said of +every dead nation, that there was a period when it laid the +foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and +virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteousness, +and that there came a time when this nation became a spendthrift, +when it ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the labors of its +youth, and passed from strength and glory to the weakness of old +age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb.</p> +<p>The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only +power that makes for righteousness.</p> +<p>You tell me that I am waging "a hopeless war," and you give as a +reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two thousand +years before I was born, and that it will live two thousand years +after I am dead.</p> +<p>Is this an argument? Does it tend to convince even yourself? +Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this +to Christ? Could he not have said: "The religion of Jehovah began +to be four thousand years before you were born, and it will live +two thousand years after you are dead"? Could not a follower of +Buddha make the same illogical remark to a missionary from Andover +with the glad tidings? Could he not say: "You are waging a hopeless +war. The religion of Buddha began to be twenty-five hundred years +before you were born, and hundreds of millions of people still +worship at Great Buddha's shrine"?</p> +<p>Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two +thousand years? Why is it that the Catholic Church "lives on and +on, while nations and kingdoms perish"? Do you consider that the +"survival of the fittest"?</p> +<p>Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during +the Middle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the +Inquisition and invented the thumbscrew? Do you see no difference +between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the +Christianity of to-day? Do you really think that it is the same +Christianity that has been living all these years? Have you noticed +any change in the last generation? Do you remember when scientists +endeavored to prove a theory by a passage from the Bible, and do +you now know that believers in the Bible are exceedingly anxious to +prove its truth by some fact that science has demonstrated? Do you +know that the standard has changed? Other things are not measured +by the Bible, but the Bible has to submit to another test. It no +longer owns the scales. It has to be weighed,—it is being +weighed,—it is growing lighter and lighter every day. Do you +know that only a few years ago "the glad tidings of great joy" +consisted mostly in a description of hell? Do you know that nearly +every intelligent minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to +read about it, or to talk about it? Is there any change? Do you +know that but few ministers now believe in the "plenary +inspiration" of the Bible, that from thousands of pulpits people +are now told that the creation according to Genesis is a mistake, +that it, never was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of +the Old Testament are considered simply as myths or mistakes?</p> +<p>How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes +as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last? What +will there be left of the supernatural?</p> +<p>It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many +years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the +Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld +polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to massacre +their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers to +persecute wives and daughters unto death for opinion's sake.</p> +<p>It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the +cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the +creator and preserver of the universe.</p> +<p>Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a +world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours and +is devoured? Can there be a sadder fact than this: Innocence is not +a certain shield?</p> +<p>It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of +punishment. If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.</p> +<p>Day after day there are mournful processions of men and women, +patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word +Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving lips, +driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. +These men, these women, these daughters, go to exile and to +slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death. Does it seem +possible to you that an "Infinite Father" sees all this and sits as +silent as a god of stone?</p> +<p>And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your +inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another +procession, in which are the noblest and the best, in which you +will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the +human race, the teachers of their fellow-men, the greatest soldiers +that ever battled for the right; and this procession of countless +millions, in which you will find the most generous and the most +loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on to the +Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony becomes +immortal.</p> +<p>How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this +infinite lie?</p> +<p>Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy? After +all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been +necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all +mistakes and all crimes, were simply necessities? Is it not +possible that out of this perception may come not only love and +pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual? May +we not find that every soul has, like Mazeppa, been lashed to the +wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus to the rocks of fate?</p> +<p>You ask me to take the "sober second thought." I beg of you to +take the first, and if you do, you will throw away the Presbyterian +creed; you will instantly perceive that he who commits the +"smallest sin" no more deserves eternal pain than he who does the +smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss; you will become +convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of men knowing +that they will suffer through all the countless years is an +infinite demon; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with its +philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is but +the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and cannot +exist.</p> +<p>For you personally, I have the highest regard and the sincerest +respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not +to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a creed that should +be shrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle as terrible as +the coffin. Preach, I pray you, the gospel of Intellectual +Hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take from +loving hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow-men. Do not +drive to madness the mothers whose tears are falling on the pallid +faces of those who died in unbelief. Pity the erring, wayward, +suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as "tidings of great joy" +that an Infinite Spider is weaving webs to catch the souls of +men.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A LAST WORD TO ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h2> +<h3>My Dear Colonel Ingersoll:</h3> +<p>I have read your Reply to my Open Letter half a dozen times, and +each time with new appreciation of your skill as an advocate. It is +written with great ingenuity, and furnishes probably as complete an +argument as you are able to give for the faith (or want of faith) +that is in you. Doubtless you think it unanswerable, and so it will +seem to those who are predisposed to your way of thinking. To quote +a homely saying of Mr. Lincoln, in which there is as much of wisdom +as of wit, "For those who like that sort of thing, no doubt that is +the sort of thing they do like." You may answer that we, who cling +to the faith of our fathers, are equally prejudiced, and that it is +for that reason that we are not more impressed by the force of your +pleading. I do not deny a strong leaning that way, and yet our real +interest is the same—to get at the truth; and, therefore, I +have tried to give due weight to whatever of argument there is in +the midst of so much eloquence; but must confess that, in spite of +all, I remain in the same obdurate frame of mind as before. With +all the candor that I can bring to bear upon the question, I find +on reviewing my Open Letter scarcely a sentence to change and +nothing to withdraw; and am quite willing to leave it as my +Declaration of Faith, to stand side by side with your Reply, for +intelligent and candid men to judge between us. I need only to add +a few words in taking leave of the subject.</p> +<p>You seem a little disturbed that "some of my brethren" should +look upon you as "a monster" because of your unbelief. I certainly +do not approve of such language, although they would tell me that +it is the only word which is a fit response to your ferocious +attacks upon what they hold most sacred. You are a born gladiator, +and when you descend into the arena, you strike heavy blows, which +provoke blows in return. In this very Reply you manifest a +particular animosity against Presbyterians. Is it because you were +brought up in that Church, of which your father, whom you regard +with filial respect and affection, was an honored minister? You +even speak of "the Presbyterian God!" as if we assumed to +appropriate the Supreme Being, claiming to be the special objects +of His favor. Is there any ground for this imputation of +narrowness? On the contrary, when we bow our knees before our +Maker, it is as the God and Father of all mankind; and the +expression you permit yourself to use, can only be regarded as +grossly offensive. Was it necessary to offer this rudeness to the +religious denomination in which you were born?</p> +<p>And this may explain, what you do not seem fully to understand, +why it is that you are sometimes treated to sharp epithets by the +religious press and public. You think yourself persecuted for your +opinions. But others hold the same opinions without offence. Nor is +it because you express your opinions. Nobody would deny you the +same freedom which is accorded to Huxley or Herbert Spencer. It is +not because you exercise your liberty of judgment or of speech, but +because of the way in which you attack others, holding up their +faith to all manner of ridicule, and speaking of those who profess +it as if they must be either knaves or fools. It is not in human +nature not to resent such imputations on that which, however +incredible to you, is very precious to them. Hence it is that they +think you a rough antagonist; and when you shock them by such +expressions as I have quoted, you must expect some pretty strong +language in return. I do not join them in this, because I know you, +and appreciate that other side of you which is manly and kindly and +chivalrous. But while I recognize these better qualities, I must +add in all frankness that I am compelled to look upon you as a man +so embittered against religion that you cannot think of it except +as associated with cant, bigotry, and hypocrisy. In such a state of +mind it is hardly possible for you to judge fairly of the arguments +for its truth.</p> +<p>I believe with you, that reason was given us to be exercised, +and that when man seeks after truth, his mind should be, as you say +Darwin's was, "as free from prejudice as the mariner's compass." +But if he is warped by passion so that he cannot see things truly, +then is he responsible. It is the moral element which alone makes +the responsibility. Nor do I believe that any man will be judged in +this world or the next for what does not involve a moral wrong. +Hence your appalling statement, "The God you worship will, +according to your creed, torture (!) through all the endless years +the man who entertains an honest doubt," does not produce the +effect intended, simply because I do not affirm nor believe any +such thing. I believe that, in the future world, every man will be +judged according to the deeds done in the body, and that the +judgment, whatever it may be, will be transparently just. God is +more merciful than man. He desireth not the death of the wicked. +Christ forgave, where men would condemn, and whatever be the fate +of any human soul, it can never be said that the Supreme Ruler was +wanting either in justice or mercy. This I emphasize because you +dwell so much upon the subject of future retribution, giving it an +attention so constant as to be almost exclusive. Whatever else you +touch upon, you soon come back to this as the black thunder-cloud +that darkens all the horizon, casting its mighty shadows over the +life that now is and that which is to come. Your denunciations of +this "inhuman" belief are so reiterated that one would be left to +infer that there is nothing else in Religion; that it is all wrath +and terror. But this is putting a part for the whole. Religion is a +vast system, of which this is but a single feature: it is but one +doctrine of many; and indeed some whom no one will deny to be +devout Christians, do not hold it at all, or only in a modified +form, while with all their hearts they accept and profess the +Religion that Christ came to bring into the world.</p> +<p>Archdeacon Farrar, of Westminster Abbey, the most eloquent +preacher in the Church of England, has written a book entitled +"Eternal Hope," in which he argues from reason and the Bible, that +this life is not "the be-all and end-all" of human probation; but +that in the world to come there will be another opportunity, when +countless millions, made wiser by unhappy experience, will turn +again to the paths of life; and that so in the end the whole human +race, with the exception of perhaps a few who remain irreclaimable, +will be recovered and made happy forever. Others look upon "eternal +death" as merely the extinction of being, while immortality is the +reward of pre-eminent virtue, interpreting in that sense the words, +"The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life +through Jesus Christ our Lord." The latter view might recommend +itself to you as the application of "the survival of the fittest" +to another world, the worthless, the incurably bad, of the human +race being allowed to drop out of existence (an end which can have +no terrors for you, since you look upon it as the common lot of all +men,) while the good are continued in being forever. The acceptance +of either of these theories would relieve your mind of that "horror +of great darkness" which seems to come over it whenever you look +forward to retribution beyond the grave.</p> +<p>But while conceding all liberty to others I cannot so easily +relieve myself of this stern and rugged truth. To me moral evil in +the universe is a tremendous reality, and I do not see how to limit +it within the bounds of time. Retribution is to me a necessary part +of the Divine law. A law without a penalty for its violations is no +law. But I rest the argument for it, not on the Bible, but <i>on +principles which you yourself acknowledge</i>. You say, "There are +no punishments, no rewards: there are consequences." Very well, +take the "consequences," and see where they lead you. When a man by +his vices has reduced his body to a wreck and his mind to idiocy, +you say this is the "consequence" of his vicious life. Is it a +great stretch of language to say that it is his "punishment," and +nonetheless punishment because self-inflicted? To the poor sufferer +raving in a madhouse, it matters little what it is called, so long +as he is experiencing the agonies of hell. And here your theory of +"consequences," if followed up, will lead you very far. For if man +lives after death, and keeps his personal identity, do not the +"consequences" of his past life follow him into the future? And if +his existence is immortal, are not the consequences immortal also? +And what is this but endless retribution?</p> +<p>But you tell me that the moral effect of retribution is +destroyed by the easy way in which a man escapes the penalty. He +has but to repent, and he is restored to the same condition before +the law as if he had not sinned. Not so do I understand it. "I +believe in the forgiveness of sins," but forgiveness does not +reverse the course of nature; it does not prevent the operation of +natural law. A drunkard may repent as he is nearing his end, but +that does not undo the wrong that he has done, nor avert the +consequences. In spite of his tears, he dies in an agony of shame +and remorse. The inexorable law must be fulfilled.</p> +<p>And so in the future world. Even though a man be forgiven, he +does not wholly escape the evil of his past life. A retribution +follows him even within the heavenly gates; for if he does not +suffer, still that bad life has so shriveled up his moral nature as +to diminish his power of enjoyment. There are degrees of happiness, +as one star differeth from another star in glory; and he who begins +wrong, will find that it is not as well to sin and repent of it as +not to sin at all. He enters the other world in a state of +spiritual infancy, and will have to begin at the bottom and climb +slowly upward.</p> +<p>We might go a step farther, and say that perhaps heaven itself +has not only its lights but its shadows, in the reflections that +must come even there. We read of "the book of God's remembrance," +but is there not another book of remembrance in the mind +itself—a book which any man may well fear to open and to look +thereon? When that book is opened, and we read its awful pages, +shall we not all think "what might have been?" And will those +thoughts be wholly free from sadness? The drunken brute who breaks +the heart that loved him may weep bitterly, and his poor wife may +forgive him with her dying lips; but <i>he cannot forgive +himself</i> , and <i>never</i> can he recall without grief that +bowed head and that broken heart. This preserves the element of +retribution, while it does not shut the door to forgiveness and +mercy.</p> +<p>But we need not travel over again the round of Christian +doctrines. My faith is very simple; it revolves around two words; +God and Christ. These are the two centres, or, as an astronomer +might say, the double-star, or double-sun, of the great orbit of +religious truth.</p> +<p>As to the first of these, you say "There can be no evidence to +my mind of the existence of such a being, and my mind is so that it +is incapable of even thinking of an infinite personality;" and you +gravely put to me this question: "Do you really believe that this +world is governed by an infinitely wise and good God? Have you +convinced even yourself of this?" Here are two questions—one +as to the existence of God, and the other as to His benevolence. I +will answer both in language as plain as it is possible for me to +use.</p> +<p>First, Do I believe in the existence of God? I answer that it is +impossible for me not to believe it. I could not disbelieve it if I +would. You insist that belief or unbelief is not a matter of choice +or of the will, but of evidence. You say "the brain thinks as the +heart beats, as the eyes see." Then let us stand aside with all our +prepossessions, and open our eyes to what we can see.</p> +<p>When Robinson Crusoe in his desert island came down one day to +the seashore, and saw in the sand the print of a human foot, could +he help the instantaneous conviction that a man had been there? You +might have tried to persuade him that it was all chance,—that +the sand had been washed up by the waves or blown by the winds, and +taken this form, or that some marine insect had traced a figure +like a human foot,—you would not have moved him a particle. +The imprint was there, and the conclusion was irresistible: he did +not believe—he knew that some human being, whether friend or +foe, civilized or savage, had set his foot upon that desolate +shore. So when I discover in the world (as I think I do) mysterious +footprints that are certainly not human, it is not a question +whether I shall believe or not: I cannot help believing that some +Power greater than man has set foot upon the earth.</p> +<p>It is a fashion among atheistic philosophers to make light of +the argument from design; but "my mind is so that it is incapable" +of resisting the conclusion to which it leads me. And (since +personal questions are in order) I beg to ask if it is possible for +you to take in your hands a watch, and believe that there was no +"design" in its construction; that it was not made to keep time, +but only "happened" so; that it is the product of some freak of +nature, which brought together its parts and set it going. Do you +not know with as much positiveness as can belong to any conviction +of your mind, that it was not the work of accident, but of design; +and that if there was a design, there was a designer? And if the +watch was made to keep time, was not the eye made to see and the +ear to hear? Skeptics may fight against this argument as much as +they please, and try to evade the inevitable conclusion, and yet it +remains forever entwined in the living frame of man as well as +imbedded in the solid foundations of the globe. Wherefore I repeat, +it is not a question with me whether I will believe or not—I +cannot help believing; and I am not only surprised, but amazed, +that you or any thoughtful man can come to any other conclusion.' +In wonder and astonishment I ask, "Do you really believe" that in +all the wide universe there is no Higher Intelligence than that of +the poor human creatures that creep on this earthly ball? For +myself, it is with the pro-foundest conviction as well as the +deepest reverence that I repeat the first sentence of my faith: "I +believe in God the Father Almighty."</p> +<p>And not the Almighty only, but the Wise and the Good. Again I +ask, How can I help believing what I see every day of my life? +Every morning, as the sun rises in the East, sending light and life +over the world, I behold a glorious image of the beneficent +Creator. The exquisite beauty of the dawn, the dewy freshness of +the air, the fleecy clouds floating in the sky—all speak of +Him. And when the sun goes down, sending shafts of light through +the dense masses that would hide his setting, and casting a glory +over the earth and sky, this wondrous illumination is to me but the +reflection of Him who "spreadeth out the heavens like a curtain; +who maketh the clouds His chariot; who walketh upon the wings of +the wind."</p> +<p>How much more do we find the evidences of goodness in man +himself: in the power of thought; of acquiring knowledge; of +penetrating the mysteries of nature and climbing among the stars. +Can a being endowed with such transcendent gifts doubt the goodness +of his Creator?</p> +<p>Yes, I believe with all my heart and soul in One who is not only +Infinitely Great, but Infinitely Good; who loves all the creatures +He has made; bending over them as the bow in the cloud spans the +arch of heaven, stretching from horizon to horizon; looking down +upon them with a tenderness compared to which all human love is +faint and cold. "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord +pitieth them that fear Him; for He knoweth our frame, He +remembereth that we are dust."</p> +<p>On the question of immortality you are equally "at sea." You +know nothing and believe nothing; or, rather, you know only that +you do not know, and believe that you do not believe. You confess +indeed to a faint hope, and admit a bare possibility, that there +may be another life, though you are in an uncertainty about it that +is altogether bewildering and desperate. But your mind is so +poetical that you give a certain attractiveness even to the +prospect of annihilation. You strew the sepulchre with such flowers +as these:</p> +<p>"I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of +immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human +heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against +the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, +nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human +affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists +and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of +death.</p> +<p>"I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not +know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the +beginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the +folding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an +endless life that brings rapture and love to every one."</p> +<p>Beautiful words! but inexpressibly sad! It is a silver lining to +the cloud, and yet the cloud is there, dark and impenetrable. But +perhaps we ought not to expect anything clearer and brighter from +one who recognizes no light but that of Nature.</p> +<p>That light is very dim. If it were all we had, we should be just +where Cicero was, and say with him, and with you, that a future +life was "to be hoped for rather than believed." But does not that +very uncertainty show the need of a something above Nature, which +is furnished in Him who "was crucified, dead and buried, and the +third day rose again from the dead?" It is the Conqueror of Death +who calls to the fainthearted: "I am the Resurrection and the +Life." Since He has gone before us, lighting up the dark passage of +the grave, we need not fear to follow, resting on the word of our +Leader: "Because I live, ye shall live also."</p> +<p>This faith in another life is a precious inheritance, which +cannot be torn from the agonized bosom without a wrench that tears +every heartstring; and it was to this I referred as the last refuge +of a poor, suffering, despairing soul, when I asked: "Does it never +occur to you that there is something very cruel in this treatment +of the belief of your fellow-creatures, on whose hope of another +life hangs all that relieves the darkness of their present +existence?" The imputation of cruelty you repel with some warmth, +saying (with a slight variation of my language): "<i>When I deny +the existence of perdition</i>, you reply that there is something +very cruel in this treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures." +Of course, this change of words, putting perdition in the place of +immortal life and hope, was a mere inadvertence. But it was enough +to change the whole character of what I wrote. As I described "the +treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures," I did think it +"very cruel," and I think so still.</p> +<p>While correcting this slight misquotation, I must remove from +your mind a misapprehension, which is so very absurd as to be +absolutely comical. In my Letter referring to your disbelief of +immortality, I had said: "With an air of modesty and diffidence +that would carry an audience by storm, you confess your ignorance +of what perhaps others are better acquainted with, when you say, +'This world is all that I know anything about, <i>so far as I +recollect</i>'" Of course "what perhaps others are better +acquainted with" was a part of what you said, or at least implied +by your manner (for you do not convey your meaning merely by words, +but by a tone of voice, by arched eyebrows, or a curled lip); and +yet, instead of taking the sentence in its plain and obvious sense, +you affect to understand it as an assumption on my part to have +some private and mysterious knowledge of another world (!), and +gravely ask me, "Did you by this intend to say that you know +anything of any other state of existence; that you have inhabited +some other planet; that you lived before you were born; and that +you recollect something of that other world or of that other +state?" No, my dear Colonel! I have been a good deal of a traveler, +and have seen all parts of this world, but I have never visited any +other. In reading your sober question, if I did not know you to be +one of the brightest wits of the day, I should be tempted to quote +what Sidney Smith says of a Scotchman, that "you cannot get a joke +into his head except by a surgical operation!"</p> +<p>But to return to what is serious: you make light of our faith +and our hopes, because you know not the infinite solace they bring +to the troubled human heart. You sneer at the idea that religion +can be a "consolation." Indeed! Is it not a consolation to have an +Almighty Friend? Was it a light matter for the poor slave mother, +who sat alone in her cabin, having been robbed of her children, to +sing in her wild, wailing accents:</p> +<pre> + "Nobody knows the sorrows I've seen: + Nobody knows but Jesus?" +</pre> +<p>Would you rob her of that Unseen Friend—the only Friend +she had on earth or in heaven?</p> +<p>But I will do you the justice to say that your want of religious +faith comes in part from your very sensibility and tenderness of +heart. You cannot recognize an overruling Providence, because your +mind is so harassed by scenes that you witness. Why, you ask, do +men suffer so? You draw frightful pictures of the misery which +exists in the world, as a proof of the incapacity of its Ruler and +Governor, and do not hesitate to say that "any honest man of +average intelligence could do vastly better." If you could have +your way, you would make everybody happy; there should be no more +poverty, and no more sickness or pain.</p> +<p>This is a pleasant picture to look at, and yet you must excuse +me for saying that it is rather a child's picture than that of a +stalwart man. The world is not a playground in which men are to be +petted and indulged like children: spoiled children they would soon +become. It is an arena of conflict, in which we are to develop the +manhood that is in us. We all have to take the "rough-and-tumble" +of life, and are the better for it—physically, +intellectually, and morally. If there be any true manliness within +us, we come out of the struggle stronger and better; with larger +minds and kinder hearts; a broader wisdom and a gentler +charity.</p> +<p>Perhaps we should not differ on this point if we could agree as +to the true end of life. But here I fear the difference is +irreconcilable. You think that end is happiness: I think it is +character. I do not believe that the highest end of life upon earth +is to "have a good time to get from it the utmost amount of +enjoyment;" but to be truly and greatly GOOD; and that to that end +no discipline can be too severe which leads us "to suffer and be +strong." That discipline answers its end when it raises the spirit +to the highest pitch of courage and endurance. The splendor of +virtue never appears so bright as when set against a dark +background. It was in prisons and dungeons that the martyrs showed +the greatest degree of moral heroism, the power of</p> +<pre> + "Man's unconquerable mind." +</pre> +<p>But I know well that these illustrations do not cover the whole +case. There is another picture to be added to those of heroic +struggle and martyrdom—that of silent suffering, which makes +of life one long agony, and which often comes upon the good, so +that it seems as if the best suffered the most. And yet when you +sit by a sick bed, and look into a face whiter than the pillow on +which it rests, do you not sometimes mark how that very suffering +refines the nature that bears it so meekly? This is the Christian +theory: that suffering, patiently borne, is a means of the greatest +elevation of character, and, in the end, of the highest enjoyment. +Looking at it in this light, we can understand how it should be +that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be +compared [or even to be named] with the glory which shall be +revealed." When the heavenly morning breaks, brighter than any dawn +that blushes "o'er the world," there will be "a restitution of all +things:" the poor will be made rich, and the most suffering the +most serenely happy; as in the vision of the Apocalypse, when it is +asked "What are these which are arrayed in white robes, and whence +came they?" the answer is, "These are they which came our of great +tribulation."</p> +<p>In this conclusion, which is not adopted lightly, but after +innumerable struggles with doubt, after the experience and the +reflection of years, I feel "a great peace." It is the glow of +sunset that gilds the approach of evening. For (we must confess it) +it is towards that you and I are advancing. The sun has passed the +meridian, and hastens to his going down. Whatever of good this life +has for us (and I am far from being one of those who look upon it +as a vale of tears) will soon be behind us. I see the shadows +creeping on; yet I welcome the twilight that will soon darken into +night, for I know that it will be a night all glorious with stars. +As I look upward, the feeling of awe is blended with a strange, +overpowering sense of the Infinite Goodness, which surrounding me +like an atmosphere:</p> +<pre> + "And so beside the Silent Sea, + I wait the muffled oar; + No harm from Him can come to me + On ocean or on shore. + + I know not where His Islands lift + Their fronded palms in air; + I only know I cannot drift + Beyond His love and care." +</pre> +<p>Would that you could share with me this confidence and this +hope! But you seem to be receding farther from any kind of faith. +In one of your closing paragraphs, you give what is to you "the +conclusion of the whole matter." After repudiating religion with +scorn, you ask, "Is there not room for a better, for a higher +philosophy?" and thus indicate the true answer to be given, to +which no words can do justice but your own:</p> +<p>"After all, is it not possible that we may find that everything +has been necessarily produced; that all religions and +superstitions, all mistakes and all crimes, were simply +necessities? Is it not possible that out of this perception may +come not only love and pity for others, but absolute justification +for the individual? May we not find that every soul has, like +Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild horse of passion, or like +Prometheus to the rocks of fate?"</p> +<p>If this be the end of all philosophy, it is equally the end of +"all things." Not only does it make an end of us and of our hopes +of futurity, but of all that makes the present life worth +living—of all freedom, and hence of all virtue. There are no +more any moral distinctions in the world—no good and no evil, +no right and no wrong; nothing but grim necessity. With such a +creed, I wonder how you can ever stand at the bar, and argue for +the conviction of a criminal. Why should he be convicted and +punished for what he could not help? Indeed he is not a criminal, +since there is no such thing as crime. He is not to blame. Was he +not "lashed to the wild horse of passion," carried away by a power +beyond his control?</p> +<p>What cruelty to thrust him behind iron bars! Poor fellow! he +deserves our pity. Let us hasten to relieve him from a position +which must be so painful, and make our humble apology for having +presumed to punish him for an act in which he only obeyed an +impulse which he could not resist. This will be "absolute +justification for the individual." But what will become of society, +you do not tell us.</p> +<p>Are you aware that in this last attainment of "a better, a +higher philosophy" (which is simply absolute fatalism), you have +swung round to the side of John Calvin, and gone far beyond him? +That you, who have exhausted all the resources of the English +language in denouncing his creed as the most horrible of human +beliefs—brainless, soulless, heartless; who have held it up +to scorn and derision; now hold to the blackest Calvinism that was +ever taught by man? You cannot find words sufficient to express +your horror of the doctrine of Divine decrees; and yet here you +have decrees with a vengeance—predestination and damnation, +both in one. Under such a creed, man is a thousand times worse off +than under ours: for he has absolutely no hope. You may say that at +any rate he cannot suffer forever. You do not know even that; but +at any rate <i>he suffers as long as he exists</i>. There is no God +above to show him pity, and grant him release; but as long as the +ages roll, he is "lashed to the rocks of fate," with the insatiate +vulture tearing at his heart!</p> +<p>In reading your glittering phrases, I seem to be losing hold of +everything, and to be sinking, sinking, till I touch the lowest +depths of an abyss; while from the blackness above me a sound like +a death-knell tolls the midnight of the soul. If I believed this I +should cry, God help us all! Or no—for there would be no God, +and even this last consolation would be denied us: for why should +we offer a prayer which can neither be heard nor answered? As well +might we ask mercy from "the rocks of fate" to which we are chained +forever!</p> +<p>Recoiling from this Gospel of Despair, I turn to One in whose +face there is something at once human and divine—an +indescribable majesty, united with more than human tenderness and +pity; One who was born among the poor, and had not where to lay His +head, and yet went about doing good; poor, yet making many rich; +who trod the world in deepest loneliness, and yet whose presence +lighted up every dwelling into which He came; who took up little +children in His arms, and blessed them; a giver of joy to others, +and yet a sufferer himself; who tasted every human sorrow, and yet +was always ready to minister to others' grief; weeping with them +that wept; coming to Bethany to comfort Mary and Martha concerning +their brother; rebuking the proud, but gentle and pitiful to the +most abject of human creatures; stopping amid the throng at the cry +of a blind beggar by the wayside; willing to be known as "the +friend of sinners," if He might recall them into the way of peace; +who did not scorn even the fallen woman who sank at His feet, but +by His gentle word, "Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no +more," lifted her up, and set her in the path of a virtuous +womanhood; and who, when dying on the cross, prayed: "Father, +forgive them, for they know not what they do." In this Friend of +the friendless, Comforter of the comfortless, Forgiver of the +penitent, and Guide of the erring, I find a greatness that I had +not found in any of the philosophers or teachers of the world. No +voice in all the ages thrills me like that which whispers close to +my heart, "Come unto me and I will give you rest," to which I +answer: This is my Master, and I will follow Him.</p> +<p>Henry M. Field.</p> +<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>LETTER TO DR. FIELD.</h2> +<h3>My Dear Mr. Field:</h3> +<p>With great pleasure I have read your second letter, in which you +seem to admit that men may differ even about religion without being +responsible for that difference; that every man has the right to +read the Bible for himself, state freely the conclusion at which he +arrives, and that it is not only his privilege, but his duty to +speak the truth; that Christians can hardly be happy in heaven, +while those they loved on earth are suffering with the lost; that +it is not a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe, +and to be governed by evidence; that credulity is not a virtue, and +that the open mouth of ignorant wonder is not the only entrance to +Paradise; that belief is not necessary to salvation, and that no +man can justly be made to suffer eternal pain for having expressed +an intellectual conviction.</p> +<p>You seem to admit that no man can justly be held responsible for +his thoughts; that the brain thinks without asking our consent, and +that we believe or disbelieve without an effort of the will.</p> +<p>I congratulate you upon the advance that you have made. You not +only admit that we have the right to think, but that we have the +right to express our honest thoughts. You admit that the Christian +world no longer believes in the fagot, the dungeon, and the +thumbscrew. Has the Christian world outgrown its God? Has man +become more merciful than his maker? If man will not torture his +fellow-man on account of a difference of opinion, will a God of +infinite love torture one of his children for what is called the +sin of unbelief? Has man outgrown the Inquisition, and will God +forever be the warden of a penitentiary? The walls of the old +dungeons have fallen, and light now visits the cell where brave men +perished in darkness. Is Jehovah to keep the cells of perdition in +repair forever, and are his children to be the eternal +prisoners?</p> +<p>It seems hard for you to appreciate the mental condition of one +who regards all gods as substantially the same; that is to say, who +thinks of them all as myths and phantoms born of the +imagination,—characters in the religious fictions of the +race. To you it probably seems strange that a man should think far +more of Jupiter than of Jehovah. Regarding them both as creations +of the mind, I choose between them, and I prefer the God of the +Greeks, on the same principle that I prefer Portia to Iago; and yet +I regard them, one and all, as children of the imagination, as +phantoms born of human fears and human hopes.</p> +<p>Surely nothing was further from my mind than to hurt the +feelings of any one by speaking of the Presbyterian God. I simply +intended to speak of the God of the Presbyterians. Certainly the +God of the Presbyterian is not the God of the Catholic, nor is he +the God of the Mohammedan or Hindoo. He is a special creation +suited only to certain minds. These minds have naturally come +together, and they form what we call the Presbyterian Church. As a +matter of fact, no two churches can by any possibility have +precisely the same God; neither can any two human beings conceive +of precisely the same Deity. In every man's God there is, to say +the least, a part of that man. The lower the man, the lower his +conception of God. The higher the man, the grander his Deity must +be. The savage who adorns his body with a belt from which hang the +scalps of enemies slain in battle, has no conception of a loving, +of a forgiving God; his God, of necessity, must be as revengeful, +as heartless, as infamous as the God of John Calvin.</p> +<p>You do not exactly appreciate my feeling. I do not hate +Presbyterians; I hate Presbyterianism. I hate with all my heart the +creed of that church, and I most heartily despise the God described +in the Confession of Faith. But some of the best friends I have in +the world are afflicted with the mental malady known as +Presbyterianism. They are the victims of the consolation growing +out of the belief that a vast majority of their fellow-men are +doomed to suffer eternal torment, to the end that their Creator may +be eternally glorified. I have said many times, and I say again, +that I do not despise a man because he has the rheumatism; I +despise the rheumatism because it has a man.</p> +<p>But I do insist that the Presbyterians have assumed to +appropriate to themselves their Supreme Being, and that they have +claimed, and that they do claim, to be the "special objects of his +favor." They do claim to be the very elect, and they do insist that +God looks upon them as the objects of his special care. They do +claim that the light of Nature, without the torch of the +Presbyterian creed, is insufficient to guide any soul to the gate +of heaven. They do insist that even those who never heard of +Christ, or never heard of the God of the Presbyterians, will be +eternally lost; and they not only claim this, but that their fate +will illustrate not only the justice but the mercy of God. Not only +so, but they insist that the morality of an unbeliever is +displeasing to God, and that the love of an unconverted mother for +her helpless child is nothing less than sin.</p> +<p>When I meet a man who really believes the Presbyterian creed, I +think of the Laocoon. I feel as though looking upon a human being +helpless in the coils of an immense and poisonous serpent. But I +congratulate you with all my heart that you have repudiated this +infamous, this savage creed; that you now admit that reason was +given us to be exercised; that God will not torture any man for +entertaining an honest doubt, and that in the world to come "every +man will be judged according to the deeds done in the body."</p> +<p>Let me quote your exact language: "I believe that in the future +world every man will be judged according to the deeds done in the +body." Do you not see that you have bidden farewell to the +Presbyterian Church? In that sentence you have thrown away the +atonement, you have denied the efficacy of the blood of Jesus +Christ, and you have denied the necessity of belief. If we are to +be judged by the deeds done in the body, that is the end of the +Presbyterian scheme of salvation. I sincerely congratulate you for +having repudiated the savagery of Calvinism.</p> +<p>It also gave me great pleasure to find that you have thrown +away, with a kind of glad shudder, that infamy of infamies, the +dogma of eternal pain. I have denounced that inhuman belief; I have +denounced every creed that had coiled within it that viper; I have +denounced every man who preached it, the book that contains it, and +with all my heart the God who threatens it; and at last I have the +happiness of seeing the editor of the New York <i>Evangelist</i> +admit that devout Christians do not believe that lie, and quote +with approbation the words of a minister of the Church of England +to the effect that all men will be finally recovered and made +happy.</p> +<p>Do you find this doctrine of hope in the Presbyterian creed? Is +this star, that sheds light on every grave, found in your Bible? +Did Christ have in his mind the shining truth that all the children +of men will at last be filled with joy, when he uttered these +comforting words: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire +prepared for the devil and his angels"?</p> +<p>Do you find in this flame the bud of hope, or the flower of +promise?</p> +<p>You suggest that it is possible that "the incurably bad will be +annihilated," and you say that such a fate can have no terrors for +me, as I look upon annihilation as the common lot of all. Let us +examine this position. Why should a God of infinite wisdom create +men and women whom he knew would be "incurably bad"? What would you +say of a mechanic who was forced to destroy his own productions on +the ground that they were "incurably bad"? Would you say that he +was an infinitely wise mechanic? Does infinite justice annihilate +the work of infinite wisdom? Does God, like an ignorant doctor, +bury his mistakes?</p> +<p>Besides, what right have you to say that I "look upon +annihilation as the common lot of all"? Was there any such thought +in my Reply? Do you find it in any published words of mine? Do you +find anything in what I have written tending to show that I believe +in annihilation? Is it not true that I say now, and that I have +always said, that I do not know? Does a lack of knowledge as to the +fate of the human soul imply a belief in annihilation? Does it not +equally imply a belief in immortality?</p> +<p>You have been—at least until recently—a believer in +the inspiration of the Bible and in the truth of its every word. +What do you say to the following: "For that which befalleth the +sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the +one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so +that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast." You will see that +the inspired writer is not satisfied with admitting that he does +not know. "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away; so he that +goeth down to the grave shall come up no more." Was it not cruel +for an inspired man to attack a sacred belief?</p> +<p>You seem surprised that I should speak of the doctrine of +eternal pain as "the black thunder-cloud that darkens all the +horizon, casting its mighty shadows over the life that now is and +that which is to come." If that doctrine be true, what else is +there worthy of engaging the attention of the human mind? It is the +blackness that extinguishes every star. It is the abyss in which +every hope must perish. It leaves a universe without justice and +without mercy—a future without one ray of light, and a +present with nothing but fear. It makes heaven an impossibility, +God an infinite monster, and man an eternal victim. Nothing can +redeem a religion in which this dogma is found. Clustered about it +are all the snakes of the Furies.</p> +<p>But you have abandoned this infamy, and you have admitted that +we are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. +Nothing can be nearer self-evident than the fact that a finite +being cannot commit an infinite sin; neither can a finite being do +an infinitely good deed. That is to say, no one can deserve for any +act eternal pain, and no one for any deed can deserve eternal joy. +If we are to be judged by the deeds done in the body, the old +orthodox hell and heaven both become impossible.</p> +<p>So, too, you have recognized the great and splendid truth that +sin cannot be predicated of an intellectual conviction. This is the +first great step toward the liberty of soul. You admit that there +is no morality and no immorality in belief—that is to say, in +the simple operation of the mind in weighing evidence, in observing +facts, and in drawing conclusions. You admit that these things are +without sin and without guilt. Had all men so believed there never +could have been religious persecution—the Inquisition could +not have been built, and the idea of eternal pain never could have +polluted the human heart.</p> +<p>You have been driven to the passions for the purpose of finding +what you are pleased to call "sin" and "responsibility" and you +say, speaking of a human being, "but if he is warped by passion so +that he cannot see things truly, then is he responsible." One would +suppose that the use of the word "cannot" is inconsistent with the +idea of responsibility. What is passion? There are certain desires, +swift, thrilling, that quicken the action of the +heart—desires that fill the brain with blood, with fire and +flame—desires that bear the same relation to judgment that +storms and waves bear to the compass on a ship. Is passion +necessarily produced? Is there an adequate cause for every effect? +Can you by any possibility think of an effect without a cause, and +can you by any possibility think of an effect that is not a cause, +or can you think of a cause that is not an effect? Is not the +history of real civilization the slow and gradual emancipation of +the intellect, of the judgment, from the mastery of passion? Is not +that man civilized whose reason sits the crowned monarch of his +brain—whose passions are his servants?</p> +<p>Who knows the strength of the temptation to another? Who knows +how little has been resisted by those who stand, how much has been +resisted by those who fall? Who knows whether the victor or the +victim made the braver and the more gallant fight? In judging of +our fellow-men we must take into consideration the circumstances of +ancestry, of race, of nationality, of employment, of opportunity, +of education, and of the thousand influences that tend to mold or +mar the character of man. Such a view is the mother of charity, and +makes the God of the Presbyterians impossible.</p> +<p>At last you have seen the impossibility of forgiveness. That is +to say, you perceive that after forgiveness the crime remains, and +its children, called consequences, still live. You recognize the +lack of philosophy in that doctrine. You still believe in what you +call "the forgiveness of sins," but you admit that forgiveness +cannot reverse the course of nature, and cannot prevent the +operation of natural law. You also admit that if a man lives after +death, he preserves his personal identity, his memory, and that the +consequences of his actions will follow him through all the eternal +years. You admit that consequences are immortal. After making this +admission, of what use is the old idea of the forgiveness of sins? +How can the criminal be washed clean and pure in the blood of +another? In spite of this forgiveness, in spite of this blood, you +have taken the ground that consequences, like the dogs of +Actæon, follow even a Presbyterian, even one of the elect, +within the heavenly gates. If you wish to be logical, you must also +admit that the consequences of good deeds, like winged angels, +follow even the atheist within the gates of hell.</p> +<p>You have had the courage of your convictions, and you have said +that we are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. +By that judgment I am willing to abide. But, whether willing or +not, I must abide, because there is no power, no God that can step +between me and the consequences of my acts. I wish no heaven that I +have not earned, no happiness to which I am not entitled. I do not +wish to become an immortal pauper; neither am I willing to extend +unworthy hands for alms.</p> +<p>My dear Mr. Field, you have outgrown your creed—as every +Presbyterian must who grows at all. You are far better than the +spirit of the Old Testament; far better, in my judgment, even than +the spirit of the New. The creed that you have left behind, that +you have repudiated, teaches that a man may be guilty of every +crime—that he may have driven his wife to insanity, that his +example may have led his children to the penitentiary, or to the +gallows, and that yet, at the eleventh hour, he may, by what is +called "repentance," be washed absolutely pure by the blood of +another and receive and wear upon his brow the laurels of eternal +peace. Not only so, but that creed has taught that this wretch in +heaven could look back on the poor earth and see the wife, whom he +swore to love and cherish, in the mad-house, surrounded by +imaginary serpents, struggling in the darkness of night, made +insane by his heartlessness—that creed has taught and teaches +that he could look back and see his children in prison cells, or on +the scaffold with the noose about their necks, and that these +visions would not bring a shade of sadness to his redeemed and +happy face. It is this doctrine, it is this dogma—so bestial, +so savage as to beggar all the languages of men—that I have +denounced. All the words of hatred, loathing and contempt, found in +all the dialects and tongues of men, are not sufficient to express +my hatred, my contempt, and my loathing of this creed.</p> +<p>You say that it is impossible for you not to believe in the +existence of God. With this statement, I find no fault. Your mind +is so that a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being gives +satisfaction and content. Of course, you are entitled to no credit +for this belief, as you ought not to be rewarded for believing that +which you cannot help believing; neither should I be punished for +failing to believe that which I cannot believe.</p> +<p>You believe because you see in the world around you such an +adaptation of means to ends that you are satisfied there is design. +I admit that when Robinson Crusoe saw in the sand the print of a +human foot, like and yet unlike his own, he was justified in +drawing the conclusion that a human being had been there. The +inference was drawn from his own experience, and was within the +scope of his own mind. But I do not agree with you that he "knew" a +human being had been there; he had only sufficient evidence upon +which to found a belief. He did not know the footsteps of all +animals; he could not have known that no animal except man could +have made that footprint: In order to have known that it was the +foot of man, he must have known that no other animal was capable of +making it, and he must have known that no other being had produced +in the sand the likeness of this human foot.</p> +<p>You see what you call evidences of intelligence in the universe, +and you draw the conclusion that there must be an infinite +intelligence. Your conclusion is far wider than your premise. Let +us suppose, as Mr. Hume supposed, that there is a pair of scales, +one end of which is in darkness, and you find that a pound weight, +or a ten-pound weight, placed upon that end of the scale in the +light is raised; have you the right to say that there is an +infinite weight on the end in darkness, or are you compelled to say +only that there is weight enough on the end in darkness to raise +the weight on the end in light?</p> +<p>It is illogical to say, because of the existence of this earth +and of what you can see in and about it, that there must be an +infinite intelligence. You do not know that even the creation of +this world, and of all planets discovered, required an infinite +power, or infinite wisdom. I admit that it is impossible for me to +look at a watch and draw the inference that there was no design in +its construction, or that it only happened. I could not regard it +as a product of some freak of nature, neither could I imagine that +its various parts were brought together and set in motion by +chance. I am not a believer in chance. But there is a vast +difference between what man has made and the materials of which he +has constructed the things he has made. You find a watch, and you +say that it exhibits, or shows design. You insist that it is so +wonderful it must have had a designer—in other words, that it +is too wonderful not to have been constructed. You then find the +watchmaker, and you say with regard to him that he too must have +had a designer, for he is more wonderful than the watch. In +imagagination you go from the watchmaker to the being you call God, +and you say he designed the watchmaker, but he himself was not +designed because he is too wonderful to have been designed. And yet +in the case of the watch and of the watchmaker, it was the wonder +that suggested design, while in the case of the maker of the +watchmaker the wonder denied a designer. Do you not see that this +argument devours itself?</p> +<p>If wonder suggests a designer, can it go on increasing until it +denies that which it suggested?</p> +<p>You must remember, too, that the argument of design is +applicable to all. You are not at liberty to stop at sunrise and +sunset and growing corn and all that adds to the happiness of man; +you must go further. You must admit that an infinitely wise and +merciful God designed the fangs of serpents, the machinery by which +the poison is distilled, the ducts by which it is carried to the +fang, and that the same intelligence impressed this serpent with a +desire to deposit this deadly virus in the flesh of man. You must +believe that an infinitely wise God so constructed this world, that +in the process of cooling, earthquakes would be +caused—earthquakes that devour and overwhelm cities and +states. Do you see any design in the volcano that sends its rivers +of lava over the fields and the homes of men? Do you really think +that a perfectly good being designed the invisible parasites that +infest the air, that inhabit the water, and that finally attack and +destroy the health and life of man? Do you see the same design in +cancers that you do in wheat and corn? Did God invent tumors for +the brain? Was it his ingenuity that so designed the human race +that millions of people should be born deaf and dumb, that millions +should be idiotic? Did he knowingly plant in the blood or brain the +seeds of insanity? Did he cultivate those seeds? Do you see any +design in this?</p> +<p>Man calls that good which increases his happiness, and that evil +which gives him pain. In the olden time, back of the good he placed +a God; back of the evil a devil; but now the orthodox world is +driven to admit that the God is the author of all.</p> +<p>For my part, I see no goodness in the pestilence—no mercy +in the bolt that leaps from the cloud and leaves the mark of death +on the breast of a loving mother. I see no generosity in famine, no +goodness in disease, no mercy in want and agony.</p> +<p>And yet you say that the being who created parasites that live +only by inflicting pain—the being responsible for all the +sufferings of mankind—you say that he has "a tenderness +compared to which all human love is faint and cold." Yet according +to the doctrine of the orthodox world, this being of infinite love +and tenderness so created nature that its light misleads, and left +a vast majority of the human race to blindly grope their way to +endless pain.</p> +<p>You insist that a knowledge of God—a belief in +God—is the foundation of social order; and yet this God of +infinite tenderness has left for thousands and thousands of years +nearly all of his children without a revelation. Why should +infinite goodness leave the existence of God in doubt? Why should +he see millions in savagery destroying the lives of each other, +eating the flesh of each other, and keep his existence a secret +from man? Why did he allow the savages to depend on sunrise and +sunset and clouds? Why did he leave this great truth to a few +half-crazed prophets, or to a cruel, heartless, and ignorant +church? The sentence "There is a God".could have been imprinted on +every blade of grass, on every leaf, on every star. An infinite God +has no excuse for leaving his children in doubt and darkness.</p> +<p>There is still another point. You know that for thousands of +ages men worshiped wild beasts as God. You know that for countless +generations they knelt by coiled serpents, believing those serpents +to be gods. Why did the real God secrete himself and allow his +poor, ignorant, savage children to imagine that he was a beast, a +serpent? Why did this God allow mothers to sacrifice their babes? +Why did he not emerge from the darkness? Why did he not say to the +poor mother, "Do not sacrifice your babe; keep it in your arms; +press it to your bosom; let it be the solace of your declining +years. I take no delight in the death of children; I am not what +you suppose me to be; I am not a beast; I am not a serpent; I am +full of love and kindness and mercy, and I want my children to be +happy in this world"? Did the God who allowed a mother to sacrifice +her babe through the mistaken idea that he, the God, demanded the +sacrifice, feel a tenderness toward that mother "compared to which +all human love is faint and cold"? Would a good father allow some +of his children to kill others of his children to please him?</p> +<p>There is still another question. Why should God, a being of +infinite tenderness, leave the question of immortality in doubt? +How is it that there is nothing in the Old Testament on this +subject? Why is it that he who made all the constellations did not +put in his heaven the star of hope? How do you account for the fact +that you do not find in the Old Testament, from the first mistake +in Genesis, to the last curse in Malachi, a funeral service? Is it +not strange that some one in the Old Testament did not stand by an +open grave of father or mother and say: "We shall meet again"? Was +it because the divinely inspired men did not know?</p> +<p>You taunt me by saying that I know no more of the immortality of +the soul than Cicero knew. I admit it. I know no more than the +lowest savage, no more than a doctor of divinity—that is to +say, nothing.</p> +<p>Is it not, however, a curious fact that there is less belief in +the immortality of the soul in Christian countries than in heathen +lands—that the belief in immortality, in an orthodox church, +is faint and cold and speculative, compared with that belief in +India, in China, or in the Pacific Isles? Compare the belief in +immortality in America, of Christians, with that of the followers +of Mohammed. Do not Christians weep above their dead? Does a belief +in immortality keep back their tears? After all, the promises are +so far away, and the dead are so near—the echoes of words +said to have been spoken more than eighteen centuries ago are lost +in the sounds of the clods that fall on the coffin, And yet, +compared with the orthodox hell, compared with the prison-house of +God, how ecstatic is the grave—the grave without a sigh, +without a tear, without a dream, without a fear. Compared with the +immortality promised by the Presbyterian creed, how beautiful +annihilation seems. To be nothing—how much better than to be +a convict forever. To be unconscious dust—how much better +than to be a heartless angel.</p> +<p>There is not, there never has been, there never will be, any +consolation in orthodox Christianity. It offers no consolation to +any good and loving man. I prefer the consolation of Nature, the +consolation of hope, the consolation springing from human +affection. I prefer the simple desire to live and love forever.</p> +<p>Of course, it would be a consolation to know that we have an +"Almighty Friend" in heaven; but an "Almighty Friend" who cares +nothing for us, who allows us to be stricken by his lightning, +frozen by his winter, starved by his famine, and at last imprisoned +in his hell, is a friend I do not care to have.</p> +<p>I remember "the poor slave mother who sat alone in her cabin, +having been robbed of her children;" and, my dear Mr. Field, I also +remember that the people who robbed her justified the robbery by +reading passages from the sacred Scriptures. I remember that while +the mother wept, the robbers, some of whom were Christians, read +this: "Buy of the heathen round about, and they shall be your +bondmen and bondwomen forever." I remember, too, that the robbers +read: "Servants be obedient unto your masters;" and they said, this +passage is the only message from the heart of God to the scarred +back of the slave. I remember this, and I remember, also, that the +poor slave mother upon her knees in wild and wailing accents called +on the "Almighty Friend," and I remember that her prayer was never +heard, and that her sobs died in the negligent air.</p> +<p>You ask me whether I would "rob this poor woman of such a +friend?" My answer is this: I would give her liberty; I would break +her chains. But let me ask you, did an "Almighty Friend" see the +woman he loved "with a tenderness compared to which all human love +is faint and cold," and the woman who loved him, robbed of her +children? What was the "Almighty Friend" worth to her? She +preferred her babe.</p> +<p>How could the "Almighty Friend" see his poor children pursued by +hounds—his children whose only crime was the love of +liberty—how could he see that, and take sides with the +hounds? Do you believe that the "Almighty Friend" then governed the +world? Do you really think that he</p> +<pre> + "Bade the slave-ship speed from coast to coast, + Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost"? +</pre> +<p>Do you believe that the "Almighty Friend" saw all of the +tragedies that were enacted in the jungles of Africa—that he +watched the wretched slave-ships, saw the miseries of the middle +passage, heard the blows of all the whips, saw all the streams of +blood, all the agonized faces of women, all the tears that were +shed? Do you believe that he saw and knew all these things, and +that he, the "Almighty Friend," looked coldly down and stretched no +hand to save?</p> +<p>You persist, however, in endeavoring to account for the miseries +of the world by taking the ground that happiness is not the end of +life. You say that "the real end of life is character, and that no +discipline can be too severe which leads us to suffer and be +strong." Upon this subject you use the following language: "If you +could have your way you would make everybody happy; there would be +no more poverty, and no more sickness or pain." And this you say, +is a "child's picture, hardly worthy of a stalwart man." Let me +read you another "child's picture," which you will find in the +twenty-first chapter of Revelation, supposed to have been written +by St. John, the Divine: "And I heard a great voice out of heaven +saying, behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell +with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be +with them, and be their God; and God shall wipe away all tears from +their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor +crying, neither shall there be any more pain.".</p> +<p>If you visited some woman living in a tenement, supporting by +her poor labor a little family—a poor woman on the edge of +famine, sewing, it may be, her eyes blinded by tears—would +you tell her that "the world is not a playground in which men are +to be petted and indulged like children."? Would you tell her that +to think of a world without poverty, without tears, without pain, +is "a child's picture"? If she asked you for a little assistance, +would you refuse it on the ground that by being helped she might +lose character? Would you tell her: "God does not wish to have you +happy; happiness is a very foolish end; character is what you want, +and God has put you here with these helpless, starving babes, and +he has put this burden on your young life simply that you may +suffer and be strong. I would help you gladly, but I do not wish to +defeat the plans of your Almighty Friend"? You can reason one way, +but you would act the other.</p> +<p>I agree with you that work is good, that struggle is essential; +that men are made manly by contending with each other and with the +forces of nature; but there is a point beyond which struggle does +not make character; there is a point at which struggle becomes +failure.</p> +<p>Can you conceive of an "Almighty Friend" deforming his children +because he loves them? Did he allow the innocent to languish in +dungeons because he was their friend? Did he allow the noble to +perish upon the scaffold, the great and the self-denying to be +burned at the stake, because he had the power to save? Was he +restrained by love? Did this "Almighty Friend" allow millions of +his children to be enslaved to the end that the "splendor of virtue +might have a dark background"? You insist that "suffering patiently +borne, is a means of the greatest elevation of character, and in +the end of the highest enjoyment." Do you not then see that your +"Almighty Friend" has been unjust to the happy—that he is +cruel to those whom we call the fortunate—that he is +indifferent to the men who do not suffer—that he leaves all +the happy and prosperous and joyous without character, and that in +the end, according to your doctrine, they are the losers?</p> +<p>But, after all, there is no need of arguing this question +further. There is one fact that destroys forever your +theory—and that is the fact that millions upon millions die +in infancy. Where do they get "elevation of character"? What +opportunity is given to them to "suffer and be strong"? Let us +admit that we do not know. Let us say that the mysteries of life, +of good and evil, of joy and pain, have never been explained. Is +character of no importance in heaven? How is it possible for +angels, living in "a child's picture," to "suffer and be strong"? +Do you not see that, according to your philosophy, only the damned +can grow great—only the lost can become sublime?</p> +<p>You do not seem to understand what I say with regard to what I +call the higher philosophy. When that philosophy is accepted, of +course there will be good in the world, there will be evil, there +will still be right and wrong. What is good? That which tends to +the happiness of sentient beings. What is evil? That which tends to +the misery, or tends to lessen the happiness of sentient beings. +What is right? The best thing to be done under the +circumstances—that is to say, the thing that will increase or +preserve the happiness of man. What is wrong? That which tends to +the misery of man.</p> +<p>What you call liberty, choice, morality, responsibility, have +nothing whatever to do with this. There is no difference between +necessity and liberty. He who is free, acts from choice. What is +the foundation of his choice? What we really mean by liberty is +freedom from personal dictation—we do not wish to be +controlled by the will of others. To us the nature of things does +not seem to be a master—Nature has no will.</p> +<p>Society has the right to protect itself by imprisoning those who +prey upon its interests; but it has no right to punish. It may have +the right to destroy the life of one dangerous to the community; +but what has freedom to do with this? Do you kill the poisonous +serpent because he knew better than to bite? Do you chain a wild +beast because he is morally responsible? Do you not think that the +criminal deserves the pity of the virtuous?</p> +<p>I was looking forward to the time when the individual might feel +justified—when the convict who had worn the garment of +disgrace might know and feel that he had acted as he must.</p> +<p>There is an old Hindoo prayer to which I call your +attention:</p> +<pre> + "Have mercy, God, upon the vicious; + Thou hast already had mercy upon the just by making them just." +</pre> +<p>Is it not possible that we may find that everything has been +necessarily produced? This, of course, would end in the +justification of men. Is not that a desirable thing? Is it not +possible that intelligence may at last raise the human race to that +sublime and philosophic height?</p> +<p>You insist, however, that this is Calvinism. I take it for +granted that you understand Calvinism—but let me tell you +what it is. Calvinism asserts that man does as he must, and that, +notwithstanding this fact, he is responsible for what he +does—that is to say, for what he is compelled to +do—that is to say, for what God does with him; and that, for +doing that which he must, an infinite God, who compelled him to do +it, is justified in punishing the man in eternal fire; this, not +because the man ought to be damned, but simply for the glory of +God.</p> +<p>Starting from the same declaration, that man does as he must, I +reach the conclusion that we shall finally perceive in this fact +justification for every individual. And yet you see no difference +between my doctrine and Calvinism. You insist that damnation and +justification are substantially the same; and yet the difference is +as great as human language can express. You call the justification +of all the world "the Gospel of Despair," and the damnation of +nearly all the human race the "Consolation of Religion."</p> +<p>After all, my dear friend, do you not see that when you come to +speak of that which is really good, you are compelled to describe +your ideal human being? It is the human in Christ, and only the +human, that you by any possibility can understand. You speak of one +who was born among the poor, who went about doing good, who +sympathized with those who suffered. You have described, not only +one, but many millions of the human race, Millions of others have +carried light to those sitting in darkness; millions and millions +have taken children in their arms; millions have wept that those +they love might smile. No language can express the goodness, the +heroism, the patience and self-denial of the many millions, dead +and living, who have preserved in the family of man the jewels of +the heart. You have clad one being in all the virtues of the race, +in all the attributes of gentleness, patience, goodness, and love, +and yet that being, according to the New Testament, had to his +character another side. True, he said, "Come unto me and I will +give you rest;" but what did he say to those who failed to come? +You pour out your whole heart in thankfulness to this one man who +suffered for the right, while I thank not only this one, but all +the rest. My heart goes out to all the great, the self-denying and +the good,—to the founders of nations, singers of songs, +builders of homes; to the inventors, to the artists who have filled +the world with beauty, to the composers of music, to the soldiers +of the right, to the makers of mirth, to honest men, and to all the +loving mothers of the race.</p> +<p>Compare, for one moment, all that the Savior did, all the pain +and suffering that he relieved,—compare all this with the +discovery of anæsthetics. Compare your prophets with the +inventors, your Apostles with the Keplers, the Humboldts and the +Darwins.</p> +<p>I belong to the great church that holds the world within its +starlit aisles; that claims the great and good of every race and +clime; that finds with joy the grain of gold in every creed, and +floods with light and love the germs of good in every soul.</p> +<p>Most men are provincial, narrow, one sided, only partially +developed. In a new country we often see a little patch of land, a +clearing in which the pioneer has built his cabin. This little +clearing is just large enough to support a family, and the +remainder of the farm is still forest, in which snakes crawl and +wild beasts occasionally crouch. It is thus with the brain of the +average man. There is a little clearing, a little patch, just large +enough to practice medicine with, or sell goods, or practice law; +or preach with, or do some kind of business, sufficient to obtain +bread and food and shelter for a family, while all the rest of the +brain is covered with primeval forest, in which lie coiled the +serpents of superstition and from which spring the wild beasts of +orthodox religion.</p> +<p>Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is +it necessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great +enough to demand a sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and +death, of good and evil, have never yet been solved.</p> +<p>I combat those only who, knowing nothing of the future, prophesy +an eternity of pain—those only who sow the seeds of fear in +the hearts of men—those only who poison all the springs of +life, and seat a skeleton at every feast.</p> +<p>Let us banish the shriveled hags of superstition; let us welcome +the beautiful daughters of truth and joy.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CONTROVERSY ON CHRISTIANTY</h2> +<h3>[Ingersoll-Gladstone.]</h3> +<p>COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY; SOME REMARKS ON HIS REPLY TO +DR. FIELD.</p> +<p>By Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone.</p> +<p>AS a listener from across the broad Atlantic to the clash of +arms in the combat between Colonel Ingersoll and Dr. Field on the +most momentous of all subjects, I have not the personal knowledge +which assisted these doughty champions in making reciprocal +acknowledgments, as broad as could be desired, with reference to +personal character and motive. Such acknowledgments are of high +value in keeping the issue clear, if not always of all +adventitious, yet of all venomous matter. Destitute of the +experience on which to found them as original testimonies, still, +in attempting partially to criticise the remarkable Reply of +Colonel Ingersoll, I can both accept in good faith what has been +said by Dr. Field, and add that it seems to me consonant with the +strain of the pages I have set before me. Having said this, I shall +allow myself the utmost freedom in remarks, which will be addressed +exclusively to the matter, not the man.</p> +<p>Let me begin by making several acknowledgments of another kind, +but which I feel to be serious. The Christian Church has lived long +enough in external triumph and prosperity to expose those of whom +it is composed to all such perils of error and misfeasance, as +triumph and prosperity bring with them. Belief in divine guidance +is not of necessity belief that such guidance can never be +frustrated by the laxity, the infirmity, the perversity of man, +alike in the domain of action and in the domain of thought. +Believers in the perpetuity of the life of the Church are not tied +to believing in the perpetual health of the Church. Even the great +Latin Communion, and that communion even since the Council of the +Vatican in 1870, theoretically admits, or does not exclude, the +possibility of a wide range of local and partial error in opinion +as well as conduct. Elsewhere the admission would be more +unequivocal. Of such errors in tenet, or in temper and feeling more +or less hardened into tenet, there has been a crop alike abundant +and multifarious. Each Christian party is sufficiently apt to +recognize this fact with regard to every other Christian party; and +the more impartial and reflective minds are aware that no party is +exempt from mischiefs, which lie at the root of the human +constitution in its warped, impaired, and dislocated condition. +Naturally enough, these deformities help to indispose men towards +belief; and when this indisposition has been developed into a +system of negative warfare, all the faults of all the Christian +bodies, and sub-divisions of bodies, are, as it was natural to +expect they would be, carefully raked together, and become part and +parcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of redemption. I +notice these things in the mass, without particularity, which might +be invidious, for two important purposes. First, that we all, who +hold by the Gospel and the Christian Church, may learn humility and +modesty, as well as charity and indulgence, in the treatment of +opponents, from our consciousness that we all, alike by our +exaggerations and our shortcomings in belief, no less than by +faults of conduct, have contributed to bring about this condition +of fashionable hostility to religious faith: and, secondly, that we +may resolutely decline to be held bound to tenets, or to +consequences of tenets, which represent not the great Christendom +of the past and present, but only some hole and corner of its vast +organization; and not the heavenly treasure, but the rust or the +canker to which that treasure has been exposed through the +incidents of its custody in earthen vessels.</p> +<p>I do not remember ever to have read a composition, in which the +merely local coloring of particular, and even very limited sections +of Christianity, was more systematically used as if it had been +available and legitimate argument against the whole, than in the +Reply before us. Colonel Ingersoll writes with a rare and enviable +brilliancy, but also with an impetus which he seems unable to +control. Denunciation, sarcasm, and invective, may in consequence +be said to constitute the staple of his work; and, if argument or +some favorable admission here and there peeps out for a moment, the +writer soon leaves the dry and barren heights for his favorite and +more luxurious galloping grounds beneath. Thus, when the Reply has +consecrated a line (N. A. R., No. 372, p. 473) to the pleasing +contemplation of his opponent as "manly, candid, and generous," it +immediately devotes more than twelve to a declamatory denunciation +of a practice (as if it were his) altogether contrary to generosity +and to candor, and reproaches those who expect (<i>ibid.</i>) "to +receive as alms an eternity of joy." I take this as a specimen of +the mode of statement which permeates the whole Reply. It is not +the statement of an untruth. The Christian receives as alms all +whatsoever he receives at all. <i>Qui salvandos salvas gratis</i> +is his song of thankful praise. But it is the statement of one-half +of a truth, which lives only in its entirety, and of which the +Reply gives us only a mangled and bleeding <i>frustum</i>. For the +gospel teaches that the faith which saves is a living and +energizing faith, and that the most precious part of the alms which +we receive lies in an ethical and spiritual process, which partly +qualifies for, but also and emphatically composes, this conferred +eternity of joy. Restore this ethical element to the doctrine from +which the Reply has rudely displaced it, and the whole force of the +assault is gone, for there is now a total absence of point in the +accusation; it conies only to this, that "mercy and judgment are +met together," and that "righteousness and peace have kissed each +other" (Ps. lxxxv. 10).</p> +<p>Perhaps, as we proceed, there will be supplied ampler means of +judging whether I am warranted in saying that the instance I have +here given is a normal instance of a practice so largely followed +as to divest the entire Reply of that calmness and sobriety of +movement which are essential to the just exercise of the reasoning +power in subject matter not only grave, but solemn. Pascal has +supplied us, in the "Provincial Letters," with an unique example of +easy, brilliant, and fascinating treatment of a theme both profound +and complex. But where shall we find another Pascal? And, if we had +found him, he would be entitled to point out to us that the famous +work was not less close and logical than it was witty. In this +case, all attempt at continuous argument appears to be deliberately +abjured, not only as to pages, but, as may almost be said, even as +to lines. The paper, noteworthy as it is, leaves on my mind the +impression of a battle-field where every man strikes at every man, +and all is noise, hurry, and confusion. Better surely had it been, +and worthier of the great weight and elevation of the subject, if +the controversy had been waged after the pattern of those +engagements where a chosen champion on either side, in a space +carefully limited and reserved, does battle on behalf of each +silent and expectant host. The promiscuous crowds represent all the +lower elements which enter into human conflicts: the chosen +champions, and the order of their proceeding, signify the dominion +of reason over force, and its just place as the sovereign arbiter +of the great questions that involve the main destiny of man.</p> +<p>I will give another instance of the tumultuous method in which +the Reply conducts, not, indeed, its argument, but its case. Dr. +Field had exhibited an example of what he thought superstition, and +had drawn a distinction between superstition and religion. But to +the author of the Reply all religion is superstition, and, +accordingly, he writes as follows (p. 475): "You are shocked at the +Hindoo mother, when she gives her child to death at the supposed +command of her God. What do you think of Abraham? of Jephthah? What +is your opinion of Jehovah himself?"</p> +<p>Taking these three appeals in the reverse order to that in which +they are written, I will briefly ask, as to the closing challenge, +"What do you think of Jehovah himself?" whether this is the tone in +which controversy ought to be carried on? Not only is the name of +Jehovah encircled in the heart of every believer with the +profoundest reverence and love, but the Christian religion teaches, +through the Incarnation, a doctrine of personal union with God so +lofty that it can only be approached in a deep, reverential calm. I +do not deny that a person who deems a given religion to be wicked +may be led onward by logical consistency to impugn in strong terms +the character of the Author and Object of that religion. But he is +surely bound by the laws of social morality and decency to consider +well the terms and the manner of his indictment. If he founds it +upon allegations of fact, these allegations should be carefully +stated, so as to give his antagonists reasonable evidence that it +is truth and not temper which wrings from him a sentence of +condemnation, delivered in sobriety and sadness, and not without a +due commiseration for those, whom he is attempting to undeceive, +who think he is himself both deceived and a deceiver, but who +surely are entitled, while this question is in process of decision, +to require that He whom they adore should at least be treated with +those decent reserves which are deemed essential when a human +being, say a parent, wife, or sister, is in question. But here a +contemptuous reference to Jehovah follows, not upon a careful +investigation of the cases of Abraham and of Jephthah, but upon a +mere summary citation of them to surrender themselves, so to speak, +as culprits; that is to say, a summons to accept at once, on the +authority of the Reply, the view which the writer is pleased to +take of those cases. It is true that he assures us in another part +of his paper that he has read the scriptures with care; and I feel +bound to accept this assurance, but at the same time to add that if +it had not been given I should, for one, not have made the +discovery, but might have supposed that the author had galloped, +not through, but about, the sacred volume, as a man glances over +the pages of an ordinary newspaper or novel.</p> +<p>Although there is no argument as to Abraham or Jephthah +expressed upon the surface, we must assume that one is intended, +and it seems to be of the following kind: "You are not entitled to +reprove the Hindoo mother who cast her child under the wheels of +the car of Juggernaut, for you approve of the conduct of Jephthah, +who (probably) sacrificed his daughter in fulfilment of a vow +(Judges xi. 31) that he would make a burnt offering of whatsoever, +on his safe return, he should meet coming forth from the doors of +his dwelling." Now the whole force of this rejoinder depends upon +our supposed obligation as believers to approve the conduct of +Jephthah. It is, therefore, a very serious question whether we are +or are not so obliged. But this question the Reply does not +condescend either to argue, or even to state. It jumps to an +extreme conclusion without the decency of an intermediate step. Are +not such methods of proceeding more suited to placards at an +election, than to disquisitions on these most solemn subjects?</p> +<p>I am aware of no reason why any believer in Christianity should +not be free to canvass, regret, condemn the act of Jephthah. So far +as the narration which details it is concerned, there is not a word +of sanction given to it more than to the falsehood of Abraham in +Egypt, or of Jacob and Rebecca in the matter of the hunting (Gen. +xx. 1-18, and Gen. xxiii.); or to the dissembling of St. Peter in +the case of the Judaizing converts (Gai. ii. 11). I am aware of no +color of approval given to it elsewhere. But possibly the author of +the Reply may have thought he found such an approval in the famous +eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle, +handling his subject with a discernment and care very different +from those of the Reply, writes thus (Heb. xi. 32):</p> +<p>"And what shall I say more? For the time would fail me to tell +of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah: of David +also, and Samuel, and of the prophets."</p> +<p>Jephthah, then, is distinctly held up to us by a canonical +writer as an object of praise. But of praise on what account? Why +should the Reply assume that it is on account of the sacrifice of +his child? The writer of the Reply has given us no reason, and no +rag of a reason, in support of such a proposition. But this was the +very thing he was bound by every consideration to prove, upon +making his indictment against the Almighty. In my opinion, he could +have one reason only for not giving a reason, and that was that no +reason could be found.</p> +<p>The matter, however, is so full of interest, as illustrating +both the method of the Reply and that of the Apostolic writer, that +I shall enter farther into it, and draw attention to the very +remarkable structure of this noble chapter, which is to Faith what +the thirteenth of Cor. I. is to Charity. From the first to the +thirty-first verse, it commemorates the achievements of faith in +ten persons: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, +Joseph, Moses (in greater detail than any one else), and finally +Rahab, in whom, I observe in passing, it will hardly be pretended +that she appears in this list on account of the profession she had +pursued. Then comes the rapid recital (v. 31), without any +specification of particulars whatever, of these four names: Gideon, +Barak, Samson, Jephthah. Next follows a kind of recommencement, +indicated by the word also; and the glorious acts and sufferings of +the prophets are set forth largely with a singular power and +warmth, headed by the names of David and Samuel, the rest of the +sacred band being mentioned only in the mass.</p> +<p>Now, it is surely very remarkable that, in the whole of this +recital, the Apostle, whose "feet were shod with the preparation of +the gospel of peace," seems with a tender instinct to avoid +anything like stress on the exploits of warriors. Of the twelve +persons having a share in the detailed expositions, David is the +only warrior, and his character as a man of war is eclipsed by his +greater attributes as a prophet, or declarer of the Divine +counsels. It is yet more noteworthy that Joshua, who had so fair a +fame, but who was only a warrior, is never named in the chapter, +and we are simply told that "by faith the walls of Jericho fell +down, after they had been compassed about seven times" (Hebrews xi. +30). But the series of four names, which are given without any +specification of their title to appear in the list, are all names +of distinguished warriors. They had all done great acts of faith +and patriotism against the enemies of Israel,—Gideon against +the Midianites, Barak against the hosts of Syria, Samson against +the Philistines, and Jephthah against the children of Ammon. Their +tide to appear in the list at all is in their acts of war, and the +mode of their treatment as men of war is in striking accordance +with the analogies of the chapter. All of them had committed +errors. Gideon had again and again demanded a sign, and had made a +golden ephod, "which thing became a snare unto Gideon and to his +house" (Judges viii. 27). Barak had refused to go up against Jabin +unless Deborah would join the venture (Judges v. 8). Samson had +been in dalliance with Delilah. Last came Jephthah, who had, as we +assume, sacrificed his daughter in fulfilment of a rash vow. No one +supposes that any of the others are honored by mention in the +chapter on account of his sin or error: why should that supposition +be made in the case of Jephthah, at the cost of all the rules of +orderly interpretation?</p> +<p>Having now answered the challenge as to Jephthah, I proceed to +the case of Abraham. It would not be fair to shrink from touching +it in its tenderest point. That point is nowhere expressly touched +by the commendations bestowed upon Abraham in Scripture. I speak +now of the special form, of the words that are employed. He is not +commended because, being a father, he made all the preparations +antecedent to plunging the knife into his son. He is commended (as +I read the text) because, having received a glorious promise, a +promise that his wife should be a mother of nations, and that kings +should be born of her (Gen. xvii. 6), and that by his seed the +blessings of redemption should be conveyed to man, and the +fulfilment of this promise depending solely upon the life of Isaac, +he was, nevertheless, willing that the chain of these promises +should be broken by the extinction of that life, because his faith +assured him that the Almighty would find the way to give effect to +His own designs (Heb. xi. 17-19). The offering of Isaac is +mentioned as a completed offering, and the intended blood-shedding, +of which I shall speak presently, is not here brought into +view.</p> +<p>The facts, however, which we have before us, and which are +treated in Scripture with caution, are grave and startling. A +father is commanded to sacrifice his son. Before consummation, the +sacrifice is interrupted. Yet the intention of obedience had been +formed, and certified by a series of acts. It may have been +qualified by a reserve of hope that God would interpose before the +final act, but of this we have no distinct statement, and it can +only stand as an allowable conjecture. It may be conceded that the +narrative does not supply us with a complete statement of +particulars. That being so, it behooves us to tread cautiously in +approaching it. Thus much, however, I think, may further be said: +the command was addressed to Abraham under conditions essentially +different from those which now determine for us the limits of moral +obligation.</p> +<p>For the conditions, both socially and otherwise, were indeed +very different. The estimate of human life at the time was +different. The position of the father in the family was different: +its members were regarded as in some sense his property. There is +every reason to suppose that, around Abraham in "the land of +Moriah," the practice of human sacrifice as an act of religion was +in vigor. But we may look more deeply into the matter. According to +the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were placed under a law, not of +consciously perceived right and wrong, but of simple obedience. The +tree, of which alone they were forbidden to eat, was the tree of +the knowledge of good and evil. Duty lay for them in following the +command of the Most High, before and until they, or their +descendants, should become capable of appreciating it by an ethical +standard. Their condition was greatly analogous to that of the +infant, who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend +that he is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the +thing so ordered. To the external standard of right and wrong, and +to the obligation it entails per se, the child is introduced by a +process gradually unfolded with the development of his nature, and +the opening out of what we term a moral sense. If we pass at once +from the epoch of Paradise to the period of the prophets, we +perceive the important progress that has been made in the education +of the race. The Almighty, in His mediate intercourse with Israel, +deigns to appeal to an independently conceived criterion, as to an +arbiter between His people and Himself. "Come, now, and let us +reason together, saith the Lord" (Isaiah i. 18). "Yet ye say the +way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel, is not +my way equal, are not your ways unequal?" (Ezekiel xvii. 25). +Between these two epochs how wide a space of moral teaching has +been traversed! But Abraham, so far as we may judge from the pages +of Scripture, belongs essentially to the Adamic period, far more +than to the prophetic. The notion of righteousness and sin was not +indeed hidden from him: transgression itself had opened that +chapter, and it was never to be closed: but as yet they lay wrapped +up, so to speak, in Divine command and prohibition. And what God +commanded, it was for Abraham to believe that He himself would +adjust to the harmony of His own character.</p> +<p>The faith of Abraham, with respect to this supreme trial, +appears to have been centered in this, that he would trust God to +all extremities, and in despite of all appearances. The command +received was obviously inconsistent with the promises which had +preceded it. It was also inconsistent with the morality +acknowledged in later times, and perhaps too definitely reflected +in our minds, by an anachronism easy to conceive, on the day of +Abraham. There can be little doubt, as between these two points of +view, that the strain upon his faith was felt mainly, to say the +least, in connection with the first mentioned. This faith is not +wholly unlike the faith of Job; for Job believed, in despite of +what was to the eye of flesh an unrighteous government of the +world. If we may still trust the Authorized Version, his cry was, +"though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job xiii. 15). This +cry was, however, the expression of one who did not expect to be +slain; and it may be that Abraham, when he said, "My son, God will +provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering," not only believed +explicitly that God would do what was right, but, moreover, +believed implicitly that a way of rescue would be found for his +son. I do not say that this case is like the case of Jephthah, +where the introduction of difficulty is only gratuitous. I confine +myself to these propositions. Though the law of moral action is the +same everywhere and always, it is variously applicable to the human +being, as we know from experience, in the various stages of his +development; and its first form is that of simple obedience to a +superior whom there is every ground to trust. And further, if the +few straggling rays of our knowledge in a case of this kind rather +exhibit a darkness lying around us than dispel it, we do not even +know all that was in the mind of Abraham, and are not in a +condition to pronounce upon it, and cannot, without departure from +sound reason, abandon that anchorage by which he probably held, +that the law of Nature was safe in the hands of the Author of +Nature, though the means of the reconciliation between the law and +the appearances have not been fully placed within our reach.</p> +<p>But the Reply is not entitled to so wide an answer as that which +I have given. In the parallel with the case of the Hindoo widow, it +sins against first principles. An established and habitual practice +of child-slaughter, in a country of an old and learned +civilization, presents to us a case totally different from the +issue of a command which was not designed to be obeyed and which +belongs to a period when the years of manhood were associated in +great part with the character that appertains to childhood.</p> +<p>It will already have been seen that the method of this Reply is +not to argue seriously from point to point, but to set out in +masses, without the labor of proof, crowds of imputations, which +may overwhelm an opponent like balls from a <i>mitrailleuse</i>. As +the charges lightly run over in a line or two require pages for +exhibition and confutation, an exhaustive answer to the Reply +within the just limits of an article is on this account out of the +question; and the only proper course left open seems to be to make +a selection of what appears to be the favorite, or the most +formidable and telling assertions, and to deal with these in the +serious way which the grave interests of the theme, not the manner +of their presentation, may deserve.</p> +<p>It was an observation of Aristotle that weight attaches to the +undemonstrated propositions of those who are able to speak on any +given subject matter from experience. The Reply abounds in +undemonstrated propositions. They appear, however, to be delivered +without any sense of a necessity that either experience or +reasoning are required in order to give them a title to acceptance. +Thus, for example, the system of Mr. Darwin is hurled against +Christianity as a dart which cannot but be fatal (p. 475):</p> +<p>"His discoveries, carried to their legitimate conclusion, +destroy the creeds and sacred Scriptures of mankind."</p> +<p>This wide-sweeping proposition is imposed upon us with no +exposition of the how or the why; and the whole controversy of +belief one might suppose is to be determined, as if from St. +Petersburgh, by a series of <i>ukases</i>. It is only advanced, +indeed, to decorate the introduction of Darwin's name in support of +the proposition, which I certainly should support and not contest, +that error and honesty are compatible.</p> +<p>On what ground, then, and for what reason, is the system of +Darwin fatal to Scriptures and to creeds? I do not enter into the +question whether it has passed from the stage of working hypothesis +into that of demonstration, but I assume, for the purposes of the +argument, all that, in this respect, the Reply can desire.</p> +<p>It is not possible to discover, from the random language of the +Reply, whether the scheme of Darwin is to sweep away all theism, or +is to be content with extinguishing revealed religion. If the +latter is meant, I should reply that the moral history of man, in +its principal stream, has been distinctly an evolution from the +first until now; and that the succinct though grand account of the +Creation in Genesis is singularly accordant with the same idea, but +is wider than Darwinism, since it includes in the grand progression +the inanimate world as well as the history of organisms. But, as +this could not be shown without much detail, the Reply reduces me +to the necessity of following its own unsatisfactory example in the +bald form of an assertion, that there is no colorable ground for +assuming evolution and revelation to be at variance with one +another.</p> +<p>If, however, the meaning be that theism is swept away by +Darwinism, I observe that, as before, we have only an unreasoned +dogma or dictum to deal with, and, dealing perforce with the +unknown, we are in danger of striking at a will of the wisp. Still, +I venture on remarking that the doctrine of Evolution has acquired +both praise and dispraise which it does not deserve. It is lauded +in the skeptical camp because it is supposed to get rid of the +shocking idea of what are termed sudden acts of creation; and it is +as unjustly dispraised, on the opposing side, because it is thought +to bridge over the gap between man and the inferior animals, and to +give emphasis to the relationship between them. But long before the +day either of Mr. Darwin or his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, +this relationship had been stated, perhaps even more emphatically +by one whom, were it not that I have small title to deal in +undemonstrated assertion, I should venture to call the most +cautious, the most robust, and the most comprehensive of our +philosophers. Suppose, says Bishop Butler (Analogy, Part 2, Chap. +2), that it were implied in the natural immortality of brutes, that +they must arrive at great attainments, and become (like us) +rational and moral agents; even this would be no difficulty, since +we know not what latent powers and capacities they may be endowed +with. And if pride causes us to deem it an indignity that our race +should have proceeded by propagation from an ascending scale of +inferior organisms, why should it be a more repulsive idea to have +sprung immediately from something less than man in brain and body, +than to have been fashioned according to the expression in Genesis +(Chap. II., v. 7), "out of the dust of the ground?" There are halls +and galleries of introduction in a palace, but none in a cottage; +and this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever +aspiring preparatory series, rather than by transition at a step +from the inanimate mould of earth, may tend rather to magnify than +to lower the creation of man on its physical side. But if belief +has (as commonly) been premature in its alarms, has non-belief been +more reflective in its exulting anticipations, and its paeans on +the assumed disappearance of what are strangely enough termed +sudden acts of creation from the sphere of our study and +contemplation?</p> +<p>One striking effect of the Darwinian theory of descent is, so +far as I understand, to reduce the breadth of all intermediate +distinctions in the scale of animated life. It does not bring all +creatures into a single lineage, but all diversities are to be +traced back, at some point in the scale and by stages indefinitely +minute, to a common ancestry. All is done by steps, nothing by +strides, leaps, or bounds; all from protoplasm up to Shakespeare, +and, again, all from primal night and chaos up to protoplasm. I do +not ask, and am incompetent to judge, whether this is among the +things proven, but I take it so for the sake of the argument; and I +ask, first, why and whereby does this doctrine eliminate the idea +of creation? Does the new philosophy teach that if the passage from +pure reptile to pure bird is achieved by a spring (so to speak) +over a chasm, this implies and requires creation; but that if +reptile passes into bird, and rudimental into finished bird, by a +thousand slight and but just discernible modifications, each one of +these is so small that they are not entitled to a name so lofty, +may be set down to any cause or no cause, as we please? I should +have supposed it miserably unphilosophical to treat the distinction +between creative and non-creative function as a simply quantitative +distinction. As respects the subjective effect on the human mind, +creation in small, when closely regarded, awakens reason to +admiring wonder, not less than creation in great: and as regards +that function itself, to me it appears no less than ridiculous to +hold that the broadly outlined and large advances of so-called +Mosaism are creation, but the refined and stealthy onward steps of +Darwinism are only manufacture, and relegate the question of a +cause into obscurity, insignificance, or oblivion.</p> +<p>But does not reason really require us to go farther, to turn the +tables on the adversary, and to contend that evolution, by how much +it binds more closely together the myriad ranks of the living, aye, +and of all other orders, by so much the more consolidates, +enlarges, and enhances the true argument of design, and the entire +theistic position? If orders are not mutually related, it is easier +to conceive of them as sent at haphazard into the world. We may, +indeed, sufficiently, draw an argument of design from each separate +structure, but we have no further title to build upon the position +which each of them holds as towards any other. But when the +connexion between these objects has been established, and so +established that the points of transition are almost as +indiscernible as the passage from day to night, then, indeed, each +preceding stage is a prophecy of the following, each succeeding one +is a memorial of the past, and, throughout the immeasurable series, +every single member of it is a witness to all the rest. The Reply +ought surely to dispose of these, and probably many more arguments +in the case, before assuming so absolutely the rights of +dictatorship, and laying it down that Darwinism, carried to its +legitimate conclusion (and I have nowhere endeavored to cut short +its career), destroys the creeds and Scriptures of mankind. That I +maybe the more definite in my challenge, I would, with all respect, +ask the author of the Reply to set about confuting the succinct and +clear argument of his countryman, Mr. Fiske, who, in the earlier +part of the small work entitled <i>Man's Destiny</i> (Macmillan, +London, 1887) has given what seems to me an admissible and also +striking interpretation of the leading Darwinian idea in its +bearings on the theistic argument. To this very partial treatment +of a great subject I must at present confine myself; and I proceed +to another of the notions, as confident as they seem to be crude, +which the Reply has drawn into its wide-casting net (p. 475):</p> +<p>"Why should God demand a sacrifice from; man? Why should the +Infinite ask anything from the finite? Should the sun beg of the +glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of the +source of light?"</p> +<p>This is one of the cases in which happy or showy illustration +is, in the Reply before me, set to carry with a rush the position +which argument would have to approach more laboriously and more +slowly. The case of the glow-worm with the sun cannot but move a +reader's pity, it seems so very hard. But let us suppose for a +moment that the glow-worm was so constituted, and so related to the +sun that an interaction between them was a fundamental condition of +its health and life; that the glowworm must, by the law of its +nature, like the moon, reflect upon the sun, according to its +strength and measure, the light which it receives, and that only by +a process involving that reflection its own store of vitality could +be upheld? It will be said that this is a very large <i>petitio</i> +to import into the glowworm's case. Yes, but it is the very +<i>petitio</i> which is absolutely requisite in order to make it +parallel to the case of the Christian. The argument which the Reply +has to destroy is and must be the Christian argument, and not some +figure of straw, fabricated at will. It is needless, perhaps, but +it is refreshing, to quote the noble Psalm (Ps. 1. 10, 12, 14, 15), +in which this assumption of the Reply is rebuked. "All the beasts +of the forest are mine; and so are the cattle upon a thousand +hills.... If I be hungry I will not tell thee; for the whole world +is mine, and all that is therein.... Offer unto God thanksgiving; +and pay thy vows unto the Most Highest, and call upon Me in the +time of trouble; so will I hear thee, and thou shalt praise Me." +Let me try my hand at a counter-illustration. If the Infinite is to +make no demand upon the finite, by parity of reasoning the great +and strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small. Why +then should the father make demands of love, obedience, and +sacrifice, from his young child? Is there not some flavor of the +sun and glow-worm here? But every man does so make them, if he is a +man of sense and feeling; and he makes them for the sake and in the +interest of the son himself, whose nature, expanding in the warmth +of affection and pious care, requires, by an inward law, to return +as well as to receive. And so God asks of us, in order that what we +give to Him may be far more our own than it ever was before the +giving, or than it could have been unless first rendered up to Him, +to become a part of what the gospel calls our treasure in +heaven.</p> +<p>Although the Reply is not careful to supply us with whys, it +does not hesitate to ask for them (p. 479):</p> +<p>"Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good +and preserve the vile? Why should He treat all alike here, and in +another world make an infinite difference? Why should your God +allow His worshipers, His adorers, to be destroyed by His enemies? +Why should He allow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at +the stake?"</p> +<p>The upholders of belief or of revelation, from Claudian down to +Cardinal Newman (see the very remarkable passage of the <i>Apologia +pro vitâ suâ</i>, pp. 376-78), cannot and do not, seek +to deny that the methods of divine government, as they are +exhibited by experience, present to us many and varied moral +problems, insoluble by our understanding. Their existence may not, +and should not, be dissembled. But neither should they be +exaggerated. Now exaggeration by mere suggestion is the fault, the +glaring fault, of these queries. One who had no knowledge of +mundane affairs beyond the conception they insinuate would assume +that, as a rule, evil has the upper hand in the management of the +world. Is this the grave philosophical conclusion of a careful +observer, or is it a crude, hasty, and careless overstatement?</p> +<p>It is not difficult to conceive how, in times of sadness and of +storm, when the suffering soul can discern no light at any point of +the horizon, place is found for such an idea of life. It is, of +course, opposed to the Apostolic declaration that godliness hath +the promise of the life that now is (1 Tim. iv. 8), but I am not to +expect such a declaration to be accepted as current coin, even of +the meanest value, by the author of the Reply. Yet I will offer two +observations founded on experience in support of it, one taken from +a limited, another from a larger and more open sphere. John Wesley, +in the full prime of his mission, warned the converts whom he was +making among English laborers of a spiritual danger that lay far +ahead. It was that, becoming godly, they would become careful, and, +becoming careful, they would become wealthy. It was a just and +sober forecast, and it represented with truth the general rule of +life, although it be a rule perplexed with exceptions. But, if this +be too narrow a sphere of observation, let us take a wider one, the +widest of all. It is comprised in the brief statement that +Christendom rules the world, and rules it, perhaps it should be +added, by the possession of a vast surplus of material as well as +moral force. Therefore the assertions carried by implication in the +queries of the Reply, which are general, are because general +untrue, although they might have been true within those prudent +limitations which the method of this Reply appears especially to +eschew.</p> +<p>Taking, then, these challenges as they ought to have been given, +I admit that great believers, who have been also great masters of +wisdom and knowledge, are not able to explain the inequalities of +adjustment between human beings and the conditions in which they +have been set down to work out their destiny. The climax of these +inequalities is perhaps to be found in the fact that, whereas +rational belief, viewed at large, founds the Providential +government of the world upon the hypothesis of free agency, there +are so many cases in which the overbearing mastery of circumstance +appears to reduce it to extinction or paralysis. Now, in one sense, +without doubt, these difficulties are matter for our legitimate and +necessary cognizance. It is a duty incumbent upon us respectively, +according to our means and opportunities, to decide for ourselves, +by the use of the faculty of reason given us, the great questions +of natural and revealed religion. They are to be decided according +to the evidence; and, if we cannot trim the evidence into a +consistent whole, then according to the balance of the evidence. We +are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in this +province any rule of investigation, except such as common-sense +teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life. As in ordinary +conduct, so in considering the basis of belief, we are bound to +look at the evidence as a whole. We have no right to demand +demonstrative proofs, or the removal of all conflicting elements, +either in the one sphere or in the other. What guides us +sufficiently in matters of common practice has the very same +authority to guide us in matters of speculation; more properly, +perhaps, to be called the practice of the soul. If the evidence in +the aggregate shows the being of a moral Governor of the world, +with the same force as would suffice to establish an obligation to +act in a matter of common conduct, we are bound in duty to accept +it, and have no right to demand as a condition previous that all +occasions of doubt or question be removed out of the way. Our +demands for evidence must be limited by the general reason of the +case. Does that general reason of the case make it probable that a +finite being, with a finite place in a comprehensive scheme, +devised and administered by a Being who is infinite, would be able +either to embrace within his view, or rightly to appreciate, all +the motives and the aims that may have been in the mind of the +Divine Disposer? On the contrary, a demand so unreasonable deserves +to be met with the scornful challenge of Dante (Paradise xix. +79):</p> +<pre> + Or tu chi sei, che vuoi sedere a scranna + Per giudicar da lungi mille miglia + Colla veduta corta d'una spanna? +</pre> +<p>Undoubtedly a great deal here depends upon the question whether, +and in what degree, our knowledge is limited. And here the Reply +seems to be by no means in accord with Newton and with Butler. By +its contempt for authority, the Reply seems to cut off from us all +knowledge that is not at first hand; but then also it seems to +assume an original and first hand knowledge of all possible kinds +of things. I will take an instance, all the easier to deal with +because it is outside the immediate sphere of controversy. In one +of those pieces of fine writing with which the Reply abounds, it is +determined <i>obiter</i> by a backhanded stroke (N. A. R., p. 491) +that Shakespeare is "by far the greatest of the human race." I do +not feel entitled to assert that he is not; but how vast and +complex a question is here determined for us in this airy manner! +Has the writer of the Reply really weighed the force, and measured +the sweep of his own words? Whether Shakespeare has or has not the +primacy of genius over a very few other names which might be placed +in competition with his, is a question which has not yet been +determined by the general or deliberate judgment of lettered +mankind. But behind it lies another question, inexpressibly +difficult, except for the Reply, to solve. That question is, what +is the relation of human genius to human greatness. Is genius the +sole constitutive element of greatness, or with what other +elements, and in what relations to them, is it combined? Is every +man great in proportion to his genius? Was Goldsmith, or was +Sheridan, or was Burns, or was Byron, or was Goethe, or was +Napoleon, or was Alcibiades, no smaller, and was Johnson, or was +Howard, or was Washington, or was Phocion, or Leonidas, no greater, +than in proportion to his genius properly so-called? How are we to +find a common measure, again, for different kinds of greatness; how +weigh, for example, Dante against Julius Caesar? And I am speaking +of greatness properly so called, not of goodness properly so +called. We might seem to be dealing with a writer whose contempt +for authority in general is fully balanced, perhaps outweighed, by +his respect for one authority in particular.</p> +<p>The religions of the world, again, have in many cases given to +many men material for life-long study. The study of the Christian +Scriptures, to say nothing of Christian life and institutions, has +been to many and justly famous men a study "never ending, still +beginning"; not, like the world of Alexander, too limited for the +powerful faculty that ranged over it; but, on the contrary, opening +height on height, and with deep answering to deep, and with +increase of fruit ever prescribing increase of effort. But the +Reply has sounded all these depths, has found them very shallow, +and is quite able to point out (p. 490) the way in which the +Saviour of the world might have been a much greater teacher than He +actually was; had He said anything, for instance, of the family +relation, had He spoken against slavery and tyranny, had He issued +a sort of <i>code Napoleon</i> embracing education, progress, +scientific truth, and international law. This observation on the +family relation seems to me beyond even the usual measure of +extravagance when we bear in mind that, according to the Christian +scheme, the Lord of heaven and earth "was subject" (St. Luke ii. +51) to a human mother and a reputed human father, and that He +taught (according to the widest and, I believe, the best opinion) +the absolute indissolubility of marriage. I might cite many other +instances in reply. But the broader and the true answer to the +objection is, that the Gospel was promulgated to teach principles +and not a code; that it included the foundation of a society in +which those principles were to be conserved, developed, and +applied; and that down to this day there is not a moral question of +all those which the Reply does or does not enumerate, nor is there +a question of duty arising in the course of life for any of us, +that is not determinable in all its essentials by applying to it as +a touchstone the principles declared in the Gospel. Is not, then, +the <i>hiatus</i>, which the Reply has discovered in the teaching +of our Lord, an imaginary <i>hiatus</i>? Nay, are the suggested +improvements of that teaching really gross deteriorations? Where +would have been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed +population of a particular age a codified religion, which was to +serve for all nations, all ages, all states of civilization? Why +was not room to be left for the career of human thought in finding +out, and in working out, the adaptation of Christianity to the ever +varying movement of the world? And how is it that they who will not +admit that a revelation is in place when it has in view the great +and necessary work of conflict against sin, are so free in +recommending enlargements of that Revelation for purposes, as to +which no such necessity can be pleaded?</p> +<p>I have known a person who, after studying the old classical or +Olympian religion for the third part of a century, at length began +to hope that he had some partial comprehension of it, some inkling +of what it meant. Woe is him that he was not conversant either with +the faculties or with the methods of the Reply, which apparently +can dispose in half an hour of any problem, dogmatic, historical, +or moral: and which accordingly takes occasion to assure us that +Buddha was "in many respects the greatest religious teacher this +world has ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them +all" (p. 491). On this I shall only say that an attempt to bring +Buddha and Buddhism into line together is far beyond my reach, but +that every Christian, knowing in some degree what Christ is, and +what He has done for the world, can only be the more thankful if +Buddha, or Confucius, or any other teacher has in any point, and in +any measure, come near to the outskirts of His ineffable greatness +and glory.</p> +<p>It is my fault or my misfortune to remark, in this Reply, an +inaccuracy of reference, which would of itself suffice to render it +remarkable. Christ, we are told (pp. 492, 500), denounced the +chosen people of God as "a generation of vipers." This phrase is +applied by the Baptist to the crowd who came to seek baptism from +him; but it is only applied by our Lord to Scribes or Pharisees +(Luke iii. 7, Matthew xxiii. 33, and xii.34), who are so commonly +placed by Him in contrast with the people. The error is repeated in +the mention of whited sepulchres. Take again the version of the +story of Ananias and Sapphira. We are told (p. 494) that the +Apostles conceived the idea "of having all things in common." In +the narrative there is no statement, no suggestion of the kind; it +is a pure interpolation (Acts iv. 32-7). Motives of a reasonable +prudence are stated as a mattei of fact to have influenced the +offending couple—another pure interpolation. After the +catastrophe of Ananias "the Apostles sent for his wife"—a +third interpolation. I refer only to these points as exhibitions of +an habitual and dangerous inaccuracy, and without any attempt at +present to discuss the case, in which the judgments of God are +exhibited on their severer side, and in which I cannot, like the +Reply, undertake summarily to determine for what causes the +Almighty should or should not take life, or delegate the power to +take it.</p> +<p>Again, we have (p. 486) these words given as a quotation from +the Bible:</p> +<p>"They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and they who +believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into +everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."</p> +<p>The second clause thus reads as if applicable to the persons +mentioned in the first; that is to say, to those who reject the +tidings of the Gospel. But instead of its being a continuous +passage, the latter section is brought out of another gospel (St. +Matthew's) and another connection; and it is really written, not of +those who do not believe, but those who refuse to perform offices +of charity to their neighbor in his need. It would be wrong to call +this intentional misrepresentation; but can it be called less than +somewhat reckless negligence?</p> +<p>It is a more special misfortune to find a writer arguing on the +same side with his critic, and yet for the critic not to be able to +agree with him. But so it is with reference to the great subject of +immortality, as treated in the Reply.</p> +<p>"The idea of immortality, that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed +in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear +beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born +of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of +human affection; and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the +mist and clouds of doubt and darkness, as long as love kisses the +lips of death" (p. 483).</p> +<p>Here we have a very interesting chapter of the history of human +opinion disposed of in the usual summary way, by a statement which, +as it appears to me, is developed out of the writer's inner +consciousness. If the belief in immortality is not connected with +any revelation or religion, but is simply the expression of a +subjective want, then plainly we may expect the expression of it to +be strong and clear in proportion to the various degrees in which +faculty is developed among the various races of mankind. But how +does the matter stand historically? The Egyptians were not a people +of high intellectual development, and yet their religious system +was strictly associated with, I might rather say founded on, the +belief in immortality. The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, were +a race of astonishing, perhaps unrivalled, intellectual capacity. +But not only did they, in prehistoric ages, derive their scheme of +a future world from Egypt; we find also that, with the lapse of +time and the advance of the Hellenic civilization, the constructive +ideas of the system lost all life and definite outline, and the +most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy, that of Aristotle, had +no clear perception whatever of a personal existence in a future +state.</p> +<p>The favorite doctrine of the Reply is the immunity of all error +in belief from moral responsibility. In the first page (p. 473) +this is stated with reserve as the "innocence of honest error." But +why such a limitation? The Reply warms with its subject; it shows +us that no error can be otherwise than honest, inasmuch as nothing +which involves honesty, or its reverse, can, from the constitution +of our nature, enter into the formation of opinion. Here is the +full blown exposition (p. 476):</p> +<p>"The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, or we +disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It +is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite +of him who watches. <i>There is no opportunity of being honesty or +dishonest, in the formation of an opinion</i>. The conclusion is +entirely independent of desire."</p> +<p>The reasoning faculty is, therefore, wholly extrinsic to our +moral nature, and no influence is or can be received or imparted +between them. I know not whether the meaning is that all the +faculties of our nature are like so many separate departments in +one of the modern shops that supply all human wants; that will, +memory, imagination, affection, passion, each has its own separate +domain, and that they meet only for a comparison of results, just +to tell one another what they have severally been doing. It is +difficult to conceive, if this be so, wherein consists the +personality, or individuality or organic unity of man. It is not +difficult to see that while the Reply aims at uplifting human +nature, it in reality plunges us (p. 475) into the abyss of +degradation by the destruction of moral freedom, responsibility, +and unity. For we are justly told that "reason is the supreme and +final test." Action may be merely instinctive and habitual, or it +may be consciously founded on formulated thought; but, in the cases +where it is instinctive and habitual, it passes over, so soon as it +is challenged, into the other category, and finds a basis for +itself in some form of opinion. But, says the Reply, we have no +responsibility for our opinions: we cannot help forming them +according to the evidence as it presents itself to us. Observe, the +doctrine embraces every kind of opinion, and embraces all alike, +opinion on subjects where we like or dislike, as well as upon +subjects where we merely affirm or deny in some medium absolutely +colorless. For, if a distinction be taken between the colorless and +the colored medium, between conclusions to which passion or +propensity or imagination inclines us, and conclusions to which +these have nothing to say, then the whole ground will be cut away +from under the feet of the Reply, and it will have to build again +<i>ab initio</i>. Let us try this by a test case. A father who has +believed his son to have been through life upright, suddenly finds +that charges are made from various quarters against his integrity. +Or a friend, greatly dependent for the work of his life on the +co-operation of another friend, is told that that comrade is +counterworking and betraying him. I make no assumption now as to +the evidence or the result; but I ask which of them could approach +the investigation without feeling a desire to be able to acquit? +And what shall we say of the desire to condemn? Would Elizabeth +have had no leaning towards finding Mary Stuart implicated in a +conspiracy? Did English judges and juries approach with an +unbiassed mind the trials for the Popish plot? Were the opinions +formed by the English Parliament on the Treaty of Limerick formed +without the intervention of the will? Did Napoleon judge according +to the evidence when he acquitted himself in the matter of the Due +d' Enghien? Does the intellect sit in a solitary chamber, like +Galileo in the palace of the Vatican, and pursue celestial +observation all untouched, while the turmoil of earthly business is +raging everywhere around? According to the Reply, it must be a +mistake to suppose that there is anywhere in the world such a thing +as bias, or prejudice, or prepossession: they are words without +meaning in regard to our judgments, for even if they could raise a +clamor from without, the intellect sits within, in an atmosphere of +serenity, and, like Justice, is deaf and blind, as well as +calm.</p> +<p>In addition to all other faults, I hold that this philosophy, or +phantasm of philosophy, is eminently retrogressive. Human nature, +in its compound of flesh and spirit, becomes more complex with the +progress of civilization; with the steady multiplication of wants, +and of means for their supply. With complication, introspection has +largely extended, and I believe that, as observation extends its +field, so far from isolating the intelligence and making it +autocratic, it tends more and more to enhance and multiply the +infinitely subtle, as well as the broader and more palpable modes, +in which the interaction of the human faculties is carried on. Who +among us has not had occasion to observe, in the course of his +experience, how largely the intellectual power of a man is affected +by the demands of life on his moral powers, and how they open and +grow, or dry up and dwindle, according to the manner in which those +demands are met.</p> +<p>Genius itself, however purely a conception of the intellect, is +not exempt from the strong influences of joy and suffering, love +and hatred, hope and fear, in the development of its powers. It may +be that Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe, basking upon the whole in the +sunshine of life, drew little supplementary force from its trials +and agitations. But the history of one not less wonderful than any +of these, the career of Dante, tells a different tale; and one of +the latest and most searching investigators of his history +(Scartazzini, Dante Alighieri, <i>seine zeit, sein leben, und seine +werkes</i>, B. II. Ch. 5, p. 119; also pp. 438, 9. Biel, 1869) +tells and shows us, how the experience of his life co-operated with +his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities to make him what +he was. Under the three great heads of love, belief, and +patriotism, his life was a continued course of ecstatic or +agonizing trials. The strain of these trials was discipline; +discipline was experience; and experience was elevation. No reader +of his greatest work will, I believe, hold with the Reply that his +thoughts, conclusions, judgments, were simple results of an +automatic process, in which the will and affections had no share, +that reasoning operations are like the whir of a clock running +down, and we can no more arrest the process or alter the conclusion +than the wheels can stop the movement or the noise.*</p> +<pre> + * I possess the confession of an illiterate criminal, made, + I think, in 1834, under the following circumstances: The new + poor law had just been passed in England, and it required + persons needing relief to go into the workhouse as a + condition of receiving it. In some parts of the country, + this provision produced a profound popular panic. The man in + question was destitute at the time. He was (I think) an old + widower with four very young sons. He rose in the night and + strangled them all, one after another, with a blue + handkerchief, not from want of fatherly affection, but to + keep them out of the workhouse. The confession of this + peasant, simple in phrase, but intensely impassioned, + strongly reminds me of the Ugolino of Dante, and appears to + make some approach to its sublimity. Such, in given + circumstances, is the effect of moral agony on mental power. +</pre> +<p>The doctrine taught in the Reply, that belief is, as a general, +nay, universal law, independent of the will, surely proves, when +examined, to be a plausibility of the shallowest kind. Even in +arithmetic, if a boy, through dislike of his employment, and +consequent lack of attention, brings out a wrong result for his +sum, it can hardly be said that his conclusion is absolutely and in +all respects independent of his will. Moving onward, point by +point, toward the centre of the argument, I will next take an +illustration from mathematics. It has (I apprehend) been +demonstrated that the relation of the diameter to the circumference +of a circle is not susceptible of full numerical expression. Yet, +from time to time, treatises are published which boldly announce +that they set forth the quadrature of the circle. I do not deny +that this may be purely intellectual error; but would it not, on +the other hand, be hazardous to assert that no grain of egotism or +ambition has ever entered into the composition of any one of such +treatises? I have selected these instances as, perhaps, the most +favorable that can be found to the doctrine of the Reply. But the +truth is that, if we set aside matters of trivial import, the +enormous majority of human judgments are those into which the +biassing power off likes and dislikes more or less largely enters. +I admit, indeed, that the illative faculty works under rules upon +which choice and inclination ought to exercise no influence +whatever. But even if it were granted that in fact the faculty of +discourse is exempted from all such influence within its own +province, yet we come no nearer to the mark, because that faculty +has to work upon materials supplied to it by other faculties; it +draws conclusions according to premises, and the question has to be +determined whether our conceptions set forth in those premises are +or are not influenced by moral causes. For, if they be so +influenced, then in vain will be the proof that the understanding +has dealt loyally and exactly with the materials it had to work +upon; inasmuch as, although the intellectual process be normal in +itself, the operation may have been tainted <i>ab initio</i> by +coloring and distorting influences which have falsified the primary +conceptions.</p> +<p>Let me now take an illustration from the extreme opposite +quarter to that which I first drew upon. The system called +Thuggism, represented in the practice of the Thugs, taught that the +act, which we describe as murder, was innocent. Was this an honest +error? Was it due, in its authors as well as in those who blindly +followed them, to an automatic process of thought, in which the +will was not consulted, and which accordingly could entail no +responsibility? If it was, then it is plain that the whole +foundations, not of belief, but of social morality, are broken up. +If it was not, then the sweeping doctrine of the present writer on +the necessary blamelessness of erroneous conclusions tumbles to the +ground like a house of cards at the breath of the child who built +it.</p> +<p>In truth, the pages of the Reply, and the Letter which has more +recently followed it,* themselves demonstrate that what the writer +has asserted wholesale he overthrows and denies in detail.</p> +<pre> + * North American Review for January, 1888, "Another Letter + to Dr. Field." +</pre> +<p>"You will admit," says the Reply (p. 477), "that he who now +persecutes for opinion's sake is infamous." But why? Suppose he +thinks that by persecution he can bring a man from soul-destroying +falsehood to soul-saving truth, this opinion may reflect on his +intellectual debility: but that is his misfortune, not his fault. +His brain has thought without asking his consent; he has believed +or disbelieved without an effort of the will (p. 476). Yet the very +writer, who has thus established his title to think, is the first +to hurl at him an anathema for thinking. And again, in the Letter +to Dr. Field (N. A. R., vol. 146, p. 33), "the dogma of eternal +pain" is described as "that infamy of infamies." I am not about to +discuss the subject of future retribution. If I were, it would be +my first duty to show that this writer has not adequately +considered either the scope of his own arguments (which in no way +solve the difficulties he presents) or the meaning of his words; +and my second would be to recommend his perusal of what Bishop +Butler has suggested on this head. But I am at present on ground +altogether different. I am trying another issue. This author says +we believe or disbelieve without the action of the will, and, +consequently, belief or disbelief is not the proper subject of +praise or blame. And yet, according to the very same authority, the +dogma of eternal pain is what?—not "an error of errors," but +an "infamy of infamies;" and though to hold a negative may not be a +subject of moral reproach, yet to hold the affirmative may. Truly +it may be asked, is not this a fountain which sends forth at once +sweet waters and bitter?</p> +<p>Once more. I will pass away from tender ground, and will +endeavor to lodge a broader appeal to the enlightened judgment of +the author. Says Odysseus in the Illiad (B. II.) +[—Greek—]: and a large part of the world, stretching +this sentiment beyond its original meaning, have held that the root +of civil power is not in the community, but in its head. In +opposition to this doctrine, the American written Constitution, and +the entire American tradition, teach the right of a nation to +self-government. And these propositions, which have divided and +still divide the world, open out respectively into vast systems of +irreconcilable ideas and laws, practices and habits of mind. Will +any rational man, above all will any American, contend that these +conflicting systems have been adopted, upheld, and enforced on one +side and the other, in the daylight of pure reasoning only, and +that moral, or immoral, causes have had nothing to do with their +adoption? That the intellect has worked impartially, like a +steam-engine, and that selfishness, love of fame, love of money, +love of power, envy, wrath, and malice, or again bias, in its least +noxious form, have never had anything to do with generating the +opposing movements, or the frightful collisions in which they have +resulted? If we say that they have not, we contradict the universal +judgment of mankind. If we say they have, then mental processes are +not automatic, but may be influenced by the will and by the +passions, affections, habits, fancies that sway the will; and this +writer will not have advanced a step toward proving the universal +innocence of error, until he has shown that propositions of +religion are essentially unlike almost all other propositions, and +that no man ever has been, or from the nature of the case can be, +affected in their acceptance or rejection by moral causes.*</p> +<pre> + * The chief part of these observations were written before I + had received the January number of the Review, with Col. + Ingersoll's additional letter to Dr. Field. Much, of this + letter is specially pointed at Dr. Field, who can defend + himself, and at Calvin, whose ideas I certainly cannot + undertake to defend all along the line. I do not see that + the Letter adds to those, the most salient, points of the + earlier article which I have endeavored to select for + animadversion. +</pre> +<p>To sum up. There are many passages in these noteworthy papers, +which, taken by themselves, are calculated to command warm +sympathy. Towards the close of his final, or latest letter, the +writer expresses himself as follows (N. A. R., vol. 146, p. +46.):</p> +<p>"Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, +is it necessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great +enough to demand a sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and +death, of good and evil, have never yet been solved." How good, how +wise are these words! But coming at the close of the controversy, +have they not some of the ineffectual features of a death-bed +repentance? They can hardly be said to represent in all points the +rules under which the pages preceding them have been composed; or +he, who so justly says that we ought not to assert what we do not +know, could hardly have laid down the law as we find it a few pages +earlier (ibid, p. 40) when it is pronounced that "an infinite God +has no excuse for leaving his children in doubt and darkness." +Candor and upright intention are indeed every where manifest amidst +the flashing corruscations which really compose the staple of the +articles. Candor and upright intention also impose upon a +commentator the duty of formulating his animadversions. I sum them +up under two heads. Whereas we are placed in an atmosphere of +mystery, relieved only by a little sphere of light round each of +us, like a clearing in an American forest (which this writer has so +well described), and rarely can see farther than is necessary for +the direction of our own conduct from day to day, we find here, +assumed by a particular person, the character of an universal judge +without appeal. And whereas the highest self-restraint is necessary +in these dark but, therefore, all the more exciting inquiries, in +order to maintain the ever quivering balance of our faculties, this +rider chooses to ride an unbroken horse, and to throw the reins +upon his neck. I have endeavored to give a sample of the +results.</p> +<p>W. E. Gladstone.</p> +<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE.</h2> +<h3>To The Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, M. P.:</h3> +<p>My Dear Sir:</p> +<p>At the threshold of this Reply, it gives me pleasure to say that +for your intellect and character I have the greatest respect; and +let me say further, that I shall consider your arguments, +assertions, and inferences entirely apart from your +personality—apart from the exalted position that you occupy +in the estimation of the civilized world. I gladly acknowledge the +inestimable services that you have rendered, not only to England, +but to mankind. Most men are chilled and narrowed by the snows of +age; their thoughts are darkened by the approach of night. But you, +for many years, have hastened toward the light, and your mind has +been "an autumn that grew the more by reaping."</p> +<p>Under no circumstances could I feel justified in taking +advantage of the admissions that you have made as to the "errors" +the "misfeasance" the "infirmities and the perversity" of the +Christian Church.</p> +<p>It is perfectly apparent that churches, being only aggregations +of people, contain the prejudice, the ignorance, the vices and the +virtues of ordinary human beings. The perfect cannot be made out of +the imperfect.</p> +<p>A man is not necessarily a great mathematician because he admits +the correctness of the multiplication table. The best creed may be +believed by the worst of the human race. Neither the crimes nor the +virtues of the church tend to prove or disprove the supernatural +origin of religion. The massacre of St. Bartholomew tends no more +to establish the inspiration of the Scriptures, than the +bombardment of Alexandria.</p> +<p>But there is one thing that cannot be admitted, and that is your +statement that the constitution of man is in a "warped, impaired, +and dislocated condition," and that "these deformities indispose +men to belief." Let us examine this.</p> +<p>We say that a thing is "warped" that was once nearer level, +flat, or straight; that it is "impaired" when it was once nearer +perfect, and that it is "dislocated" when once it was united. +Consequently, you have said that at some time the human +constitution was unwarped, unimpaired, and with each part working +in harmony with all. You seem to believe in the degeneracy of man, +and that our unfortunate race, starting at perfection, has traveled +downward through all the wasted years.</p> +<p>It is hardly possible that our ancestors were perfect. If +history proves anything, it establishes the fact that civilization +was not first, and savagery afterwards. Certainly the tendency of +man is not now toward barbarism. There must have been a time when +language was unknown, when lips had never formed a word. That which +man knows, man must have learned. The victories of our race have +been slowly and painfully won. It is a long distance from the +gibberish of the savage to the sonnets of Shakespeare—a long +and weary road from the pipe of Pan to the great orchestra voiced +with every tone from the glad warble of a mated bird to the hoarse +thunder of the sea. The road is long that lies between the +discordant cries uttered by the barbarian over the gashed body of +his foe and the marvelous music of Wagner and Beethoven. It is +hardly possible to conceive of the years that lie between the caves +in which crouched our naked ancestors crunching the bones of wild +beasts, and the home of a civilized man with its comforts, its +articles of luxury and use,—with its works of art, with its +enriched and illuminated walls. Think of the billowed years that +must have rolled between these shores. Think of the vast distance +that man has slowly groped from the dark dens and lairs of +ignorance and fear to the intellectual conquests of our day.</p> +<p>Is it true that these deformities, these warped, impaired, and +dislocated constitutions indispose men to belief? Can we in this +way account for the doubts entertained by the intellectual leaders +of mankind?</p> +<p>It will not do, in this age and time, to account for unbelief in +this deformed and dislocated way. The exact opposite must be true. +Ignorance and credulity sustain the relation of cause and effect. +Ignorance is satisfied with assertion, with appearance. As man +rises in the scale of intelligence he demands evidence. He begins +to look back of appearance. He asks the priest for reasons. The +most ignorant part of Christendom is the most orthodox.</p> +<p>You have simply repeated a favorite assertion of the clergy, to +the effect that man rejects the gospel because he is naturally +depraved and hard of heart—because, owing to the sin of Adam +and Eve, he has fallen from the perfection and purity of Paradise +to that "impaired" condition in which he is satisfied with the +filthy rags of reason, observation and experience.</p> +<p>The truth is, that what you call unbelief is only a higher and +holier faith. Millions of men reject Christianity because of its +cruelty. The Bible was never rejected by the cruel. It has been +upheld by countless tyrants—by the dealers in human +flesh—by the destroyers of nations—by the enemies of +intelligence—by the stealers of babes and the whippers of +women.</p> +<p>It is also true that it has been held as sacred by the good, the +self-denying, the virtuous and the loving, who clung to the sacred +volume on account of the good it contains and in spite of all its +cruelties and crimes.</p> +<p>You are mistaken when you say that all "the faults of all the +Christian bodies and subdivisions of bodies have been carefully +raked together," in my Reply to Dr. Field, "and made part and +parcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of +salvation."</p> +<p>No thoughtful man pretends that any fault of any Christian body +can be used as an argument against what you call the "divine scheme +of redemption."</p> +<p>I find in your Remarks the frequent charge that I am guilty of +making assertions and leaving them to stand without the assistance +of argument or fact, and it may be proper, at this particular +point, to inquire how you know that there is "a divine scheme of +redemption."</p> +<p>My objections to this "divine scheme of redemption" are: +<i>first</i>, that there is not the slightest evidence that it is +divine; <i>second</i>, that it is not in any sense a "scheme," +human or divine; and <i>third</i>, that it cannot, by any +possibility, result in the redemption of a human being.</p> +<p>It cannot be divine, because it has no foundation in the nature +of things, and is not in accordance with reason. It is based on the +idea that right and wrong are the expression of an arbitrary will, +and not words applied to and descriptive of acts in the light of +consequences. It rests upon the absurdity called "pardon," upon the +assumption that when a crime has been committed justice will be +satisfied with the punishment of the innocent. One person may +suffer, or reap a benefit, in consequence of the act of another, +but no man can be justly punished for the crime, or justly rewarded +for the virtues, of another. A "scheme" that punishes an innocent +man for the vices of another can hardly be called divine. Can a +murderer find justification in the agonies of his victim? There is +no vicarious vice; there is no vicarious virtue. For me it is hard +to understand how a just and loving being can charge one of his +children with the vices, or credit him with the virtues, of +another.</p> +<p>And why should we call anything a "divine scheme" that has been +a failure from the "fall of man" until the present moment? What +race, what nation, has been redeemed through the instrumentality of +this "divine scheme"? Have not the subjects of redemption been for +the most part the enemies of civilization? Has not almost every +valuable book since the invention of printing been denounced by the +believers in the "divine scheme"? Intelligence, the development of +the mind, the discoveries of science, the inventions of genius, the +cultivation of the imagination through art and music, and the +practice of virtue will redeem the human race. These are the +saviors of mankind.</p> +<p>You admit that the "Christian churches have by their +exaggerations and shortcomings, and by their faults of conduct, +contributed to bring about a condition of hostility to religious +faith."</p> +<p>If one wishes to know the worst that man has done, all that +power guided by cruelty can do, all the excuses that can be framed +for the commission of every crime, the infinite difference that can +exist between that which is professed and that which is practiced, +the marvelous malignity of meekness, the arrogance of humility and +the savagery of what is known as "universal love," let him read the +history of the Christian Church.</p> +<p>Yet, I not only admit that millions of Christians have been +honest in the expression of their opinions, but that they have been +among the best and noblest of our race.</p> +<p>And it is further admitted that a creed should be examined apart +from the conduct of those who have assented to its truth. The +church should be judged as a whole, and its faults should be +accounted for either by the weakness of human nature, or by reason +of some defect or vice in the religion taught,—or by +both.</p> +<p>Is there anything in the Christian religion—anything in +what you are pleased to call the "Sacred Scriptures" tending to +cause the crimes and atrocities that have been committed by the +church?</p> +<p>It seems to be natural for man to defend himself and the ones he +loves. The father slays the man who would kill his child—he +defends the body. The Christian father burns the heretic—he +defends the soul.</p> +<p>If "orthodox Christianity" be true, an infidel has not the right +to live. Every book in which the Bible is attacked should be burned +with its author. Why hesitate to burn a man whose constitution is +"warped, impaired and dislocated," for a few moments, when hundreds +of others will be saved from eternal flames?</p> +<p>In Christianity you will find the cause of persecution. The idea +that belief is essential to salvation—this ignorant and +merciless dogma—accounts for the atrocities of the church. +This absurd declaration built the dungeons, used the instruments of +torture, erected the scaffolds and lighted the fagots of a thousand +years.</p> +<p>What, I pray you, is the "heavenly treasure" in the keeping of +your church? Is it a belief in an infinite God? That was believed +thousands of years before the serpent tempted Eve. Is it the belief +in the immortality of the soul? That is far older. Is it that man +should treat his neighbor as himself? That is more ancient. What is +the treasure in the keeping of the church? Let me tell you. It is +this: That there is but one true +religion—Christianity,—and that all others are false; +that the prophets, and Christs, and priests of all others have been +and are impostors, or the victims of insanity; that the Bible is +the one inspired book—the one authentic record of the words +of God; that all men are naturally depraved and deserve to be +punished with unspeakable torments forever; that there is only one +path that leads to heaven, while countless highways lead to hell; +that there is only one name under heaven by which a human being can +be saved; that we must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that this +life, with its few and fleeting years, fixes the fate of man; that +the few will be saved and the many forever lost. This is "the +heavenly treasure" within the keeping of your church.</p> +<p>And this "treasure" has been guarded by the cherubim of +persecution, whose flaming swords were wet for many centuries with +the best and bravest blood. It has been guarded by cunning, by +hypocrisy, by mendacity, by honesty, by calumniating the generous, +by maligning the good, by thumbscrews and racks, by charity and +love, by robbery and assassination, by poison and fire, by the +virtues of the ignorant and the vices of the learned, by the +violence of mobs and the whirlwinds of war, by every hope and every +fear, by every cruelty and every crime, and by all there is of the +wild beast in the heart of man.</p> +<p>With great propriety it may be asked: In the keeping of which +church is this "heavenly treasure"? Did the Catholics have it, and +was it taken by Luther? Did Henry the VIII. seize it, and is it now +in the keeping of the Church of England? Which of the warring sects +in America has this treasure; or have we, in this country, only the +"rust and cankers"? Is it in an Episcopal Church, that refuses to +associate with a colored man for whom Christ died, and who is good +enough for the society of the angelic host?</p> +<p>But wherever this "heavenly treasure" has been, about it have +always hovered the Stymphalian birds of superstition, thrusting +their brazen beaks and claws deep into the flesh of honest men.</p> +<p>You were pleased to point out as the particular line justifying +your assertion "that denunciation, sarcasm, and invective +constitute the staple of my work," that line in which I speak of +those who expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy, and add: "I +take this as a specimen of the mode of statement which permeates +the whole."</p> +<p>Dr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying: "I am glad that I +know you, <i>even though some of my brethren look upon you as a +monster, because of your unbelief</i>."</p> +<p>In reply I simply said: "The statement in your Letter that some +of your brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my +unbelief tends to show that those who love God are not always the +friends of their fellow-men. Is it not strange that people who +admit that they ought to be eternally damned—that they are by +nature depraved—that there is no soundness or health in them, +can be so arrogantly egotistic as to look upon others as monsters? +And yet some of your brethren, who regard unbelievers as infamous, +rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect +to receive as alms an eternity of joy." Is there any denunciation, +sarcasm or invective in this?</p> +<p>Why should one who admits that he himself is totally depraved +call any other man, by way of reproach, a monster? Possibly, he +might be justified in addressing him as a fellow-monster.</p> +<p>I am not satisfied with your statement that "the Christian +receives as alms all whatsoever he receives at all." Is it true +that man deserves only punishment? Does the man who makes the world +better, who works and battles for the right, and dies for the good +of his fellow-men, deserve nothing but pain and anguish? Is +happiness a gift or a consequence? Is heaven only a well-conducted +poorhouse? Are the angels in their highest estate nothing but happy +paupers? Must all the redeemed feel that they are in heaven simply +because there was a miscarriage of justice? Will the lost be the +only ones who will know that the right thing has been done, and +will they alone appreciate the "ethical elements of religion"? Will +they repeat the words that you have quoted: "Mercy and judgment are +met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other"? or +will those words be spoken by the redeemed as they joyously +contemplate the writhings of the lost?</p> +<p>No one will dispute "that in the discussion of important +questions calmness and sobriety are essential." But solemnity need +not be carried to the verge of mental paralysis. In the search for +truth,—that everything in nature seems to hide,—man +needs the assistance of all his faculties. All the senses should be +awake. Humor should carry a torch, Wit should give its sudden +light, Candor should hold the scales, Reason, the final arbiter, +should put his royal stamp on every fact, and Memory, with a +miser's care, should keep and guard the mental gold.</p> +<p>The church has always despised the man of humor, hated laughter, +and encouraged the lethargy of solemnity. It is not willing that +the mind should subject its creed to every test of truth. It wishes +to overawe. It does not say, "He that hath a mind to think, let him +think;" but, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." The church +has always abhorred wit,—that is to say, it does not enjoy +being struck by the lightning of the soul. The foundation of wit is +logic, and it has always been the enemy of the supernatural, the +solemn and absurd.</p> +<p>You express great regret that no one at the present day is able +to write like Pascal. You admire his wit and tenderness, and the +unique, brilliant, and fascinating manner in which he treated the +profoundest and most complex themes. Sharing in your admiration and +regret, I call your attention to what might be called one of his +religious generalizations: "Disease is the natural state of a +Christian." Certainly it cannot be said that I have ever mingled +the profound and complex in a more fascinating manner.</p> +<p>Another instance is given of the "tumultuous method in which I +conduct, not, indeed, my argument, but my case."</p> +<p>Dr. Field had drawn a distinction between superstition and +religion, to which I replied: "You are shocked at the Hindoo mother +when she gives her child to death at the supposed command of her +God. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah? What is your +opinion of Jehovah himself?"</p> +<p>These simple questions seem to have excited you to an unusual +degree, and you ask in words of some severity:</p> +<p>"Whether this is the tone in which controversies ought be +carried on?" And you say that—"not only is the name of +Jehovah encircled in the heart of every believer with the +pro-foundest reverence and love, but that the Christian religion +teaches, through the incarnation, a personal relation with God so +lofty that it can only be approached in a deep, reverential calm." +You admit that "a person who deems a given religion to be wicked, +may be led onward by logical consistency to impugn in strong terms +the character of the author and object of that religion," but you +insist that such person is "bound by the laws of social morality +and decency to consider well the terms and meaning of his +indictment."</p> +<p>Was there any lack of "reverential calm" in my question? I gave +no opinion, drew no indictment, but simply asked for the opinion of +another. Was that a violation of the "laws of social morality and +decency"?</p> +<p>It is not necessary for me to discuss this question with you. It +has been settled by Jehovah himself. You probably remember the +account given in the eighteenth chapter of I. Kings, of a contest +between the prophets of Baal and the prophets of Jehovah. There +were four hundred and fifty prophets of the false God who +endeavored to induce their deity to consume with fire from heaven +the sacrifice upon his altar. According to the account, they were +greatly in earnest. They certainly appeared to have some hope of +success, but the fire did not descend.</p> +<p>"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said +'Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is +pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure, he sleepeth and +must be awaked.'"</p> +<p>Do you consider that the proper way to attack the God of +another? Did not Elijah know that the name of Baal "was encircled +in the heart of every believer with the profoundest reverence and +love"? Did he "violate the laws of social morality and +decency"?</p> +<p>But Jehovah and Elijah did not stop at this point. They were not +satisfied with mocking the prophets of Baal, but they brought them +down to the brook Kishon—four hundred and fifty of +them—and there they murdered every one.</p> +<p>Does it appear to you that on that occasion, on the banks of the +brook Kishon—"Mercy and judgment met together, and that +righteousness and peace kissed each other"?</p> +<p>The question arises: Has every one who reads the Old Testament +the right to express his thought as to the character of Jehovah? +You will admit that as he reads his mind will receive some +impression, and that when he finishes the "inspired volume" he will +have some opinion as to the character of Jehovah. Has he the right +to express that opinion? Is the Bible a revelation from God to man? +Is it a revelation to the man who reads it, or to the man who does +not read it? If to the man who reads it, has he the right to give +to others the revelation that God has given to him? If he comes to +the conclusion at which you have arrived,—that Jehovah is +God,—has he the right to express that opinion?</p> +<p>If he concludes, as I have done, that Jehovah is a myth, must he +refrain from giving his honest thought? Christians do not hesitate +to give their opinion of heretics, philosophers, and infidels. They +are not restrained by the "laws of social morality and decency." +They have persecuted to the extent of their power, and their +Jehovah pronounced upon unbelievers every curse capable of being +expressed in the Hebrew dialect. At this moment, thousands of +missionaries are attacking the gods of the heathen world, and +heaping contempt on the religion of others.</p> +<p>But as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a +moment examine this deity of the ancient Jews.</p> +<p>There are several tests of character. It may be that all the +virtues can be expressed in the word "kindness," and that nearly +all the vices are gathered together in the word "cruelty."</p> +<p>Laughter is a test of character. When we know what a man laughs +at, we know what he really is. Does he laugh at misfortune, at +poverty, at honesty in rags, at industry without food, at the +agonies of his fellow-men? Does he laugh when he sees the convict +clothed in the garments of shame—at the criminal on the +scaffold? Does he rub his hands with glee over the embers of an +enemy's home? Think of a man capable ol laughing while looking at +Marguerite in the prison cell with her dead babe by her side. What +must be the real character of a God who laughs at the calamities of +his children, mocks at their fears, their desolation, their +distress and anguish? Would an infinitely loving God hold his +ignorant children in derision? Would he pity, or mock? Save, or +destroy? Educate, or exterminate? Would he lead them with gentle +hands toward the light, or lie in wait for them like a wild beast? +Think of the echoes of Jehovah's laughter in the rayless caverns of +the eternal prison. Can a good man mock at the children of +deformity? Will he deride the misshapen? Your Jehovah deformed some +of his own children, and then held them up to scorn and hatred. +These divine mistakes—these blunders of the +infinite—were not allowed to enter the temple erected in +honor of him who had dishonored them. Does a kind father mock his +deformed child? What would you think of a mother who would deride +and taunt her misshapen babe?</p> +<p>There is another test. How does a man use power? Is he gentle or +cruel? Does he defend the weak, succor the oppressed, or trample on +the fallen?</p> +<p>If you will read again the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, +you will find how Jehovah, the compassionate, whose name is +enshrined in so many hearts, threatened to use his power.</p> +<p>"The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, +and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the +sword, and with blasting and mildew. And thy heaven that is over +thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be +iron. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and +dust.".... "And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air +and unto the beasts of the earth.".... "The Lord shall smite thee +with madness and blindness. And thou shalt eat of the fruit of +thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters. The tender +and delicate woman among you,... her eye shall be evil... toward +her young one and toward her children which she shall bear; for she +shall eat them."</p> +<p>Should it be found that these curses were in fact uttered by the +God of hell, and that the translators had made a mistake in +attributing them to Jehovah, could you say that the sentiments +expressed are inconsistent with the supposed character of the +Infinite Fiend?</p> +<p>A nation is judged by its laws—by the punishment it +inflicts. The nation that punishes ordinary offences with death is +regarded as barbarous, and the nation that tortures before it kills +is denounced as savage.</p> +<p>What can you say of the government of Jehovah, in which death +was the penalty for hundreds of offences?—death for the +expression of an honest thought—death for touching with a +good intention a sacred ark—death for making hair +oil—for eating shew bread—for imitating incense and +perfumery?</p> +<p>In the history of the world a more cruel code cannot be found. +Crimes seem to have been invented to gratify a fiendish desire to +shed the blood of men.</p> +<p>There is another test: How does a man treat the animals in his +power—his faithful horse—his patient ox—his +loving dog?</p> +<p>How did Jehovah treat the animals in Egypt? Would a loving God, +with fierce hail from heaven, bruise and kill the innocent cattle +for the crimes of their owners? Would he torment, torture and +destroy them for the sins of men?</p> +<p>Jehovah was a God of blood. His altar was adorned with the horns +of a beast. He established a religion in which every temple was a +slaughter-house, and every priest a butcher—a religion that +demanded the death of the first-born, and delighted in the +destruction of life.</p> +<p>There is still another test: The civilized man gives to others +the rights that he claims for himself. He believes in the liberty +of thought and expression, and abhors persecution for conscience +sake.</p> +<p>Did Jehovah believe in the innocence of thought and the liberty +of expression? Kindness is found with true greatness. Tyranny +lodges only in the breast of the small, the narrow, the shriveled +and the selfish. Did Jehovah teach and practice generosity? Was he +a believer in religious liberty? If he was and is, in fact, God, he +must have known, even four thousand years ago, that worship must be +free, and that he who is forced upon his knees cannot, by any +possibility, have the spirit of prayer.</p> +<p>Let me call your attention to a few passages in the thirteenth +chapter of Deuteronomy:</p> +<p>"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy +daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as +thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve +other gods,... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto +him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, +neither shalt thou conceal him; but thou shalt surely kill him; +thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and +afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him +with stones, that he die."</p> +<p>Is it possible for you to find in the literature of this world +more awful passages than these? Did ever savagery, with strange and +uncouth marks, with awkward forms of beast and bird, pollute the +dripping walls of caves with such commands? Are these the words of +infinite mercy? When they were uttered, did "righteousness and +peace kiss each other"? How can any loving man or woman "encircle +the name of Jehovah"—author of these words—"with +profoundest reverence and love"? Do I rebel because my +"constitution is warped, impaired and dislocated"? Is it because of +"total depravity" that I denounce the brutality of Jehovah? If my +heart were only good—if I loved my neighbor as +myself—would I then see infinite mercy in these hideous +words? Do I lack "reverential calm"?</p> +<p>These frightful passages, like coiled adders, were in the hearts +of Jehovah's chosen people when they crucified "the Sinless +Man."</p> +<p>Jehovah did not tell the husband to reason with his wife. She +was to be answered only with death. She was to be bruised and +mangled to a bleeding, shapeless mass of quivering flesh, for +having breathed an honest thought.</p> +<p>If there is anything of importance in this world, it is the +family, the home, the marriage of true souls, the equality of +husband and wife—the true republicanism of the +heart—the real democracy of the fireside.</p> +<p>Let us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of +Genesis:</p> +<p>"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and +thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy +desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."</p> +<p>Never will I worship any being who added to the sorrows and +agonies of maternity. Never will I bow to any God who introduced +slavery into every home—who made the wife a slave and the +husband a tyrant.</p> +<p>The Old Testament shows that Jehovah, like his creators, held +women in contempt. They were regarded as property: "Thou shalt not +covet thy neighbor's wife,—nor his ox."</p> +<p>Why should a pure woman worship a God who upheld polygamy? Let +us finish this subject: The institution of slavery involves all +crimes. Jehovah was a believer in slavery. This is enough. Why +should any civilized man worship him? Why should his name "be +encircled with love and tenderness in any human heart"?</p> +<p>He believed that man could become the property of man—that +it was right for his chosen people to deal in human flesh—to +buy and sell mothers and babes. He taught that the captives were +the property of the captors and directed his chosen people to kill, +to enslave, or to pollute.</p> +<p>In the presence of these commandments, what becomes of the fine +saying, "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? What shall we say of a God +who established slavery, and then had the effrontery to say, "Thou +shalt not steal"?</p> +<p>It may be insisted that Jehovah is the Father of all—and +that he has "made of one blood all the nations of the earth." How +then can we account for the wars of extermination? Does not the +commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself," apply to nations +precisely the same as to individuals? Nations, like individuals, +become great by the practice of virtue. How did Jehovah command his +people to treat their neighbors?</p> +<p>He commanded his generals to destroy all, men, women and babes: +"Thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth."</p> +<p>"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall +devour flesh."</p> +<p>"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and +the tongue of thy dogs in the same."</p> +<p>"... I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the +poison of serpents of the dust...."</p> +<p>"The sword without and terror within shall destroy both the +young man and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of gray +hairs."</p> +<p>Is it possible that these words fell from the lips of the Most +Merciful?</p> +<p>You may reply that the inhabitants of Canaan were unfit to +live—that they were ignorant and cruel. Why did not Jehovah, +the "Father of all," give them the Ten Commandments? Why did he +leave them without a bible, without prophets and priests? Why did +he shower all the blessings of revelation on one poor and wretched +tribe, and leave the great world in ignorance and crime—and +why did he order his favorite children to murder those whom he had +neglected?</p> +<p>By the question I asked of Dr. Field, the intention was to show +that Jephthah, when he sacrificed his daughter to Jehovah, was as +much the slave of superstition as is the Hindoo mother when she +throws her babe into the yellow waves of the Ganges.</p> +<p>It seems that this savage Jephthah was in direct communication +with Jehovah at Mizpeh, and that he made a vow unto the Lord and +said:</p> +<p>"If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into +mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the +doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the +children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it +up as a burnt offering."</p> +<p>In the first place, it is perfectly clear that the sacrifice +intended was a human sacrifice, from the words: "that whatsoever +cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me." Some human +being—wife, daughter, friend, was expected to come. According +to the account, his daughter—his only daughter—his only +child—came first.</p> +<p>If Jephthah was in communication with God, why did God allow +this man to make this vow; and why did he allow the daughter that +he loved to be first, and why did he keep silent and allow the vow +to be kept, while flames devoured the daughter's flesh?</p> +<p>St. Paul is not authority. He praises Samuel, the man who hewed +Agag in pieces; David, who compelled hundreds to pass under the +saws and harrows of death, and many others who shed the blood of +the innocent and helpless. Paul is an unsafe guide. He who commends +the brutalities of the past, sows the seeds of future crimes.</p> +<p>If "believers are not obliged to approve of the conduct of +Jephthah" are they free to condemn the conduct of Jehovah? If you +will read the account you will see that the "spirit of the Lord was +upon Jephthah" when he made the cruel vow. If Paul did not commend +Jephthah for keeping this vow, what was the act that excited his +admiration? Was it because Jephthah slew on the banks of the Jordan +"forty and two thousand" of the sons of Ephraim?</p> +<p>In regard to Abraham, the argument is precisely the same, except +that Jehovah is said to have interfered, and allowed an animal to +be slain instead.</p> +<p>One of the answers given by you is that "it may be allowed that +the narrative is not within our comprehension"; and for that reason +you say that "it behooves us to tread cautiously in approaching +it." Why cautiously?</p> +<p>These stories of Abraham and Jephthah have cost many an innocent +life. Only a few years ago, here in my country, a man by the name +of Freeman, believing that God demanded at least the show of +obedience—believing what he had read in the Old Testament +that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission," and so +believing, touched with insanity, sacrificed his little +girl—plunged into her innocent breast the dagger, believing +it to be God's will, and thinking that if it were not God's will +his hand would be stayed.</p> +<p>I know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime +told by this man.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more monstrous than the conception of a God who +demands sacrifice—of a God who would ask of a father that he +murder his son—of a father that he would burn his daughter. +It is far beyond my comprehension how any man ever could have +believed such an infinite, such a cruel absurdity.</p> +<p>At the command of the real God—if there be one—I +would not sacrifice my child, I would not murder my wife. But as +long as there are people in the world whose minds are so that they +can believe the stories of Abraham and Jephthah, just so long there +will be men who will take the lives of the ones they love best.</p> +<p>You have taken the position that the conditions are different; +and you say that: "According to the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve +were placed under a law, not of consciously perceived right and +wrong, but of simple obedience. The tree of which alone they were +forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; +duty lay for them in following the command of the Most High, before +and until they became capable of appreciating it by an ethical +standard. Their knowledge was but that of an infant who has just +reached the stage at which he can comprehend that he is ordered to +do this or that, but not the nature of the things so ordered.".</p> +<p>If Adam and Eve could not "consciously perceive right and +wrong," how is it possible for you to say that "duty lay for them +in following the command of the Most High"? How can a person +"incapable of perceiving right and wrong" have an idea of duty? You +are driven to say that Adam and Eve had no moral sense. How under +such circumstances could they have the sense of guilt, or of +obligation? And why should such persons be punished? And why should +the whole human race become tainted by the offence of those who had +no moral sense?</p> +<p>Do you intend to be understood as saying that Jehovah allowed +his children to enslave each other because "duty lay for them in +following the command of the Most High"? Was it for this reason +that he caused them to exterminate each other? Do you account for +the severity of his punishments by the fact that the poor creatures +punished were not aware of the enormity of the offences they had +committed? What shall we say of a God who has one of his children +stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sunday, and allows another +to enslave his fellow-man? Have you discovered any theory that will +account for both of these facts?</p> +<p>Another word as to Abraham:—You defend his willingness to +kill his son because "the estimate of human life at the time was +different"—because "the position of the father in the family +was different; its members were regarded as in some sense his +property;" and because "there is every reason to suppose that +around Abraham in the 'land of Moriah' the practice of human +sacrifice as an act of religion was in full vigor."</p> +<p>Let us examine these three excuses: Was Jehovah justified in +putting a low estimate on human life? Was he in earnest when he +said "that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be +shed"? Did he pander to the barbarian view of the worthlessness of +life? If the estimate of human life was low, what was the sacrifice +worth?</p> +<p>Was the son the property of the father? Did Jehovah uphold this +savage view? Had the father the right to sell or kill his +child?</p> +<p>Do you defend Jehovah and Abraham because the ignorant wretches +in the "land of Moriah," knowing nothing of the true God, cut the +throats of their babes "as an act of religion"?</p> +<p>Was Jehovah led away by the example of the Gods of Moriah? Do +you not see that your excuses are simply the suggestions of other +crimes?</p> +<p>You see clearly that the Hindoo mother, when she throws her babe +into the Ganges at the command of her God, "sins against first +principles"; but you excuse Abraham because he lived in the +childhood of the race. Can Jehovah be excused because of his youth? +Not satisfied with your explanation, your defences and excuses, you +take the ground that when Abraham said: "My son, God will provide a +lamb for a burnt offering," he may have "believed implicitly that a +way of rescue would be found for his son." In other words, that +Abraham did not believe that he would be required to shed the blood +of Isaac. So that, after all, the faith of Abraham consisted in +"believing implicitly" that Jehovah was not in earnest.</p> +<p>You have discovered a way by which, as you think, the neck of +orthodoxy can escape the noose of Darwin, and in that connection +you use this remarkable language:</p> +<p>"I should reply that the moral history of man, in its principal +stream, has been distinctly an evolution from the first until now." +It is hard to see how this statement agrees with the one in the +beginning of your Remarks, in which you speak of the human +constitution in its "warped, impaired and dislocated" condition. +When you wrote that line you were certainly a theologian—a +believer in the Episcopal creed—and your mind, by mere force +of habit, was at that moment contemplating man as he is supposed to +have been created—perfect in every part. At that time you +were endeavoring to account for the unbelief now in the world, and +you did this by stating that the human constitution is "warped, +impaired and dislocated"; but the moment you are brought face to +face with the great truths uttered by Darwin, you admit "that the +moral history of man has been distinctly an evolution from the +first until now." Is not this a fountain that brings forth sweet +and bitter waters?</p> +<p>I insist, that the discoveries of Darwin do away absolutely with +the inspiration of the Scriptures—with the account of +creation in Genesis, and demonstrate not simply the falsity, not +simply the wickedness, but the foolishness of the "sacred volume." +There is nothing in Darwin to show that all has been evolved from +"primal night and from chaos." There is no evidence of "primal +night." There is no proof of universal chaos. Did your Jehovah +spend an eternity in "primal night," with no companion but +chaos.</p> +<p>It makes no difference how long a lower form may require to +reach a higher. It makes no difference whether forms can be simply +modified or absolutely changed. These facts have not the slightest +tendency to throw the slightest light on the beginning or on the +destiny of things.</p> +<p>I most cheerfully admit that gods have the right to create +swiftly or slowly. The reptile may become a bird in one day, or in +a thousand billion years—this fact has nothing to do with the +existence or non-existence of a first cause, but it has something +to do with the truth of the Bible, and with the existence of a +personal God of infinite power and wisdom.</p> +<p>Does not a gradual improvement in the thing created show a +corresponding improvement in the creator? The church demonstrated +the falsity and folly of Darwin's theories by showing that they +contradicted the Mosaic account of creation, and now the theories +of Darwin having been fairly established, the church says that the +Mosaic account is true, because it is in harmony with Darwin. Now, +if it should turn out that Darwin was mistaken, what then?</p> +<p>To me it is somewhat difficult to understand the mental +processes of one who really feels that "the gap between man and the +inferior animals or their relationship was stated, perhaps, even +more emphatically by Bishop Butler than by Darwin."</p> +<p>Butler answered deists, who objected to the cruelties of the +Bible, and yet lauded the God of Nature by showing that the God of +Nature is as cruel as the God of the Bible. That is to say, he +succeeded in showing that both Gods are bad. He had no possible +conception of the splendid generalizations of Darwin—the +great truths that have revolutionized the thought of the world.</p> +<p>But there was one question asked by Bishop Butler that throws a +flame of light upon the probable origin of most, if not all, +religions: "Why might not whole communities and public bodies be +seized with fits of insanity as well as individuals?"</p> +<p>If you are convinced that Moses and Darwin are in exact accord, +will you be good enough to tell who, in your judgment, were the +parents of Adam and Eve? Do you find in Darwin any theory that +satisfactorily accounts for the "inspired fact" that a Rib, +commencing with Monogonic Propagation—falling into halves by +a contraction in the middle—reaching, after many ages of +Evolution, the Amphigonie stage, and then, by the Survival of the +Fittest, assisted by Natural Selection, moulded and modified by +Environment, became at last, the mother of the human race?</p> +<p>Here is a world in which there are countless varieties of +life—these varieties in all probability related to each +other—all living upon each other—everything devouring +something, and in its turn devoured by something +else—everywhere claw and beak, hoof and +tooth,—everything seeking the life of something +else—every drop of water a battle-field, every atom being for +some wild beast a jungle—every place a golgotha—and +such a world is declared to be the work of the infinitely wise and +compassionate.</p> +<p>According to your idea, Jehovah prepared a home for his +children—first a garden in which they should be tempted and +from which they should be driven; then a world filled with briers +and thorns and wild and poisonous beasts—a world in which the +air should be filled with the enemies of human life—a world +in which disease should be contagious, and in which it was +impossible to tell, except by actual experiment, the poisonous from +the nutritious. And these children were allowed to live in dens and +holes and fight their way against monstrous serpents and crouching +beasts—were allowed to live in ignorance and fear—to +have false ideas of this good and loving God—ideas so false, +that they made of him a fiend—ideas so false, that they +sacrificed their wives and babes to appease the imaginary wrath of +this monster. And this God gave to different nations different +ideas of himself, knowing that in consequence of that these nations +would meet upon countless fields of death and drain each other's +veins.</p> +<p>Would it not have been better had the world been so that parents +would transmit only their virtues—only their perfections, +physical and mental,—allowing their diseases and their vices +to perish with them?</p> +<p>In my reply to Dr. Field I had asked: Why should God demand a +sacrifice from man? Why should the infinite ask anything from the +finite? Should the sun beg from the glowworm, and should the +momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light?</p> +<p>Upon which you remark, "that if the infinite is to make no +demands upon the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and +strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small." Can this +be called reasoning? Why should the infinite demand a sacrifice +from man? In the first place, the infinite is +conditionless—the infinite cannot want—the infinite +has. A conditioned being may want; but the gratification of a want +involves a change of condition. If God be conditionless, he can +have no wants—consequently, no human being can gratify the +infinite.</p> +<p>But you insist that "if the infinite is to make no demands upon +the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong should +scarcely make them on the weak and small."</p> +<p>The great have wants. The strong are often in need, in peril, +and the great and strong often need the services of the small and +weak. It was the mouse that freed the lion. England is a great and +powerful nation—yet she may need the assistance of the +weakest of her citizens. The world is filled with +illustrations.</p> +<p>The lack of logic is in this: The infinite cannot want anything; +the strong and the great may, and as a fact always do. The great +and the strong cannot help the infinite—they can help the +small and the weak, and the small and the weak can often help the +great and strong.</p> +<p>You ask: "Why then should the father make demands of love, +obedience, and sacrifice from his young child?"</p> +<p>No sensible father ever demanded love from his child. Every +civilized father knows that love rises like the perfume from a +flower. You cannot command it by simple authority.</p> +<p>It cannot obey. A father demands obedience from a child for the +good of the child and for the good of himself. But suppose the +father to be infinite—why should the child sacrifice anything +for him?</p> +<p>But it may be that you answer all these questions, all these +difficulties, by admitting, as you have in your Remarks, "that +these problems are insoluble by our understanding."</p> +<p>Why, then, do you accept them? Why do you defend that which you +cannot understand? Why does your reason volunteer as a soldier +under the flag of the incomprehensible?</p> +<p>I asked of Dr. Field, and I ask again, this question: Why should +an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve +the vile?</p> +<p>What do I mean by this question? Simply this: The earthquake, +the lightning, the pestilence, are no respecters of persons. The +vile are not always destroyed, the good are not always saved. I +asked: Why should God treat all alike in this world, and in another +make an infinite difference? This, I suppose, is "insoluble to our +understanding."</p> +<p>Why should Jehovah allow his worshipers, his adorers, to be +destroyed by his enemies? Can you by any possibility answer this +question?</p> +<p>You may account for all these inconsistencies, these cruel +contradictions, as John Wesley accounted for earthquakes when he +insisted that they were produced by the wickedness of men, and that +the only way to prevent them was for everybody to believe on the +Lord Jesus Christ. And you may have some way of showing that Mr. +Wesley's idea is entirely consistent with the theories of Mr. +Darwin.</p> +<p>You seem to think that as long as there is more goodness than +evil in the world—as long as there is more joy than +sadness—we are compelled to infer that the author of the +world is infinitely good, powerful, and wise, and that as long as a +majority are out of gutters and prisons, the "divine scheme" is a +success.</p> +<p>According to this system of logic, if there were a few more +unfortunates—if there was just a little more evil than +good—then we would be driven to acknowledge that the world +was created by an infinitely malevolent being.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the history of the world has been such that +not only your theologians but your apostles, and not only your +apostles but your prophets, and not only your prophets but your +Jehovah, have all been forced to account for the evil, the +injustice and the suffering, by the wickedness of man, the natural +depravity of the human heart and the wiles and machinations of a +malevolent being second only in power to Jehovah himself.</p> +<p>Again and again you have called me to account for "mere +suggestions and assertions without proof"; and yet your remarks are +filled with assertions and mere suggestions without proof.</p> +<p>You admit that "great believers are not able to explain the +inequalities of adjustment between human beings and the conditions +in which they have been set down to work out their destiny."</p> +<p>How do you know "that they have been set down to work out their +destiny"? If that was, and is, the purpose, then the being who +settled the "destiny," and the means by which it tvas to be "worked +out," is responsible for all that happens.</p> +<p>And is this the end of your argument, "That you are not able to +explain the inequalities of adjustment between human beings"? Is +the solution of this problem beyond your power? Does the Bible shed +no light? Is the Christian in the presence of this question as dumb +as the agnostic? When the injustice of this world is so flagrant +that you cannot harmonize that awful fact with the wisdom and +goodness of an infinite God, do you not see that you have +surrendered, or at least that you have raised a flag of truce +beneath which your adversary accepts as final your statement that +you do not know and that your imagination is not sufficient to +frame an excuse for God?</p> +<p>It gave me great pleasure to find that at last even you have +been driven to say that: "it is a duty incumbent upon us +respectively according to our means and opportunities, to decide by +the use of the faculty of reason given us, the great questions of +natural and revealed religion."</p> +<p>You admit "that I am to decide for myself, by the use of my +reason," whether the Bible is the word of God or not—whether +there is any revealed religion—and whether there be or be not +an infinite being who created and who governs this world.</p> +<p>You also admit that we are to decide these questions according +to the balance of the evidence.</p> +<p>Is this in accordance with the doctrine of Jehovah? Did Jehovah +say to the husband that if his wife became convinced, according to +her means and her opportunities, and decided according to her +reason, that it was better to worship some other God than Jehovah, +then that he was to say to her: "You are entitled to decide +according to the balance of the evidence as it seems to you"?</p> +<p>Have you abandoned Jehovah? Is man more just than he? Have you +appealed from him to the standard of reason? Is it possible that +the leader of the English Liberals is nearer civilized than +Jehovah?</p> +<p>Do you know that in this sentence you demonstrate the existence +of a dawn in your mind? This sentence makes it certain that in the +East of the midnight of Episcopal superstition there is the herald +of the coming day. And if this sentence shows a dawn, what shall I +say of the next:</p> +<p>"We are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in +this province any rule of investigation except such as common sense +teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life"?</p> +<p>This certainly is a morning star. Let me take this statement, +let me hold it as a torch, and by its light I beg of you to read +the Bible once again.</p> +<p>Is it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and +loving God would drown a world that he had taken no means to +civilize—to whom he had given no bible, no +gospel,—taught no scientific fact and in which the seeds of +art had not been sown; that he would create a world that ought to +be drowned? That a being of infinite wisdom would create a rival, +knowing that the rival would fill perdition with countless souls +destined to suffer eternal pain? Is it according to common sense +that an infinitely good God would order some of his children to +kill others? That he would command soldiers to rip open with the +sword of war the bodies of women—wreaking vengeance on babes +unborn? Is it according to reason that a good, loving, +compassionate, and just God would establish slavery among men, and +that a pure God would uphold polygamy? Is it according to common +sense that he who wished to make men merciful and loving would +demand the sacrifice of animals, so that his altars would be wet +with the blood of oxen, sheep, and doves? Is it according to reason +that a good God would inflict tortures upon his ignorant +children—that he would torture animals to death—and is +it in accordance with common sense and reason that this God would +create countless billions of people knowing that they would be +eternally damned?</p> +<p>What is common sense? Is it the result of observation, reason +and experience, or is it the child of credulity?</p> +<p>There is this curious fact: The far past and the far future seem +to belong to the miraculous and the monstrous. The present, as a +rule, is the realm of common sense. If you say to a man: "Eighteen +hundred years ago the dead were raised," he will reply: "Yes, I +know that." And if you say: "A hundred thousand years from now all +the dead will be raised," he will probably reply: "I presume so." +But if you tell him: "I saw a dead man raised to-day," he will ask, +"From what madhouse have you escaped?"</p> +<p>The moment we decide "according to reason," "according to the +balance of evidence," we are charged with "having violated the laws +of social morality and decency," and the defender of the miraculous +and the incomprehensible takes another position.</p> +<p>The theologian has a city of refuge to which he flies—an +old breastwork behind which he kneels—a rifle-pit into which +he crawls. You have described this city, this breastwork, this +rifle-pit and also the leaf under which the ostrich of theology +thrusts its head. Let me quote:</p> +<p>"Our demands for evidence must be limited by the general reason +of the case. Does that general reason of the case make it probable +that a finite being, with a finite place in a comprehensive scheme +devised and administered by a being who is infinite, would be able +even to embrace within his view, or rightly to appreciate all the +motives or aims that there may have been in the mind of the divine +disposer?"</p> +<p>And this is what you call "deciding by the use of the faculty of +reason," "according to the evidence," or at least "according to the +balance of evidence." This is a conclusion reached by a "rule of +investigation such as common sense teaches us to use in the +ordinary conduct of life." Will you have the kindness to explain +what it is to act contrary to evidence, or contrary to common +sense? Can you imagine a superstition so gross that it cannot be +defended by that argument?</p> +<p>Nothing, it seems to me, could have been easier than for Jehovah +to have reasonably explained his scheme. You may answer that the +human intellect is not sufficient to understand the explanation. +Why then do not theologians stop explaining? Why do they feel it +incumbent upon them to explain that which they admit God would have +explained had the human mind been capable of understanding it?</p> +<p>How much better would it have been if Jehovah had said a few +things on these subjects. It always seemed wonderful to me that he +spent several days and nights on Mount Sinai explain* ing to Moses +how he could detect the presence of leprosy, without once thinking +to give him a prescription for its cure.</p> +<p>There were thousands and thousands of opportunities for this God +to withdraw from these questions the shadow and the cloud. When +Jehovah out of the whirlwind asked questions of Job, how much +better it would have been if Job had asked and Jehovah had +answered.</p> +<p>You say that we should be governed by evidence and by common +sense. Then you tell us that the questions are beyond the reach of +reason, and with which common sense has nothing to do. If we then +ask for an explanation, you reply in the scornful challenge of +Dante.</p> +<p>You seem to imagine that every man who gives an opinion, takes +his solemn oath that the opinion is the absolute end of all +investigation on that subject.</p> +<p>In my opinion, Shakespeare was, intellectually, the greatest of +the human race, and my intention was simply to express that view. +It never occurred to me that any one would suppose that I thought +Shakespeare a greater actor than Garrick, a more wonderful composer +than Wagner, a better violinist than Remenyi, or a heavier man than +Daniel Lambert. It is to be regretted that you were misled by my +words and really supposed that I intended to say that Shakespeare +was a greater general than Caesar. But, after all, your criticism +has no possible bearing on the point at issue. Is it an effort to +avoid that which cannot be met? The real question is this: If we +cannot account for Christ without a miracle, how can we account for +Shakespeare? Dr. Field took the ground that Christ himself was a +miracle; that it was impossible to account for such a being in any +natural way; and, guided by common sense, guided by the rule of +investigation such as common sense teaches, I called attention to +Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, and Shakespeare.</p> +<p>In another place in your Remarks, when my statement about +Shakespeare was not in your mind, you say: "All is done by +steps—nothing by strides, leaps or bounds—all from +protoplasm up to Shakespeare." Why did you end the series with +Shakespeare? Did you intend to say Dante, or Bishop Butler?</p> +<p>It is curious to see how much ingenuity a great man exercises +when guided by what he calls "the rule of investigation as +suggested by common sense." I pointed out some things that Christ +did not teach—among others, that he said nothing with regard +to the family relation, nothing against slavery, nothing about +education, nothing as to the rights and duties of nations, nothing +as to any scientific truth. And this is answered by saying that "I +am quite able to point out the way in which the Savior of the world +might have been much greater as a teacher than he actually +was."</p> +<p>Is this an answer, or is it simply taking refuge behind a name? +Would it not have been better if Christ had told his disciples that +they must not persecute; that they had no right to destroy their +fellow-men; that they must not put heretics in dungeons, or destroy +them with flames; that they must not invent and use instruments of +torture; that they must not appeal to brutality, nor endeavor to +sow with bloody hands the seeds of peace? Would it not have been +far better had he said: "I come not to bring a sword, but peace"? +Would not this have saved countless cruelties and countless +lives?</p> +<p>You seem to think that you have fully answered my objection when +you say that Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of +marriage.</p> +<p>Why should a husband and wife be compelled to live with each +other after love is dead? Why should the wife still be bound in +indissoluble chains to a husband who is cruel, infamous, and false? +Why should her life be destroyed because of his? Why should she be +chained to a criminal and an outcast? Nothing can be more +unphilosophic than this. Why fill the world with the children of +indifference and hatred?</p> +<p>The marriage contract is the most important, the most sacred, +that human beings can make. It will be sacredly kept by good men +and by good women. But if a loving woman—tender, noble, and +true—makes this contract with a man whom she believed to be +worthy of all respect and love, and who is found to be a cruel, +worthless wretch, why should her life be lost?</p> +<p>Do you not know that the indissolubility of the marriage +contract leads to its violation, forms an excuse for immorality, +eats out the very heart of truth, and gives to vice that which +alone belongs to love?</p> +<p>But in order that you may know why the objection was raised, I +call your attention to the fact that Christ offered a reward, not +only in this world but in another, to any husband who would desert +his wife. And do you know that this hideous offer caused millions +to desert their wives and children?</p> +<p>Theologians have the habit of using names instead of +arguments—of appealing to some man, great in some direction, +to establish their creed; but we all know that no man is great +enough to be an authority, except in that particular domain in +which he won his eminence; and we all know that great men are not +great in all directions. Bacon died a believer in the Ptolemaic +system of astronomy. Tycho Brahe kept an imbecile in his service, +putting down with great care the words that fell from the hanging +lip of idiocy, and then endeavored to put them together in a way to +form prophecies. Sir Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft not only, +but in its lowest and most vulgar forms; and some of the greatest +men of antiquity examined the entrails of birds to find the secrets +of the future.</p> +<p>It has always seemed to me that reasons are better than +names.</p> +<p>After taking the ground that Christ could not have been a +greater teacher than he actually was, you ask: "Where would have +been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed population of a +particular age a codified religion which was to serve for all +nations, all ages, all states of civilization?"</p> +<p>Does not this question admit that the teachings of Christ will +not serve for all nations, all ages and all states of +civilization?</p> +<p>But let me ask: If it was necessary for Christ "to deliver to an +uninstructed population of a particular age a certain religion +suited only for that particular age," why should a civilized and +scientific age eighteen hundred years afterwards be absolutely +bound by that religion? Do you not see that your position cannot be +defended, and that you have provided no way for retreat? If the +religion of Christ was for that age, is it for this? Are you +willing to admit that the Ten Commandments are not for all time? +If, then, four thousand years before Christ, commandments were +given not simply for "an uninstructed population of a particular +age, but for all time," can you give a reason why the religion of +Christ should not have been of the same character?</p> +<p>In the first place you say that God has revealed himself to the +world—that he has revealed a religion; and in the next place, +that "he has not revealed a perfect religion, for the reason that +no room would be left for the career of human thought."</p> +<p>Why did not God reveal this imperfect religion to all people +instead of to a small and insignificant tribe, a tribe without +commerce and without influence among the nations of the world? Why +did he hide this imperfect light under a bushel? If the light was +necessary for one, was it not necessary for all? And why did he +drown a world to whom he had not even given that light? According +to your reasoning, would there not have been left greater room for +the career of human thought, had no revelation been made?</p> +<p>You say that "you have known a person who after studying the old +classical or Olympian religion for a third part of a century, at +length began to hope that he had some partial comprehension of +it—some inkling of what is meant." You say this for the +purpose of showing how impossible it is to understand the Bible. If +it is so difficult, why do you call it a revelation? And yet, +according to your creed, the man who does not understand the +revelation and believe it, or who does not believe it, whether he +understands it or not, is to reap the harvest of everlasting pain. +Ought not the revelation to be revealed?</p> +<p>In order to escape from the fact that Christ denounced the +chosen people of God as "a generation of vipers" and as "whited +sepulchres," you take the ground that the scribes and pharisees +were not the chosen people. Of what blood were they? It will not do +to say that they were not the people. Can you deny that Christ +addressed the chosen people when he said: "Jerusalem, which killest +the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee"?</p> +<p>You have called me to an account for what I said in regard to +Ananias and Sapphira. <i>First</i>, I am charged with having said +that the apostles conceived the idea of having all things in +common, and you denounce this as an interpolation; <i>second</i>, +"that motives of prudence are stated as a matter of fact to have +influenced the offending couple"—and this is charged as an +interpolation; and, <i>third</i>, that I stated that the apostles +sent for the wife of Ananias—and this is characterized as a +pure invention.</p> +<p>To me it seems reasonable to suppose that the idea of having all +things in common was conceived by those who had nothing, or had the +least, and not by those who had plenty. In the last verses of the +fourth chapter of the Acts, you will find this:</p> +<p>"Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as +were possessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices +of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' +feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had +need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which +is, being interpreted, the son of consolation), a Levite and of the +country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and +laid it at the apostles' feet."</p> +<p>Now it occurred to me that the idea was in all probability +suggested by the men at whose feet the property was laid. It never +entered my mind that the idea originated with those who had land +for sale. There may be a different standard by which human nature +is measured in your country, than in mine; but if the thing had +happened in the United States, I feel absolutely positive that it +would have been at the suggestion of the apostles.</p> +<p>"Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession and kept +back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and +brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet."</p> +<p>In my Letter to Dr. Field I stated—not at the time +pretending to quote from the New Testament—that Ananias and +Sapphira, after talking the matter over, not being entirely +satisfied with the collaterals, probably concluded to keep a +little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good +and pious bankers should abscond. It never occurred to me that any +man would imagine that this was a quotation, and I feel like asking +your pardon for having led you into this error. We are informed in +the Bible that "they kept back a part of the price." It occurred to +me, "judging by the rule of investigation according to common +sense," that there was a reason for this, and I could think of no +reason except that they did not care to trust the apostles with +all, and that they kept back just a little, thinking it might be +useful if the rest should be lost.</p> +<p>According to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks to +Ananias,</p> +<p>"Ananias fell down and gave up the ghost;.... and the young men +arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it +was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not +knowing what was done, came in."</p> +<p>Whereupon Peter said:</p> +<p>"'Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?' And she said, +'Yea, for so much.' Then Peter said unto her, 'How is it that ye +have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the +feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and +shall carry thee out.' Then fell she down straightway at his feet, +and yielded up the ghost; and the young men came in, and found her +dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband."</p> +<p>The only objection found to this is, that I inferred that the +apostles had sent for her. Sending for her was not the offence. The +failure to tell her what had happened to her husband was the +offence—keeping his fate a secret from her in order that she +might be caught in the same net that had been set for her husband +by Jehovah. This was the offence. This was the mean and cruel thing +to which I objected. Have you answered that?</p> +<p>Of course, I feel sure that the thing never occurred—the +probability being that Ananias and Sapphira never lived and never +died. It is probably a story invented by the early church to make +the collection of subscriptions somewhat easier.</p> +<p>And yet, we find a man in the nineteenth century, foremost of +his fellow-citizens in the affairs of a great nation, upholding +this barbaric view of God.</p> +<p>Let me beg of you to use your reason "according to the rule +suggested by common sense." Let us do what little we can to rescue +the reputation, even of a Jewish myth, from the calumnies of +Ignorance and Fear.</p> +<p>So, again, I am charged with having given certain words as a +quotation from the Bible in which two passages are +combined—"They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, +and they who believe not shall be damned. And these shall go away +into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."</p> +<p>They were given as two passages. No one for a moment supposed +that they would be read together as one, and no one imagined that +any one in answering the argument would be led to believe that they +were intended as one. Neither was there in this the slightest +negligence, as I was answering a man who is perfectly familiar with +the Bible. The objection was too small to make. It is hardly large +enough to answer—and had it not been made by you it would not +have been answered.</p> +<p>You are not satisfied with what I have said upon the subject of +immortality. What I said was this: The idea of immortality, that +like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its +countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and +rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, +nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will +continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and +darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death.</p> +<p>You answer this by saying that "the Egyptians were believers in +immortality, but were not a people of high intellectual +development."</p> +<p>How such a statement tends to answer what I have said, is beyond +my powers of discernment. Is there the slightest connection between +my statement and your objection?</p> +<p>You make still another answer, and say that "the ancient Greeks +were a race of perhaps unparalled intellectual capacity, and that +notwithstanding that, the most powerful mind of the Greek +philosophy, that of Aristotle, had no clear conception of a +personal existence in a future state." May I be allowed to ask this +simple question: Who has?</p> +<p>Are you urging an objection to the dogma of immortality, when +you say that a race of unparalled intellectual capacity had no +confidence in it? Is that a doctrine believed only by people who +lack intellectual capacity? I stated that the idea of immortality +was born of love, You reply, "the Egyptians believed it, but they +were not intellectual." Is not this a <i>non sequitur?</i> The +question is: Were they a loving people?</p> +<p>Does history show that there is a moral governor of the world? +What witnesses shall we call? The billions of slaves who were paid +with blows?—the countless mothers whose babes were sold? Have +we time to examine the Waldenses, the Covenanters of Scotland, the +Catholics of Ireland, the victims of St. Bartholomew, of the +Spanish Inquisition, all those who have died in flames? Shall we +hear the story of Bruno? Shall we ask Servetus? Shall we ask the +millions slaughtered by Christian swords in America—all the +victims of ambition, of perjury, of ignorance, of superstition and +revenge, of storm and earthquake, of famine, flood and fire?</p> +<p>Can all the agonies and crimes, can all the inequalities of the +world be answered by reading the "noble Psalm" in which are found +the words: "Call upon me in the day of trouble, so I will hear +thee, and thou shalt praise me"? Do you prove the truth of these +fine words, this honey of Trebizond, by the victims of religious +persecution? Shall we hear the sighs and sobs of Siberia?</p> +<p>Another thing. Why should you, from the page of Greek history, +with the sponge of your judgment, wipe out all names but one, and +tell us that the most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy was +that of Aristotle? How did you ascertain this fact? Is it not fair +to suppose that you merely intended to say that, according to your +view, Aristotle had the most powerful mind among all the +philosophers of Greece? I should not call attention to this, except +for your criticism on a like remark of mine as to the intellectual +superiority of Shakespeare. But if you knew the trouble I have had +in finding out your meaning, from your words, you would pardon me +for calling attention to a single line from Aristotle: "Clearness +is the virtue of style."</p> +<p>To me Epicurus seems far greater than Aristotle, He had clearer +vision. His cheek was closer to the breast of nature, and he +planted his philosophy nearer to the bed-rock of fact. He was +practical enough to know that virtue is the means and happiness the +end; that the highest philosophy is the art of living. He was wise +enough to say that nothing is of the slightest value to man that +does not increase or preserve his wellbeing, and he was great +enough to know and courageous enough to declare that all the gods +and ghosts were monstrous phantoms born of ignorance and fear.</p> +<p>I still insist that human affection is the foundation of the +idea of immortality; that love was the first to speak that word, no +matter whether they who spoke it were savage or civilized, Egyptian +or Greek. But if we are immortal—if there be another +world—why was it not clearly set forth in the Old Testament? +Certainly, the authors of that book had an opportunity to learn it +from the Egyptians. Why was it not revealed by Jehovah? Why did he +waste his time in giving orders for the consecration of +priests—in saying that they must have sheep's blood put on +their right ears and on their right thumbs and on their right big +toes? Could a God with any sense of humor give such directions, or +watch without huge laughter the performance of such a ceremony? In +order to see the beauty, the depth and tenderness of such a +consecration, is it essential to be in a state of "reverential +calm"?</p> +<p>Is it not strange that Christ did not tell of another world +distinctly, clearly, without parable, and without the mist of +metaphor?</p> +<p>The fact is that the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the +Romans taught the immortality of the soul, not as a glittering +guess—a possible perhaps—but as a clear and +demonstrated truth for many centuries before the birth of +Christ.</p> +<p>If the Old Testament proves anything, it is that death ends all. +And the New Testament, by basing immortality on the resurrection of +the body, but "keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it +to our hope."</p> +<p>In my Reply to Dr. Field, I said: "The truth is, that no one can +justly be held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks +without asking our consent; we believe, or disbelieve, without an +effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of +evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who +watches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in +the formation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent +of desire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we +wish."</p> +<p>Does the brain think without our consent? Can we control our +thought? Can we tell what we are going to think tomorrow?</p> +<p>Can we stop thinking?</p> +<p>Is belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a +product of the will? Can the scales in which reason weighs evidence +be turned by the will? Why then should evidence be weighed? If it +all depends on the will, what is evidence? Is there any opportunity +of being dishonest in the formation of an opinion? Must not the man +who forms the opinion know what it is? He cannot knowingly cheat +himself. He cannot be deceived with dice that he loads. He cannot +play unfairly at solitaire without knowing that he has lost the +game. He cannot knowingly weigh with false scales and believe in +the correctness of the result.</p> +<p>You have not even attempted to answer my arguments upon these +points, but you have unconsciously avoided them. You did not attack +the citadel. In military parlance, you proceeded to "shell the +woods." The noise is precisely the same as though every shot had +been directed against the enemy's position, but the result is not. +You do not seem willing to implicitly trust the correctness of your +aim. You prefer to place the target after the shot.</p> +<p>The question is whether the will knowingly can change evidence, +and whether there is any opportunity of being dishonest in the +formation of an opinion. You have changed the issue. You have +erased the word formation and interpolated the word expression.</p> +<p>Let us suppose that a man has given an opinion, knowing that it +is not based on any fact. Can you say that he has given his +opinion? The moment a prejudice is known to be a prejudice, it +disappears. Ignorance is the soil in which prejudice must grow. +Touched by a ray of light, it dies. The judgment of man may be +warped by prejudice and passion, but it cannot be consciously +warped. It is impossible for any man to be influenced by a known +prejudice, because a known prejudice cannot exist.</p> +<p>I am not contending that all opinions have been honestly +expressed. What I contend is that when a dishonest opinion has been +expressed it is not the opinion that was formed.</p> +<p>The cases suggested by you are not in point. Fathers are +honestly swayed, if really swayed, by love; and queens and judges +have pretended to be swayed by the highest motives, by the clearest +evidence, in order that they might kill rivals, reap rewards, and +gratify revenge. But what has all this to do with the fact that he +who watches the scales in which evidence is weighed knows the +actual result?</p> +<p>Let us examine your case: If a father is <i>consciously</i> +swayed by his love for his son, and for that reason says that his +son is innocent, then he has not expressed his opinion. If he is +unconsciously swayed and says that his son is innocent, then he has +expressed his opinion. In both instances his opinion was +independent of his will; but in the first instance he did not +express his opinion. You will certainly see this distinction +between the formation and the expression of an opinion.</p> +<p>The same argument applies to the man who consciously has a +desire to condemn. Such a <i>conscious</i> desire cannot affect the +testimony—cannot affect the opinion. Queen Elizabeth +undoubtedly desired the death of Mary Stuart, but this conscious +desire could not have been the foundation on which rested +Elizabeth's opinion as to the guilt or innocence of her rival. It +is barely possible that Elizabeth did not express her real opinion. +Do you believe that the English judges in the matter of the Popish +Plot gave judgment in accordance with their opinions? Are you +satisfied that Napoleon expressed his real opinion when he +justified himself for the assassination of the Duc d'Enghien?</p> +<p>If you answer these questions in the affirmative, you admit that +I am right. If you answer in the negative, you admit that you are +wrong. The moment you admit that the opinion formed cannot be +changed by expressing a pretended opinion, your argument is turned +against yourself.</p> +<p>It is admitted that prejudice strengthens, weakens and colors +evidence; but prejudice is honest. And when one acts knowingly +against the evidence, that is not by reason of prejudice.</p> +<p>According to my views of propriety, it would be unbecoming for +me to say that your argument on these questions is "a piece of +plausible shallowness." Such language might be regarded as lacking +"reverential calm," and I therefore refrain from even +characterizing it as plausible.</p> +<p>Is it not perfectly apparent that you have changed the issue, +and that instead of showing that opinions are creatures of the +will, you have discussed the quality of actions? What have corrupt +and cruel judgments pronounced by corrupt and cruel judges to do +with their real opinions? When a judge forms one opinion and +renders another he is called corrupt. The corruption does not +consist in forming his opinion, but in rendering one that he did +not form. Does a dishonest creditor, who incorrectly adds a number +of items making the aggregate too large, necessarily change his +opinion as to the relations of numbers? When an error is known, it +is not a mistake; but a conclusion reached by a mistake, or by a +prejudice, or by both, is a necessary conclusion. He who pretends +to come to a conclusion by a mistake which he knows is not a +mistake, knows that he has not expressed his real opinion.</p> +<p>Can any thing be more illogical than the assertion that because +a boy reaches, through negligence in adding figures, a wrong +result, that he is accountable for his opinion of the result? If he +knew he was negligent, what must his opinion of the result have +been?</p> +<p>So with the man who boldly announces that he has discovered the +numerical expression of the relation sustained by the diameter to +the circumference of a circle. If he is honest in the announcement, +then the announcement was caused not by his will but by his +ignorance. His will cannot make the announcement true, and he could +not by any possibility have supposed that his will could affect the +correctness of his announcement. The will of one who thinks that he +has invented or discovered what is called perpetual motion, is not +at fault. The man, if honest, has been misled; if not honest, he +endeavors to mislead others. There is prejudice, and prejudice does +raise a clamor, and the intellect is affected and the judgment is +darkened and the opinion is deformed; but the prejudice is real and +the clamor is sincere and the judgment is upright and the opinion +is honest.</p> +<p>The intellect is not always supreme. It is surrounded by clouds. +It sometimes sits in darkness. It is often misled—sometimes, +in superstitious fear, it abdicates. It is not always a white +light. The passions and prejudices are prismatic—they color +thoughts. Desires betray the judgment and cunningly mislead the +will.</p> +<p>You seem to think that the fact of responsibility is in danger +unless it rests upon the will, and this will you regard as +something without a cause, springing into being in some mysterious +way, without father or mother, without seed or soil, or rain or +light. You must admit that man is a conditioned being—that he +has wants, objects, ends, and aims, and that these are gratified +and attained only by the use of means. Do not these wants and these +objects have something to do with the will, and does not the +intellect have something to do with the means? Is not the will a +product? Independently of conditions, can it exist? Is it not +necessarily produced? Behind every wish and thought, every dream +and fancy, every fear and hope, are there not countless causes? Man +feels shame. What does this prove? He pities himself. What does +this demonstrate?</p> +<p>The dark continent of motive and desire has never been explored. +In the brain, that wondrous world with one inhabitant, there are +recesses dim and dark, treacherous sands and dangerous shores, +where seeming sirens tempt and fade; streams that rise in unknown +lands from hidden springs, strange seas with ebb and flow of tides, +resistless billows urged by storms of flame, profound and awful +depths hidden by mist of dreams, obscure and phantom realms where +vague and fearful things are half revealed, jungles where passion's +tigers crouch, and skies of cloud and blue where fancies fly with +painted wings that dazzle and mislead; and the poor sovereign of +this pictured world is led by old desires and ancient hates, and +stained by crimes of many vanished years, and pushed by hands that +long ago were dust, until he feels like some bewildered slave that +Mockery has throned and crowned.</p> +<p>No one pretends that the mind of man is perfect—that it is +not affected by desires, colored by hopes, weakened by fears, +deformed by ignorance and distorted by superstition. But all this +has nothing to do with the innocence of opinion.</p> +<p>It may be that the Thugs were taught that murder is innocent; +but did the teachers believe what they taught? Did the pupils +believe the teachers? Did not Jehovah teach that the act that we +describe as murder was a duty? Were not his teachings practiced by +Moses and Joshua and Jephthah and Samuel and David? Were they +honest? But what has all this to do with the point at issue?</p> +<p>Society has the right to protect itself, even from honest +murderers and conscientious thieves. The belief of the criminal +does not disarm society; it protects itself from him as from a +poisonous serpent, or from a beast that lives on human flesh. We +are under no obligation to stand still and allow ourselves to be +murdered by one who honestly thinks that it is his duty to take our +lives. And yet according to your argument, we have no right to +defend ourselves from honest Thugs. Was Saul of Tarsus a Thug when +he persecuted Christians "even unto strange cities"? Is the Thug of +India more ferocious than Torquemada, the Thug of Spain?</p> +<p>If belief depends upon the will, can all men have correct +opinions who will to have them? Acts are good or bad, according to +their consequences, and not according to the intentions of the +actors. Honest opinions may be wrong, and opinions dishonestly +expressed may be right.</p> +<p>Do you mean to say that because passion and prejudice, the +reckless "pilots 'twixt the dangerous shores of will and judgment," +sway the mind, that the opinions which you have expressed in your +Remarks to me are not your opinions? Certainly you will admit that +in all probability you have prejudices and passions, and if so, can +the opinions that you have expressed, according to your argument, +be honest? My lack of confidence in your argument gives me perfect +confidence in your candor. You may remember the philosopher who +retained his reputation for veracity, in spite of the fact that he +kept saying: "There is no truth in man."</p> +<p>Are only those opinions honest that are formed without any +interference of passion, affection, habit or fancy? What would the +opinion of a man without passions, affections, or fancies be worth? +The alchemist gave up his search for an universal solvent upon +being asked in what kind of vessel he expected to keep it when +found.</p> +<p>It may be admitted that Biel "shows us how the life of Dante +co-operated with his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities +to make him what he was," but does this tend to show that Dante +changed his opinions by an act of his will, or that he reached +honest opinions by knowingly using false weights and measures?</p> +<p>You must admit that the opinions, habits and religions of men +depend, at least in some degree, on race, occupation, training and +capacity. Is not every thoughtful man compelled to agree with Edgar +Fawcett, in whose brain are united the beauty of the poet and the +subtlety of the logician,</p> +<pre> + "Who sees how vice her venom wreaks + On the frail babe before it speaks, + And how heredity enslaves + With ghostly hands that reach from graves"? +</pre> +<p>Why do you hold the intellect criminally responsible for +opinions, when you admit that it is controlled by the will? And why +do you hold the will responsible, when you insist that it is swayed +by the passions and affections? But all this has nothing to do with +the fact that every opinion has been honestly formed, whether +honestly expressed or not.</p> +<p>No one pretends that all governments have been honestly formed +and honestly administered. All vices, and some virtues are +represented in most nations. In my opinion a republic is far better +than a monarchy. The legally expressed will of the people is the +only rightful sovereign. This sovereignty, however, does not +embrace the realm of thought or opinion. In that world, each human +being is a sovereign,—throned and crowned: One is a majority. +The good citizens of that realm give to others all rights that they +claim for themselves, and those who appeal to force are the only +traitors.</p> +<p>The existence of theological despotisms, of God-anointed kings, +does not tend to prove that a known prejudice can determine the +weight of evidence. When men were so ignorant as to suppose that +God would destroy them unless they burned heretics, they lighted +the fagots in selfdefence.</p> +<p>Feeling as I do that man is not responsible for his opinions, I +characterized persecution for opinion's sake as infamous. So, it is +perfectly clear to me, that it would be the infamy of infamies for +an infinite being to create vast numbers of men knowing that they +would suffer eternal pain. If an infinite God creates a man on +purpose to damn him, or creates him knowing that he will be damned, +is not the crime the same? We make mistakes and failures because we +are finite; but can you conceive of any excuse for an infinite +being who creates failures? If you had the power to change, by a +wish, a statue into a human being, and you knew that this being +would die without a "change of heart" and suffer endless pain, what +would you do?</p> +<p>Can you think of any excuse for an earthly father, who, having +wealth, learning and leisure, leaves his own children in ignorance +and darkness? Do you believe that a God of infinite wisdom, justice +and love, called countless generations of men into being, knowing +that they would be used as fuel for the eternal fire?</p> +<p>Many will regret that you did not give your views upon the main +questions—the principal issues—involved, instead of +calling attention, for the most part, to the unimportant. If men +were discussing the causes and results of the Franco-Prussian war, +it would hardly be worth while for a third person to interrupt the +argument for the purpose of calling attention to a misspelled word +in the terms of surrender.</p> +<p>If we admit that man is responsible for his opinions and his +thoughts, and that his will is perfectly free, still these +admissions do not even tend to prove the inspiration of the Bible, +or the "divine scheme of redemption."</p> +<p>In my judgment, the days of the supernatural are numbered. The +dogma of inspiration must be abandoned. As man advances,—as +his intellect enlarges,—as his knowledge increases,—as +his ideals become nobler, the bibles and creeds will lose their +authority—the miraculous will be classed with the impossible, +and the idea of special providence will be discarded. Thousands of +religions have perished, innumerable gods have died, and why should +the religion of our time be exempt from the common fate?</p> +<p>Creeds cannot remain permanent in a world in which knowledge +increases. Science and superstition cannot peaceably occupy the +same brain. This is an age of investigation, of discovery and +thought. Science destroys the dogmas that mislead the mind and +waste the energies of man. It points out the ends that can be +accomplished; takes into consideration the limits of our faculties; +fixes our attention on the affairs of this world, and erects +beacons of warning on the dangerous shores. It seeks to ascertain +the conditions of health, to the end that life may be enriched and +lengthened, and it reads with a smile this passage:</p> +<p>"And God-wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that +from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, +and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out +of them."</p> +<p>Science is the enemy of fear and credulity. It invites +investigation, challenges the reason, stimulates inquiry, and +welcomes the unbeliever. It seeks to give food and shelter, and +raiment, education and liberty to the human race. It welcomes every +fact and every truth. It has furnished a foundation for morals, a +philosophy for the guidance of man. From all books it selects the +good, and from all theories, the true. It seeks to civilize the +human race by the cultivation of the intellect and' heart. It +refines through art, music and the drama—giving voice and +expression to every noble thought. The mysterious does not excite +the feeling of worship, but the ambition to understand. It does not +pray—it works. It does not answer inquiry with the malicious +cry of "blasphemy." Its feelings are not hurt by contradiction, +neither does it ask to be protected by law from the laughter of +heretics. It has taught man that he cannot walk beyond the +horizon—that the questions of origin and destiny cannot be +answered—that an infinite personality cannot be comprehended +by a finite being, and that the truth of any system of religion +based on the supernatural cannot by any possibility be +established—such a religion not being within the domain of +evidence. And, above all, it teaches that all our duties are +here—that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that +intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom; +and that "man believes not what he would, but what he can."</p> +<p>And after all, it may be that "to ride an unbroken horse with +the reins thrown upon his neck"—as you charge me with +doing—gives a greater variety of sensations, a keener +delight, and a better prospect of winning the race than to sit +solemnly astride of a dead one, in "a deep reverential calm," with +the bridle firmly in your hand.</p> +<p>Again assuring you of my profound respect, I remain, Sincerely +yours,</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0011" id="link0011"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ROME OR REASON.</h2> +<h3>Col. Ingersoll and Cardinal Manning.</h3> +<p>The Gladstone-Ingersoll Controversy.</p> +<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CHURCH ITS OWN WITNESS, By Cardinal Manning.</h2> +<p>THE Vatican Council, in its Decree on Faith has these words: +"The Church itself, by its marvelous propagation, its eminent +sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, its +catholic unity and invincible stability, is a vast and perpetual +motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its own +Divine legation."* Its Divine Founder said: "I am the light of the +world;" and, to His Apostles, He said also, "Ye are the light of +the world," and of His Church He added, "A city seated on a hill +cannot be hid." The Vatican Council says, "The Church is its own +witness." My purpose is to draw out this assertion more fully.</p> +<pre> + * "Const. Dogm. de Fide Catholica, c. iii. +</pre> +<p>These words affirm that the Church is self-evident, as light is +to the eye, and through sense, to the intellect. Next to the sun at +noonday, there is nothing in the world more manifest than the one +visible Universal Church. Both the faith and the infidelity of the +world bear witness to it. It is loved and hated, trusted and +feared, served and assaulted, honored and blasphemed: it is Christ +or Antichrist, the Kingdom of God or the imposture of Satan. It +pervades the civilized world. No man and no nation can ignore it, +none can be indifferent to it. Why is all this? How is its +existence to be accounted for?</p> +<p>Let me suppose that I am an unbeliever in Christianity, and that +some friend should make me promise to examine the evidence to show +that Christianity is a Divine revelation; I should then sift and +test the evidence as strictly as if it were in a court of law, and +in a cause of life and death; my will would be in suspense: it +would in no way control the process of my intellect. If it had any +inclination from the equilibrium, it would be towards mercy and +hope; but this would not add a feather's weight to the evidence, +nor sway the intellect a hair's breadth.</p> +<p>After the examination has been completed, and my intellect +convinced, the evidence being sufficient to prove that Christianity +is a divine revelation, nevertheless I am not yet a Christian. All +this sifting brings me to the conclusion of a chain of reasoning; +but I am not yet a believer. The last act of reason has brought me +to the brink of the first act of faith. They are generically +distinct and separable. The acts of reason are intellectual, and +jealous of the interference of the will. The act of faith is an +imperative act of the will, founded on and justified by the process +and conviction of the intellect. Hitherto I have been a critic: +henceforward, if I will, I become a disciple.</p> +<p>It may here be objected that no man can so far suspend the +inclination of the will when the question is, has God indeed spoken +to man or no? is the revealed law of purity, generosity, +perfection, divine, or only the poetry of imagination? Can a man be +indifferent between two such sides of the problem? Will he not +desire the higher and better side to be true? and if he desire, +will he not incline to the side that he desires to find true? Can a +moral being be absolutely indifferent between two such issues? and +can two such issues be equally attractive to a moral agent? Can it +be indifferent and all the same to us whether God has made Himself +and His will known to us or not? Is there no attraction in light, +no repulsion in darkness? Does not the intrinsic and eternal +distinction of good and evil make itself felt in spite of the will? +Are we not responsible to "receive the truth in the love of it?" +Nevertheless, evidence has its own limits and quantities, and +cannot be made more or less by any act of the will. And yet, what +is good or bad, high or mean, lovely or hateful, ennobling or +degrading, must attract or repel men as they are better or worse in +their moral sense; for an equilibrium between good and evil, to God +or to man, is impossible.</p> +<p>The last act of my reason, then, is distinct from my first act +of faith precisely in this: so long as I was uncertain I suspended +the inclination of my will, as an act of fidelity to conscience and +of loyalty to truth; but the process once complete, and the +conviction once attained, my will imperatively constrains me to +believe, and I become a disciple of a Divine revelation.</p> +<p>My friend next tells me that there are Christian Scriptures, and +I go through precisely the same process of critical examination and +final conviction, the last act of reasoning preceding, as before, +the first act of faith.</p> +<p>He then tells me that there is a Church claiming to be divinely +founded, divinely guarded, and divinely guided in its custody of +Christianity and of the Christian Scriptures.</p> +<p>Once more I have the same twofold process of reasoning and of +believing to go through.</p> +<p>There is, however, this difference in the subject-matter: +Christianity is an order of supernatural truth appealing +intellectually to my reason; the Christian Scriptures are +voiceless, and need a witness. They cannot prove their own mission, +much less their own authenticity or inspiration. But the Church is +visible to the eye, audible to the ear, self-manifesting and +self-asserting: I cannot escape from it. If I go to the east, it is +there; if I go to the west, it is there also. If I stay at home, it +is before me, seated on the hill; if I turn away from it, I am +surrounded by its light. It pursues me and calls to me. I cannot +deny its existence; I cannot be indifferent to it; I must either +listen to it or willfully stop my ears; I must heed it or defy it, +love it or hate it. But my first attitude towards it is to try it +with forensic strictness, neither pronouncing it to be Christ nor +Antichrist till I have tested its origin, claim, and character. Let +us take down the case in short-hand.</p> +<p>1. It says that it interpenetrates all the nations of the +civilized world. In some it holds the whole nation in its unity, in +others it holds fewer; but in all it is present, visible, audible, +naturalized, and known as the one Catholic Church, a name that none +can appropriate. Though often claimed and controversially assumed, +none can retain it; it falls off. The world knows only one Catholic +Church, and always restores the name to the right owner.</p> +<p>2. It is not a national body, but extra-national, accused of its +foreign relations and foreign dependence. It is international, and +independent in a supernational unity.</p> +<p>3. In faith, divine worship, sacred ceremonial, discipline, +government, from the highest to the lowest, it is the same in every +place.</p> +<p>4. It speaks all languages in the civilized world.</p> +<p>5. It is obedient to one Head, outside of all nations, except +one only; and in that nation, his headship is not national but +world-wide.</p> +<p>6. The world-wide sympathy of the Church in all lands with its +Head has been manifested in our days, and before our eyes, by a +series of public assemblages in Rome, of which nothing like or +second to it can be found. In 1854, 350 Bishops of all nations +surrounded their Head when he defined the Immaculate Conception. In +1862, 400 Bishops assembled at the canonization of the Martyrs of +Japan. In 1867, 500 Bishops came to keep the eighteenth centenary +of St. Peter's martyrdom. In 1870, 700 Bishops assembled in the +Vatican Council. On the Feast of the Epiphany, 1870, the Bishops of +thirty nations during two whole hours made profession of faith in +their own languages, kneeling before their head. Add to this, that +in 1869, in the sacerdotal jubilee of Pius IX., Rome was filled for +months by pilgrims from all lands in Europe and beyond the sea, +from the Old World and from the New, bearing all manner of gifts +and oblations to the Head of the Universal Church. To this, again, +must be added the world-wide outcry and protest of all the Catholic +unity against the seizure and sacrilege of September, 1870, when +Rome was taken by the Italian Revolution.</p> +<p>7. All this came to pass not only by reason of the great love of +the Catholic world for Pius IX., but because they revered him as +the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. For that +undying reason the same events have been reproduced in the time of +Leo XIII. In the early months of this year Rome was once more +filled with pilgrims of all nations, coming in thousands as +representatives of millions in all nations, to celebrate the +sacerdotal jubilee of the Sovereign Pontiff. The courts of the +Vatican could not find room for the multitude of gifts and +offerings of every kind which were sent from all quarters of the +world.</p> +<p>8. These things are here said, not because of any other +importance, but because they set forth in the most visible and +self-evident way the living unity and the luminous universality of +the One Catholic and Roman Church.</p> +<p>9. What has thus far been said is before our eyes at this hour. +It is no appeal to history, but to a visible and palpable fact. Men +may explain it as they will; deny it, they cannot. They see the +Head of the Church year by year speaking to the nations of the +world; treating with Empires, Republics and Governments. There is +no other man on earth that can so bear himself. Neither from +Canterbury nor from Constantinople can such a voice go forth to +which rulers and people listen.</p> +<p>This is the century of revolutions. Rome has in our time been +besieged three times; three Popes have been driven out of it, two +have been shut up in the Vatican. The city is now full of the +Revolution. The whole Church has been tormented by Falck laws, +Mancini laws, and Crispi laws. An unbeliever in Germany said some +years ago, "The net is now drawn so tight about the Church, that if +it escapes this time I will believe in it." Whether he believes, or +is even alive now to believe, I cannot say.</p> +<p>Nothing thus far has been said as proof. The visible, palpable +facts, which are at this moment before the eyes of all men, speak +for themselves. There is one, and only one, worldwide unity of +which these things can be said. It is a fact and a phenomenon for +which an intelligible account must be rendered. If it be only a +human system built up by the intellect, will and energy of men, let +the adversaries prove it. The burden is upon them; and they will +have more to do as we go on.</p> +<p>Thus far we have rested upon the evidence of sense and fact. We +must now go on to history and reason.</p> +<p>Every religion and every religious body known to history has +varied from itself and broken up. Brahminism has given birth to +Buddhism; Mahometanism is parted into the Arabian and European +Khalifates; the Greek schism into the Russian, Constantinopolitan, +and Bulgarian autocephalous fragment; Protestaritism into its +multitudinous diversities. All have departed from their original +type, and all are continually developing new and irreconcilable, +intellectual and ritualistic, diversities and repulsions. How is it +that, with all diversities of language, civilization, race, +interest, and conditions, social and political, including +persecution and warfare, the Catholic nations are at this day, even +when in warfare, in unchanged unity of faith, communion, worship +and spiritual sympathy with each other and with their Head? This +needs a rational explanation.</p> +<p>It may be said in answer, endless divisions have come out of the +Church, from Arius to Photius, and from Photius to Luther.</p> +<p>Yes, but they all came out. There is the difference. They did +not remain in the Church, corrupting the faith. They came out, and +ceased to belong to the Catholic unity, as a branch broken from a +tree ceases to belong to the tree. But the identity of the tree +remains the same. A branch is not a tree, nor a tree a branch. A +tree may lose branches, but it rests upon its root, and renews its +loss. Not so the religions, so to call them, that have broken away +from unity. Not one has retained its members or its doctrines. Once +separated from the sustaining unity of the Church, all separations +lose their spiritual cohesion, and then their intellectual +identity. <i>Ramus procisus arescit</i>.</p> +<p>For the present it is enough to say that no human legislation, +authority or constraint can ever create internal unity of intellect +and will; and that the diversities and contradictions generated by +all human systems prove the absence of Divine authority. Variations +or contradictions are proof of the absence of a Divine mission to +mankind. All natural causes run to disintegration. Therefore, they +can render no account of the world-wide unity of the One Universal +Church.</p> +<p>Such, then, are the facts before our eyes at this day. We will +seek out the origin of the body or system called the Catholic +Church, and pass at once to its outset eighteen hundred years +ago.</p> +<p>I affirm, then, three things: (1) First, that no adequate +account can be given of this undeniable fact from natural causes; +(2) that the history of the Catholic Church demands causes above +nature; and (3) that it has always claimed for itself a Divine +origin and Divine authority.</p> +<p>I. And, first, before we examine what it was and what it has +done, we will recall to mind what was the world in the midst of +which it arose.</p> +<p>The most comprehensive and complete description of the old +world, before Christianity came in upon it, is given in the first +chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Mankind had once the +knowledge of God: that knowledge was obscured by the passions of +sense; in the darkness of the human intellect, with the light of +nature still before them, the nations worshiped the +creature—that is, by pantheism, polytheism, idolatry; and, +having lost the knowledge of God and of His perfections, they lost +the knowledge of their own nature and of its laws, even of the +natural and rational laws, which thenceforward ceased to guide, +restrain, or govern them. They became perverted and inverted with +every possible abuse, defeating the end and destroying the powers +of creation. The lights of nature were put out, and the world +rushed headlong into confusions, of which the beasts that perish +were innocent. This is analytically the history of all nations but +one. A line of light still shone from Adam to Enoch, from Enoch to +Abraham, to whom the command was given, "Walk before Me and be +perfect." And it ran on from Abraham to Caiaphas, who crucified the +founder of Christianity. Through all anthropomorphisms of thought +and language this line of light still passed inviolate and +inviolable. But in the world, on either side of that radiant +stream, the whole earth was dark. The intellectual and moral state +of the Greek world may be measured in its highest excellence in +Athens; and of the Roman world in Rome. The 'state of +Athens—its private, domestic, and public morality—may +be seen in Aristophanes.</p> +<p>The state of Rome is visible in Juvenal, and in the fourth book +of St. Augustine's "City of God." There was only one evil wanting-. +The world was not Atheist. Its polytheism was the example and the +warrant of all forms of moral abominations. Imitary quod colis +plunged the nations in crime. Their theology was their degradation; +their text-book of an elaborate corruption of intellect and +will.</p> +<p>Christianity came in "the fullness of time." What that fullness +may mean, is one of the mysteries of times and seasons which it is +not for us to know. But one motive for the long delay of four +thousand years is not far to seek. It gave time, full and ample, +for the utmost development and consolidation of all the falsehood +and evil of which the intellect and will of man are capable. The +four great empires were each of them the concentration of a supreme +effort of human power. The second inherited from the first, the +third from both, the fourth from all three. It was, as it was +foretold or described, as a beast, "exceeding terrible; his teeth +and claws were of iron; he devoured and broke in pieces; and the +rest he stamped upon with his feet." * The empire of man over man +was never so widespread, so absolute, so hardened into one +organized mass, as in Imperial Rome. The world had never seen a +military power so disciplined, irresistible, invincible; a +legislation so just, so equitable, so strong in its execution; a +government so universal, so local, so minute. It seemed to be +imperishable. Rome was called the eternal. The religions of all +nations were enshrined in Dea Roma; adopted, practiced openly, and +taught. They were all <i>religiones licitae</i>, known to the law; +not tolerated only, but recognized. The theologies of Egypt, +Greece, and of the Latin world, met in an empyreum, consecrated and +guarded by the Imperial law, and administered by the Pontifex +Maximus. No fanaticism ever surpassed the religious cruelties of +Rome.. Add to all this the colluvies of false philosophies of every +land, and of every date. They both blinded and hardened the +intellect of public opinion and of private men against the invasion +of anything except contempt, and hatred of both the philosophy of +sophists and of the religion of the people. Add to all this the +sensuality of the most refined and of the grossest luxury the world +had ever seen, and a moral confusion and corruption which violated +every law of nature.</p> +<pre> + * Daniel, vii. 19. +</pre> +<p>The god of this world had built his city. From foundation to +parapet, everything that the skill and power of man could do had +been done without stint of means or limit of will. The Divine hand +was stayed, or rather, as St. Augustine says, an unsurpassed +natural greatness was the reward of certain natural virtues, +degraded as they were in unnatural abominations. Rome was the +climax of the power of man without God, the apotheosis of the human +will, the direct and supreme antagonist of God in His own world. In +this the fullness of time was come. Man built all this for himself. +Certainly, man could not also build the City of God. They are not +the work of one and the same architect, who capriciously chose to +build first the city of confusion, suspending for a time his skill +and power to build some day the City of God. Such a hypothesis is +folly. Of two things, one. Disputers must choose one or the other. +Both cannot be asserted, and the assertion needs no answer—it +refutes itself. So much for the first point.</p> +<p>II. In the reign of Augustus, and in a remote and powerless +Oriental race, a Child was born in a stable of a poor Mother. For +thirty years He lived a hidden life; for three years He preached +the Kingdom of God, and gave laws hitherto unknown to men. He died +in ignominy upon the Cross; on the third day He rose again; and +after forty days He was seen no more. This unknown Man created the +world-wide unity of intellect and will which is visible to the eye, +and audible, in all languages, to the ear. It is in harmony with +the reason and moral nature of all nations, in all ages, to this +day. What proportion is there between the cause and the effect? +What power was there in this isolated Man? What unseen virtues went +out of Him to change the world? For change the world He did; and +that not in the line or on the level of nature as men had corrupted +it, but in direct contradiction to all that was then supreme in the +world. He taught the dependence of the intellect against its +self-trust, the submission of the will against its license, the +subjugation of the passions by temperate control or by absolute +subjection against their willful indulgence. This was to reverse +what men believed to be the laws of nature: to make water climb +upward and fire to point downward. He taught mortification of the +lusts of the flesh, contempt of the lusts of the eyes, and hatred +of the pride of life. What hope was there that such a teacher +should convert imperial Rome? that such a doctrine should exorcise +the fullness of human pride and lust? Yet so it has come to pass; +and how? Twelve men more obscure than Himself, absolutely without +authority or influence of this world, preached throughout the +empire and beyond it. They asserted two facts: the one, that God +had been made man; the other, that He died and rose again. What +could be more incredible? To the Jews the unity and spirituality of +God were axioms of reason and faith; to the Gentiles, however +cultured, the resurrection of the flesh was impossible. The Divine +Person Who had died and risen could not be called in evidence as +the chief witness. He could not be produced in court. Could +anything be more suspicious if credible, or less credible even if +He were there to say so? All that they could do was to say, "We +knew Him for three years, both before His death and after He rose +from the dead. If you will believe us, you will believe what we +say. If you will not believe us, we can say no more. He is not +here, but in heaven. We cannot call him down." It is true, as we +read, that Peter cured a lame man at the gate of the Temple. The +Pharisees could not deny it, but they would not believe what Peter +said; they only told him to hold his tongue. And yet thousands in +one day in Jerusalem believed in the Incarnation and the +Resurrection; and when the Apostles were scattered by persecution, +wherever they went men believed their word. The most intense +persecution was from the Jews, the people of faith and of Divine +traditions. In the name of God and of religion they stoned Stephen, +and sent Saul to persecute at Damascus. More than this, they +stirred up the Romans in every place. As they had forced Pilate to +crucify Jesus of Nazareth, so they swore to slay Paul. And yet, in +spite of all, the faith spread.</p> +<p>It is true, indeed, that the Empire of Alexander, the spread of +the Hellenistic Greek, the prevalence of Greek in Rome itself, the +Roman roads which made the Empire traversable, the Roman peace +which sheltered the preachers of the faith in the outset of their +work, gave them facilities to travel and to be understood. But +these were only external facilities, which in no way rendered more +credible or more acceptable the voice of penance and mortification, +or the mysteries of the faith, which was immutably "to the Jews a +stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness." It was in +changeless opposition to nature as man had marred it; but it was in +absolute harmony with nature as God had made it to His own +likeness. Its power was its persuasiveness; and its persuasiveness +was in its conformity to the highest and noblest aspirations and +aims of the soul in man. The master-key so long lost was found at +last; and its conformity to the wards of the lock was its +irrefragable witness to its own mission and message.</p> +<p>But if it is beyond belief that Christianity in its outset made +good its foothold by merely human causes and powers, how much more +does this become incredible in every age as we come down from the +first century to the nineteenth, and from the Apostolic mission to +the world-wide Church, Catholic and Roman, at this day.</p> +<p>Not only did the world in the fullness of its power give to the +Christian faith no help to root or to spread itself, but it wreaked +all the fullness of its power upon it to uproot and to destroy it, +Of the first thirty Pontiffs in Rome, twenty-nine were martyred. +Ten successive persecutions, or rather one universal and continuous +persecution of two hundred years, with ten more bitter excesses of +enmity in every province of the Empire, did all that man can do to +extinguish the Christian name. The Christian name may be blotted +out here and there in blood, but the Christian faith can nowhere be +slain. It is inscrutable, and beyond the reach of man. In nothing +is the blood of the martyrs more surely the seed of the faith. +Every martyrdom was a witness to the faith, and the ten +persecutions were the sealing of the work of the twelve Apostles. +The destroyer defeated himself. Christ crucified was visibly set +forth before all the nations, the world was a Calvary, and the +blood of the martyrs preached in every tongue the Passion of Jesus +Christ. The world did its worst, and ceased only for weariness and +conscious defeat.</p> +<p>Then came the peace, and with peace the peril of the Church. The +world outside had failed; the world inside began to work. It no +longer destroyed life; it perverted the intellect, and, through +intellectual perversion, assailed the faith at its centre, The +Angel of light preached heresy. The Baptismal Creed was assailed +all along the line; Gnosticism assailed the Father-and Creator of +all things; Arianism, the God-head of the Son; Nestorianism, the +unity of His person; Monophysites, the two natures; Monothelites, +the divine and human wills; Macedonians, the person of the Holy +Ghost So throughout the centuries, from Nicæa to the Vatican, +every article has been in succession perverted by heresy and +defined by the Church. But of this we shall speak hereafter. If the +human intellect could fasten its perversions on the Chris tian +faith, it would have done so long ago; and if the Christian faith +had been guarded by no more than human intellect, it would long ago +have been disintegrated, as we see in every religion outside the +unity of the one Catholic Church. There is no example in which +fragmentary Christianities have not departed from their original +type. No human system is immutable; no thing human is changeless. +The human intellect, therefore, can give no sufficient account of +the identity of the Catholic faith in all places and in all ages by +any of its own natural processes or powers. The force of this +argument is immensely increased when we trace the tradition of the +faith through the nineteen OEcumenical Councils which, with one +continuous intelligence, have guarded and unfolded the deposit of +faith, defining every truth as it has been successively assailed, +in absolute harmony and unity of progression.</p> +<p>What the Senate is to your great Republic, or the Parliament to +our English monarchy, such are the nineteen Councils of the Church, +with this only difference: the secular Legislatures must meet year +by year with short recesses; Councils have met on the average once +in a century. The reason of this is that the mutabilities of +national life, which are as the water-floods, need constant +remedies; the stability of the Church seldom needs new legislation. +The faith needs no definition except in rare intervals of +periodical intellectual disorder. The discipline of the Church +reigns by an universal common law which seldom needs a change, and +by local laws which are provided on the spot. Nevertheless, the +legislation of the Church, the <i>Corpus Juris</i>, or <i>Canon +Law</i>, is a creation of wisdom and justice, to which no Statutes +at large or Imperial pandects can bear comparison. Human intellect +has reached its climax in jurisprudence, but the world-wide and +secular legislation of the Church has a higher character. How the +Christian law corrected, elevated, and completed the Imperial law, +may be seen in a learned and able work by an American author, far +from the Catholic faith, but in the main just and accurate in his +facts and arguments—the <i>Gesta Christi</i> of Charles +Loring Brace. Water cannot rise above its source, and if the Church +by mere human wisdom corrected and perfected the Imperial law, its +source must be higher than the sources of the world. This makes a +heavy demand on our credulity.</p> +<p>Starting from St. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some 258 +Pontiffs claiming to be, and recognized by the whole Catholic unity +as, successors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ. To them has +been rendered in every age not only the external obedience of +outward submission, but the internal obedience of faith. They have +borne the onset of the nations who destroyed Imperial Rome, and the +tyranny of heretical Emperors of Byzantium; and, worse than this, +the alternate despotism and patronage of the Emperors of the West, +and the substraction of obedience in the great Western schisms, +when the unity of the Church and the authority of its Head were, as +men thought, gone for ever. It was the last assault—the +forlorn hope of the gates of hell. Every art of destruction had +been tried: martyrdom, heresy, secularity, schism; at last, two, +and three, and four claimants, or, as the world says, rival Popes, +were set up, that men might believe that St. Peter had no longer a +successor, and our Lord no Vicar, upon earth; for, though all might +be illegitimate, only one could be the lawful and true Head of the +Church. Was it only by the human power of man that the unity, +external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years had been +supreme, was once more restored in the Council of Constance, never +to be broken again? The succession of the English monarchy has +been, indeed, often broken, and always restored, in these thousand +years. But here is a monarchy of eighteen hundred years, powerless +in worldly force or support, claiming and receiving not only +outward allegiance, but inward unity of intellect and will. If any +man tell us that these two phenomena are on the same level of +merely human causes, it is too severe a tax upon our natural reason +to believe it.</p> +<p>But the inadequacy of human causes to account for the +universality, unity, and immutability of the Catholic Church, will +stand out more visibly if we look at the intellectual and moral +revolution which Christianity has wrought in the world and upon +mankind.</p> +<p>The first effect of Christianity was to fill the world with the +true knowledge of the One True God, and to destroy utterly all +idols, not by fire but by light. Before the Light of the world no +false god and no polytheism could stand. The unity and spirituality +of God swept away all theogonies and theologies of the first four +thousand years. The stream of light which descended from the +beginning expanded into a radiance, and the radiance into a flood, +which illuminated all nations, as it had been foretold, "The earth +is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of +the sea;" "And idols shall be utterly destroyed."* In this true +knowledge of the Divine Nature was revealed to men their own +relation to a Creator as of sons to a father. The Greeks called the +chief of the gods <i>Zeus Pater</i>, and the Latins <i>Jupiter</i>; +but neither realized the dependence and love of sonship as revealed +by the Founder of Christianity.</p> +<pre> + * Isaias, xi. 9-11, 18. +</pre> +<p>The monotheism of the world comes down from a primeval and +Divine source. Polytheism is the corruption of men and of nations. +Yet in the multiplicity of all polytheisms, ont supreme Deity was +always recognized. The Divine unity was imperishable. Polytheism is +of human imagination: it is of men's manufacture. The deification +of nature and passions and heroes had filled the world with an +elaborate and tenacious superstition, surrounded by reverence, +fear, religion, and awe. Every perversion of what is good in man +surrounded it with authority; everything that is evil in man +guarded it with jealous care. Against this world-wide and imperious +demon-ology the science of one God, all holy and supreme, advanced +with resistless force. Beelzebub is not divided against himself; +and if polytheism is not Divine, monotheism must be. The overthrow +of idolatry and demonology was the mastery of forces that are above +nature. This conclusion is enough for our present purpose.</p> +<p>A second visible effect of Christianity of which nature cannot +offer any adequate cause is to be found in the domestic life of the +Christian world. In some nations the existence of marriage was not +so much as recognized. In others, if recognized, it was dishonored +by profuse concubinage. Even in Israel, the most advanced nation, +the law of divorce was permitted for the hardness of their hearts. +Christianity republished the primitive law by which marriage unites +only one man and one woman indissolubly in a perpetual contract. It +raised their mutual and perpetual contract to a sacrament. This at +one blow condemned all other relations between man and woman, all +the legal gradations of the Imperial law, and all forms and pleas +of divorce. Beyond this the spiritual legislation of the Church +framed most elaborate tables of consanguinity and affinity, +prohibiting all marriages between persons in certain degrees of +kinship or relation. This law has created the purity and peace of +domestic life. Neither the Greek nor the Roman world had any true +conception of a home. The <i>Eoria</i> or Vesta was a sacred +tradition guarded by vestals like a temple worship. It was not a +law and a power in the homes of the people. Christianity, by +enlarging the circles of prohibition within which men and women +were as brothers and sisters, has created the home with all its +purities and safeguards.</p> +<p>Such a law of unity and indissolubility, encompassed by a +multitude of prohibitions, no mere human legislation could impose +on the the passions and will of mankind. And yet the Imperial laws +gradually yielded to its resistless pressure, and incorporated it +in its world-wide legislation. The passions and practices of four +thousand years were against the change; yet it was accomplished, +and it reigns inviolate to this day, though the relaxations of +schism in the East and the laxities of the West have revived the +abuse of divorces, and have partially abolished the wise and +salutary prohibitions which guard the homes of the faithful. These +relaxations prove that all natural forces have been, and are, +hostile to the indissoluble law of Christian marriage. Certainly, +then, it was not by natural forces that the Sacrament of Matrimony +and the legislation springing from it were enacted. If these are +restraints of human liberty and license, either they do not spring +from nature, or they have had a supernatural cause whereby they +exist. It was this that redeemed woman from the traditional +degradation in which the world had held her. The condition of women +in Athens and in Rome—which may be taken as the highest +points of civilization—is too well known to need recital. +Women had no rights, no property, no independence. Plato looked +upon them as State property; Aristotle as chattels; the Greeks +wrote of them as [—Greek—].</p> +<p>They were the prey, the sport, the slaves of man. Even in +Israel, though they were raised incomparably higher than in the +Gentile world, they were far below the dignity and authority of +Christian women. Libanius, the friend of Julian, the Apostate, +said, "O ye gods of Greece, how great are the women of the +Christians!" Whence came the elevation of womanhood? Not from the +ancient civilization, for it degraded them; not from Israel, for +among the Jews the highest state of womanhood was the marriage +state. The daughter of Jepthe went into the mountains to mourn not +her death but her virginity. The marriage state in the Christian +world, though holy and good, is not the highest state. The state of +virginity unto death is the highest condition of man and woman. But +this is above the law of nature. It belongs to a higher order. And +this life of virginity, in repression of natural passion and lawful +instinct, is both above and against the tendencies of human nature. +It begins in a mortification, and ends in a mastery, over the +movements and ordinary laws of human nature. Who will ascribe this +to natural causes? and, if so, why did it not appear in the first +four thousand years? And when has it ever appeared except in a +handful of vestal virgins, or in Oriental recluses, with what +reality history shows? An exception proves a rule. No one will +imagine that a life of chastity is impossible to nature; but the +restriction is a repression of nature which individuals may +acquire, but the multitude have never attained. A religion which +imposes chastity on the unmarried, and upon its priesthood, and +upon the multitudes of women in every age who devote themselves to +the service of One Whom they have never seen, is a mortification of +nature in so high a degree as to stand out as a fact and a +phenomenon, of which mere natural causes afford no adequate +solution. Its existence, not in a handful out of the millions of +the world, but its prevalence and continuity in multitudes +scattered throughout the Christian world, proves the presence of a +cause higher than the laws of nature. So true is this, that jurists +teach that the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience are +contrary to "the policy of the law," that is, to the interests of +the commonwealth, which desires the multiplication, enrichment, and +liberty of its members.</p> +<p>To what has been said may be added the change wrought by +Christianity upon the social, political, and international +relations of the world. The root of this ethical change, private +and public, is the Christian home. The authority of parents, the +obedience of children, the love of brotherhood, are the three +active powers which have raised the society of man above the level +of the old world. Israel was head and shoulders above the world +around it; but Christendom is high above Israel. The new +Commandment of brotherly love, and the Sermon on the Mount, have +wrought a revolution, both in private and public life. From this +come the laws of justice and sympathy which bind together the +nations of the Christian world. In the old world, even the most +refined races, worshiped by our modern philosophers, held and +taught that man could hold property in man. In its chief cities +there were more slaves than free men. Who has taught the equality +of men before the law, and extinguished the impious thought that +man can hold property in man? It was no philosopher: even Aristotle +taught that a slave was [—Greek—]. It was no lawgiver, +for all taught the lawfulness of slavery till Christianity denied +it. The Christian law has taught that man can lawfully sell his +labor, but that he cannot lawfully be sold, or sell himself.</p> +<p>The necessity of being brief, the impossibility of drawing out +the picture of the old world, its profound immoralities, its +unimaginable cruelties, compels me to argue with my right hand tied +behind me. I can do no more than point again to Mr. Brace's "Gesta +Christi," or to Dr. Dollinger's "Gentile and Jew," as witnesses to +the facts which I have stated or implied. No one who has not read +such books, or mastered their contents by original study, can judge +of the force of the assertion that Christianity has reformed the +world by direct antagonism to the human will, and by a searching +and firm repression of human passion. It has ascended the stream of +human license, <i>contra ictum fluminis</i>, by a power mightier +than nature, and by laws of a higher order than the relaxations of +this world.</p> +<p>Before Christianity came on earth, the civilization of man by +merely natural force had culminated. It could not rise above its +source; all that it could do was done; and the civilization in +every race and empire had ended in decline and corruption. The old +civilization was not regenerated. It passed away to give place to a +new. But the new had a higher source, nobler laws and supernatural +powers. The highest excellence of men and of nations is the +civilization of Christianity. The human race has ascended into what +we call Christendom, that is, into the new creation of charity and +justice among men. Christendom was created by the worldwide Church +as we see it before our eyes at this day. Philosophers and +statesmen believe it to be the work of their own hands: they did +not make it; but they have for three hundred years been unmaking it +by reformations and revolutions. These are destructive forces. They +build up nothing. It has been well said by Donoso Cortez that "the +history of civilization is the history of Christianity, the history +of Christianity is the history of the Church, the history of the +Church is the history of the Pontiffs, the greatest statesmen and +rulers that the world has ever seen."</p> +<p>Some years ago, a Professor of great literary reputation in +England, who was supposed even then to be, as his subsequent +writings have proved, a skeptic or non-Christian, published a +well-known and very candid book, under the title of "Ecce Homo." +The writer placed himself, as it were, outside of Christianity. He +took, not the Church in the world as in this article, but the +Christian Scriptures as a historical record, to be judged with +forensic severity and absolute impartiality of mind. To the credit +of the author, he fulfilled this pledge; and his conclusion shall +here be given. After an examination of the life and character of +the Author of Christianity, he proceeded to estimate His teaching +and its effects under the following heads:</p> +<pre> + 1. The Christian Legislation. + 2. The Christian Republic. + 3. Its Universality. + 4. The Enthusiasm of Humanity. + 5. The Lord's Supper. + 6. Positive Morality. + 7. Philanthropy. + 8. Edification. + 9. Mercy. + 10. Resentment. + 11. Forgiveness. +</pre> +<p>He then draws his conclusion as follows:</p> +<p>"The achievement of Christ in founding by his single will and +power a structure so durable and so universal is like no other +achievement which history records. The masterpieces of the men of +action are coarse and commonplace in comparison with it, and the +masterpieces of speculation flimsy and unsubstantial. When we speak +of it the commonplaces of admiration fail us altogether. Shall we +speak of the originality of the design, of the skill displayed in +the execution? All such terms are inadequate. Originality and +contriving skill operate indeed, but, as it were, implicitly. The +creative effort which produced that against which it is said the +gates of hell shall not prevail cannot be analyzed. No architect's +designs were furnished for the New Jerusalem; no committee drew up +rules for the universal commonwealth. If in the works of nature we +can trace the indications of calculation, of a struggle with +difficulties, of precaution, of ingenuity, then in Christ's work it +may be that the same indications occur. But these inferior and +secondary powers were not consciously exercised; they were +implicitly present in the manifold yet single creative act. The +inconceivable work was done in calmness; before the eyes of mea it +was noiselessly accomplished, attracting little attention. Who can +describe that which unites men? Who has entered into the formation +of speech, which is the symbol of their union? Who can describe +exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who can do these +things can explain the origin of the Christian Church. For others +it must be enough to say, 'The Holy Ghost fell on those that +believed'. No man saw the building of the New Jerusalem, the +workmen crowded together, the unfinished walla and unpaved streets; +no man heard the clink of trowel and pickaxe: 'it descended out of +heaven from God.'"*</p> +<pre> + * "Ece Homo," Conclusion, p. 329, Fifth Edition. Macmillan, + 1886. +</pre> +<p>And yet the writer is, as he was then, still outside of +Christianity.</p> +<p>III. We come now to our third point, that Christianity has +always claimed a Divine origin and a Divine presence as the source +of its authority and powers.</p> +<p>To prove this by texts from the New Testament would be to +transcribe the volume; and if the evidence of the whole New +Testament were put in, not only might some men deny its weight as +evidence, but we should place our whole argument upon a false +foundation. Christianity was anterior to the New Testament and is +independent of it. The Christian Scriptures presuppose both the +faith and the Church as already existing, known, and believed. +<i>Prior liber quam stylus</i>: as Tertullian argued. The Gospel +was preached before it was written. The four books were written to +those who already believed, to confirm their faith. They were +written at intervals: St. Matthew in Hebrew in the year 39, in +Greek in 45. St. Mark in 43, St. Luke in 57, St. John about 90, in +different places and for different motives. Four Gospels did not +exist for sixty years, or two generations of men. St. Peter and St. +Paul knew of only three of our four. In those sixty years the faith +had spread from east to west. Saints and Martyrs had gone up to +their crown who never saw a sacred book. The Apostolic Epistles +prove the antecedent existence of the Churches to which they were +addressed. Rome and Corinth, and Galatia and Ephesus, Philippi and +Colossæ, were Churches with pastors and people before St. +Paul wrote to them. The Church had already attested and executed +its Divine legation before the New Testament existed; and when all +its books were written they were not as yet collected into a +volume. The earliest collection was about the beginning of the +second century, and in the custody of the Church in Rome. We must, +therefore, seek to know what was and is Christianity before and +outside of the written books; and we have the same evidence for the +oral tradition of the faith as we have for the New Testament +itself. Both alike were in the custody of the Church; both are +delivered to us by the same witness and on the same evidence. To +reject either, is logically to reject both. Happily men are not +saved by logic, but by faith. The millions of men in all ages have +believed by inheritance of truth divinely guarded and delivered to +them. They have no need of logical analysis. They have believed +from their childhood. Neither children nor those who <i>infantibus +oquiparantur</i> are logicians. It is the penance of the doubter +and the unbeliever to regain by toil his lost inheritance. It is a +hard penance, like the suffering of those who eternally debate on +"predestination, freewill, fate."</p> +<p>Between the death of St. John and the mature lifetime of St. +Irenæus fifty years elapsed. St. Polycarp was disciple of St. +John. St. Irenæus was disciple of St. Polycarp. The mind of +St. John and the mind of St. Irenæus had only one +intermediate intelligence, in contact with each. It would be an +affectation of minute criticism to treat the doctrine of St. +Irenaeus as a departure from the doctrine of St. Polycarp, or the +doctrine of St. Polycarp as a departure from the doctrine of St. +John. Moreover, St. John ruled the Church at Ephesus, and St. +Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor about the year A. D. 120—that +is, twenty years after St. John's death, when the Church in Asia +Minor was still full of the light of his teaching and of the +accents of his voice. Let us see how St. Irenæus describes +the faith and the Church. In his work against Heresies, in Book +iii. chap. i., he says, "We have known the way of our salvation by +those through whom the Gospel came to us; which, indeed, they then +preached, but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in +Scriptures, the future foundation and pillar of our faith. It is +not lawful to say that they preached before they had perfect +knowledge, as some dare to affirm, boasting themselves to be +correctors of the Apostles. For after our Lord rose from the dead, +and when they had been clothed with the power of the Holy Ghost, +Who came upon them from on high, they were filled with all truths, +and had knowledge which was perfect." In chapter ii. he adds that, +"When they are refuted out of Scripture, they turn and accuse the +Scriptures as erroneous, unauthoritative, and of various readings, +so that the truth cannot be found by those who do not know +tradition"—that is, their own. "But when we challenge them to +come to the tradition of the Apostles, which is in custody of the +succession of Presbyters in the Church, they turn against +tradition, saying that they are not only wiser than the Presbyters, +but even the Apostles, and have found the truth." "It therefore +comes to pass that they will not agree either with the Scriptures +or with tradition." (Ibid. c. iii.) "Therefore, all who desire to +know the truth ought to look to the tradition of the Apostles, +which is manifest in all the world and in all the Church. We are +able to count up the Bishops who were instituted in the Church by +the Apostles, and their successors to our day. They never taught +nor knew such things as these men madly assert." "But as it would +be too long in such a book as this to enumerate the successions of +all the Churches, we point to the tradition of the greatest, most +ancient Church, known to all, founded and constituted in Rome by +the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and to the faith +announced to all men, coming down to us by the succession of +Bishops, thereby confounding all those who, in any way, by +self-pleasing, or vainglory, or blindness, or an evil mind, teach +as they ought not. For with this Church, by reason of its greater +principality, it is necessary that all churches should agree; that +is, the faithful, wheresoever they be, for in that Church the +tradition of the Apostles has been preserved." No comment need be +made on the words the "greater principality," which have been +perverted by every anti-Catholic writer from the time they were +written to this day. But if any one will compare them with the +words of St. Paul to the Colossians (chap. i. 18), describing the +primacy of the Head of the Church in heaven, it will appear almost +certain that the original Greek of St. Irenæus, which is +unfortunately lost, contained either [—Greek—], or some +inflection of [—Greek—] which signifies primacy. +However this may be, St. Irenæus goes on: "The blessed +Apostles, having founded and instructed the Church, gave in charge +the Episcopate, for the administration of the same, to Linus. Of +this Linus, Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, makes mention. To him +succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the +Apostles, Clement received the Episcopate, he who saw the Apostles +themselves and conferred with them, while as yet he had the +preaching of the Apostles in his ears and the tradition before his +eyes; and not he only, but many who had been taught by the Apostles +still survived. In the time of this Clement, when no little +dissension had arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in +Rome wrote very powerful letters <i>potentissimas litteras</i> to +the Corinthians, recalling them to peace, restoring their faith, +and declaring the tradition which it had so short a time ago +received from the Apostles." These letters of St. Clement are well +known, but have lately become more valuable and complete by the +discovery of fragments published in a new edition by Light-foot. In +these fragments there is a tone of authority fully explaining the +words of St. Irenæus. He then traces the succession of the +Bishops of Rome to his own day, and adds: "This demonstration is +complete to show that it is one and the same life-giving faith +which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, +and is handed on in truth." "Polycarp was not only taught by the +Apostles, and conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord, +but he also was constituted by the Apostles in Asia to be Bishop in +the Church of Smyrna. We also saw him in our early youth, for he +lived long, and when very old departed from this life most +gloriously and nobly by martyrdom. He ever taught that what he had +learned from the Apostles, and what the Church had delivered, those +things only are true." In the fourth chapter, St. Irenæus +goes on to say: "Since, then, there are such proofs (of the faith), +the truth is no longer to be sought for among others, which it is +easy to receive from the Church, forasmuch as the Apostles laid up +all truth in fullness in a rich depository, that all who will may +receive from it the water of life." "But what if the Apostles had +not left us the Scriptures: ought we not to follow the order of +tradition, which they gave in charge to them to whom they intrusted +the Churches? To which order (of tradition) many barbarous nations +yield assent, who believe in Christ without paper and ink, having +salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts, and diligently +holding the ancient tradition." In the twenty-sixth chapter of the +same book he says: "Therefore, it is our duty to obey the +Presbyters who are in the Church, who have succession from the +Apostles, as we have already shown; who also with the succession of +the Episcopate have the <i>charisma veritatis certum</i>," the +spiritual and certain gift of truth.</p> +<p>I have quoted these passages at length, not so much as proofs of +the Catholic Faith as to show the identity of the Church at its +outset with the Church before our eyes at this hour, proving that +the acorn has grown up into its oak, or, if you will, the identity +of the Church at this hour with the Church of the Apostolic +mission. These passages show the Episcopate, its central +principality, its succession, its custody of the faith, its +subsequent reception and guardianship of the Scriptures, Its Divine +tradition, and the charisma or Divine assistance by which its +perpetuity is secured in the succession of the Apostles. This is +almost verbally, after eighteen hundred years, the decree of the +Vatican Council: <i>Veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis +charisma</i>.*</p> +<pre> + * "Const. Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi," cap. iv. +</pre> +<p>But St. Irenæus draws out in full the Church of this day. +He shows the parallel of the first creation and of the second; of +the first Adam and the Second; and of the analogy between the +Incarnation or natural body, and the Church or mystical body of +Christ. He says:</p> +<p>Our faith "we received from the Church, and guard.... as an +excellent gift in a noble vessel, always full of youth, and making +youthful the vessel itself in which it is. For this gift of God is +intrusted to the Church, as the breath of life (<i>was +imparted</i>) to the first man, so this end, that all the members +partaking of it might be quickened with life. And thus the +communication of Christ is imparted; that is, the Holy Ghost, the +earnest of incorruption, the confirmation of the faith, the way of +ascent to God. For in the Church (St. Paul says) God placed +Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all other operations of the +Spirit, of which none are partakers who do not come to the Church, +thereby depriving themselves of life by a perverse mind and worse +deeds. For where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; +and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and all grace. +But the Spirit is truth. Wherefore, they who do not partake of Him +(<i>the Spirit</i>), and are not nurtured unto life at the breast +of the mother (<i>the Church</i>), do not receive of that most pure +fountain which proceeds from the Body of Christ, but dig out for +themselves broken pools from the trenches of the earth, and drink +water soiled with mire, because they turn aside from the faith of +the Church lest they should be convicted, and reject the Spirit +lest they should be taught."* Again he says: "The Church, scattered +throughout the world, even unto the ends of the earth, received +from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the +Father Almighty, that made the heaven and the earth, and the seas, +and all things that are in them." &c.**</p> +<pre> + *St. Irenæus, Cont. Hezret lib. iii. cap. xxiv. + + ** Lib. i. cap. x. +</pre> +<p>He then recites the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the +Incarnation, the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord +Jesus Christ, and His coming again to raise all men, to judge men +and angels, and to give sentence of condemnation or of life +everlasting. How much soever the language may vary from other +forms, such is the substance of the Baptismal Creed. He then +adds:</p> +<p>"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, as we +have said before, although it be scattered abroad through the whole +world, carefully preserves it, dwelling as in one habitation, and +believes alike in these (doctrines) as though she had one soul and +the same heart: and in strict accord, as though she had one mouth, +proclaims, and teaches, and delivers onward these things. And +although there may be many diverse languages in the world, yet the +power of the tradition is one and the same. And neither do the +Churches planted in Germany believe otherwise, or otherwise deliver +(the faith), nor those in Iberia, nor among the Celtae, nor in the +East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor they that are planted in the +mainland. But as the sun, which is God's creature, in all the world +is one and the same, so also the preaching of the truth shineth +everywhere, and lightened all men that are willing to come to the +knowledge of the truth. And neither will any ruler of the Church, +though he be mighty in the utterance of truth, teach otherwise than +thus (for no man is above the master), nor will he that is weak in +the same diminish from the tradition; for the faith being one and +the same, he that is able to say most of it hath nothing over, and +he that is able to say least hath no lack."*</p> +<pre> + * St. Irenaeus, lib. i. c. x. +</pre> +<p>To St. Irenaeus, then, the Church was "the irrefragable witness +of its own legation." When did it cease so to be? It would be easy +to multiply quotations from Tertullian in A. D. 200, from St. +Cyprian a. d. 250, from St. Augustine and St. Optatus in A. d. 350, +from St. Leo in a. d. 450, all of which are on the same traditional +lines of faith in a divine mission to the world and of a divine +assistance in its discharge. But I refrain from doing so because I +should have to write not an article but a folio. Any Catholic +theology will give the passages which are now before me; or one +such book as the Loci Theologici of Melchior Canus will suffice to +show the continuity and identity of the tradition of St. Irenaeus +and the tradition of the Vatican Council, in which the universal +church last declared the immutable faith and its own legation to +mankind.</p> +<p>The world-wide testimony of the Catholic Church is a sufficient +witness to prove the coming of the Incarnate Son to redeem mankind, +and to return to His Father; it is also sufficient to prove the +advent of the Holy Ghost to abide with us for ever. The work of the +Son in this world was accomplished by the Divine acts and facts of +His three-and-thirty years of life, death, Resurrection, and +Ascension. The office of the Holy Ghost is perpetual, not only as +the Illuminator and Sanctifier of all who believe, but also as the +Life and Guide of the Church. I may quote now the words of the +Founder of the Church: "It is expedient to you that I go: for if I +go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will +send Him to you."* "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you +another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever."** "The +Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth +Him not nor knoweth Him; but you shall know Him, because He shall +abide with you and shall be in you."***</p> +<pre> + * St. John, xvi. 7. + + ** Ibid, xiv. 16. + + *** St.John, xiv. 16, 17. +</pre> +<p>St. Paul in the Epistles to the Ephesians describes the Church +as a body of which the Head is in heaven, and the Author of its +indefectible life abiding in it as His temple. Therefore the words, +"He that heareth you heareth Me." This could not be if the witness +of the Apostles had been only human. A Divine guidance was attached +to the office they bore. They were, therefore, also judges of right +and wrong, and teachers by Divine guidance of the truth. But the +presence and guidance of the Spirit of Truth is as full at this day +as when St. Irenæus wrote. As the Churches then were +witnesses, judges, and teachers, so is the Church at this hour a +world-wide witness, an unerring judge and teacher, divinely guided +and guarded in the truth. It is therefore not only a human and +historical, but a Divine witness. This is the chief Divine truth +which the last three hundred years have obscured. Modern +Christianity believes in the one advent of the Redeemer, but +rejects the full and personal advent of the Holy Ghost. And yet the +same evidence proves both. The Christianity of reformers, always +returns to Judaism, because they reject the full, or do not believe +the personal, advent of the Holy Ghost. They deny that there is an +infallible teacher, among men; and therefore they return to the +types and shadows of the Law before the Incarnation, when the Head +was not yet incarnate, and the Body of Christ did not as yet +exist.</p> +<p>But perhaps some one will say, "I admit your description of the +Church as it is now and as it was in the days of St. Irenæus; +but the eighteen hundred years of which you have said nothing were +ages of declension, disorder, superstition, demoralization." I will +answer by a question: was not this foretold? Was not the Church to +be a field of wheat and tares growing together till the harvest at +the end of the world? There were Cathari of old, and Puritans +since, impatient at the patience of God in bearing with the +perversities and corruptions of the human intellect and will. The +Church, like its Head in heaven, is both human and divine. "He was +crucified in weakness," but no power of man could wound His divine +nature. So with the Church, which is His Body. Its human element +may corrupt and die; its divine life, sanctity, authority, and +structure cannot die; nor can the errors of human intellect fasten +upon its faith, nor the immoralities of the human will fasten upon +its sanctity. Its organization of Head and Body is of divine +creation, divinely guarded by the Holy Ghost, who quickens it by +His indwelling, and guides it by His light. It is in itself +incorrupt and incorruptible in the midst of corruption, as the +light of heaven falls upon all the decay and corruption in the +world, unsullied and unalterably pure. We are never concerned to +deny or to cloak the sins of Christians or of Catholics. They may +destroy themselves, but they cannot infect the Church from which +they fall. The fall of Lucifer left no stain behind him.</p> +<p>When men accuse the Church of corruption, they reveal the fact +that to them the Church is a human institution, of voluntary +aggregation or of legislative enactment. They reveal the fact that +to them the Church is not an object of Divine faith, as the Real +Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. They do not perceive or +will not believe that the articles of the Baptismal Creed are +objects of faith, divinely revealed or divinely created. "I believe +in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of +Saints, the forgiveness of sins," are all objects of faith in a +Divine order. They are present in human history, but the human +element which envelops them has no power to infect or to fasten +upon them. Until this is perceived there can be no true or full +belief in the advent and office of the Holy Ghost, or in the nature +and sacramental action of the Church. It is the visible means and +pledge of light and of sanctification to all who do not bar their +intellect and their will against its inward and spiritual grace. +The Church is not on probation. It is the instrument of probation +to the world. As the light of the world, it is changeless as the +firmament As the source of sanctification, it is inexhaustible as +the Rivex of Life. The human and external history of men calling +themselves Christian and Catholic has been at times as degrading +and abominable as any adversary is pleased to say. But the sanctity +of the Church is no more affected by human sins than was Baptism by +the hypocrisy of Simon Magus. The Divine foundation, and office, +and mission of the Church is a part of Christianity. They who deny +it deny an article of faith; they who believe it imperfectly are +the followers of a fragmentary Christianity of modern date. Who can +be a disciple of Jesus Christ who does not believe the words? "On +this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not +prevail against it;" "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send +you;"* "I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a +kingdom;"** "All power in heaven and earth is given unto Me. Go, +therefore, and teach all nations;"*** "He that heareth you heareth +Me;"**** "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the +world;"(v) "When the days of Pentecost were accomplished they were +all together in one place: and suddenly there came a sound from +heaven as of a mighty wind coming, and there appeared to them +parted tongues, as it were, of fire;" "And they were all filled +with the Holy Ghost;" (vi) "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to +us to lay upon you no other burdens."(vii) But who denies that the +Apostles claimed a Divine mission? and who can deny that the +Catholic and Roman Church from St. Irenæus to Leo XIII. has +ever and openly claimed the same, invoking in all its supreme acts +as witness, teacher, and legislator the presence, light, and +guidance of the Holy Ghost? As the preservation of all created +things is by the same creative power produced in perpetual and +universal action, so the indefectibility of the Church and of the +faith is by the perpetuity of the presence and office of the Third +Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, St. Augustine calls the day +of Pentecost, Natalis Spiritus Sancti.</p> +<pre> + *St. John, xx. 21. + + ** St. Luke, xxii. 29. + + *** St. Matthew, xxviii. 18, 19. + + **** St. Luke, x. 10. + + (v) St. Matthew, xxviii. 20. + + (vii)Acts, ii. 1-5. + + (viii) Acts, xv. 28. +</pre> +<p>It is more than time that I should make an end; and to do so it +will be well to sum up the heads of our argument. The Vatican +Council declares that the world-wide Church is the irrefragable +witness of its own legation or mission to mankind.</p> +<p>In proof of this I have affirmed:</p> +<p>1. That the imperishable existence of Christianity, and the vast +and undeniable revolution that it has wrought in men and in +nations, in the moral elevation of manhood and of womanhood, and in +the domestic, social and political life of the Christian world, +cannot be accounted for by any natural causes, or by any forces +that are, as philosophers say, <i>intra possibilitatem natures</i>, +within the limits of what is possible to man.</p> +<p>2. That this world-wide and permanent elevation of the Christian +world, in comparison with both the old world and the modern world +outside of Christianity, demands a cause higher than the +possibility of nature.</p> +<p>3. That the Church has always claimed a Divine origin and a +Divine office and authority in virtue of a perpetual Divine +assistance. To this even the Christian world, in all its fragments +external to the Catholic unity, bears witness. It is turned to our +reproach. They rebuke us for holding the teaching of the Church to +be infallible. We take the rebuke as a testimony of our changeless +faith. It is not enough for men to say that they refuse to believe +this account of the visible and palpable fact of the imperishable +Christianity of the Catholic and Roman Church. They must find a +more reasonable, credible, and adequate account for it. This no man +has yet done. The denials are many and the solutions are many; but +they do not agree together. Their multiplicity is proof of their +human origin. The claim of the Catholic Church to a Divine +authority and to a Divine assistance is one and the same in every +age, and is identical in every place. Error is not the principle of +unity, nor truth of variations.</p> +<p>The Church has guarded the doctrine of the Apostles, by Divine +assistance, with unerring fidelity. The articles of the faith are +to-day the same in number as in the beginning. The explicit +definition of their implicit meaning has expanded from age to age, +as the everchanging denials and perversions of the world have +demanded new definitions of the ancient truth. The world is against +all dogma, because it is impatient of definiteness and certainty in +faith. It loves open questions and the liberty of error. The Church +is dogmatic for fear of error. Every truth defined adds to its +treasure. It narrows the field of error and enlarges the +inheritance of truth. The world and the Church are ever moving in +opposite directions. As the world becomes more vague and uncertain, +the Church becomes more definite. It moves against wind and tide, +against the stress and storm of the world. There was never a more +luminous evidence of this supernatural fact than in the Vatican +Council. For eight months all that the world could say and do, like +the four winds of heaven, was directed upon it. Governments, +statesmen, diplomatists, philosophers, intriguers, mockers, and +traitors did their utmost and their worst against it. They were in +dread lest the Church should declare that by Divine assistance its +Head in faith and morals cannot err; for if this be true, man did +not found it, man cannot reform it, man cannot teach it to +interpret its history or its acts. It knows its own history, and is +the supreme witness of its own legation.</p> +<p>I am well aware that I have been writing truisms, and repeating +trite and trivial arguments. They are trite because the feet of the +faithful for nearly nineteen hundred years have worn them in their +daily life; they are trivial because they point to the one path in +which the wayfarer, though a fool, shall not err.</p> +<p>Henry Edward, (Cardinal Manning), Card. Archbishop of +Westminster.</p> +<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.</h2> +<pre> + Superstition "has ears more deaf than adders to the voice of + any true decision." +</pre> +<center>I.</center> +<p>CARDINAL MANNING has stated the claims of the Roman Catholic +Church with great clearness, and apparently without reserve. The +age, position and learning of this man give a certain weight to his +words, apart from their worth. He represents the oldest of the +Christian churches. The questions involved are among the most +important that can engage the human mind. No one having the +slightest regard for that superb thing known as intellectual +honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in any way to gain +a victory over truth.</p> +<p>Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is impossible. +All have the same interest, whether they know it or not, in the +establishment of facts. All have the same to gain, the same to +lose. He loads the dice against himself who scores a point against +the right.</p> +<p>Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what light is +to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the mind. In each +disputant should be blended the advocate and judge.</p> +<p>In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment of the +truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the statements and +conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.</p> +<p>The proposition is that "The church itself, by its marvelous +propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness +in all good things, its catholic unity and invincible stability, is +a vast and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefragable +witness of its own divine legation."</p> +<p>The reasons given as supporting this proposition are:</p> +<p>That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations of the +civilized world; that it is extranational and independent in a +supernational unity; that it is the same in every place; that it +speaks all languages in the civilized world; that it is obedient to +one head; that as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before +the pope; that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to +Rome, and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident +way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.</p> +<p>It is also asserted that "men see the Head of the Church year by +year speaking to the nations of the world, treating with Empires, +Republics and Governments;" that "there is no other man on earth +that can so bear himself," and that "neither from Canterbury nor +from Constantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and +people listen."</p> +<p>It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlightened and +purified the world; that it has given us the peace and purity of +domestic life; that it has destroyed idolatry and demonology; that +it gave us a body of law from a higher source than man; that it has +produced the civilization of Christendom; that the popes were the +greatest of statesmen and rulers; that celibacy is better than +marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations of the last +three hundred years have been destructive and calamitous.</p> +<p>We will examine these assertions as well as some others.</p> +<p>No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the best witness +of its own existence. The same is true of every thing that +exists—of every church, great and small, of every man, and of +every insect.</p> +<p>But it is contended that the marvelous growth or propagation of +the church is evidence of its divine origin. Can it be said that +success is supernatural? All success in this world is relative. +Majorities are not necessarily right. If anything is known—if +anything can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of +men have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is called the +progress of mankind. Progress, for the most part, consists in +finding new truths and getting rid of old errors—that is to +say, getting nearer and nearer in harmony with the facts of nature, +seeing with greater clearness the conditions of well-being.</p> +<p>There is no nation in which a majority leads the way. In the +progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest right. There +have been centuries in which the light seemed to emanate only from +a handful of men, while the rest of the world was enveloped in +darkness. Some great man leads the way—he becomes the morning +star, the prophet of a coming day. Afterward, many millions accept +his views. But there are still heights above and beyond; there are +other pioneers, and the old day, in comparison with the new, +becomes a night. So, we cannot say that success demonstrates either +divine origin or supernatural aid.</p> +<p>We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often been +trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We know that the torch +of science has been blown out by the breath of the hydra-headed. We +know that the whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again and +again. The truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined +by ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those who +deny.</p> +<p>If the marvelous propagation of the Catholic Church proves its +divine origin, what shall we say of the marvelous propagation of +Mohammedanism?</p> +<p>Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out of the +ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say, the ruins of +Paganism. And it is equally clear that Mohammedanism arose out of +the wreck and ruin of Catholicism.</p> +<p>After Mohammed came upon the stage, "Christianity was forever +expelled from its most glorious seats—from Palestine, the +scene of its most sacred recollections; from Asia Minor, that of +its first churches; from Egypt, whence issued the great doctrine of +Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on +Europe." Before that time "the ecclesiastical chiefs of Rome, of +Constantinople, and of Alexandria were engaged in a desperate +struggle for supremacy, carrying out their purposes by weapons and +in ways revolting to the conscience of man. Bishops were concerned +in assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, +treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommunicating +and anathematizing one another in their rivalries for earthly +power—bribing eunuchs with gold and courtesans and royal +females with concessions of episcopal love. Among legions of monks +who carried terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great +cities arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a +voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.</p> +<p>"Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and crimes, +Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from Fetichism, the +adoration of the meteoric stone, and from the basest idol worship, +and irrevocably wrenched from Christianity more than half—and +that by far the best half—of her possessions, since it +included the Holy Land, the birth-place of the Christian faith, and +Africa, which had imparted to it its Latin form; and now, after a +lapse of more than a thousand years that continent, and a very +large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the Arabian +doctrine."</p> +<p>It may be interesting in this connection to say that the +Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his apostle by +appealing to the marvelous propagation of the faith. If the +argument is good in the mouth of a Catholic, is it not good in the +mouth of a Moslem? Let us see if it is not better.</p> +<p>According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church triumphed +only over the institutions of men—triumphed only over +religions that had been established by men,—by wicked and +ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed not only over the religions of +men, but over the religion of God. This ignorant driver of camels, +this poor, unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, +unenlightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the true +cross before him as the winter's storm drives withered leaves. At +his name, priests, bishops, and cardinals fled with white +faces—popes trembled, and the armies of God, fighting for the +true faith, were conquered on a thousand fields.</p> +<p>If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after that +another church arises and defeats the first, what does that +prove?</p> +<p>Let us put this question in a milder form: Suppose the second +church lives and flourishes in spite of the first, what does that +prove?</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with everything +against it. Something is favorable to it, or it could not exist. If +it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely certain that the conditions +are favorable. If it spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the +conditions are exceedingly favorable, and that the forces in +opposition are weak and easily overcome.</p> +<p>Here, in my own country, within a few years, has arisen a new +religion. Its foundations were laid in an intelligent community, +having had the advantages of what is known as modern civilization. +Yet this new faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as +gross as we find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition +began to grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution, +and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven from +State to State by the believers in universal love, until it left +what was called civilization, crossed the wide plains, and took up +its abode on the shores of the Great Salt Lake. It continued to +grow. Its founder, as he declared, had frequent conversations with +God, and received directions from that source. Hundreds of miracles +were performed—multitudes upon the desert were miraculously +fed—the sick were cured—the dead were raised, and the +Mormon Church continued to grow, until now, less than half a +century after the death of its founder, there are several hundred +thousand believers in the new faith.</p> +<p>Do you think that men enough could join this church to prove the +truth of its creed?</p> +<p>Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates that had +been buried for many generations, and upon these plates, in some +unknown language, had been engraved this new revelation, and I +think he insisted that by the use of miraculous mirrors this +language was translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in all +the countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now, do you +think a cardinal of that faith could prove the truth of the golden +plates simply by the fact that the faith had spread and that seven +hundred bishops had knelt before the head of that church?</p> +<p>It seems to me that a "supernatural" religion—that is to +say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely founded and +to be authenticated by miracles, is much easier to establish among +an ignorant people than any other—and the more ignorant the +people, the easier such a religion could be established. The reason +for this is plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in +the miraculous, in the supernatural. The conception of uniformity, +of what may be called the eternal consistency of nature, is an idea +far above their comprehension. They are forced to think in +accordance with their minds, and as a consequence they account for +all phenomena by the acts of superior beings—that is to say, +by the supernatural. In other words, that religion having most in +common with the savage, having most that was satisfactory to his +mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand the best chance of +success.</p> +<p>It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during one phase +of the development of man, everything was miraculous. After a time, +the mind slowly developing, certain phenomena, always happening +under like conditions, were called "natural," and none suspected +any special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew less +and less—the domain of the natural larger; that is to say, +the common became the natural, but the uncommon was still regarded +as the miraculous. The rising and setting of the sun ceased to +excite the wonder of mankind—there was no miracle about that; +but an eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then know +that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with the same +certainty that the sun rises. It took many observations through +many generations to arrive at this conclusion. Ordinary rains +became "natural," floods remained "miraculous."</p> +<p>But it can all be summed up in this: The average man regards the +common as natural, the uncommon as supernatural. The educated +man—and by that I mean the developed man—is satisfied +that all phenomena are natural, and that the supernatural does not +and can not exist.</p> +<p>As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion that he +lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations and races. The +barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose that an Infinite Being is +constantly doing something, or failing to do something, on his +account. But as man rises in the scale of civilization, as he +becomes really great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in +Nature happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough +to disturb the motions of the planets.</p> +<p>Let us make an application of this: To me, the success of +Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has succeeded +only with the superstitious. It has been recruited from communities +brutalized by other forms of superstition. To me, the success of +Mohammed does not tend to show that he was right—for the +reason that he triumphed only over the ignorant, over the +superstitious. The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds +were planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous, by men +incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It did not, it has not, +it can not triumph over the intellectual world. To count its many +millions does not tend to prove the truth of its creed. On the +contrary, a creed that delights the credulous gives evidence +against itself.</p> +<p>Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled simply by +numbers. There was a time when the Copernican system of astronomy +had but few supporters—the multitude being on the other side. +There was a time when the rotation of the earth was not believed by +the majority.</p> +<p>Let us press this idea further. There was a time when +Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us suppose that +the first Christian missionary had met a prelate of the Pagan +faith, and suppose this prelate had used against the Christian +missionary the Cardinal's argument—how could the missionary +have answered if the Cardinal's argument is good?</p> +<p>But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a marvel? +If this church is of divine origin, if it has been under the +especial care, protection and guidance of an Infinite Being, is not +its failure far more wonderful than its success? For eighteen +centuries it has persecuted and preached, and the salvation of the +world is still remote. This is the result, and it may be asked +whether it is worth while to try to convert the world to +Catholicism.</p> +<p>Are Catholics better than Protestants? Are they nearer honest, +nearer just, more charitable? Are Catholic nations better than +Protestant? Do the Catholic nations move in the van of progress? +Within their jurisdiction are life, liberty and property safer than +anywhere else? Is Spain the first nation of the world?</p> +<p>Let me ask another question: Are Catholics or Protestants better +than Freethinkers? Has the Catholic Church produced a greater man +than Humboldt? Has the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin? +Was not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the equal +of any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other vicar of Christ, +superior to Abraham Lincoln?</p> +<p>But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal, and +that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.</p> +<p>According to the Bible, the apostles were ordered to go into all +the world and preach the gospel—yet not one of them, nor one +of their converts at any time, nor one of the vicars of God, for +fifteen hundred years afterward, knew of the existence of the +Western Hemisphere. During all that time, can it be said that the +Catholic Church was universal? At the close of the fifteenth +century, there was one-half of the world in which the Catholic +faith had never been preached, and in the other half not one person +in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard of it, not +one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic Church was not then +universal.</p> +<p>Is it universal now? What impression has Catholicism made upon +the many millions of China, of Japan, of India, of Africa? Can it +truthfully be said that the Catholic Church is now universal? When +any church becomes universal, it will be the only church. There +cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be one +universal church and any other.</p> +<p>The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic Church is +divine, "by its eminent sanctity and its inexhaustible fruitfulness +in all good things."</p> +<p>And here let me admit that there are many millions of good +Catholics—that is, of good men and women who are Catholics. +It is unnecessary to charge universal dishonesty or hypocrisy, for +the reason that this would be only a kind of personality. Many +thousands of heroes have died in defence of the faith, and millions +of Catholics have killed and been killed for the sake of their +religion.</p> +<p>And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom does not +even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The man who dies in +flames, standing by what he believes to be true, establishes, not +the truth of what he believes, but his sincerity.</p> +<p>Without calling in question the intentions of the Catholic +Church, we can ascertain whether it has been "inexhaustibly +fruitful in all good things," and whether it has been "eminent for +its sanctity."</p> +<p>In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness. Nothing +is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the wellbeing of man. +All things that tend to increase or preserve the happiness of the +human race are good—that is to say, they are sacred. All +things that tend to the destruction of man's well-being, that tend +to his unhappiness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or +done.</p> +<p>It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has taught, and +still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dangerous—that it +should not be allowed. It was driven to take this position because +it had taken another. It taught, and still teaches, that a certain +belief is necessary to salvation. It has always known that +investigation and inquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt +leads, or may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In +other words, the Catholic Church has something more important than +this world, more important than the well-being of man here. It +regards this life as an opportunity for joining that church, for +accepting that creed, and for the saving of your soul.</p> +<p>If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is right in +its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the Catholic creed in +order to obtain eternal joy, then, of course, nothing else in this +world is, comparatively speaking, of the slightest importance. +Consequently, the Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy +of intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in +other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.</p> +<p>The result of this was an effort to compel all men to accept the +belief necessary to salvation. This effort naturally divided itself +into persuasion and persecution.</p> +<p>It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful, +charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged by the same +standard. Has the church been merciful? Has it been "fruitful in +the good things" of justice, charity and forgiveness? Can a good +man, believing a good doctrine, persecute for opinion's sake? If +the church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest opinion, +is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the church is wrong, +or that the church is bad? Both cannot be good. "Sanctity" without +goodness is impossible. Thousands of "saints" have been the most +malicious of the human race. If the history of the world proves +anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many centuries +the most merciless institution that ever existed among men. I +cannot believe that the instruments of persecution were made and +used by the eminently good; neither can I believe that honest +people were imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a +church that was "inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things."</p> +<p>And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices against +Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices against Protestantism. +I regard all religions either without prejudice or with the same +prejudice. They were all, according to my belief, devised by men, +and all have for a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of +the next. All the Gods have been made by men. They are all equally +powerful and equally useless. I like some of them better than I do +others, for the same reason that I admire some characters in +fiction more than I do others. I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but +have not the slightest idea that either of them existed. So I +prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both +are myths. I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and +fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing as I +do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there is some +good in all.</p> +<p>When one speaks of the "inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good +things" of the Catholic Church, we remember the horrors and +atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards offered by the +Roman Church for the capture and murder of honest men. We remember +the Dominican Order, the members of which, upheld by the vicar of +Christ, pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many +centuries.</p> +<p>The church, "inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good things," +not only imprisoned and branded and burned the living, but violated +the dead. It robbed graves, to the end that it might convict +corpses of heresy—to the end that it might take from widows +their portions and from orphans their patrimony.</p> +<p>We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons—the +millions who perished by the sword—the vast multitudes +destroyed in flames—those who were flayed alive—those +who were blinded—those whose tongues were cut out—those +into whose ears were poured molten lead—those whose eyes were +deprived of their lids—those who were tortured and tormented +in every way by which pain could be inflicted and human nature +overcome.</p> +<p>And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the church over the +bodies of her victims: "Their bodies were burned here, but their +souls are now tortured in hell."</p> +<p>We remember that the church, by treachery, bribery, perjury, and +the commission of every possible crime, got possession and control +of Christendom, and we know the use that was made of this +power—that it was used to brutalize, degrade, stupefy, and +"sanctify" the children of men. We know also that the vicars of +Christ were persecutors for opinion's sake—that they sought +to destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they +endeavored to make every brain a bastile in which the mind should +be a convict—that they endeavored to make every tongue a +prisoner, watched by a familiar of the Inquisition—and that +they threatened punishment here, imprisonment here, burnings here, +and, in the name of their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal +burnings hereafter.</p> +<p>We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all the years +of its power, the enemy of every science. It preferred magic to +medicine, relics to remedies, priests to physicians. It thought +more of astrologers than of astronomers. It hated +geologists—it persecuted the chemist, and imprisoned the +naturalist, and opposed every discovery calculated to improve the +condition of mankind.</p> +<p>It is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari, the +Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Huguenots, and of +every sect that had the courage to think just a little for itself. +Think of a woman—the mother of a family—taken from her +children and burned, on account of her view as to the three natures +of Jesus Christ. Think of the Catholic Church,—an institution +with a Divine Founder, presided over by the agent of +God—punishing a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a +fellow-being who had been anathematized. Think of this church, +"fruitful in all good things," launching its curse at an honest +man—not only cursing him from the crown of his head to the +soles of his feet with a fiendish particularity, but having at the +same time the impudence to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and +Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary, to join in the curse; and to +curse him not only here, but forever hereafter—calling upon +all the saints and upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of +curses, so that earth and heaven should reverberate with countless +curses launched at a human being simply for having expressed an +honest thought.</p> +<p>This church, so "fruitful in all good things," invented crimes +that it might punish. This church tried men for a "suspicion of +heresy"—imprisoned them for the vice of being +suspected—stripped them of all they had on earth and allowed +them to rot in dungeons, because they were guilty of the crime of +having been suspected. This was a part of the Canon Law.</p> +<p>It is too late to talk about the "invincible stability" of the +Catholic Church.</p> +<p>It was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or in the +ninth centuries. It was not invincible in Germany in Luther's day. +It was not invincible in the Low Countries. It was not invincible +in Scotland, or in England. It was not invincible in France. It is +not invincible in Italy, It is not supreme in any intellectual +centre of the world. It does not triumph in Paris, or Berlin; it is +not dominant in London, in England; neither is it triumphant in the +United States. It has not within its fold the philosophers, the +statesmen, and the thinkers, who are the leaders of the human +race.</p> +<p>It is claimed that Catholicism "interpenetrates all the nations +of the civilized world," and that "in some it holds the whole +nation in its unity."</p> +<p>I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in Spain than in +any other nation. The history of this nation demonstrates the +result of Catholic supremacy, the result of an acknowledgment by a +people that a certain religion is too sacred to be examined.</p> +<p>Without attempting in an article of this character to point out +the many causes that contributed to the adoption of Catholicism by +the Spanish people, it is enough to say that Spain, of all nations, +has been and is the most thoroughly Catholic, and the most +thoroughly interpenetrated and dominated by the spirit of the +Church of Rome.</p> +<p>Spain used the sword of the church. In the name of religion it +endeavored to conquer the Infidel world. It drove from its +territory the Moors, not because they were bad, not because they +were idle and dishonest, but because they were Infidels. It +expelled the Jews, not because they were ignorant or vicious, but +because they were unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and +deliberately made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the +honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics. It leaped +like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for the destruction of +Protestantism. It covered the seas with its fleets, to destroy the +intellectual liberty of man. And not only so—it established +the Inquisition within its borders. It imprisoned the honest, it +burned the noble, and succeeded after many years of devotion to the +true faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the +usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a nation. It +became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and excited the pity of +its former victims.</p> +<p>In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held "the +whole nation in its unity."</p> +<p>At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the church It +made a treaty with an Infidel power. In 1782 it became humble +enough, and wise enough, to be friends with Turkey. It made +treaties with Tripoli and Algiers and the Barbary States. It had +become too poor to ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It +began to appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor +convert the world by the sword.</p> +<p>Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all that tends +to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise proportion that she +has lost faith in the Catholic Church. This may be said of every +other nation in Christendom. Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. +The dungeons of the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has +penetrated the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain +is not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago the +cholera visited Madrid and other cities. Physicians were mobbed. +Processions of saints carried the host through the streets for the +purpose of staying the plague. The streets were not cleaned; the +sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. +The church, "eminent for its sanctity," stood in the light and cast +its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The church, in its +"inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things," allowed its +children to perish through ignorance, and used the diseases it had +produced as an instrumentality to further enslave its votaries and +its victims.</p> +<p>No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited heroism of +the highest order in visiting the sick and administering what are +called the consolations of religion to the dying, and in burying +the dead. It is necessary neither to deny or disparage the +self-denial and goodness of these men. But their religion did more +than all other causes to produce the very evils that called for the +exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in control of +Madrid could have prevented the plague. In such cases, cleanliness +is far better than "godliness;" science is superior to +superstition; drainage much better than divinity; therapeutics more +excellent than theology. Goodness is not enough—intelligence +is necessary. Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and +prayers fruitless.</p> +<p>It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many nations; +that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by the Bishop of +Rome—that it is international in that sense, and that in that +sense it has what may be called a "supernational unity." The same, +however, is true of the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many +nations, but it is not a national body. It is in the same sense +extranational, in the same sense international, and has in the same +sense a supernational unity. So the same may be said of other +societies. This, however, does not tend to prove that anything +supernational is supernatural.</p> +<p>It is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial, +discipline and government, the Catholic Church is substantially the +same wherever it exists. This establishes the unity, but not the +divinity, of the institution.</p> +<p>The church that does not allow investigation, that teaches that +all doubts are wicked, attains unity through tyranny, that is, +monotony by repression. Wherever man has had something like +freedom, differences have appeared, heresies have taken root, and +the divisions have become permanent—new sects have been born +and the Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity is +the confession of tyranny.</p> +<p>It is insisted that the unity of the church substantiates its +claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over again, in +many ways; and yet in the Cardinal's article is found this strange +mingling of boast and confession: "Was it only by the human power +of man that the unity, external and internal, which for fourteen +hundred years had been supreme, was once more restored in the +Council of Constance, never to be broken again?"</p> +<p>By this it is admitted that the internal and external unity of +the Catholic Church had been broken, and that it required more than +human power to restore it. Then the boast is made that it will +never be broken again. Yet it is asserted that the internal and +external unity of the Catholic Church is the great fact that +demonstrates its divine origin.</p> +<p>Now, if this internal and external unity was broken, and +remained broken for years, there was an interval during which the +church had no internal or external unity, and during which the +evidence of divine origin failed. The unity was broken in spite of +the Divine Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word +"again." The unbroken unity of the church is asserted, and upon +this assertion is based the claim of divine origin; it is then +admitted that the unity was broken. The argument is then shifted, +and the claim is made that it required more than human power to +restore the internal and external unity of the church, and that the +restoration, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there +any contradiction beyond this?</p> +<p>Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose that a man +has a sword which he claims was made by God, stating that the +reason he knows that God made the sword is that it never had been +and never could be broken. Now, if it was afterwards ascertained +that it had been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been, +what would be thought of him if he then took the ground that it had +been welded, and that the welding was the evidence that it was of +divine origin?</p> +<p>A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the internal +and external unity of the church can never be broken again. It is +admitted that it was broken—it is asserted that it was +divinely restored—and then it is declared that it is never to +be broken again. No reason is given for this prophecy; it must be +born of the facts already stated. Put in a form to be easily +understood, it is this:</p> +<p>We know that the unity of the church can never be broken, +because the church is of divine origin.</p> +<p>We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken the +argument, because it was restored by God, and it has not been +broken since.</p> +<p>Therefore, it never can be broken again.</p> +<p>It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and that its +immutability establishes its claim to divine origin. Was it +immutable when its unity, internal and external, was broken? Was it +precisely the same after its unity was broken that it was before? +Was it precisely the same after its unity was divinely restored +that it was while broken? Was it universal while it was without +unity? Which of the fragments was universal—which was +immutable?</p> +<p>The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the pope, +establishes, not the supernatural origin of the church, but the +mental slavery of its members. It establishes the fact that it is a +successful organization; that it is cunningly devised; that it +destroys the mental independence, and that whoever absolutely +submits to its authority loses the jewel of his soul.</p> +<p>The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to the +pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of the +organization.</p> +<p>How was the Roman empire formed? By what means did that Great +Power hold in bondage the then known world? How is it that a +despotism is established? How is it that the few enslave the many? +How is it that the nobility live on the labor of peasants? The +answer is in one word, Organization. The organized few triumph over +the unorganized many. The few hold the sword and the purse. The +unorganized are overcome in detail—terrorized, brutalized, +robbed, conquered.</p> +<p>We must remember that when Christianity was established the +world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The gospel with its idea +of forgiveness—with its heaven and hell—was suited to +the barbarians among whom it was preached. Let it be understood, +once for all, that Christ had but little to do with Christianity. +The people became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and +credulous—that the church held the keys of heaven and hell. +The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that has +existed among men was in this way laid. The Catholic Church +enslaved to the extent of its power. It resorted to every possible +form of fraud; it perverted every good instinct of the human heart; +it rewarded every vice; it resorted to every artifice that +ingenuity could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It +tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured witnesses to +compel the commission of perjury; it tortured children for the +purpose of making them convict their parents; it compelled men to +establish their own innocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had +the malicious patience to wait; it left the accused without trial, +and left them in dungeons until released by death. There is no +crime that the Catholic Church did not commit,—no cruelty +that it did not practice,—no form of treachery that it did +not reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was the +greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights. It did all that +organization, cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal +and brute force could do to enslave the children of men. It was the +enemy of intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer +of progress. It loaded the noble with chains and the infamous with +honors. In one hand it carried the alms dish, in the other a +dagger. It argued with the sword, persuaded with poison, and +convinced with the fagot.</p> +<p>It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a church can be +established by showing that hundreds of bishops have visited the +pope.</p> +<p>Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca +establish the truth of the Koran? Is it a scene for congratulation +when the bishops of thirty nations kneel before a man? Is it not +humiliating to know that man is willing to kneel at the feet of +man? Could a noble man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation +of his fellows?</p> +<p>As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He who in power +compels his fellow-man to kneel, will himself kneel when weak. The +tyrant is a cringer in power; a cringer is a tyrant out of power. +Great men stand face to face. They meet on equal terms. The +cardinal who kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop +to kneel in his presence; and the bishop who kneels demands that +the priest shall kneel to him; and the priest who kneels demands +that they in lower orders shall kneel; and all, from pope to the +lowest—that is to say, from pope to exorcist, from pope to +the one in charge of the bones of saints—all demand that the +people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to +them.</p> +<p>The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel. Courage has no +knees.</p> +<p>Fear kneels, or falls upon its ashen face.</p> +<p>The Cardinal insists that the pope is the vicar of Christ, and +that all popes have been. What is a vicar of Christ? He is a +substitute in office. He stands in the place, or occupies the +position in relation to the church, in relation to the world, that +Jesus Christ would occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, +he takes Christ's place; so that, according to the doctrine of the +Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in the person of +the pope.</p> +<p>We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent. A good king +might leave his realm and put in his place a tyrant and a wretch. +The good man and the good king cannot certainly know what manner of +man the agent is—what kind of person the vicar +is—consequently the bad may be chosen. But if the king +appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would +oppress the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn the +noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for such a +king?</p> +<p>Now, if the church is of divine origin, and if each pope is the +vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen by Jesus Christ; +and when he was chosen, Christ must have known exactly what his +vicar would do. Can we believe that an infinitely wise and good +Being would choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, +heartless, fiendish, and inhuman vicars?</p> +<p>The Cardinal admits that "the history of Christianity is the +history of the church, and that the history of the church is the +history of the Pontiffs," and he then declares that "the greatest +statesmen and rulers that the world has ever seen are the Popes of +Rome."</p> +<p>Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper's "History of +the Intellectual Development of Europe."</p> +<p>"Constantine was one of the vicars of Christ. Afterwards, +Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine were then put out +by Stephen, acting in Christ's place. The tongue of the Bishop +Theodorus was amputated by the man who had been substituted for +God. This bishop was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope +Leo III. was seized in the street and forced into a church, where +the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his eyes and cut +off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V., was driven ignominiously +from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused of blinding and +murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., +unable to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them +tribute.</p> +<p>"At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret alliance with +the Mohammedans, and they divided with this Catholic bishop the +plunder they collected from other Catholics. This bishop was +excommunicated by the pope; afterwards he gave him absolution +because he betrayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others. +There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope, and some +of the treasures of the church were seized, and the gate of St. +Pancrazia was opened with false keys to admit the Saracens. +Formosus, who had been engaged in these transactions, who had been +excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was +himself elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor. He had +been deposed from the diaconate and from the priesthood for his +immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next pope, and he had +the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave, clothed in papal +habiliments, propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The +corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off and the body +cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII., this Vicar of Christ, +was thrown into prison and strangled.</p> +<p>"From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V., in less +than two months after he became pope, was cast into prison by +Christopher, one of his chaplains. This Christopher usurped his +place, and in a little while was expelled from Rome by Sergius +III., who became pope in 905. This pope lived in criminal +intercourse with the celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters +Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordinary +control over him. The love of Theodora was also shared by John X. +She gave him the Archbishopric of Revenna, and made him pope in +915. The daughter of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised +him in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed; the pope +was thrown into prison, where he was afterward murdered. Afterward, +this Marozia, daughter of Theodora, made her own son pope, John XI. +Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother +inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother +Guido she afterward married. Another of her sons, Alberic, jealous +of his brother John, the pope, cast him and their mother into +prison. Alberic's son was then elected pope as John XII.</p> +<p>"John was nineteen years old when he became the vicar of Christ. +His reign was characterized by the most shocking immoralities, so +that the Emperor Otho I. was compelled by the German clergy to +interfere. He was tried. It appeared that John had received bribes +for the consecration of bishops; that he had ordained one who was +only ten years old; that he was charged with incest, and with so +many adulteries that the Lateran Palace had become a brothel. He +put out the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another—both +dying in consequence of their injuries. He was given to drunkenness +and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and Leo VII. elected in +his stead. Subsequently he got the upper hand. He seized his +antagonists; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger, and +the tongue of others. His life was eventually brought to an end by +the vengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced."</p> +<p>And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the most +heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests were models of +mercy, charity, and justice when compared with the orthodox +God—with the God they worshiped. These popes, these bishops, +these priests could persecute only for a few years—they could +burn only for a few moments—but their God threatened to +imprison and burn forever; and their God is as much worse than they +were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.</p> +<p>"John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII. imprisoned +Benedict VII., and starved him to death. John XIV. was secretly put +to death in the dungeons of the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of +Boniface was dragged by the populace through the streets."</p> +<p>It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated by +Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one vicar of +Christ strangled another vicar of Christ, and that these men were +"the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen of the earth."</p> +<p>"Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose cut off, +his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent through the streets +mounted on an ass, with his face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy +of less than twelve years of age, was raised to the apostolic +throne. One of his successors, Victor III., declared that the life +of Benedict was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he +shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The +people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides and his +abominations, rose against him, and in despair of maintaining his +position, he put up the papacy to auction, and it was bought by a +presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in the year of grace +1045. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of God upon +earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond which the +last effort of human wickedness cannot pass?"</p> +<p>It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that man can +commit that has not been committed by the vicars of Christ. They +have inflicted every possible torture, violated every natural +right. Greater monsters the human race has not produced.</p> +<p>Among the "some two hundred and fifty-eight" Vicars of Christ +there were probably some good men. This would have happened even if +the intention had been to get all bad men, for the reason that man +reaches perfection neither in good nor in evil; but if they were +selected by Christ himself, if they were selected by a church with +a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is no way to +account for the selection of a bad one. If one hypocrite was duly +elected pope—one murderer, one strangler, one +starver—this demonstrates that all the popes were selected by +men, and by men only, and that the claim of divine guidance is born +of zeal and uttered without knowledge.</p> +<p>But who were the vicars of Christ? How many have there been? +Cardinal Manning himself does not know. He is not sure. He says: +"Starting from St. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some two +hundred and fifty-eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognized by the +whole Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus +Christ." Why did he use the word "some"? Why "claiming"? Does he +not positively know? Is it possible that the present Vicar of +Christ is not certain as to the number of his predecessors? Is he +infallible in faith and fallible in fact?</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<center>II.</center> +<pre> + "If we live thus tamely,— + To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,— + Farewell nobility." +</pre> +<p>NO ONE will deny that "the pope speaks to many people in many +nations; that he treats with empires and governments," and that +"neither from Canterbury nor from Constantinople such a voice goes +forth."</p> +<p>How does the pope speak? What does he say?</p> +<p>He speaks against the liberty of man—against the progress +of the human race. He speaks to calumniate thinkers, and to warn +the faithful against the discoveries of science. He speaks for the +destruction of civilization.</p> +<p>Who listens? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists put the +hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be lost? Does France +listen? Does Italy hear? Is not the church weakest at its centre? +Do those who have raised Italy from the dead, and placed her again +among the great nations, pay attention? Does Great Britain care for +this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages? Do +the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the Great +Republic? Can anything be more absurd than for the vicar of Christ +to attack a demonstration of science with a passage of Scripture, +or a quotation from one of the "Fathers"?</p> +<p>Compare the popes with the kings and queens of England. Infinite +wisdom had but little to do with the selection of these monarchs, +and yet they were far better than any equal number of consecutive +popes. This is faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it +shows that chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England +than "Infinite Wisdom" did for the Church of Rome. Compare the +popes with the presidents of the Republic elected by the people. If +Adams had murdered Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, +and if Madison had cut out Jefferson's tongue, and Monroe had +assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had poisoned Monroe, +and General Jackson had hung Adams and his Cabinet, we might say +that presidents had been as virtuous as popes. But if this had +happened, the verdict of the world would be that the people are not +capable of selecting their presidents.</p> +<p>But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by day; so +feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of God, and the +supernatural church, "are being tormented by Falck laws, by Mancini +laws and by Crispi laws." In other words, this representative of +God, this substitute of Christ, this church of divine origin, this +supernatural institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are +being "tormented" by three politicians. Is it possible that this +patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other?</p> +<p>It is claimed that if the Catholic Church "be only a human +system, built up by the intellect, will and energy of men, the +adversaries must prove it—that the burden is upon them."</p> +<p>As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this church is +supernatural, it is the one exception. The affirmative is with +those who claim that it is of divine origin. So far as we know, all +governments and all creeds are the work of man. No one believes +that Rome was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings +were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commencing in +weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered, until it was +believed that the sky bent above a subjugated world. And yet all +was natural. For every effect there was an efficient cause.</p> +<p>The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been produced +by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the religion of Isis and +Osiris, the marvelous mythologies of Greece and Rome, were the work +of the human mind. From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. +Long before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women had +borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity was promulgated +in Egypt centuries before the birth of Moses. Celibacy was taught +by the ancient Nazarenes and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and +India, by mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many +countries long before the apostles lived. The Chinese tell us that +"when there were but one man and one woman upon the earth, the +woman refused to sacrifice her virginity even to people the globe; +and the gods, honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive +beneath the gaze of her lover's eyes, and a virgin mother became +the parent of humanity."</p> +<p>The founders of many religions have insisted that it was the +duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense, and millions before +our era took the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and most +cheerfully lived upon the labor of others.</p> +<p>The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far older than +the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan. Long before popes began +to murder each other, pagans ate cakes—the flesh of Ceres, +and drank wine—the blood of Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the +Ganges and Nile, priests interceded for the people, and anointed +the dying.</p> +<p>It will not do to say that every successful religion that has +taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must of necessity +have been of divine origin. In most religions there has been a +strange mingling of the good and bad, of the merciful and cruel, of +the loving and malicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood +of man, insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion +was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by persuasion, +and by kindness—yet in many things it was contrary to the +human will, contrary to the human passions, and contrary to good +sense. Buddhism succeeded. Can we, for this reason, say that it is +a supernatural religion? Is the unnatural the supernatural?</p> +<p>It is insisted that, while other churches have changed, the +Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and that this fact +demonstrates its divine origin.</p> +<p>Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand years? Is +intellectual stagnation a demonstration of divine origin? When +anything refuses to grow, are we certain that the seed was planted +by God? If the Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been +for many centuries, this proves that there has been no intellectual +development. If men do not differ upon religious subjects, it is +because they do not think.</p> +<p>Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every church +must gain or lose: it cannot remain the same; it must decay or +grow. The fact that the Catholic Church has not grown—that it +has been petrified from the first—does not establish divine +origin; it simply establishes the fact that it retards the progress +of man. Everything in nature changes—every atom is in +motion—every star moves. Nations, institutions and +individuals have youth, manhood, old age, death. This is and will +be true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew +stronger—it reached its climax of power—it began to +decay—it never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn +of Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it +cowers.</p> +<p>It is not true that "All natural causes run to +disintegration."</p> +<p>Natural causes run to integration as well as to disintegration. +All growth is integration, and all growth is natural. All decay is +disintegration, and all decay is natural. Nature builds and nature +destroys. When the acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain +fall upon it and the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned +"all natural causes" do not "run to disintegration." But there +comes a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the +forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally the old +oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if "all natural +causes run to disintegration," then every success must have been of +divine origin, and nothing is natural but destruction. This is +Catholic science: "All natural causes run to disintegration." What +do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing that is natural. The +fact that the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is +of supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only +business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent +this, the supernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. +According to this doctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does so +in spite of nature. Growth, then, is not in accordance with, but in +opposition to nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats +the disintegrating influences of rain and light. The generalization +of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be equally true to say: +All natural causes run to integration. But the whole truth is that +growth and decay are equal.</p> +<p>The Cardinal asserts that "Christendom was created by the +world-wide church as we see it before our eyes at this day."</p> +<p>Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the work of their +own hands; they did not make it, but they have for three hundred +years been unmaking it by reformations and revolutions.</p> +<p>The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better three +hundred years ago than now; that during these three centuries +Christendom has been going toward barbarism. It means that the +supernatural church of God has been a failure for three hundred +years; that it has been unable to withstand the attacks of +philosophers and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the +midst of "reformations and revolutions."</p> +<p>What was the condition of the world three hundred years ago, the +period, according to the Cardinal, in which the church reached the +height of its influence, and since which it has been unable to +withstand the rising tide of reformation and the whirlwind of +revolution?</p> +<p>In that blessed time, Philip II. was king of Spain—he with +the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics were hunted like +wild and poisonous beasts; the Inquisition was firmly established, +and priests were busy with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the +hatred of man and the love of God, the church, with every +instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human body.</p> +<p>In those happy days, the Duke of Alva was devastating the homes +of Holland; heretics were buried alive—their tongues were +torn from their mouths, their lids from their eyes; the Armada was +on the sea for the destruction of the heretics of England, and the +Moriscoes—a million and a half of industrious +people—were being driven by sword and flame from their homes. +The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had +succeeded in driving intelligence and industry from its territory; +and this had been done with a cruelty, with a ferocity, unequaled, +in the annals of crime.</p> +<p>Nothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, +the Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly sins. +And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century, living in the land of +Shakespeare, regrets the change that has been wrought by the +intellectual efforts, by the discoveries, by the inventions and +heroism of three hundred years.</p> +<p>Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son of +Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after nearly +sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after hundreds of +vicars of Christ had sat in St. Peter's chair—after the +natural passions of man had been "softened" by the creed of +Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the result of a +conspiracy between the Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., +and his fiendish mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this +massacre once more, and, after reading it, imagine that he sees the +gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and women, and then +let him say that he regrets the revolutions and reformations of +three hundred years.</p> +<p>About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of Christ, +acting in God's place, substitute of the Infinite, persecuted +Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great, this sublime man, was +tried for heresy. He had ventured to assert the rotary motion of +the earth; he had hazarded the conjecture that there were in the +fields of infinite space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. +For these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction of the +word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned for many years. But +his noble spirit was not broken, and finally, in the year 1600, by +the orders of the infamous vicar, he was chained to the stake. +Priests believing in the doctrine of universal +forgiveness—priests who when smitten upon one cheek turned +the other—carried with a kind of ferocious joy fagots to the +feet of this incomparable man. These disciples of "Our Lord" were +made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around the body +of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker was dead, and the +priests who had burned him fell upon their knees and asked the +infinite God to continue the blessed work forever in hell.</p> +<p>There are two things that cannot exist in the same +universe—an infinite God and a martyr.</p> +<p>Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are not now +engaged in the extermination of Protestants? Does he regret that +dungeons of the Inquisition are no longer crowded with the best and +bravest? Does he long for the fires of the <i>auto da +fé</i>.?</p> +<p>In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the Catholic +Church—in determining the truth of the claim of +infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical +achievements of that church, or to the history of its propagation, +or to the rapidity of its growth.</p> +<p>This church has a creed; and if this church is of divine +origin—if its head is the vicar of Christ, and, as such, +infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed must be true. +Let us start with the supposition that God exists, and that he is +infinitely wise, powerful and good—and this is only a +supposition. Now, if the creed is foolish, absurd and cruel, it +cannot be of divine origin. We find in this creed the +following:</p> +<p>"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that +he hold the Catholic faith."</p> +<p>It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good, honest, +merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more important than +conduct. The most important of all things is, that he hold the +Catholic faith. There were thousands of years during which it was +not necessary to hold that faith, because that faith did not exist; +and yet during that time the virtues were just as important as now, +just as important as they ever can be.</p> +<p>Millions of the noblest of the human race never heard of this +creed. Millions of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, +and rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed it, +and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their belief, have +murdered millions of their fellows. We know that men can be, have +been, and are just as wicked with it as without it. We know that it +is not necessary to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble +and self-denying. We admit that millions who have believed it have +also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions, by such +belief, were not prevented from torturing and destroying the +helpless.</p> +<p>Now, if all who believed it were good, and all who rejected it +were bad, then there might be some propriety in saying that +"whoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he +hold the Catholic faith." But as the experience of mankind is +otherwise, the declaration becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.</p> +<p>There is still another clause:</p> +<p>"Which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, +without doubt, he shall everlastingly perish."</p> +<p>We now have both sides of this wonderful truth: The believer +will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We know that faith is +not the child or servant of the will. We know that belief is a +conclusion based upon what the mind supposes to be true. We know +that it is not an act of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than +to save a man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the +truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn a man because +he is intelligent enough to reject the false. It resolves itself +into a question of intelligence. If the creed is true, then a man +rejects it because he lacks intelligence. Is this a crime for which +a man should everlastingly perish? If the creed is false, then a +man accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases the +crime is exactly the same.</p> +<p>If a man is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he +should not be saved for accepting the false. This one clause +demonstrates that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not +write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of men who had +neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.</p> +<p>What is this Catholic faith that must be held? It is this:</p> +<p>"That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, +neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance." Why +should an Infinite Being demand worship? Why should one God wish to +be worshiped as three? Why should three Gods wished to be worshiped +as one? Why should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray +to three Gods and think of one? Can this increase the happiness of +the one or of the three? Is it possible to think of one as three, +or of three as one? If you think of three as one, can you think of +one as none, or of none as one? When you think of three as one, +what do you do with the other two? You must not "confound the +persons"—they must be kept separate. When you think of one as +three, how do you get the other two? You must not "divide the +substance." Is it possible to write greater contradictions than +these?</p> +<p>This creed demonstrates the human origin of the Catholic Church. +Nothing could be more unjust than to punish man for +unbelief—for the expression of honest thought—for +having been guided by his reason—for having acted in +accordance with his best judgment.</p> +<p>Another claim is made, to the effect "that the Catholic Church +has filled the world with the true knowledge of the one true God, +and that it has destroyed all idols by light instead of by +fire."</p> +<p>The Catholic Church described the true God as a being who would +inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring children; described him +as a fickle, quick-tempered, unreasonable deity, whom honesty +enraged, and whom flattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon +its knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth; one who +delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear the sighs and +sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate on dungeon floors; +one who was delighted when the husband deserted his family and +lived alone in some cave in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams +and driven to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and +faith.</p> +<p>According to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed the +agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their burning flesh; he +applauded with wide palms when philosophers were flayed alive, and +to him the <i>auto da fé</i> was a divine comedy. The +shrieks of wives, the cries of babes when fathers were being +burned, gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup +with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the earth he had +made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. "The stream of +light which descended from the beginning" was propagated by fagot +to fagot, until Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of +faith.</p> +<p>It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the world +with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It filled the air +with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent sleep with leering +fiends, and gave the world to the domination of witches and +wizards, spirits and spooks, goblins and ghosts, and butchered and +burned thousands for the commission of impossible crimes.</p> +<p>It is contended that: "In this true knowledge of the Divine +Nature was revealed to man their own relation to a Creator as sons +to a Father."</p> +<p>This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to the +Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the +heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the Protestants—to the +natives of the West Indies, of Mexico, of Peru—to +philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these victims were taught +to regard the true God as a loving father, and this lesson was +taught with every instrument of torture—with brandings and +burnings, with flayings and flames. The world was filled with +cruelty and credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the soil in +which all these horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true +God, and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet, we are +compelled to say, that the one true Devil described by the Catholic +Church was not as malevolent as the one true God.</p> +<p>Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry? What is +idolatry? What shall we say of the worship of popes—of the +doctrine of the Real Presence, of divine honors paid to saints, of +sacred vestments, of holy water, of consecrated cups and plates, of +images and relics, of amulets and charms?</p> +<p>The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of +idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuity in nature, it denied +the integrity of cause and effect. The government of the world was +the composite result of the caprice of God, the malice of Satan, +the prayers of the faithful—softened, it may be, by the +charity of Chance. Yet the Cardinal asserts, without the preface of +a smile, that "Demonology was overthrown by the church, with the +assistance of forces that were above nature;" and in the same +breath gives birth to this enlightened statement: "Beelzebub is not +divided against himself." Is a belief in Beelzebub a belief in +demonology? Has the Cardinal forgotten the Council of Nice, held in +the year of grace 787, that declared the worship of images to be +lawful? Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the Holy +Ghost, destroy idolatry?</p> +<p>The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacrament, and +therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that celibacy is far +better than marriage,—holier than a sacrament,—that +marriage is not the highest state, but that "the state of virginity +unto death is the highest condition of man and woman."</p> +<p>The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—where +love has superseded authority—where each seeks the good of +all, and where none obey—where no religion can sunder hearts, +and with which no church can interfere.</p> +<p>The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the +ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward flame. To this +contract there are but two parties. The church is an impudent +intruder. Marriage is made public to the end that the real contract +may be known, so that the world can see that the parties have been +actuated by the highest and holiest motives that find expression in +the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not joined together +by God, or by the church, or by the state. The church and state may +prescribe certain ceremonies, certain formalities—but all +these are only evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the +hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma +that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears. It has +given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality. Fear has borne +children begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured the +insults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands, because +they thought that it was the will of God. The contract of marriage +is the most important that human beings can make; but no contract +can be so important as to release one of the parties from the +obligation of performance; and no contract, whether made between +man and woman, or between them and God, after a failure of +consideration caused by the willful act of the man or woman, can +hold and bind the innocent and honest.</p> +<p>Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their wives +better than others? A little while ago, a woman said to a man who +had raised his hand to strike her: "Do not touch me; you have no +right to beat me; I am not your wife."</p> +<p>About a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite wisdom had +joined to a loving and patient woman in the indissoluble sacrament +of marriage, becoming enraged, seized the helpless wife and tore +out one of her eyes. She forgave him. A few weeks ago he +deliberately repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim +totally blind. Would it not have been better if man, before the +poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom God had joined +together? Thousands of husbands, who insist that marriage is +indissoluble, are the beaters of wives.</p> +<p>The law of the church has created neither the purity nor the +peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is human affection. +Back of all theologies is the love of the human heart. Back of all +your priests and creeds is the adoration of the one woman by the +one man, and of the one man by the one woman. Back of your faith is +the fireside; back of your folly is the family; and back of all +your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is the love of +husband and wife, of parent and child.</p> +<p>It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman world had +any true conception of a home. The splendid story of Ulysses and +Penelope, the parting of Hector and Andromache, demonstrate that a +true conception of home existed among the Greeks. Before the +establishment of Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the +admiration of the then known world. She was free and noble. The +church degraded woman—made her the property of the husband, +and trampled her beneath its brutal feet. The "fathers" denounced +woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The +church worshiped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had pronounced +his curse on woman, and had declared that she should be the serf of +the husband. This church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It +taught the uncleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children +were conceived in sin. This church pretended to have been founded +by one who offered a reward in this world, and eternal joy in the +next, to husbands who would forsake their wives and children and +follow him. Did this tend to the elevation of woman? Did this +detestable doctrine "create the purity and peace of domestic life"? +Is it true that a monk is purer than a good and noble +father?—that a nun is holier than a loving mother?</p> +<p>Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother's love? Is +there anything purer, holier than a mother holding her dimpled babe +against her billowed breast?</p> +<p>The good man is useful, the best man is the most useful. Those +who fill the nights with barren prayers and holy hunger, torture +themselves for their own good and not for the benefit of others. +They are earning eternal glory for themselves—they do not +fast for their fellow-men—their selfishness is only equalled +by their foolishness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, +counting beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his +barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his fireside with +wife and children. Compare the nun with the mother and her +babe.</p> +<p>Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a stain +upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that is to say, +upon all that is holiest in the human heart. Take love from the +world, and there is nothing left worth living for. The church has +treated this great, this sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as +though it polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God +above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human love is +generous and noble. The love of God is selfish, because man does +not love God for God's sake, but for his own.</p> +<p>Yet the Cardinal asserts "that the change wrought by +Christianity in the social, political and international relations +of the world"—"that the root of this ethical change, private +and public, is the Christian home." A moment afterward, this +prelate insists that celibacy is far better than marriage. If the +world could be induced to live in accordance with the "highest +state," this generation would be the last. Why were men and women +created? Why did not the Catholic God commence' with the sinless +and sexless? The Cardinal ought to take the ground that to talk +well is good, but that to be dumb is the highest condition; that +hearing is a pleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy; and that to +think, to reason, is very well, but that to be a Catholic is far +better.</p> +<p>Why should we desire the destruction of human passions? Take +passions from human beings and what is left? The great object +should be not to destroy passions, but to make them obedient to the +intellect. To indulge passion to the utmost is one form of +intemperance—to destroy passion is another. The reasonable +gratification of passion under the domination of the intellect is +true wisdom and perfect virtue.</p> +<p>The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun, of the +monk, all come from the mother-instinct, the +father-instinct—all were produced by human affection, by the +love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love is a transfiguration. +It ennobles, purifies and glorifies. In true marriage two hearts +burst into flower. Two lives unite. They melt in music. Every +moment is a melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the +world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice, +self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love. Lover, +wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these words shed +light—they are the gems of human speech. Without love all +glory fades, the noble falls from life, art dies, music loses +meaning and becomes mere motions of the air, and virtue ceases to +exist.</p> +<p>It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and against +the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal then asks: "Who +will ascribe this to natural causes, and, if so, why did it not +appear in the first four thousand years?"</p> +<p>If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma, or a +practice against the tendencies of human nature—if this +religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal that such +religion must be of divine origin. Is it "against the tendencies of +human nature" for a mother to throw her child into the Ganges to +please a supposed God? Yet a religion that insisted on that +sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more believers than the +Catholic Church can boast.</p> +<p>Religions, like nations and individuals, have always gone along +the line of least resistance. Nothing has "ascended the stream of +human license by a power mightier than nature." There is no such +power. There never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that +man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected by a change +of conditions. If he is ignorant he is superstitious; this is +natural. If his brain is developed—if he perceives clearly +that all things are naturally produced, he ceases to be +superstitious, and becomes scientific. He is not a saint, but a +savant—not a priest, but a philosopher. He does not worship, +he works; he investigates; he thinks; he takes advantage, through +intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim +of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the persecutor +of his fellow-men.</p> +<p>He then knows that it is far better to love his wife and +children than to love God. He then knows that the love of man for +woman, of woman for man, of parent for child, of child for parent, +is far better, far holier than the love of man for any phantom born +of ignorance and fear.</p> +<p>It is illogical to take the ground that the world was cruel and +ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic Church was established, +and that because the world is better now than then, the church is +of divine origin.</p> +<p>What was the world when science came? What was it in the days of +Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler? What-was it when printing was +invented? What was it when the Western World was found? Would it +not be much easier to prove that science is of divine origin?</p> +<p>Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—it +fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy; it +develops the mind, and enables man to answer his own prayers.</p> +<p>Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah practically +abandoned the children of men for four thousand years, and gave +them over to every abomination. He claims that Christianity came +"in the fullness of time," and it is then admitted that "what the +fullness of time may mean is one of the mysteries of times and +seasons, that it is not for us to know." Having declared that it is +a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal explains +it: "One motive for the long delay of four thousand years is not +far to seek—it gave time, full and ample, for the utmost +development and consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of +which the intellect and will of man are capable."</p> +<p>Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and wise being +"gave time full and ample for the utmost development and +consolidation of falsehood and evil"? Why should an infinitely wise +God desire this development and consolidation? What would be +thought of a father who should refuse to teach his son and +deliberately allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end +that he might "develop all the falsehood and evil of which his +intellect and will were capable"? If a supernatural religion is a +necessity, and if without it all men simply develop and consolidate +falsehood and evil, why was not a supernatural religion given to +the first man? The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have +been founded in the Garden of Eden.</p> +<p>Was it not cruel to drown a world just for the want of a +supernatural religion—a religion that man, by no possibility, +could furnish? Was there "husbandry in heaven"?</p> +<p>But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only admitting, but +declaring, that the world had never seen a legislation so just, so +equitable, as that of Rome.</p> +<p>Is it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had +reached their highest development was, after all, so wise, so just +and so equitable?</p> +<p>Was not the civil law far better than the Mosaic—more +philosophical, nearer just?</p> +<p>The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.</p> +<p>According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in whom all +the falsehood and evil of which they were capable had been +developed and consolidated, while the cruel and ignorant Mosaic +code came from the lips of infinite wisdom and compassion.</p> +<p>It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man can do +without God, and I assert that the history of the Inquisition shows +what man can do when assisted by a church of divine origin, +presided over, by the infallible vicars of God.</p> +<p>The fact that the early Christians not only believed incredible +things, but persuaded others of their truth, is regarded by the +Cardinal as a miracle. This is only another phase of the old +argument that success is the test of divine origin. All +supernatural religions have been founded in precisely the same way. +The credulity of eighteen hundred years ago believed everything +except the truth.</p> +<p>A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in some +degree to the people among whom it grows. It is shaped and molded +by the general ignorance, the superstition and credulity of the age +in which it lives. The key is fashioned by the lock.</p> +<p>Every religion that has succeeded has in some way supplied the +wants of its votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonized with +their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.</p> +<p>If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in absolute +harmony with nature, how can it be supernatural? The Cardinal also +declares that "the religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason +and moral nature in all nations and all ages to this day."</p> +<p>What becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of divine +origin because "it has ascended the stream of human license, +<i>contra ictum fluminis</i>, by a power mightier than nature"?</p> +<p>If "it is in harmony with the reason and moral nature of all +nations and all ages to this day," it has gone with the stream, and +not against it. If "the religion of Christ is in harmony with the +reason and moral nature of all nations," then the men who have +rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against the +stream. How then can it be said that Christianity has been in +changeless opposition to nature as man has marred it? To what +extent has man marred it?</p> +<p>In spite of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and +moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in harmony +with the religion of Jesus Christ.</p> +<p>Are we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is of divine +origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it by persecution?</p> +<p>We will put the Cardinal's statement in form:</p> +<p>Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution, therefore +Catholicism is of divine origin.</p> +<p>Let us make an application of this logic:</p> +<p>Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution; +therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.</p> +<p>Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecution; +therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.</p> +<p>Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy +Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine origin.</p> +<p>Let us make another application:</p> +<p>Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism; therefore, +Paganism was a false religion.</p> +<p>Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestantism; +therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.</p> +<p>Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy +Infidelity; therefore, both Catholicism and Protestantism are false +religions.</p> +<p>The Cardinal has another reason for believing the Catholic +Church of divine origin. He declares that the "Canon Law is a +creation of wisdom and justice to which no statutes at large or +imperial pandects can bear comparison;" "that the world-wide and +secular legislation of the church was of a higher character, and +that as water cannot rise above its source, the church could not, +by mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the imperial +law, and therefore its source must have been higher than the +sources of the world."</p> +<p>When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law was +supreme.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon Law was +borrowed—the bad was, for the most part, original. In my +judgment, the legislation of the Republic of the United States is +in many respects superior to that of Rome, and yet we are greatly +indebted to the Civil Law. Our legislation is superior in many +particulars to that of England, and yet we are greatly indebted to +the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that our Statutes at +Large are divinely inspired.</p> +<p>If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite +wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon Law made +it a crime next to robbery and theft to take interest for money. +Without the right to take interest the business of the whole world, +would to a large extent, cease and the prosperity of mankind end. +There are railways enough in the United States to make six tracks +around the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money on +which interest was paid or promised. In no other way could the +savings of many thousands have been brought together and a capital +great enough formed to construct works of such vast and continental +importance.</p> +<p>It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law that a heretic +could not be a witness against a Catholic. The Catholic was at +liberty to rob and wrong his fellow-man, provided the fellow-man +was not a fellow Catholic, and in a court established by the vicar +of Christ, the man who had been robbed was not allowed to open his +mouth. A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a Jew, +of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the husband and +father murder his wife and children, and the father could not +pronounce in the hearing of a judge the name of the murderer.</p> +<p>The world is wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by +infinite wisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.</p> +<p>In this divine code it was provided that to convict a cardinal +bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required; a cardinal presbyter, +forty-four; a cardinal deacon, twenty-four; a subdeacon, acolyth, +exorcist, reader, ostiarius, seven; and in the purgation of a +bishop, twelve witnesses were invariably required; of a presbyter, +seven; of a deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made, +not by God, but by the clergy.</p> +<p>So too in this cruel code it was provided that those who gave +aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated persons, should be +anathema, and that those who talked with, consulted, or sat at the +same table with or gave anything in charity to the excommunicated +should be anathema.</p> +<p>Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made hospitality +a crime? Did he say: "Whoso giveth a cup of cold water to the +excommunicated shall wear forever a garment of fire"? Were not the +laws of the Romans much better? Besides all this, under the Canon +Law the dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates +confiscated—that is to say, their widows and orphans +robbed.</p> +<p>The most brutal part of the common law of England is that in +relation to the rights of women—all of which was taken from +the <i>Corpus Juris Canonici</i>, "the law that came from a higher +source than man."</p> +<p>The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the pious +canonists was <i>propter infidelitatem</i>, which was when one of +the parties became Catholic, and would not live with the other who +continued still an unbeliever. Under this divine statute, a pagan +wishing to be rid of his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, +provided she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers. +Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was declared to be a +bigamist.</p> +<p>It would require volumes to point out the cruelties, absurdities +and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It has been thrown away by +the world. Every civilized nation has a code of its own, and the +Canon Law is of interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, +and the enemy of theological government.</p> +<p>Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being witches and +wizards, of holding intercourse with devils. Thousands perished at +the stake, having been convicted of these impossible crimes. Under +the Canon Law, there was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A +man or woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected, and +under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of infinite +wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt. The suspected had to +prove themselves innocent. In all civilized courts, the presumption +of innocence is the shield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took +away this shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of +presumptive guilt.</p> +<p>If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd of +the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the vicar, but to +the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded church ought to know its +own shepherd, and yet the Catholic sheep have not always been +certain who the shepherd was.</p> +<p>The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two +popes—rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, +deposed the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action +was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy Ghost, could +not tell the genuine from the counterfeit. The council then elected +another vicar, whose authority was afterwards denied. Alexander V. +died, and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted that he +was the lawful pope; John resigned, then he was deposed, and +afterward imprisoned; then Gregory XII. resigned, and Martin V. was +elected. The whole thing reads like the annals of a South American +revolution.</p> +<p>The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal declares, the +unity of the church, and brought back the consolation of the Holy +Ghost. Before this great council John Huss appeared and maintained +his own tenets. The council declared that the church was not bound +to keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned and executed +on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted, +but having relapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed +council shed the blood of Huss and Jerome.</p> +<p>The Cardinal appeals to the author of "Ecce Homo" for the +purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature, and the +following passages, among others, are quoted:</p> +<p>"Who can describe that which unites men? Who has entered into +the formation of speech, which is the symbol of their union? Who +can describe exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who can +do these things can explain the origin of the Christian +Church."</p> +<p>These passages should not have been quoted by the Cardinal. The +author of these passages simply says that the origin of the +Christian Church is no harder to find and describe than that which +unites men—than that which has entered into the formation of +speech, the symbol of their union—no harder to describe than +the origin of civil society—because he says that one who can +describe these can describe the other.</p> +<p>Certainly none of these things are above nature. We do not need +the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these matters. We know that men +are united by common interests, common purposes, common +dangers—by race, climate and education. It is no more +wonderful that people live in families, tribes, communities and +nations, than that birds, ants and bees live in flocks and +swarms.</p> +<p>If we know anything, we know that language is natural—that +it is a physical science. But if we take the ground occupied by the +Cardinal, then we insist that everything that cannot be accounted +for by man, is supernatural. Let me ask, by what man? What man must +we take as the standard?</p> +<p>Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenæus or Darwin? If everything +that we cannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is the +test of the supernatural. The man who is mentally honest, stops +where his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does not +know. Such a man is a philosopher. Then the theologian steps +forward, denounces the modesty of the philosopher as blasphemy, and +proceeds to tell what is beyond the horizon of the human +intellect.</p> +<p>Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the telephone, by +natural causes? How would he account for these wonders? He would +account for them precisely as the Cardinal accounts for the +Catholic Church.</p> +<p>Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest interest +in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be regretted that +this primacy rests upon such a narrow and insecure foundation.</p> +<p>The Cardinal says that "it will appear almost certain that the +original Greek of St. Irenæus, <i>which is unfortunately +lost</i>, contained either [—Greek—], or some +inflection of [—Greek—], which signifies primacy."</p> +<p>From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome +rests on some "inflection" of a Greek word—and that this +supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to have been written +by St. Irenæus, which has certainly been lost. Is it possible +that the vast fabric of papal power has this, and only this, for +its foundation? To this "inflection" has it come at last?</p> +<p>The Cardinal's case depends upon the intelligence and veracity +of his witnesses. The Fathers of the church were utterly incapable +of examining a question of fact. They were all believers in the +miraculous. The same is true of the apostles. If St. John was the +author of the Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp +said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he was +certainly in the condition of his master. What is the testimony of +St. John worth in the light of the following? "Cerinthus, the +heretic, was in a bathhouse. St. John and another Christian were +about to enter. St. John cried out: 'Let us run away, lest the +house fall upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.'" Is it +possible that St. John thought that God would kill two eminent +Christians for the purpose of getting even with one heretic?</p> +<p>Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been a prototype +of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from the following +statement concerning this Father: "When any heretical doctrine was +spoken in his presence he would stop his ears." After this, there +can be no question of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp +was a martyr—that a spear was run through his body, and that +from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew away. The +history of his death is just as true as the history of his +life.</p> +<p>Irenæus, another witness, took the ground that there was +to be a millennium—a thousand years of enjoyment in which +celibacy would not be the highest form of virtue. If he is called +as a witness for the purpose of establishing the divine origin of +the church, and if one of his "inflections" is the basis of papal +supremacy, is the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to +the nature of the millennium?</p> +<p>All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one of them +believed, not only in the miracles said to have been wrought by +Christ, by the apostles, and by other Christians, but every one of +them believed in the Pagan miracles. All of these Fathers were +familiar with wonders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common +with them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they not only +cured diseases, not only reversed the order of nature, but +succeeded in raising the dead.</p> +<p>It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said, or +what the Fathers of the church wrote. There were many centuries +filled with forgeries—many generations in which the cunning +hands of ecclesiastics erased, obliterated or interpolated the +records of the past—during which they invented books, +invented authors, and quoted from works that never existed.</p> +<p>The testimony of the "Fathers" is without the slightest value. +They believed everything—they examined nothing. They received +as a waste-basket receives. Whoever accepts their testimony will +exclaim with the Cardinal: "Happily, men are not saved by +logic."</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0014" id="link0014"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>IS DIVORCE WRONG?</h2> +<p>By Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter, and Colonel Robert +G. Ingersoll.</p> +<p>THE attention of the public has been particularly directed of +late to the abuses of divorce, and to the facilities afforded by +the complexities of American law, and by the looseness of its +administration, for the disruption of family ties. Therefore the +<i>North American Review</i> has opened its pages for the thorough +discussion of the subject in its moral, social, and religious +aspects, and some of the most eminent leaders of modern thought +have contributed their opinions. The Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D., who is +a specialist on the subject of divorce, has prepared some +statistics touching the matter, and, with the assistance of Bishop +Potter, the four following questions have been formulated as a +basis for the discussion:</p> +<p>1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any +circumstances?</p> +<p>2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any +circumstances?</p> +<p>3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the +family?</p> +<p>4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists +contribute to the moral purity of society?</p> +<p>Editor North American Review,</p> +<a name="linkINTR" id="linkINTR"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>Introduction by the Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D.</h2> +<p>I AM to introduce this discussion with some facts and make a few +suggestions upon them. In the dozen years of my work at this +problem I have steadily insisted upon a broad basis of fact as the +only foundation of sound opinion. We now have a great statistical +advance in the report of the Department of labor. A few of these +statistics will serve the present purpose.</p> +<p>There were in the United States 9,937 divorces reported for the +year 1867 and 25,535 for 1886, or a total 328,716 in the twenty +years. This increase is more than twice as great as the population, +and has been remarkably uniform throughout the period. With the +exception of New York, perhaps Delaware, and the three or four +States where special legislative reforms have been secured, the +increase covers the country and has been more than twice the gain +in population. The South apparently felt the movement later than +the North and West, but its greater rapidity there will apparently +soon obliterate most existing differences. The movement is +well-nigh as universal in Europe as here. Thirteen European +countries, including Canada, had 6,540 divorces in 1876 and 10,909 +in 1886—an increase of 67 per cent. In the same period the +increase with us was 72.5 per cent. But the ratios of divorce to +population are here generally three or four times greater than in +Europe. The ratios to marriage in the United States are sometimes +as high as 1 to 10, 1 to 9, or even a little more for single years. +In heathen Japan for three years they were more than 1 to 3. But +divorce there is almost wholly left to the regulation of the +family, and practically optional with the parties. It is a +re-transference of the wife by a simple writing to her own +family.</p> +<p>1. The increase of divorce is one of several evils affecting the +family. Among these are hasty or ill-considered marriages, the +decline of marriage and the decrease of children,—too +generally among classes pecuniarily best able to maintain domestic +life,—the probable increase in some directions of marital +infidelity and sexual vice, and last, but not least, a tendency to +reduce the family to a minimum of force in the life of society. All +these evils should be studied and treated in their relations to +each other. Carefully-conducted investigations alone can establish +these latter statements beyond dispute, although there can be +little doubt of their general correctness as here carefully made. +And the conclusion is forced upon us that the toleration of the +increase of divorce, touching as it does the vital bond of the +family, is so far forth a confession of our western civilization +that it despairs of all remedies for ills of the family, and is +becoming willing, in great degree, to look away from all true +remedies to a dissolution of the family by the courts in all +serious cases. If this were our settled purpose, it would look like +giving up the idea of producing and protecting a family +increasingly capable of enduring to the end of its natural +existence. If the drift of things on this subject during the +present century may be taken as prophetic, our civilization moves +in an opposite direction in its treatment of the family from its +course with the individual.</p> +<p>2. Divorce, including these other evils related to the family, +is preeminently a social problem. It should therefore be reached by +all the forces of our great social institutions—religious, +educational, industrial, and political. Each of these should be +brought to bear on it proportionately and in cooperation with the +others. But I can here take up only one or two lines for further +suggestion.</p> +<p>3. The causes of divorces, like those of most social evils, are +often many and intricate. The statistics for this country, when the +forty-three various statutory causes are reduced to a few classes, +show that 20 per cent, of the divorces were based on adultery, 16 +on cruelty, 38 were granted for desertion, 4 for drunkenness, less +than 3 for neglect to provide, and so on. But these tell very +little, except that it is easier or more congenial to use one or +another of the statutory causes, just as the old "omnibus clause," +which gave general discretion to the courts in Connecticut, and +still more in some other States, was made to cover many cases. A +special study of forty-five counties in twelve States, however, +shows that drunkenness was a direct or indirect cause in 20.1 per +cent, of 29,665 cases. That is, it could be found either alone or +in conjunction with others, directly or indirectly, in one-fifth of +the cases.</p> +<p>4. Laws and their administration affect divorce. New York grants +absolute divorce for only one cause, and New Jersey for two. Yet +New York has many more divorces in proportion to population, due +largely to a looser system of administration. In seventy counties +of twelve States 68 per cent, of the applications are granted. The +enactment of a more stringent law is immediately followed by a +decrease of divorces, from which there is a tendency to recover. +Personally, I think stricter methods of administration, +restrictions upon remarriage, proper delays in hearing suits, and +some penal inflictions for cruelty, desertion, neglect of support, +as well as for adultery, would greatly reduce divorces, even +without removing a single statutory cause. There would be fewer +unhappy families, not more. For people would then look to real +remedies instead of confessing the hopelessness of remedy by +appeals to the courts. A multitude of petty ills and many utterly +wicked frauds and other abuses would disappear. "Your present +methods," said a Nova Scotian to a man from Maine a few years ago, +"are simply ways of multiplying and magnifying domestic ills." +There is much force in this. But let us put reform of marriage laws +along with these measures.</p> +<p>5. The evils of conflicting and diverse marriage and divorce +laws are doing immense harm. The mischief through which innocent +parties are defrauded, children rendered illegitimate, inheritance +made uncertain, and actual imprisonments for bigamy grow out of +divorce and remarriage, are well known to most. Uniformity through +a national law or by conventions of the States has been strongly +urged for many years. Uniformity is needed. But for one, I have +long discouraged too early action, because the problem is too +difficult, the consequences too serious, and the elements of it +still too far out of our reach for any really wise action at +present. The government report grew immediately out of this +conviction. It will, I think, abundantly justify the caution. For +it shows that uniformity could affect at the utmost only a small +percentage of the total divorces in the United States. <i>Only 19.9 +percent of all the divorced who were married in this country +obtained their divorces in a different State from the one in which +their marriage had taken place, in all these twenty years, 80.1 per +cent, having been divorced in the State where married</i>. Now, +marriage on the average lasts 9.17 years before divorce occurs, +which probably is nearly two-fifths the length of a married life +before its dissolution by death. From this 19.9 per cent, there +must, therefore, be subtracted the large migration of married +couples for legitimate purposes, in order to get any fair figure to +express the migration for divorce. But the movement of the native +population away from the State of birth is 22 or 23 per cent. This, +however, includes all ages. For all who believe that divorce itself +is generally a great evil, the conclusion is apparently inevitable +that the question of uniformity, serious as it is, is a very small +part of the great legal problem demanding solution at our hands. +This general problem, aside from its graver features in the more +immediate sphere of sociology and religion, must evidently tax our +publicists and statesmen severely. The old temptation to meet +special evils by general legislation besets us on this subject. I +think comparative and historical study of the law of the family, +(the <i>Familienrecht</i> of the Germans), especially if the +movement of European law be seen, points toward the need of a +pretty comprehensive and thorough examination of our specific legal +problem of divorce and marriage law in this fuller light, before +much legislation is undertaken.</p> +<p>Samuel W. Dike.</p> +<p>However much men may differ in their views of the nature and +attributes of the matrimonial contract, and in their concept of the +rights and obligations of the marriage state, no one will deny that +these are grave questions; since upon marriage rests the family, +and upon the family rest society, civilization, and the highest +interests of religion and the state. Yet, strange to say, divorce, +the deadly enemy of marriage, stalks abroad to-day bold and +unblushing, a monster licensed by the laws of Christian states to +break hearts, wreck homes and ruin souls. And passing strange is +it, too, that so many, wise and far-seeing in less weighty +concerns, do not appear to see in the evergrowing power of divorce +a menace not only to the sacredness of the marriage institution, +but even to the fair social fabric reared upon matrimony as its +corner-stone.</p> +<p>God instituted in Paradise the marriage state and sanctified it. +He established its law of unity and declared its indissolubility. +By divine authority Adam spoke when of his wife he said: "This now +is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called +woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall +leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they +shall be two in one flesh."*</p> +<pre> + * Gen., ii., 23-24. +</pre> +<p>But like other things on earth, marriage suffered in the fall; +and little by little polygamy and divorce began to assert +themselves against the law of matrimonial unity and +indissolubility. Yet the ideal of the marriage institution never +faded away. It survived, not only among the chosen people, but even +among the nations of heathendom, disfigured much, 'tis true, but +with its ancient beauty never wholly destroyed.</p> +<p>When, in the fullness of time, Christ came to restore the things +that were perishing, he reasserted in clear and unequivocal terms +the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage. Nay, more. He +gave to this state added holiness and a dignity higher far than it +had "from the beginning." He made marriage a sacrament, made it the +type of his own never-ending union with his one spotless spouse, +the church. St. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, says: "Husbands, +love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered +himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the +laver of water in the word of life, that he might present it to +himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such +thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. So also +ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.... For this +cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to +his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh."*</p> +<pre> + * Ephes., v., 25-31. +</pre> +<p>In defence of Christian marriage, the church was compelled from +the earliest days of her existence to do frequent and stern battle. +But cultured pagan, and rough barbarian, and haughty Christian lord +were met and conquered. Men were taught to master passion, and +Christian marriage, with all its rights secured and reverenced, +became a ruling power in the world.</p> +<p>The Council of Trent, called, in the throes of the mighty moral +upheaval of the sixteenth century, to deal with the new state of +things, again proclaimed to a believing and an unbelieving world +the Catholic doctrine of the holiness, unity, and indissolubility +of marriage, and the unlawfulness of divorce. The council declared +no new dogmas: it simply reaffirmed the common teaching of the +church for centuries. But some of the most hallowed attributes of +marriage seemed to be objects of peculiar detestation to the new +teachers, and their abolition was soon demanded. "The leaders in +the changes of matrimonial law," writes Professor Woolsey, "were +the Protestant reformers themselves, and that almost from the +beginning of the movement.... The reformers, when they discarded +the sacramental view of marriage and the celibacy of the clergy, +had to make out a new doctrine of marriage and of divorce."* The +"new doctrine of marriage and of divorce," pleasing as it was to +the sensual man, was speedily learned and as speedily put in +practice. The sacredness with which Christian marriage had been +hedged around began to be more and more openly trespassed upon, and +restive shoulders wearied more and more quickly of the marriage +yoke when divorce promised freedom for newer joys.</p> +<p>To our own time the logical consequences of the "new doctrine" +have come. To-day "abyss calls upon abyss," change calls for +change, laxity calls for license. Divorce is now a recognized +presence in high life and low; and polygamy, the first-born of +divorce, sits shameless in palace and in hovel. Yet the teacher +that feared not to speak the words of truth in bygone ages is not +silent now. In no uncertain tones, the church proclaims to the +world to-day the unchangeable law of the strict unity and absolute +indissolubility of valid and consummated Christian marriage.</p> +<p>To the question then, "Can divorce from the bond of marriage +ever be allowed?" the Catholic can only answer no.</p> +<pre> + * "Divorce and Divorce Legislation," by Theodore D. Woolsey, + 2d Ed., p. 126. +</pre> +<p>And for this no, his first and last and best reason can be but +this: "<i>Thus saith the Lord</i>."</p> +<p>As time goes on the wisdom of the church in absolutely +forbidding divorce from the marriage bond grows more and more plain +even to the many who deny to this prohibition a divine and +authoritative sanction. And nowhere is this more true than in our +own country. Yet our experience of the evils of divorce is but the +experience of every people that has cherished this monster.</p> +<p>Let us take but a hasty view of the consequences of divorce in +ancient times. Turn only to pagan Greece and Rome, two peoples that +practised divorce most extensively. In both we find divorce +weakening their primitive virtue and making their latter corruption +more corrupt. Among the Greeks morality declined as material +civilization advanced. Divorce grew easy and common, and purity and +peace were banished from the family circle. Among the Romans +divorce was not common until the latter days of the Republic. Then +the flood-gates of immorality were opened, and, with divorce made +easy, came rushing in corruption of morals among both sexes and in +every walk of life. "Passion, interest, or caprice," Gibbon, the +historian, tells us, "suggested daily motives for the dissolution +of marriage; a word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a +freedman, declared the separation; the most tender of human +connections was degraded to a transient society of profit or +pleasure."* Each succeeding generation witnessed moral corruption +more general, moral degradation more profound; men and women were +no longer ashamed of licentiousness; until at length the nation +that became mighty because built on a pure family fell when its +corner-stone crumbled away in rottenness.</p> +<pre> + * "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empiré," Milman's Ed., Vol. + III., p. 236. +</pre> +<p>Heedless of the lessons taught by history, modern nations, too, +have made trial of divorce. In Europe, wherever the new gospel of +marriage and divorce has had! notable influence, divorce has been +legalized; and in due proportion to the extent of that influence +causes for divorce have been multiplied, the bond of marriage more +and more recklessly broken, and the obligations of that sacred +state more and more shamelessly disregarded. In our own country the +divorce evil has grown more rapidly than our growth and +strengthened more rapidly than our strength. Mr. Carroll D. Wright, +in a special report on the statistics of marriage and divorce made +to Congress in February, 1889, places the number of divorces in the +United States in 1867 at 9,937, and the number in 1886 at 25,535. +These figures show an increase of the divorce evil much out of +proportion to our increase in population. The knowledge that +divorces can easily be procured encourages hasty marriages and +equally hasty preparations. Legislators and judges in some States +are encouraging inventive genius in the art of finding new causes +for divorce. Frequently the most trivial and even ridiculous +pretexts are recognized as sufficient for the rupture of the +marriage bond; and in some States divorce can be obtained "without +publicity," and even without the knowledge of the +defendant—in such cases generally an innocent wife. Crime has +sometimes been committed for the very purpose of bringing about a +divorce, and cases are not rare in which plots have been laid to +blacken the reputation of a virtuous spouse in order to obtain +legal freedom for new nuptials. Sometimes, too, there is a +collusion between the married parties to obtain divorce. One of +them trumps up charges; the other does not oppose the suit; and +judgment is entered for the plaintiff. Every daily newspaper tells +us of divorces applied for or granted, and the public sense of +decency is constantly being shocked by the disgusting recital of of +divorce-court scandals.</p> +<p>We are filled with righteous indignation at Mormonism; we brand +it as a national disgrace, and justly demand its suppression. Why? +Because, forsooth, the Mormons are polygamists. Do we forget that +there are two species of polygamy—simultaneous and +successive? Mormons practise without legal recognition the first +species; while among us the second species is indulged in, and with +the sanction of law, by thousands in whose nostrils Mormonism is a +stench and an abomination. The Christian press and pulpit of the +land denounce the Mormons as "an adulterous generation," but too +often deal very tenderly with Christian polygamists. Why? Is +Christian polygamy less odious in the eyes of God than Mormon +polygamy? Among us, *tis true, the one is looked upon as more +respectable than the other. Yet we know that the Mormons as a +class, care for their wives and children; while Christian +polygamists but too often leave wretched wives to starve, slave, or +sin, and leave miserable children a public charge. "O divorced and +much-married Christian," says the polygamous dweller by Salt Lake, +"pluck first the beam from thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to +pluck the mote from the eye of thy much-married, but undivorced, +Mormon brother." It follows logically from the Catholic doctrine of +the unity and indissolubility of marriage, and the consequent +prohibition of divorce from the marital bond, that no one, even +though divorced <i>a vinculo</i> by the civil power, can be allowed +by the church to take another consort during the lifetime of the +true wife or husband, and such connection the church can but hold +as sinful. It is written: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and +marry another committeth adultery against her. And if the wife +shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she +committeth adultery."*</p> +<pre> + * Mark, x., ii, 12. +</pre> +<p>Of course, I am well aware that upon the words of our Saviour as +found in St. Matthew, Chap. xix., 9, many base the right of divorce +from the marriage bond for adultery, with permission to remarry. +But, as is well known, the Catholic Church, upon the concurrent +testimony of the Evangelists Mark* and Luke,** and upon the +teaching of St. Paul,*** interprets our Lord's words quoted by St. +Matthew as simply permitting, on account of adultery, divorce from +bed and board, with no right to either party to marry another.</p> +<p>But even if divorce <i>a vinculo</i> were not forbidden by +divine law, how inadequate a remedy would it be for the evils for +which so many deem it a panacea. "Divorce <i>a vinculo</i>," as Dr. +Brownson truly says, "logically involves divorce <i>ad +libitum."</i>*** Now, what reason is there to suppose that parties +divorced and remated will be happier in the new connection than in +the old? As a matter of fact, many persons have been divorced a +number of times. Sometimes, too, it happens that, after a period of +separation, divorced parties repent of their folly, reunite, and +are again divorced. Indeed, experience clearly proves that +unhappiness among married people frequently does not arise so much +from "mutual incompatibility" as from causes inherent in one or +both of the parties—causes that would be likely to make a new +union as wretched as the old one. There is wisdom in the pithy +saying of-a recent writer: "Much ill comes, not because men and +women are married, but because they are fools."***</p> +<pre> + * Mark, x., n, 12. Luke, xvi., 18. J I. Cor.,vii., 10, 11. + + ** Essay on "The Family—Christian and Pagan." + + *** Prof. David Swing in Chicago Journal. +</pre> +<p>There are some who think that the absolute prohibition of +divorce does not contribute to the purity of society, and are +therefore of opinion that divorce with liberty to remarry does good +in this regard. He who believes the matrimonial bond indissoluble, +divorce a vinculo evil, and the connection resulting from it +criminal, can only say: "Evil should not be done that good may +come." But, after all, would even passing good come from this +greater freedom? In a few exceptional cases—Yes: in the vast +majority of cases—No. The trying of divorce as a safeguard of +purity is an old experiment, and an unsuccessful one. In Rome +adulteries increased as divorces were multiplied. After speaking of +the facility and frequency of divorce among the Romans, Gibbon +adds:</p> +<p>"A specious theory is confuted by this free and perfect +experiment, which demonstrates that the liberty of divorce does not +contribute to happiness and virtue. The facility of separation +would destroy all mutual confidence, and inflame every trifling +dispute. The minute difference between a husband and a stranger, +which might so easily be removed, might still more easily be +forgotten."*</p> +<p>How <i>apropos</i> in this connection are the words of Professor +Woolsey:</p> +<p>"Nothing is more startling than to pass from the first part of +the eighteenth to this latter part of the nineteenth century, and +to observe how law has changed and opinion has altered in regard to +marriage, the great foundation of society, and to divorce; and how, +almost pari passu, various offences against chastity, such as +concubinage, prostitution, illegitimate births, abortion, +disinclination to family life, have increased also—not, +indeed, at the same pace everywhere, or all of them equally in all +countries, yet have decidedly increased on the whole."!</p> +<p>Surely in few parts of the wide world is the truth of these +strong words more evident than in those parts of our own country +where loose divorce laws have long prevailed.</p> +<p>It should be noted that, while never allowing the dissolution of +the marriage bond, the Catholic Church has always permitted, for +grave causes and under certain conditions, a temporary or permanent +"separation from bed and board."</p> +<pre> + * "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Milman's Ed., Vol. + III., p. 236. + + ** "Divorce and Divorce Legislation," 2d Ed., p. 274. +</pre> +<p>The causes which, <i>positis ponendis</i>, justify such +separation may be briefly given thus: mutual consent, adultery, and +grave peril of soul or body.</p> +<p>It may be said that there are persons so unhappily mated and so +constituted that for them no relief can come save from divorce <i>a +vinculo</i>, with permission to remarry. I shall not linger here to +point out to such the need of seeking from a higher than earthly +power the grace to suffer and be strong. But for those whose +reasoning on this subject is of the earth, earthy, I shall add some +words of practical worldly wisdom from eminent jurists. In a note +to his edition of Blackstone's "Commentaries," Mr. John Taylor +Coleridge says:</p> +<p>"It is no less truly than beautifully said by Sir W. Scott, in +the case of Evans v. Evans, that 'though in particular cases the +repugnance of the law to dissolve the obligation of matrimonial +cohabitation may operate with great severity upon individuals, yet +it must be carefully remembered that the general happiness of the +married life is secured by its indissolubility.' When people +understand that they must live together, except for a few reasons +known to the law, they learn to soften by mutual accommodation that +yoke which they know they cannot shake off: they become good +husbands and good wives from the necessity of remaining husbands +and wives: for necessity is a powerful master in teaching the +duties which it imposes. If it were once understood that upon +mutual disgust married persons might be legally separated, many +couples who now pass through the world with mutual comfort, with +attention to their common offspring, and to the moral order of +civil society, might have been at this moment living in a state of +mutual unkindness, in a state of estrangement from their common +offspring, and in a state of the most licentious and unrestrained +immorality. In this case, as in many other cases, the happiness of +some individuals must be sacrificed to the greater and more general +good."</p> +<p>The facility and frequency of divorce, and its lamentable +consequences, are nowadays calling much attention to measures of +"divorce reform." "How can divorce reform be best secured?" it may +be asked. Believing, as I do, that divorce is evil, I also believe +that its "reformation" and its death must be simultaneous. It +should cease to be. Divorce as we know it began when marriage was +removed from the domain of the church: divorce shall cease when the +old order shall be restored. Will this ever come to pass? Perhaps +so—after many days. Meanwhile, something might be done, +something should be done, to lessen the evils of divorce. Our +present divorce legislation must be presumed to be such as the +majority of the people wish it. A first step, therefore, in the way +of "divorce reform" should be the creation of a more healthy public +sentiment on this question. Then will follow measures that will do +good in proportion to their stringency. A few practical suggestions +as to the salient features of remedial divorce legislation may not +be out of place. Persons seeking at the hands of the civil law +relief in matrimonial troubles should have the right to ask for +divorce <i>a vinculo</i>, or simple separation <i>a mensâ et +thoro</i>, as they may elect. The number of legally-recognized +grounds for divorce should be lessened, and "noiseless" divorces +forbidden. "Rapid-transit" facilities for passing through divorce +courts should be cut off, and divorce "agencies" should be +suppressed. The plaintiff in a divorce case should be a <i>bona +fide</i> resident of the judicial district in which his petition is +filed, and in every divorce case the legal representatives of the +State should appear for the defendant, and, by all means, the right +of remarriage after divorce should be restricted. If divorce cannot +be legislated out of existence, let, at least, its power for evil +be diminished.</p> +<p>James Cardinal Gibbons.</p> +<p>I am asked certain questions with regard to the attitude of the +Episcopal Church towards the matter of divorce. In undertaking to +answer them, it is to be remembered that there is a considerable +variety of opinion which is held in more or less precise conformity +with doctrinal or canonical declarations of the church. With these +variations this paper, except in so far as it may briefly indicate +them, is not concerned. Nor is it an expression of individual +opinion. That is not what has been asked for or attempted.</p> +<p>The doctrine and law of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the +subject of divorce is contained in canon 13, title II., of the +"Digest of the Canons," 1887. That, canon has been to a certain +extent interpreted by Episcopal judgments under section IV. The +"public opinion" of the clergy or laity can only be ascertained in +the usual way; especially by examining their published treatises, +letters, etc., and perhaps most satisfactorily by the reports of +discussion in the diocesan and general conventions on the subject +of divorce. Among members of the Protestant Episcopal Church +divorce is excessively rare, cases of uncertainty in the +application of the canon, are much more rare, and the practice of +the clergy is almost perfectly uniform. There is, however, by no +means the same uniformity in their opinions either as to divorce or +marriage.</p> +<p>As divorce is necessarily a mere accident of marriage, and as +divorce is impossible without a precedent marriage, much practical +difficulty might arise, and much difference of opinion does arise, +from the fact that the Protestant Episcopal Church has nowhere +defined marriage. Negatively, it is explicitly affirmed (Article +XXV.) that "matrimony is not to be counted for a sacrament of the +Gospel." This might seem to reduce matrimony to a civil contract. +And accordingly the first rubric in the <i>Form of Solemnization of +Matrimony</i> directs, on the ground of differences of laws in the +various States, that "the minister is left to the direction of +those laws in everything that regards the civil contract between +the parties." Laws determining what persons shall be capable of +contracting would seem to be included in "everything that regards +the civil contract;" and unquestionably the laws of most of the +States render all persons legally divorced capable of at once +contracting a new marriage. Both the first section of canon 13 and +the <i>Form of Solemnization</i>, affirm that, "if any persons be +joined together otherwise than as God's word doth allow, their +marriage is not lawful." But it is nowhere excepting as to divorce, +declared <i>what the impediments are</i>. The Protestant Episcopal +Church has never, by canon or express legislation, published, for +instance, a table of prohibited degrees.</p> +<p>On the matter of divorce, however, canon 13, title II., +supersedes, for the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, +both a part of the civil law relating to the persons capable of +contracting marriage, and also all private judgment as to the +teaching of "the Word of God" on that subject. No minister is +allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the marriage of any man or woman +who has a divorced husband or wife still living. But if the person +seeking to be married is the innocent party in the divorce for +adultery, that person, whether man or woman, may be married by a +minister of the church. With the above exception, the clergy are +forbidden to administer the sacraments to any divorced and +remarried person without the express permission of the bishop, +unless that person be "penitent" and "in imminent danger of death." +Any doubts "as to the facts of any case under section II. of this +canon" must be referred to the bishop. Of course, where there is no +reasonable doubt the minister may proceed. It may be added that the +sacraments are to be refused also to persons who may be reasonably +supposed to have contracted marriage "otherwise," in any respect, +"than as the Word of God and the discipline of this Church doth +allow." These impediments are nowhere defined; and accordingly it +has happened that a man who had married a deceased wife's sister +and the woman he had married were, by the private judgment of a +priest, refused the holy communion. The civil courts do not seem +inclined to protect the clergy from consequences of interference +with the civil law. In Southbridge, Mass., a few weeks ago, a man +who had been denounced from the altar for marrying again after a +divorce obtained a judgment for $1,720 damages. The law of the +church would seem to be that, even though a legal divorce may have +been obtained, remarriage is absolutely forbidden, excepting to the +innocent party, whether man or woman, in a divorce for adultery. +The penalty for breach of this law might involve, for the +officiating clergyman, deposition from the ministry; for the +offending man or woman, exclusion from the sacraments, which, in +the judgment of a very large number of the clergy, involves +everlasting damnation.</p> +<p>It is obvious, then, that the Protestant Episcopal Church allows +the complete validity of a divorce <i>a vinculo</i> in the case of +adultery, and the right of remarriage to the innocent party. But +that church has not determined in what manner either the grounds of +the divorce or the "innocence" of either party is to be +ascertained. The canon does not require a clergyman to demand, nor +can the church enable him to secure, the production of a copy of +the record or decree of the court of law by which a divorce is +granted, nor would such decree indicate the "innocence" of one +party, though it might prove the guilt of the other.</p> +<p>The effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family is too +obvious to require stating. As the father and mother are the heads +of the family, their separation must inevitably destroy the common +family life. On the other hand, it is often contended that the +destruction has been already completed, and that a divorce is only +the legal recognition of what has already taken place; "the +integrity of the family" can scarcely remain when either a father +or mother, or both, are living in violation of the law on which +that integrity rests. The question may be asked whether the +absolute prohibition of divorce would contribute to the moral +purity of society. It is difficult to answer such a question, +because anything on the subject must be comparatively worthless +until verified by experience. It is quite certain that the +prohibition of divorce never prevents illicit sexual connections, +as was abundantly proved when divorce in England was put within the +reach of persons who were not able to afford the expense of a +special act of Parliament. It is, indeed, so palpable a fact that +any amount of evidence or argument is wholly superfluous.</p> +<p>The law of the Protestant Episcopal Church is by no means +identical with the opinion of either the clergy or the laity. In +the judgment of many, the existing law is far too lax, or, at +least, the whole doctrine of marriage is far too inadequately dealt +with in the authoritative teaching of the church. The opinion of +this school finds, perhaps, its most adequate expression in the +report of a committee of the last General Convention forming +Appendix XIII. of the "Journal" of that convention. It is, +substantially, that the Mosaic law of marriage is still binding +upon the church, unless directly abrogated by Christ himself; that +it was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was forbidden +by him, excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman might +not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a +divorced person until the death of the other party is wholly +forbidden; that marriage is not merely a civil contract, but a +spiritual and supernatural union, requiring for its mutual +obligation a supernatural, divine grace; that such grace is only +imparted in the sacrament of matrimony, which is a true sacrament +and does actually confer grace; that marriage is wholly within the +jurisdiction of the church, though the State may determine such +rules and guarantees as may secure publicity and sufficient +evidence of a marriage, etc.; that severe penalties should be +inflicted by the State, on the demand of the church, for the +suppression of all offences against the seventh commandment and +sundry other parts of the Mosaic legislation, especially in +relation to "prohibited degrees."</p> +<p>There is another school, equally earnest and sincere in its zeal +for the integrity of the family and sexual purity, which would +nevertheless repudiate much the greater part of the above +assumption. This school, if one may so venture to combine scattered +opinions, argues substantially as follows: The type of all Mosaic +legislation was circumcision; that rite was of universal obligation +and divine authority. St. Paul so regarded it. The abrogation of +the law requiring circumcision was, therefore, the abrogation of +the whole of the Mosaic legislation. The "burden of proof," +therefore, rests upon those who affirm the present obligation of +what formed a part of the Mosaic law; and they must show that it +has been reenacted by Christ and his Apostles or forms some part of +some other and independent system of law or morals still in force. +Christ's words about divorce are not to be construed as a positive +law, but as expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to +his words about eunuchs, which not everybody "can receive." So far +as Christ's words seem to indicate an inequality as to divorce +between man and woman, they are explained by the authoritative and +inspired assertion of St. Paul: "In Christ Jesus there is neither +male nor female." A divine law is equally authoritative by +whomsoever declared—whether by the Son Incarnate or by the +Holy Ghost speaking through inspired Apostles. If, then, a divine +law was ever capable of suspension or modification, it may still be +capable of such suspension or modification in corresponding +circumstances. The circumstances which justified a modification of +the original divine law of marriage do still exist in many +conditions of society and even of individual life. The Protestant +Episcopal Church cannot, alone, speak with such authority on +disputed passages of Scripture as to justify her ministers in +direct disobedience to the civil authority, which is also "ordained +of God." The exegesis of the early church was closely connected +with theories about matter, and about the inferiority of women and +of married life, which are no longer believed.</p> +<p>Of course this is a very brief statement. As a matter of fact +the actual effect of the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant +Episcopal Church on marriage and divorce is that divorce among her +members is excessively rare; that it is regarded with extreme +aversion; and that the public opinion of the church maintains the +law as it now is, but could not be trusted to execute laws more +stringent. A member of the committee of the General Convention +whose report has been already referred to closes that report with +the following protest:</p> +<p>"The undersigned finds himself unable to concur in so much of +the [proposed] canon as forbids the holy communion to a truly pious +and godly woman who has been compelled by long years of suffering +from a drunken and brutal husband to obtain a divorce, and has +regularly married some suitable person according to the established +laws of the land. And also from so much of the [proposed] canon as +may seem to forbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister."</p> +<p>The final action on these points, which has already been stated, +indicates that the proposed report thus referred to was, in one +particular at least, in advance of the sentiment of the church as +expressed in her General Convention.</p> +<p>Henry C. Potter.</p> +<p><i>Question (1.) Do you believe in the principle of divorce +under any circumstances?</i></p> +<p>The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the living +are tyrannized over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the +conditions under which they were produced have passed away, often +persist in surviving. Many are disposed to worship the +ancient—to follow the old paths, without inquiring where they +lead, and without knowing exactly where they wish to go +themselves.</p> +<p>Opinions on the subject of divorce have been, for the most part, +inherited from the early Christians. They have come to us through +theological and priestly channels. The early Christians believed +that the world was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be +purified by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the +good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord—to +remain there, in all probability, until the earth was prepared as a +habitation for the blessed. With this thought or belief in their +minds, the things of this world were of comparatively no +importance. The man who built larger barns in which to store his +grain was regarded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his +greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded prosperous +people as the children of Mammon, and the unfortunate, the wretched +and diseased, as the favorites of God. They discouraged all worldly +pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry +or to be given in marriage; no time to build homes and have +families. All their thoughts were centred upon the heaven they +expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into +disrepute.</p> +<p>Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of the +apostles; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of home; +nothing about the necessity of education, the improvement and +development of the mind. These things were forgotten, for the +reason that nothing, in the presence of the expected event, was +considered of any importance, except to be ready when the Son of +Man should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were offered by +Christ himself to those who would desert their wives and children. +Human love was spoken of with contempt. "Let the dead bury their +dead. What is that to thee? Follow thou me." They not only believed +these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a +consequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and +their obligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was +regarded as only one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was +allowed only in consideration of human weakness. It was thought far +better not to marry—that it was something grander for a man +to love God than to love woman. The exceedingly godly, the really +spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held the opposite sex in a +kind of pious abhorrence. And yet, with that inconsistency so +characteristic of theologians, marriage was held to be a sacrament. +The priest said to the man who married: "Remember that you are +caught for life. This door opens but once. Before this den of +matrimony the tracks are all one way." This was in the nature of a +punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the +contract of marriage, if not contrary to God's command, was at +least contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer +in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be +no divorce, that a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as a +warning. At every wedding feast this skeleton stretched its +fleshless finger towards bride and groom.</p> +<p>Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the +world is about to come to an end. They do not now believe that +prosperity is a certain sign of wickedness, or that poverty and +wretchedness are sure certificates of virtue. They are hardly +convinced that Dives should have been sent to hell simply for being +rich, or that Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his +poverty. We now know that prosperous people may be good, and that +unfortunate people may be bad. We have reached the conclusion that +the practice of virtue tends in the direction of prosperity, and +that a violation of the conditions of well-being brings, with +absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.</p> +<p>There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an +individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation +to which he belonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman +had made a vow to God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might +punish the entire community; therefore it was the business of the +community to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been +abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual are +perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern that there are +no rights higher than the rights of the individual. There was a +time when nearly all believed in the reforming power of +punishment—in the beneficence of brute force. But the world +is changing. It was at one time thought that the Inquisition was +the savior of society; that the persecution of the philosopher was +requisite to the preservation of the state, and that, no matter +what happened, the state should be preserved. We have now more +light. And standing upon this luminous point that we call the +present, let me answer your questions.</p> +<p>Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, contract that +human beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract, or +a sacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter +whether this contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate +or priest, it is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural +concord and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not +even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to +exist; all other considerations are lost; the present seems to be +eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow—or the +shadow is as luminous as light. And when two beings thus love, thus +unite, this is the true marriage of soul and soul. That which is +said before the altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the +presence of witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which +has already happened within; it simply testifies to a union that +has already taken place—to the uniting of two mornings of +hope to reach the night together. Each has found the ideal; the man +has found the one woman of all the world—the impersonation of +affection, purity, passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman +has found the one man of all the world, her ideal, and all that she +knows of romance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realized in +him. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation are +instantly changed into desire and joy, and two lives, like uniting +streams, flow on as one. Nothing can add to the sacredness of this +marriage, to the obligation and duty of each to each. There is +nothing in the ceremony except the desire on the part of the man +and woman that the whole world should know that they are really +married and that their souls have been united.</p> +<p>Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public, should +be recorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end that the +purity of the union should appear. These ceremonies are not only +for the good and for the protection of the married, but also for +the protection of their children, and of society as well. But, +after all, the marriage remains a contract of the highest possible +character—a contract in which each gives and receives a +heart.</p> +<p>The question then arises, Should this marriage, under any +circumstances, be dissolved? It is easy to understand the position +taken by the various churches; but back of theological opinions is +the question of contract.</p> +<p>In this contract of marriage, the man agrees to protect and +cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he +abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. What is her +redress? Is she under any obligation to him? He has violated the +contract. He has failed to protect, and, in addition, he has +assaulted her like a wild beast. Is she under any obligation to +him? Is she bound by the contract he has broken? If so, what is the +consideration for this obligation? Must she live with him for his +sake? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must she remain +his wife for his sake? No intelligent man will answer these +questions in the affirmative.</p> +<p>If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the husband's +sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the marriage was a +sacrament? Is there any obligation on the part of the wife to +remain with the brutal husband for the sake of God? Can her conduct +affect in any way the happiness of an infinite being? Is it +possible for a human being to increase or diminish the well-being +of the Infinite?</p> +<p>The next question is as to the right of society in this matter. +It must be admitted that the peace of society will be promoted by +the separation of such people. Certainly society cannot insist upon +a wife remaining with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh. +Even married women have a right to personal security. They do not +lose, either by contract or sacrament, the right of +self-preservation; this they share in common, to say the least of +it, with the lowest living creatures.</p> +<p>This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of +divorce; but they will insist that while the wife has the right to +flee from her husband's roof and seek protection of kindred or +friends, the marriage—the sacrament—must remain +unbroken. Is it to the interest of society that those who despise +each other should live together? Ought the world to be peopled by +the children of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and +loathing, or by the welcome babes of mutual love? Is it possible +that an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists that a +helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch? Can this +add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune? Can +anything be more infamous than for a government to compel a woman +to remain the wife of a man she hates—of one whom she justly +holds in abhorrence? Does any decent man wish the assistance of a +constable, a sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his +house? Is it possible to conceive of a more contemptible human +being than a man who would appeal to force in such a case? It may +be said that the woman is free to go, and that the courts will +protect her from the brutality of the man who promised to be her +protector; but where shall the woman go? She may have no friends; +or they may be poor; her kindred may be dead. Has she no right to +build another home? Must this woman, full of kindness, affection, +health, be tied and chained to this living corpse? Is there no +future for her? Must she be an outcast forever—deceived and +betrayed for her whole life? Can she never sit by her own hearth, +with the arms of her children about her neck, and with a husband +who loves and protects her? Is she to become a social pariah, and +is this for the benefit of society?—or is it for the sake of +the wretch who destroyed her life?</p> +<p>The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if +marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in +order to retain your moral character—in order to be pure and +womanly? Must a woman, in order to retain her virtue, become a +slave, a serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a +master, or with a phantom for a master?</p> +<p>If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is +it not the duty of this being to see to it that the contract is +carried out? What consideration does the infinite being give? What +consideration does he receive? If a wife owes no duty to her +husband because the husband has violated the contract, and has even +assaulted her life, is it possible for her to feel toward him any +real thrill of affection? If she does not, what is there left of +marriage? What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living +force? She can not sustain the relation of wife, because she abhors +him; she cannot remain under the same roof, for fear that she may +be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations of hunter and +hunted—of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this +relation should last through life, and that it should be rendered +sacred by the ceremony of a church?</p> +<p>Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under such +circumstances? Are we in need of children born of such parents? Can +the virtue of others be preserved only by this destruction of +happiness, by this perpetual imprisonment?</p> +<p>A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for wealth +or position is low enough; but what shall we say of a marriage +where the parties actually abhor each other? Is there any morality +in this? any virtue in this? Is there virtue in retaining the name +of wife, or husband, without the real and true relation? Will any +good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true, loving +woman should be compelled to be the mother of children whose father +she detests? Is there a good woman in the world who would not +shrink from this herself; and is there a woman so heartless and so +immoral that she would force another to bear that from which she +would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink?</p> +<p>Marriages are made by men and women; not by society; not by the +state; not by the church; not by supernatural beings. By this time +we should know that nothing is moral that does not tend to the +well-being of sentient beings; that nothing is virtuous the result +of which is not good. We know now, if we know anything, that all +the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing +wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination enough to +put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself a +helpless woman beaten by a brutal husband—would he advocate +divorces then?</p> +<p>Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women and +children, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the +footsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who +hide when they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the +number of blows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day, +and few know the nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes +to their breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of poverty +borne by those who love each other are as nothing. Men and women +truly married bear the sufferings and misfortunes of poverty +together. They console each other. In the darkest night they see +the radiance of a star, and their affection gives to the heart of +each perpetual sunshine.</p> +<p>The good home is the unit of the good government. The +hearthstone is the corner-stone of civilization. Society is not +interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of homes where +husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the +interest of society that good women should be enslaved, that they +should live in fear, or that they should become mothers by husbands +whom they hate. Homes should be filled with kind and generous +fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled, +the world will be civilized. Intelligence will rock the cradle; +justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the legislative halls; +and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the +spirit of liberty.</p> +<p>Although marriage is the most important and the most sacred +contract that human beings can make, still when that contract has +been violated, courts should have the power to declare it null and +void upon such conditions as may be just.</p> +<p>As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth, her +beauty, her love—with all she has; and from this contract +certainly the husband should never be released, unless the wife has +broken the conditions of that contract. Divorces should be granted +publicly, precisely as the marriage should be solemnized. Every +marriage should be known, and there should be witnesses, to the end +that the character of the contract entered into should be +understood; the record should be open and public. And the same is +true of divorces. The conditions should be determined, the property +should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of the +children given under regulations prescribed.</p> +<p>Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself +create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law +should protect virtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has +kept her contract, and the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But +the death of love is the end of marriage. Love is natural. Back of +all ceremony burns and will forever burn the sacred flame. There +has been no time in the world's history when that torch was +extinguished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there +has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a ceremony was +thought of, long before a priest existed, there were true and +perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural modesty, the +affections of the heart; and in spite of all law, there is and +forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure; +and everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage +testifies to that which has happened within the temple of the human +heart.</p> +<p><i>Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry +under any circumstances?</i></p> +<p>This depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it is not a +crime, why should any penalty be attached? Can any one conceive of +any reason why a woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her +part, should be compelled as a punishment to remain forever single? +Why should she be punished for the dishonesty or brutality of +another? Why should a man who faithfully kept his contract of +marriage, and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished +for the benefit of society? Why should he be doomed to live without +a home?</p> +<p>There is still another view. We must remember that human +passions are the same after as before divorce. To prevent +remarriage is to give excuse for vice.</p> +<p><i>Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the +integrity of the family?</i></p> +<p>The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real divorce +is back of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and wife +abhor each other, they are divorced. The decree records in a +judicial way what has really taken place, just as the ceremony of +marriage attests a contract already made.</p> +<p>The true family is the result of the true marriage, and the +institution of the family should above all things be preserved. +What becomes of the sacredness of the home, if the law compels +those who abhor each other to sit at the same hearth? This lowers +the standard, and changes the happy haven of home into the +prison-cell. If we wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we +must preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism of +the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband and wife. +There must be no exhibition of force, no spectre of fear. The +mother must not remain through an order of court, or the command of +a priest, or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in +absolute freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own +soul and of her own body. Real homes can never be preserved through +force, through slavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred +than a home, no altar purer than the hearth.</p> +<p><i>Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where +it exists contribute to the moral purity of society?</i></p> +<p>We must define our terms. What is moral purity? The intelligent +of this world seek the well-being of themselves and others. They +know that happiness is the only good; and this they strive to +attain. To live in accordance with the conditions of well-being is +moral in the highest sense. To use the best instrumentalities to +attain the highest ends is our highest conception of the moral. In +other words, morality is the melody of the perfection of conduct. A +man is not moral because he is obedient through fear or ignorance. +Morality lives in the realm of perceived obligation, and where a +being acts in accordance with perceived obligation, that being is +moral. Morality is not the child of slavery. Ignorance is not the +corner-stone of virtue.</p> +<p>The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to it +that he does not become a burden upon others. To be +self-respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his +industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin, then he is under +obligation to do with that margin all the good he can. He who lives +to the ideal does the best he can. In true marriage men and women +give not only their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal +marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their +souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this is +immoral.</p> +<p>If this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to +sustain the relation of wife after love is dead? Is there some +other consideration that can take the place of genuine affection? +Can she be bribed with money, or a home, or position, or by public +opinion, and still remain a virtuous woman? Is it for the good of +society that virtue should be thus crucified between church and +state? Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of +the human race?</p> +<p>Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where divorce +is prohibited than in those where it is granted? Where husbands and +wives who have ceased to love cannot be divorced, there are +mistresses and lovers.</p> +<p>The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The +world looks at the wife who has been abused, who has been driven +from the home of her husband, and the world pities; and when this +wife is loved by some other man, the world excuses. So, too, the +husband who cannot live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied +and excused.</p> +<p>Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for a +husband to insist on living with a wife who has no love for him? Is +not this a perpetual crime? Is the wife to lose her personality? +Has she no right of choice? Is her modesty the property of another? +Is the man she hates the lord of her desire? Has she no right to +guard the jewels of her soul? Is there a depth below this? And is +this the foundation of morality? this the corner-stone of society? +this the arch that supports the dome of civilization? Is this +pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacrilege on the other, +pleasing in the sight of heaven?</p> +<p>To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic +fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word +cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the +human race. The mother walks in the shadow of death that she may +give another life. Upon the altar of love she puts her own life in +pawn. When the world is civilized, no wife will become a mother +against her will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to +imprison himself.</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<a name="link0016" id="link0016"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>DIVORCE.</h2> +<p>A LITTLE while ago the North American Review propounded the +following questions:</p> +<p>1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any +circumstances?</p> +<p>2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry, under any +circumstances?</p> +<p>3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the +family?</p> +<p>4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, +contribute to the moral purity of society?</p> +<p>These questions were answered in the November number of the +Review, 1889, by Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter and +myself. In the December number, the same questions were again +answered by W. E. Gladstone, Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph. In +the following month Mary A. Livermore, Amelia E. Barr, Rose Terry +Cooke, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps and Jennie June gave their opinions +upon the subject of divorce; and in the February number of this +year, Margaret Lee and the Rev. Phillip S. Moxom contributed +articles upon this subject.</p> +<p>I propose to review these articles, and, first, let me say a few +words in answer to Cardinal Gibbons.</p> +<center>REPLY TO CARDINAL GIBBONS.</center> +<p>The indissolubility of marriage was a reaction from polygamy. +Man naturally rushes from one extreme to the other. The Cardinal +informs us that "God instituted in Paradise the marriage state, and +sanctified it;" that "he established its law of unity and declared +its indissolubility." The Cardinal, however, accounts for polygamy +and divorce by saying that, "marriage suffered in the fall."</p> +<p>If it be true that God instituted marriage in the Garden of +Eden, and declared its unity and indissolubility, how do you +account for the fact that this same God afterwards upheld polygamy? +How is it that he forgot to say anything on the subject when he +gave the Ten Commandments to Moses? How does it happen that in +these commandments he puts women on an equality with other +property—"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or thy +neighbor's ox, or anything that is thy neighbor's"? How did it +happen that Jacob, who was in direct communication with God, +married, not his deceased wife's sister, but both sisters, while +both were living? Is there any way of accounting for the fact that +God upheld concubinage?</p> +<p>Neither is it true that "Christ reasserted in clear and +unequivocal terms, the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of +marriage." Neither is it true that "Christ gave to this state an +added holiness and a dignity higher far than it had 'from the +beginning.'" If God declared the unity and indissolubility of +marriage in the Garden of Eden, how was it possible for Christ to +have "added a holiness and dignity to marriage higher far than it +had from the beginning"? How did Christ make marriage a sacrament? +There is nothing on that subject in the new Testament; besides, +Christ did apparently allow divorce, for one cause at least. He is +reported to have said: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, save for +fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."</p> +<p>The Cardinal answers the question, "Can divorce from the bonds +of marriage ever be allowed?" with an emphatic theological "NO," +and as a reason for this "no," says, "Thus saith the Lord."</p> +<p>It is true that we regard Mormonism as a national disgrace, and +that we so regard it because the Mormons are polygamists. At the +same time, intelligent people admit that polygamy is no worse in +Utah, than it was in Palestine—no worse under Joseph Smith, +than under Jehovah—that it has been and must be forever the +same, in all countries and in all times. The Cardinal takes the +ground that "there are two species of polygamy—simultaneous +and successive," and yet he seems to regard both species with equal +horror. If a wife dies and the husband marries another woman, is +not that successive polygamy?</p> +<p>The Cardinal takes the ground that while no dissolution of the +marriage bond should be allowed, yet for grave causes a temporary +or permanent separation from bed and board may be obtained, and +these causes he enumerates as "mutual consent, adultery, and grave +peril of soul or body." To those, however, not satisfied with this +doctrine, and who are "so unhappily mated and so constituted that +for them no relief can come save from absolute divorce," the +Cardinal says, in a very sympathetic way, that he "Will not linger +here to point out to such the need of seeking from a higher than +earthly power, the grace to suffer and be strong."</p> +<p>At the foundation and upon the very threshold of this inquiry, +one thing ought to be settled, and that is this: Are we to answer +these questions in the light of human experience; are we to answer +them from the standpoint of what is better here, in this world, for +men and women—what is better for society here and +now—or are we to ask: What is the will of God? And in order +to find out what is this will of God, are we to ask the church, or +are we to read what are called "the sacred writings" for ourselves? +In other words, are these questions to be settled by theological +and ecclesiastical authority, or by the common sense of mankind? No +one, in my judgment, should marry for the sake of God, and no one +should be divorced for the sake of God, and no man and woman should +live together as husband and wife, for the sake of God. God being +an infinite being, cannot be rendered unhappy by any action of man, +neither can his well-being be increased; consequently, the will of +God has nothing whatever to do with this matter. The real question +then must be: What is best for man?</p> +<p>Only the other day, a husband sought out his wife and with his +own hand covered her face with sulphuric acid, and in a moment +afterward she was blind. A Cardinal of the Catholic Church tells +this woman, sitting in darkness, that it is her duty to "suffer and +be strong"; that she must still remain the wife of this wretch; +that to break the bond that binds them together, would be an act of +sacrilege. So, too, two years ago, a husband deserted his wife in +Germany. He came to this country. She was poor. She had two +children—one a babe. Holding one in her arm, and leading the +other by the hand, she walked hundreds of miles to the shore of the +sea. Overcome by fatigue, she was taken sick, and for months +remained in a hospital. Having recovered, she went to work, and +finally got enough money to pay her passage to New York. She came +to this city, bringing her children with her. Upon her arrival, she +commenced a search for her husband. One day overcome by exertion, +she fainted in the street. Persons took pity upon her and carried +her upstairs into a room. By a strange coincidence, a few moments +afterward her husband entered. She recognized him. He fell upon her +like a wild beast, and threw her down the stairs. She was taken up +from the pavement bleeding, and carried to a hospital.</p> +<p>The Cardinal says to this woman: Remain the wife of this man; it +will be very pleasing to God; "suffer and be strong." But I say to +this woman: Apply to some Court; get a decree of absolute divorce; +cling to your children, and if at any time hereafter some good and +honest man offers you his hand and heart, and you can love him, +accept him and build another home, to the end that you may sit by +your own fireside, in your old age, with your children about +you.</p> +<p>It is not true that the indissolubility of marriage preserves +the virtue of mankind. The fact is exactly the opposite. If the +Cardinal wishes to know why there are more divorces now than there +were fifty or a hundred years ago, let me tell him: Women are far +more intelligent—some of them are no longer the slaves either +of husbands, or priests. They are beginning to think for +themselves. They can see no good reason why they should sacrifice +their lives to please Popes or Gods. They are no longer deceived by +theological prophecies. They are not willing to suffer here, with +the hope of being happy beyond the clouds—they want their +happiness now.</p> +<center>REPLY TO BISHOP POTTER.</center> +<p>Bishop Potter does not agree with the Cardinal, yet they both +study substantially the same bible—both have been set apart +for the purpose of revealing the revelation. They are the persons +whose duty it is to enlighten the common people. Cardinal Gibbons +knows that he represents the only true church, and Bishop Potter is +just as sure that he occupies that position. What is the ordinary +man to do?</p> +<p>The Cardinal states, without the slightest hesitation, that +"Christ made marriage a sacrament—made it the type of his own +never-ending union with his one sinless spouse, the church." The +Bishop does not agree with the Cardinal. He says: "Christ's words +about divorce are not to be construed as a positive law, but as +expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to his words +about eunuchs, which not everybody can receive." Ought not the +augurs to agree among themselves? What is a man who has only been +born once, to do?</p> +<p>The Cardinal says explicitly that marriage is a sacrament, and +the Bishop cites Article xxv., that "matrimony is not to be +accounted for a sacrament of the gospel," and then admits that +"this might seem to reduce matrimony to a civil contract." For the +purpose of bolstering up that view, he says, "The first rubric in +the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony declares that the minister +is left to the direction of those laws in every thing that regards +a civil contract between the parties.'" He admits that "no minister +is allowed, <i>as a rule</i>, to solemnize the marriage of any man +or woman who has a divorced husband or wife still living." As a +matter of fact, we know that hundreds of Episcopalians do marry +where a wife or a husband is still living, and they are not turned +out of the Episcopal Church for this offence. The Bishop admits +that the church can do very little on the subject, but seems to +gather a little consolation from the fact, that "the penalty for +breach of this law might involve, for the officiating clergyman, +deposition from the ministry—for the offending man or woman +exclusion from the sacraments, which, in the judgment of a very +large number of the clergy, involves everlasting damnation."</p> +<p>The Cardinal is perfectly satisfied that the prohibition of +divorce is the foundation of morality, and the Bishop is equally +certain that "the prohibition of divorce never prevents illicit +sexual connections."</p> +<p>The Bishop also gives us the report of a committee of the last +General Convention, forming Appendix xiii of the Journal. This +report, according to the Bishop, is to the effect "that the Mosaic +law of marriage is still binding upon the church unless directly +abrogated by Christ himself, that it-was abrogated by him only so +far that all divorce was forbidden by him excepting for the cause +of fornication; that a woman might not claim divorce for any reason +whatever; that the marriage of a divorced person until the death of +the other party, is wholly forbidden; that marriage is not merely a +civil contract but a spiritual and supernatural union, requiring +for its mutual obligations a supernatural divine grace, and that +such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of matrimony."</p> +<p>The most beautiful thing about this report is, that a woman +might not claim divorce for any reason whatever. I must admit that +the report is in exact accordance with the words of Jesus Christ. +On the other hand, the Bishop, not to leave us entirely without +hope, says that "there is in his church another school, equally +earnest and sincere in its zeal for the integrity of the family, +which would nevertheless repudiate the greater part of the above +report."</p> +<p>There is one thing, however, that I was exceedingly glad to see, +and that is, that according to the Bishop the ideas of the early +church are closely connected with theories about matter, and about +the inferiority of woman, and about married life, which are no +longer believed. The Bishop has, with great clearness, stated +several sides of this question; but I must say, that after reading +the Cardinal and the Bishop, the earnest theological seeker after +truth would find himself, to say the least of it, in some +doubt.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, who cares what the Old Testament says upon +this subject? Are we to be bound forever by the ancient +barbarians?</p> +<p>Mr. Gladstone takes the ground, first, "that marriage is +essentially a contract for life, and only expires when life itself +expires"; second, "that Christian marriage involves a vow before +God"; third, "that no authority has been given to the Christian +Church to cancel such a vow"; fourth, "that it lies beyond the +province of tie civil legislature, which, from the necessity of +things, has a veto within the limits of reason, upon the making of +it, but has no competency to annul it when once made"; fifth, "that +according to the laws of just interpretation, remarriage is +forbidden by the text of Holy Scripture"; and sixth, "that while +divorce of any kind impairs the integrity of the family, divorce +with remarriage destroys it root and branch; that the parental and +the conjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the +Almighty no less than the persons united by the marriage tie, to +one another." <i>First</i>. Undoubtedly, a real marriage was never +entered into unless the parties expected to live together as long +as they lived. It does not enter into the imagination of the real +lover that the time is coming when he is to desert the being he +adores, neither does it enter into the imagination of his wife, or +of the girl about to become a wife. But how and in what way, does a +Christian marriage involve a vow before God? Is God a party to the +contract? If yes, he ought to see to it that the contract is +carried out. If there are three parties—the man, the woman, +and God—each one should be bound to do something, and what is +God bound to do? Is he to hold the man to his contract, when the +woman has violated hers? Is it his business to hold the woman to +the contract, when the man has violated his? And what right has he +to have anything to say on the subject, unless he has agreed to do +something by reason of this vow? Otherwise, it would be simply a +<i>nudum pactum</i>—a vow without consideration.</p> +<p>Mr. Gladstone informs us that no authority has been given to the +Christian Church to cancel such a vow. If he means by that, that +God has not given any such authority to the Christian Church, I +most cheerfully admit it.*</p> +<pre> + * Note.—This abrupt termination, together with the + unfinished replies to Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph, + which follow, shows that the author must have been + interrupted in his work, and on next taking it up concluded + that the colloquial and concrete form would better serve his + turn than the more formal and didactic style above employed. + He thereupon dictated his reply to the Gibbon and Gladstone + arguments in the following form which will be regarded as a + most interesting instance of the author's wonderful + versatility of style. + + This unfinished matter was found among Col. Ingersoll's + manuscripts, and is given as transcribed from the + stenographic notes of Mr. I. N. Baker, his secretary, + without revision by the author. +</pre> +<center>JUSTICE BRADLEY.</center> +<p>Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, and Mr. Gladstone represent the +theological side—that is to say, the impracticable, the +supernatural, the unnatural. After reading their opinions, it is +refreshing to read those of Justice Bradley. It is like coming out +of the tomb into the fresh air.</p> +<p>Speaking of the law, whether regarded as divine or human or +both, Justice Bradley says: "I know no other law on the subject but +the moral law, which does not consist of arbitrary enactments and +decrees, but is adapted to our condition as human beings. This is +so, whether it is conceived of as the will of an all-wise creator, +or as the voice of humanity speaking from its experience, its +necessities and its higher instincts. And that law surely does not +demand that the injured party to the marriage bond should be +forever tied to one who disregards and violates every obligation +that it imposes—to one with whom it is impossible to +cohabit—to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does it +demand that such injured party, if legally free, should be forever +debarred from forming other ties through which the lost hopes of +happiness for life may be restored. It is not reason, and it can +not be law—divine, or moral—that unfaithfulness, or +willful and obstinate desertion, or persistent cruelty of the +stronger party, should afford no ground for relief.......If no +redress be legalized, the law itself will be set at defiance, and +greater injury to soul and body will result from clandestine +methods of relief."</p> +<p>Surely, this is good, wholesome, practical common sense.</p> +<center>SENATOR DOLPH.</center> +<p>Senator Dolph strikes a strong blow, and takes the foundation +from under the idiotic idea of legal separation without divorce. He +says: "As there should be no partial divorce, which leaves the +parties in the condition aptly described by an eminent jurist as 'a +wife without a husband and a husband without a wife,' so, as a +matter of public expediency, and in the interest of public morals, +whenever and however the marriage is dissolved, both parties should +be left free to remarry." Again: "Prohibition of remarriage is +likely to injure society more than the remarriage of the guilty +party;" and the Senator says, with great force: "Divorce for proper +causes, free from fraud and collusion, conserves the moral +integrity of the family."</p> +<p>In answering the question as to whether absolute prohibition of +divorce tends to morality or immorality, the Senator cites the case +of South Carolina. In that State, divorces were prohibited, and in +consequence of this prohibition, the proportion of his property +which a married man might give to his concubine was regulated by +law.</p> +<center>THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, IN COLLOQUIAL FORM.</center> +<p>Those who have written on the subject of divorce seem to be +divided into two classes—the supernaturalists and the +naturalists. The first class rely on tradition, inspired books, the +opinions of theologians as expressed in creeds, and the decisions +of ecclesiastical tribunals. The second class take into account the +nature of human beings, their own experience, and the facts of +life, as they know them. The first class live for another world; +the second, for this—the one in which we live.</p> +<p>The theological theorists regard men and women as depraved, in +consequence of what they are pleased to call "the fall of man," +while the men and women of common sense know that the race has +slowly and painfully progressed through countless years of +suffering and toil. The priests insist that marriage is a +sacrament; the philosopher, that it is a contract.</p> +<p>The question as to the propriety of granting divorces cannot now +be settled by quoting passages of Scripture, or by appealing to +creeds, or by citing the acts of legislatures or the decisions of +courts. With intelligent millions, the Scriptures are no longer +considered as of the slightest authority. They pay no more regard +to the Bible than to the Koran, the Zend-Avestas, or the Popol +Vuh—neither do they care for the various creeds that were +formulated by barbarian ancestors, nor for the laws and decisions +based upon the savagery of the past.</p> +<p>In the olden times when religions were manufactured—when +priest-craft and lunacy governed the world—the women were not +consulted. They were regarded and treated as serfs and +menials—looked upon as a species of property to be bought and +sold like the other domestic animals. This view or estimation of +woman was undoubtedly in the mind of the author of the Ten +Commandments when he said: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's +wife,—nor his ox."</p> +<p>Such, however, has been the advance of woman in all departments +of knowledge—such advance having been made in spite of the +efforts of the church to keep her the slave of faith—that the +obligations, rights and remedies growing out of the contract of +marriage and its violation, cannot be finally determined without +her consent and approbation. Legislators and priests must consult +with wives and mothers. They must become acquainted with their +wants and desires—with their profound aversions* their pure +hatreds, their loving self-denials, and, above all, with the +religion of the body that moulds and dominates their lives.</p> +<p>We have learned to suspect the truth of the old, because it is +old, and for that reason was born in the days of slavery and +darkness—because the probability is that the parents of the +old were ignorance and superstition. We are beginning to be wise +enough to take into consideration the circumstances of our own +time—the theories and aspirations of the present—the +changed conditions of the world—the discoveries and +inventions that have modified or completely changed the standards +of the greatest of the human race. We are on the eve of discovering +that nothing should be done for the sake of gods, but all for the +good of man—nothing for another world—everything for +this.</p> +<p>All the theories must be tested by experience, by facts. The +moment a supernatural theory comes in contact with a natural fact, +it falls to chaos. Let us test all these theories about marriage +and divorce—all this sacramental, indissoluble imbecility, +with a real case—with a fact in life.</p> +<p>A few years ago a man and woman fell in love and were married in +a German village. The woman had a little money and this was +squandered by the husband. When the money was gone, the husband +deserted his wife and two little children, leaving them to live as +best they might. She had honestly given her hand and heart, and +believed that if she could only see him once more—if he could +again look into her eyes—he would come back to her. The +husband had fled to America. The wife lived four hundred miles from +the sea. Taking her two little children with her, she traveled on +foot the entire distance. For eight weeks she journeyed, and when +she reached the sea—tired, hungry, worn out, she fell +unconscious in the street. She was taken to the hospital, and for +many weeks fought for life upon the shore of death. At last she +recovered, and sailed for New York. She was enabled to get just +enough money to buy a steerage ticket.</p> +<p>A few days ago, while wandering in the streets of New York in +search of her husband, she sank unconscious to the sidewalk. She +was taken into the home of another. In a little while her husband +entered. He caught sight of his wife. She ran toward him, threw her +arms about his neck, and cried: "At last I have found you!" "With +an oath, he threw her to the floor; he bruised her flesh with his +feet and fists; he dragged her into the hall, and threw her into +the street."</p> +<p>Let us suppose that this poor wife sought out Cardinal Gibbons +and the Right Honorable William E. Gladstone, for the purpose of +asking their advice. Let us imagine the conversation:</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. My dear Cardinal, I was married four years ago. +I loved my husband and I was sure that he loved me. Two babes were +born. He deserted me without cause. He left me in poverty and want. +Feeling that he had been overcome by some delusion—tempted by +something more than he could bear, and dreaming that if I could +look upon his face again he would return, I followed-him on foot. I +walked, with my children in my arms, four hundred miles. I crossed +the sea. I found him at last—and instead of giving me again +his love, he fell upon me like a wild beast. He bruised and +blackened my flesh. He threw me from him, and for my proffered love +I received curses and blows. Another man, touched by the evidence +of my devotion, made my acquaintance—came to my +relief—supplied my wants—gave me and my children +comfort, and then offered me his hand and heart, in marriage. My +dear Cardinal, I told him that I was a married woman, and he told +me that I should obtain a divorce, and so I have come to ask your +counsel.</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal</i>. My dear woman, God instituted in Paradise +the marriage state and sanctified it, and he established its law of +unity and declared its indissolubility.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. But, Mr. Cardinal, if it be true that "God +instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, and declared its unity +and indissolubility," how do you account for the fact that this +same God afterward upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot to say +anything on the subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to +Moses?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal</i>. You must remember that the institution of +marriage suffered in the fall of man.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. How does that throw any light upon my case? +That was long ago. Surely, I was not represented at that time, and +is it right that I should be punished for what was done by others +in the very beginning of the world?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal.</i> Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal +terms, the sanctity, unity and indissolubility of marriage, and +Christ gave to this state an added holiness, and a dignity higher +far than it had from the beginning.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. How did it happen that Jacob, while in direct +communication with God, married, not his deceased wife's sister, +but both sisters while both were living? And how, my dear Cardinal, +do you account for the fact that God upheld concubinage?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal.</i> Marriage is a sacrament. You seem to ask me +whether divorce from the bond of marriage can ever be allowed? I +answer with an emphatic theological No; and as a reason for this +No, I say, Thus saith the Lord. To allow a divorce and to permit +the divorced parties, or either of them, to remarry, is one species +of polygamy. There are two kinds—the simultaneous and the +successive.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. But why did God allow simultaneous polygamy in +Palestine? Was it any better in Palestine then than it is in Utah +now? If a wife dies, and the husband marries another wife, is not +that successive polygamy?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal</i>. Curiosity leads to the commission of deadly +sins. We should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Lord, and you +should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Cardinal. If you have the +right to inquire—to ask questions—then you take upon +yourself the right of deciding after the questions have been +answered. This is the end of authority. This undermines the +cathedral. You must remember the words of our Lord: "What God hath +joined together, let not man put asunder."</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. Do you really think that God joined us +together? Did he at the time know what kind of man he was joining +to me? Did he then know that he was a wretch, an ingrate, a kind of +wild beast? Did he then know that this husband would desert +me—leave me with two babes in my arms, without raiment and +without food? Did God put his seal upon this bond of marriage, upon +this sacrament, and it was well-pleasing in his sight that my life +should be sacrificed, and does he leave me now to crawl toward +death, in poverty and tears?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal</i>. My dear woman, I will not linger here to +point out to you the need of seeking from a higher than an earthly +power the grace to suffer and be strong.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. Mr. Cardinal, am I under any obligation to God? +Will it increase the happiness of the infinite for me to remain +homeless and husbandless? Another offers to make me his wife and to +give me a home,—to take care of my children and to fill my +heart with joy. If I accept, will the act lessen the felicity or +ecstasy of heaven? Will it add to the grief of God? Will it in any +way affect his well-being?</p> +<p><i>The Cardinal.</i> Nothing that we can do can effect the +well-being of God. He is infinitely above his children.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. Then why should he insist upon the sacrifice of +my life? Mr. Cardinal, you do not seem to sympathize with me. You +do not understand the pangs I feel. You are too far away from my +heart, and your words of consolation do not heal the bruise; they +leave me as I now leave you—without hope. I will ask the +advice of the Right Honorable William E. Gladstone.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. Mr. Gladstone, you know my story, and so I ask +that you will give me the benefit of your knowledge, of your +advice.</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone</i>. My dear woman, marriage is essentially a +contract for life, and only expires when life itself expires. I say +this because Christian marriage involves a vow before God, and no +authority has been given to the Christian Church to cancel such a +vow.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. Do you consider that God was one of the +contracting parties in my marriage? Must all vows made to God be +kept? Suppose the vow was made in ignorance, in +excitement—must it be absolutely fulfilled? Will it make any +difference to God whether it is kept or not? Does not an infinite +God know the circumstances under which every vow is made? Will he +not take into consideration the imperfections, the ignorance, the +temptations and the passions of his children? Will God hold a poor +girl to the bitter dregs of a mistaken bargain? Have I not suffered +enough? Is it necessary that my heart should break? Did not God +know at the time the vow was made that it ought not to have been +made? If he feels toward me as a father should, why did he give no +warning? Why did he accept the vow? Why did he allow a contract to +be made giving only to death the annulling power? Is death more +merciful than God?</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone</i>. All vows that are made to God must be +kept. Do you not remember that Jephthah agreed to sacrifice the +first one who came out of his house to meet him, and that he +fulfilled the vow, although in doing so, he murdered his own +daughter. God makes no allowance for ignorance, for temptation, for +passion—nothing. Besides, my dear woman, to cancel the +contract of marriage lies beyond the province of the civil +legislature; it has no competency to annul the contract of marriage +when once made.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. The man who has rescued me from the tyranny of +my husband—the man who wishes to build me a home and to make +my life worth living, wishes to make with me a contract of +marriage. This will give my babes a home.</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone</i>. My dear madam, while divorce of any kind +impairs the integrity of the family, divorce with remarriage +destroys it root and branch.</p> +<p><i>The Wife</i>. The integrity of my family is already +destroyed. My husband deserted his home—left us in the very +depths of want. I have in my arms two helpless babes. I love my +children, and I love the man who has offered to give them and +myself another fireside. Can you say that this is only destruction? +The destruction has already occurred. A remarriage gives a home to +me and mine.</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone.</i> But, my dear mistaken woman, the parental +and the conjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the +Almighty.</p> +<p><i>The Wife.</i> Do you believe that the Almighty was cruel +enough, in my case, to join the parental and the conjugal +relations, to the end that they should endure as long as I can bear +the sorrow? If there were three parties to my marriage, my husband, +myself, and God, should each be bound by the contract to do +something? What did God bind himself to do? If nothing, why should +he interfere? If nothing, my vow to him was without consideration. +You are as cruel and unsympathetic, Mr. Gladstone, as the Cardinal. +You have not the imagination to put yourself in my place.</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone.</i> My dear madam, we must be governed by the +law of Christ, and there must be no remarriage. The husband and +wife must remain husband and wife until a separation is caused by +death.</p> +<p><i>The Wife.</i> If Christ was such a believer in the sacredness +of the marriage relation, why did he offer rewards not only in this +world, but in the next, to husbands who would desert their wives +and follow him?</p> +<p><i>Mr. Gladstone.</i> It is not for us to inquire. God's ways +are not our ways.</p> +<p><i>The Wife.</i> Nature is better than you. A mother's love is +higher and deeper than your philosophy. I will follow the instincts +of my heart. I will provide a home for my babes, and for myself. I +will be freed from the infamous man who betrayed me. I will become +the wife of another—of one who loves me—and after +having filled his life with joy, I hope to die in his arms, +surrounded by my children.</p> +<p>A few months ago, a priest made a confession—he could +carry his secret no longer. He admitted that he was +married—that he was the father of two children—that he +had violated his priestly vows. He was unfrocked and cast out. +After a time he came back and asked to be restored into the bosom +of the church, giving as his reason that he had abandoned his wife +and babes. This throws a flood of light on the theological view of +marriage.</p> +<p>I know of nothing equal to this, except the story of the +Sandwich Island chief who was converted by the missionaries, and +wished to join the church. On cross-examination, it turned out that +he had twelve wives, and he was informed that a polygamist could +not be a Christian. The next year he presented himself again for +the purpose of joining the church, and stated that he was not a +polygamist—that he had only one wife. When the missionaries +asked him what he had done with the other eleven he replied: "I ate +them."</p> +<p>The indissoluble marriage was a reaction from polygamy. The +church has always pretended that it was governed by the will of +God, and that for all its dogmas it had a "thus saith the Lord." +Reason and experience were branded as false guides. The priests +insisted that they were in direct communication with the +Infinite—that they spoke by the authority of God, and that +the duty of the people was to obey without question and to submit +with at least the appearance of gladness.</p> +<p>We now know that no such communication exists—that priests +spoke without authority, and that the duty of the people was and is +to examine for themselves. We now know that no one knows what the +will of God is, or whether or not such a being exists. We now know +that nature has furnished all the light there is, and that the +inspired books are like all books, and that their value depends on +the truth, the beauty, and the wisdom they contain. We also know +that it is now impossible to substantiate the supernatural. Judging +from experience—reasoning from known facts—we can +safely say that society has no right to demand the sacrifice of an +innocent individual.</p> +<p>Society has no right, under the plea of self-preservation, to +compel women to remain the wives of men who have violated the +contract of marriage, and who have become objects of contempt and +loathing to their wives. It is not to the best interest of society +to maintain such firesides—such homes.</p> +<p>The time has not arrived, in my judgment, for the Congress of +the United States, under an amendment to the Constitution, to pass +a general law applicable to all the States, fixing the terms and +conditions of divorce. The States of the Union are not equally +enlightened. Some are far more conservative than others. Let us +wait until a majority of the States have abandoned the theological +theories upon this subject.</p> +<p>Upon this question light comes from the West, where men have +recently laid the foundations of States, and where the people are +not manacled and burdened with old constitutions and statutes and +decisions, and where with a large majority the tendency is to +correct the mistakes of their ancestors.</p> +<p>Let the States in their own way solve this question, and the +time will come when the people will be ready to enact sensible and +reasonable laws touching this important subject, and then the +Constitution can be amended and the whole subject controlled by +Federal law.</p> +<p>The law, as it now exists in many of the States, is to the last +degree absurd and cruel. In some States the husband can obtain a +divorce on the ground that the wife has been guilty of adultery, +but the wife cannot secure a divorce from the husband simply for +the reason that he has been guilty of the same offence. So, in most +of the States where divorce is granted on account of desertion for +a certain number of years, the husband can return on the last day +of the time fixed, and the poor wife who has been left in want is +obliged to receive the wretch with open arms. In some States +nothing is considered cruelty that does not endanger life or limb +or health. The whole question is in great confusion, but after all +there are some States where the law is reasonable, and the +consequence is, that hundreds and thousands of suffering wives are +released from a bondage worse than death.</p> +<p>The idea that marriage is something more than a contract is at +the bottom of all the legal and judicial absurdities that surround +this subject. The moment that it is regarded from a purely secular +standpoint the infamous laws will disappear. We shall then take +into consideration the real rights and obligations of the parties +to the contract of marriage. We shall have some respect for the +sacred feelings of mothers—for the purity of woman—the +freedom of the fireside—the real democracy of the hearthstone +and, above all, for love, the purest, the profoundest and the +holiest of all passions.</p> +<p>We shall no longer listen to priests who regard celibacy as a +higher state than marriage, nor to those statesmen who look upon a +barbarous code as the foundation of all law.</p> +<p>As long as men imagine that they have property in wives; that +women can be owned, body and mind; that it is the duty of wives to +obey; that the husband is the master, the source of +authority—that his will is law, and that he can call on +legislators and courts to protect his superior rights, that to +enforce obedience the power of the State is pledged—just so +long will millions of husbands be arrogant, tyrannical and +cruel.</p> +<p>No gentleman will be content to have a slave for the mother of +his children. Force has no place in the world of love. It is +impossible to control likes and dislikes by law. No one ever did +and no one ever can love on compulsion. Courts can not obtain +jurisdiction of the heart.</p> +<p>The tides and currents of the soul care nothing for the creeds. +People who make rules for the conduct of others generally break +them themselves. It is so easy to bear with fortitude the +misfortunes of others.</p> +<p>Every child should be well-born—well fathered and +mothered. Society has as great an interest in children as in +parents. The innocent should not be compelled by law to suffer for +the crimes of the guilty. Wretched and weeping wives are not +essential to the welfare of States and Nations.</p> +<p>The church cries now "whom God hath joined together let not man +put asunder"; but when the people are really civilized the State +will say: "whom Nature hath put asunder let not man bind and +manacle together."</p> +<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<center>ANSWER TO LYMAN ABBOTT.</center> +<pre> + * This unfinished article was written as a reply to the Rev. + Lyman Abbott's article entitled, "Flaws in Ingersollism," + which was printed in the April number of the North American + Review for 1890. +</pre> +<p>IN your Open Letter to me, published in this Review, you attack +what you supposed to be my position, and ask several questions to +which you demand answers; but in the same letter, you state that +you wish no controversy with me. Is it possible that you wrote the +letter to prevent a controversy? Do you attack only those with whom +you wish to live in peace, and do you ask questions, coupled with a +request that they remain unanswered?</p> +<p>In addition to this, you have taken pains to publish in your own +paper, that it was no part of your design in the article in the +<i>North American Review</i>, to point out errors in my statements, +and that this design was distinctly disavowed in the opening +paragraph of your article. You further say, that your simple object +was to answer the question "What is Christianity?" May I be +permitted to ask why you addressed the letter to me, and why do you +now pretend that, although you did address a letter to me, I was +not in your mind, and that you had no intention of pointing out any +flaws in my doctrines or theories? Can you afford to occupy this +position?</p> +<p>You also stated in your own paper, <i>The Christian Union</i>, +that the title of your article had been changed by the editor of +the <i>Review</i>, without your knowledge or consent; leaving it to +be inferred that the title given to the article by you was +perfectly consistent with your statement, that it was no part of +your design in the article in the <i>North American Review</i>, to +point out errors in my (Ingersoll's) statements; and that your +simple object was to answer the question, What is Christianity? And +yet, the title which you gave your own article was as follows: "To +Robert G. Ingersoll: A Reply."</p> +<p>First. We are told that only twelve crimes were punished by +death: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, fraudulent prophesying, +Sabbath-breaking, rebellion against parents, resistance to judicial +officers, murder, homicide by negligence, adultery, incestuous +marriages, and kidnapping. We are then told that as late as the +year 1600 there were 263 crimes capital in England.</p> +<p>Does not the world know that all the crimes or offences +punishable by death in England could be divided in the same way? +For instance, treason. This covered a multitude of offences, all +punishable by death. Larceny covered another multitude. +Perjury—trespass, covered many others. There might still be +made a smaller division, and one who had made up his mind to define +the Criminal Code of England might have said that there was only +one offence punishable by death—wrong-doing.</p> +<p>The facts with regard to the Criminal Code of England are, that +up to the reign of George I. there were 167 offences punishable by +death. Between the accession of George I. and termination of the +reign of George III., there were added 56 new crimes to which +capital punishment was attached. So that when George IV. became +king, there were 223 offences capital in England.</p> +<p>John Bright, commenting upon this subject, says:</p> +<p>"During all these years, so far as this question goes, our +Government was becoming more cruel and more barbarous, and we do +not find, and have not found, that in the great Church of England, +with its fifteen or twenty thousand ministers, and with its more +than score of Bishops in the House of Lords, there ever was a voice +raised, or an organization formed, in favor of a more merciful +code, or in condemnation of the enormous cruelties which our law +was continually inflicting. Was not Voltaire justified in saying +that the English were the only people who murdered by law?"</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, taking into consideration the situation of +the people, the number of subjects covered by law, there were far +more offences capital in the days of Moses, than in the reign of +George IV. Is it possible that a minister, a theologian of the +nineteenth century, imagines that he has substantiated the divine +origin of the Old Testament by endeavoring to show that the +government of God was not quite as bad as that of England?</p> +<p>Mr. Abbott also informs us that the reason Moses killed so many +was, that banishment from the camp during the wandering in the +Wilderness was a punishment worse than death. If so, the poor +wretches should at least have been given their choice. Few, in my +judgment, would have chosen death, because the history shows that a +large majority were continually clamoring to be led back to Egypt. +It required all the cunning and power of God to keep the fugitives +from returning in a body. Many were killed by Jehovah, simply +because they wished to leave the camp—because they longed +passionately for banishment, and thought with joy of the flesh-pots +of Egypt, preferring the slavery of Pharaoh to the liberty of +Jehovah. The memory of leeks and onions was enough to set their +faces toward the Nile.</p> +<p>Second. I am charged with saying that the Christian missionaries +say to the heathen: "You must examine your religion—and not +only so, but you must reject it; and unless you do reject it, and +in addition to such rejection, adopt ours, you will be eternally +damned." Mr. Abbott denies the truth of this statement.</p> +<p>Let me ask him, If the religion of Jesus Christ is preached +clearly and distinctly to a heathen, and the heathen understands +it, and rejects it deliberately, unequivocally, and finally, can he +be saved?</p> +<p>This question is capable of a direct answer. The reverend +gentleman now admits that an acceptance of Christianity is not +essential to salvation. If the acceptance of Christianity is not +essential to the salvation of the heathen who has heard +Christianity preached—knows what its claims are, and the +evidences that support those claims, is the acceptance of +Christianity essential to the salvation of an adult intelligent +citizen of the United States? Will the reverend gentleman tell us, +and without circumlocution, whether the acceptance of Christianity +is necessary to the salvation of anybody? If he says that it is, +then he admits that I was right in my statement concerning what is +said to the heathen. If he says that it is not, then I ask him, +What do you do with the following passages of Scripture: "There is +none other name given under heaven or among men whereby we must be +saved."</p> +<p>"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every +creature, and whosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; +and whosoever believeth not shall be damned"?</p> +<p>I am delighted to know that millions of Pagans will be found to +have entered into eternal life without any knowledge of Christ or +his religion.</p> +<p>Another question naturally arises: If a heathen can hear and +reject the Gospel, and yet be saved, what will become of the +heathen who never heard of the Gospel? Are they all to be saved? If +all who never heard are to be saved, is it not dangerous to +hear?—Is it not cruel to preach? Why not stop preaching and +let the entire world become heathen, so that after this, no soul +may be lost?</p> +<p>Third. You say that I desire to deprive mankind of their faith +in God, in Christ and in the Bible. I do not, and have not, +endeavored to destroy the faith of any man in a good, in a just, in +a merciful God, or in a reasonable, natural, human Christ, or in +any truth that the Bible may contain. I have endeavored—and +with some degree of success—to destroy the faith of man in +the Jehovah of the Jews, and in the idea that Christ was in fact +the God of this universe. I have also endeavored to show that there +are many things in the Bible ignorant and cruel—that the book +was produced by barbarians and by savages, and that its influence +on the world has been bad.</p> +<p>And I do believe that life and property will be safer, that +liberty will be surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be +more joyous, and death less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah +can be destroyed from the human mind.</p> +<p>It seems to me that the heart of the Christian ought to burst +into an efflorescence of joy when he becomes satisfied that the +Bible is only the work of man; that there is no such place as +perdition—that there are no eternal flames—that men's +souls are not to suffer everlasting pain—that it is all +insanity and ignorance and fear and horror. I should think that +every good and tender soul would be delighted to know that there is +no Christ who can say to any human being—to any father, +mother, or child—"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire +prepared for the devil and his angels." I do believe that he will +be far happier when the Psalms of David are sung no more, and that +he will be far better when no one could sing the 109th Psalm +without shuddering and horror. These Psalms for the most part +breathe the spirit of hatred, of revenge, and of everything +fiendish in the human heart. There are some good lines, some lofty +aspirations—these should be preserved; and to the extent that +they do give voice to the higher and holier emotions, they should +be preserved.</p> +<p>So I believe the world will be happier when the life of Christ, +as it is written now in the New Testament, is no longer +believed.</p> +<p>Some of the Ten Commandments will fall into oblivion, and the +world will be far happier when they do. Most of these commandments +are universal. They were not discovered by Jehovah—they were +not original with him.</p> +<p>"Thou shalt not kill," is as old as life. And for this reason a +large majority of people in all countries have objected to being +murdered. "Thou shalt not steal," is as old as industry. There +never has been a human being who was willing to work through the +sun and rain and heat of summer, simply for the purpose that some +one who had lived in idleness might steal the result of his labor. +Consequently, in all countries where it has been necessary to work, +larceny has been a crime. "Thou shalt not lie," is as old as +speech. Men have desired, as a rule, to know the truth; and truth +goes with courage and candor. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," is +as old as love. "Honor thy father and thy mother," is as old as the +family relation.</p> +<p>All these commandments were known among all peoples thousands +and thousands of years before Moses was born. The new one, "Thou +shalt worship no other Gods but me," is a bad +commandment—because that God was not worthy of worship. "Thou +shalt make no graven image,"—a bad commandment. It was the +death of art. "Thou shalt do no work on the Sabbath-day,"—a +bad commandment; the object of that being, that one-seventh of the +time should be given to the worship of a monster, making a +priesthood necessary, and consequently burdening industry with the +idle and useless.</p> +<p>If Professor Clifford felt lonely at the loss of such a +companion as Jehovah, it is impossible for me to sympathize with +his feelings. No one wishes to destroy the hope of another +life—no one wishes to blot out any good that is, or that is +hoped for, or the hope of which gives consolation to the world. +Neither do I agree with this gentleman when he says, "Let us have +the truth, cost what it may." I say: Let us have +happiness—well-being. The truth upon these matters is of but +little importance compared with the happiness of mankind. Whether +there is, or is not, a God, is absolutely unimportant, compared +with the well-being of the race. Whether the Bible is, or is not, +inspired, is not of as much consequence as human happiness.</p> +<p>Of course, if the Old and New Testaments are true, then human +happiness becomes impossible, either in this world, or in the world +to come—that is, impossible to all people who really believe +that these books are true. It is often necessary to know the truth, +in order to prepare ourselves to bear consequences; but in the +metaphysical world, truth is of no possible importance except as it +affects human happiness.</p> +<p>If there be a God, he certainly will hold us to no stricter +responsibility about metaphysical truth than about scientific +truth. It ought to be just as dangerous to make a mistake in +Geology as in Theology—in Astronomy as in the question of the +Atonement.</p> +<p>I am not endeavoring to overthrow any faith in God, but the +faith in a bad God. And in order to accomplish this, I have +endeavored to show that the question of whether an Infinite God +exists, or not, is beyond the power of the human mind. Anything is +better than to believe in the God of the Bible.</p> +<p>Fourth. Mr. Abbott, like the rest, appeals to names instead of +to arguments. He appeals to Socrates, and yet he does not agree +with Socrates. He appeals to Goethe, and yet Goethe was far from a +Christian. He appeals to Isaac Newton and to Mr. +Gladstone—and after mentioning these names, says, that on his +side is this faith of the wisest, the best, the noblest of +mankind.</p> +<p>Was Socrates after all greater than Epicurus—had he a +subtler mind—was he any nobler in his life? Was Isaac Newton +so much greater than Humboldt—than Charles Darwin, who has +revolutionized the thought of the civilized world? Did he do the +one-hundredth part of the good for mankind that was done by +Voltaire—was he as great a metaphysician as Spinoza?</p> +<p>But why should we appeal to names?</p> +<p>In a contest between Protestantism and Catholicism are you +willing to abide by the tests of names? In a contest between +Christianity and Paganism, in the first century, would you have +considered the question settled by names? Had Christianity then +produced the equals of the great Greeks and Romans? The new can +always be overwhelmed with names that were in favor of the old. Sir +Isaac Newton, in his day, could have been overwhelmed by the names +of the great who had preceded him. Christ was overwhelmed by this +same method—Moses and the Prophets were appealed to as +against this Peasant of Palestine. This is the argument of the +cemetery—this is leaving the open field, and crawling behind +gravestones.</p> +<p>Newton was understood to be, all his life, a believer in the +Trinity; but he dared not say what his real thought was. After his +death there was found among his papers an argument that he +published against the divinity of Christ. This had been published +in Holland, because he was afraid to have it published in England. +How do we really know what the great men of whom you speak +believed, or believe?</p> +<p>I do not agree with you when you say that Gladstone is the +greatest statesman. He will not, in my judgment, for one moment +compare with Thomas Jefferson—with Alexander +Hamilton—or, to come down to later times, with Gambetta; and +he is immeasurably below such a man as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was +not a believer. Gambetta was an atheist.</p> +<p>And yet, these names prove nothing. Instead of citing a name, +and saying that this great man—Sir Isaac Newton, for +instance—believed in our doctrine, it is far better to give +the reasons that Sir Isaac Newton had for his belief.</p> +<p>Nearly all organizations are filled with snobbishness. Each +church has a list of great names, and the members feel in duty +bound to stand by their great men.</p> +<p>Why is idolatry the worst of sins? Is it not far better to +worship a God of stone than a God who threatens to punish in +eternal flames the most of his children? If you simply mean by +idolatry a false conception of God, you must admit that no finite +mind can have a true conception of God—and you must admit +that no two men can have the same false conception of God, and +that, as a consequence, no two men can worship identically the same +Deity. Consequently they are all idolaters.</p> +<p>I do not think idolatry the worst of sins. Cruelty is the worst +of sins. It is far better to worship a false God, than to injure +your neighbor—far better to bow before a monstrosity of +stone, than to enslave your fellow-men.</p> +<p>Fifth. I am glad that you admit that a bad God is worse than no +God. If so, the atheist is far better than the believer in Jehovah, +and far better than the believer in the divinity of Jesus +Christ—because I am perfectly satisfied that none but a bad +God would threaten to say to any human soul, "Depart, ye cursed, +into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." So +that, before any Christian can be better than an atheist, he must +reform his God.</p> +<p>The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes +another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not +know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, +and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you +do not know,—he demonstrates that you do not know, and he +drives you from the field of fact—he drives you from the +realm of reason—he drives you from the light, into the +darkness of conjecture—into the world of dreams and shadows, +and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no +foundation in fact.</p> +<p>You say that religion tells us that "life is a battle with +temptation—the result is eternal life to the victors."</p> +<p>But what of the victims? Did your God create these victims, +knowing that they would be victims? Did he deliberately change the +clay into the man—into a being with wants, surrounded by +difficulties and temptations—and did he deliberately surround +this being with temptations that he knew he could not withstand, +with obstacles that he knew he could not overcome, and whom he knew +at last would fall a victim upon the field of death? Is there no +hope for this victim? No remedy for this mistake of your God? Is he +to remain a victim forever? Is it not better to have no God than +such a God? Could the condition of this victim be rendered worse by +the death of God?</p> +<p>Sixth. Of course I agree with you when you say that character is +worth more than condition—that life is worth more than place. +But I do not agree with you when you say that being—that +simple existence—is better than happiness. If a man is not +happy, it is far better not to be. I utterly dissent from your +philosophy of life. From my standpoint, I do not understand you +when you talk about self-denial. I can imagine a being of such +character, that certain things he would do for the one he loved, +would by others be regarded as acts of self-denial, but they could +not be so regarded by him. In these acts of so-called selfdenial, +he would find his highest joy.</p> +<p>This pretence that to do right is to carry a cross, has done an +immense amount of injury to the world. Only those who do wrong +carry a cross. To do wrong is the only possible self-denial.</p> +<p>The pulpit has always been saying that, although the virtuous +and good, the kind, the tender, and the loving, may have a very bad +time here, yet they will have their reward in heaven—having +denied themselves the pleasures of sin, the ecstasies of crime, +they will be made happy in a world hereafter; but that the wicked, +who have enjoyed larceny, and rascality in all its forms, will be +punished hereafter.</p> +<p>All this rests upon the idea that man should sacrifice himself, +not for his fellow-men, but for God—that he should do +something for the Almighty—that he should go hungry to +increase the happiness of heaven—that he should make a +journey to Our Lady of Loretto, with dried peas in his shoes; that +he should refuse to eat meat on Friday; that he should say so many +prayers before retiring to rest; that he should do something that +he hated to do, in order that he might win the approbation of the +heavenly powers. For my part, I think it much better to feed the +hungry, than to starve yourself.</p> +<p>You ask me, What is Christianity? You then proceed to partially +answer your own question, and you pick out what you consider the +best, and call that Christianity. But you have given only one side, +and that side not all of it good. Why did you not give the other +side of Christianity—the side that talks of eternal flames, +of the worm that dieth not—the side that denounces the +investigator and the thinker—the side that promises an +eternal reward for credulity—the side that tells men to take +no thought for the morrow but to trust absolutely in a Divine +Providence?</p> +<p>"Within thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, faith in +his resurrection had become the inspiration of the church." I ask +you, Was there a resurrection?</p> +<p>What advance has been made in what you are pleased to call the +doctrine of the brotherhood of man, through the instrumentality of +the church? Was there as much dread of God among the Pagans as +there has been among Christians?</p> +<p>I do not believe that the church is a conservator of +civilization. It sells crime on credit. I do not believe it is an +educator of good will. It has caused more war than all other +causes. Neither is it a school of a nobler reverence and faith. The +church has not turned the minds of men toward principles of +justice, mercy and truth—it has destroyed the foundation of +justice. It does not minister comfort at the coffin—it fills +the mourners with fear. It has never preached a gospel of "Peace on +Earth"—it has never preached "Good Will toward men."</p> +<p>For my part, I do not agree with you when you say that: "The +most stalwart anti-Romanists can hardly question that with the +Roman Catholic Church abolished by instantaneous decree, its +priests banished and its churches closed, the disaster to American +communities would be simply awful in its proportions, if not +irretrievable in its results."</p> +<p>I may agree with you in this, that the most stalwart +anti-Romanists would not wish to have the Roman Catholic Church +abolished by tyranny, and its priests banished, and its churches +closed. But if the abolition of that church could be produced by +the development of the human mind; and if its priests, instead of +being banished, should become good and useful citizens, and were in +favor of absolute liberty of mind, then I say that there would be +no disaster, but a very wide and great and splendid blessing. The +church has been the Centaur—not Theseus; the church has not +been Hercules, but the serpent.</p> +<p>So I believe that there is something far nobler than loyalty to +any particular man. Loyalty to the truth as we perceive +it—loyalty to our duty as we know it—loyalty to the +ideals of our brain and heart—is, to my mind, far greater and +far nobler than loyalty to the life of any particular man or God. +There is a kind of slavery—a kind of abdication—for any +man to take any other man as his absolute pattern and to hold him +up as the perfection of all life, and to feel that it is his duty +to grovel in the dust in his presence. It is better to feel that +the springs of action are within yourself—that you are poised +upon your own feet—and that you look at the world with your +own eyes, and follow the path that reason shows.</p> +<p>I do not believe that the world could be re-organized upon the +simple but radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount. Neither +do I believe that this sermon was ever delivered by one man. It has +in it many fragments that I imagine were dropped from many mouths. +It lacks coherence—it lacks form. Some of the sayings are +beautiful, sublime and tender; and others seem to be weak, +contradictory and childish.</p> +<p>Seventh. I do not say that I do not know whether this faith is +true, or not. I say distinctly and clearly, that I know it is not +true. I admit that I do not know whether there is any infinite +personality or not, because I do not know that my mind is an +absolute standard. But according to my mind, there is no such +personality; and according to my mind, it is an infinite absurdity +to suppose that there is such an infinite personality. But I do +know something of human nature; I do know a little of the history +of mankind; and I know enough to know that what is known as the +Christian faith, is not true. I am perfectly satisfied, beyond all +doubt and beyond all per-adventure, that all miracles are +falsehoods. I know as well as I know that I live—that others +live—that what you call your faith, is not true.</p> +<p>I am glad, however, that you admit that the miracles of the Old +Testament, or the inspiration of the Old Testament, are not +essentials. I draw my conclusion from what you say: "I have not in +this paper discussed the miracles, or the inspiration of the Old +Testament; partly because those topics, in my opinion, occupy a +subordinate position in Christian faith, and I wish to consider +only essentials." At the same time, you tell us that, "On +historical evidence, and after a careful study of the arguments on +both sides, I regard as historical the events narrated in the four +Gospels, ordinarily regarded as miracles." At the same time, you +say that you fully agree with me that the order of nature has never +been violated or interrupted. In other words, you must believe that +all these so-called miracles were actually in accordance with the +laws, or facts rather, in nature.</p> +<p>Eighth. You wonder that I could write the following: "To me +there is nothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. There +is not, so far as I know, a line in the Book of Genesis calculated +to make a human being better." You then call my attention to "The +magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which Genesis +opens; to the beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful +consequences; the inspiring story of Abraham—the first +selfexile for conscience sake; the romantic story of Joseph the +Peasant boy becoming a Prince," which you say "would have +attraction for any one if he could have found a charm in, for +example, the Legends of the Round Table."</p> +<p>The "magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which +Genesis opens" is filled with magnificent mistakes, and is utterly +absurd. "The beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful +consequences" is probably the most contemptible story that was ever +written, and the treatment of the first pair by Jehovah is +unparalleled in the cruelty of despotic governments. According to +this infamous account, God cursed the mothers of the world, and +added to the agonies of maternity. Not only so, but he made woman a +slave, and man something, if possible, meaner—a master.</p> +<p>I must confess that I have very little admiration for Abraham. +(Give reasons.)</p> +<p>So far as Joseph is concerned, let me give you the history of +Joseph,—how he conspired with Pharaoh to enslave the people +of Egypt.</p> +<p>You seem to be astonished that I am not in love with the +character of Joseph, as pictured in the Bible. Let me tell you who +Joseph was.</p> +<p>It seems, from the account, that Pharaoh had a dream. None of +his wise men could give its meaning. He applied to Joseph, and +Joseph, having been enlightened by Jehovah, gave the meaning of the +dream to Pharaoh. He told the king that there would be in Egypt +seven years of great plenty, and after these seven years of great +plenty, there would be seven years of famine, and that the famine +would consume the land. Thereupon Joseph gave to Pharaoh some +advice. First, he was to take up a fifth part of the land of Egypt, +in the seven plenteous years—he was to gather all the food of +those good years, and lay up corn, and he was to keep this food in +the cities. This food was to be a store to the land against the +seven years of famine. And thereupon Pharaoh said unto Joseph, +"Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so +discreet and wise as thou art: thou shalt be over my house, and +according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the +throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, +See I have set thee over all the land of Egypt."</p> +<p>We are further informed by the holy writer, that in the seven +plenteous years the earth brought forth by handfuls, and that +Joseph gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in +the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities, and that he +gathered corn as the sand of the sea. This was done through the +seven plenteous years. Then commenced the years of dearth. Then the +people of Egypt became hungry, and they cried to Pharaoh for bread, +and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph. The famine +was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph opened the +storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians, and the famine waxed sore +in the land of Egypt. There was no bread in the land, and Egypt +fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the +money that was found in the land of Egypt, by the sale of corn, and +brought the money to Pharaoh's house. After a time the money failed +in the land of Egypt, and the Egyptians came unto Joseph and said, +"Give us bread; why should we die in thy presence? for the money +faileth." And Joseph said, "Give your cattle, and I will give you +for your cattle." And they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and he +gave them bread in exchange for horses and flocks and herds, and he +fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When the +year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said, "Our +money is spent, our cattle are gone, naught is left but our bodies +and our lands." And they said to Joseph, "Buy us, and our land, for +bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh; and give +us seed that we may live and not die, that the land be not +desolate." And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for +the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine +prevailed over them. So the land became Pharaoh's. Then Joseph said +to the people, "I have bought you this day, and your land; lo, here +is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land." And thereupon the +people said, "Thou hast saved our lives; we will be Pharaoh's +servants." "And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto +this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, <i>except the +land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's</i>."</p> +<p>Yet I am asked, by a minister of the nineteenth century, whether +it is possible that I do not admire the character of Joseph. This +man received information from God—and gave that information +to Pharaoh, to the end that he might impoverish and enslave a +nation. This man, by means of intelligence received from Jehovah, +took from the people what they had, and compelled them at last to +sell themselves, their wives and their children, and to become in +fact bondmen forever. Yet I am asked by the successor of Henry Ward +Beecher, if I do not admire the infamous wretch who was guilty of +the greatest crime recorded in the literature of the world.</p> +<p>So, it is difficult for me to understand why you speak of +Abraham as "a self-exile for conscience sake." If the king of +England had told one of his favorites that if he would go to North +America he would give him a territory hundreds of miles square, and +would defend him in its possession, and that he there might build +up an empire, and the favorite believed the king, and went, would +you call him "a self-exile for conscience sake"?</p> +<p>According to the story in the Bible, the Lord promised Abraham +that if he would leave his country and kindred, he would make of +him a great nation, would bless him, and make his name great, that +he would bless them that blessed Abraham, and that he would curse +him whom Abraham cursed; and further, that in him all the families +of the earth should be blest. If this is true, would you call +Abraham "a self-exile for conscience sake"? If Abraham had only +known that the Lord was not to keep his promise, he probably would +have remained where he was—the fact being, that every promise +made by the Lord to Abraham, was broken.</p> +<p>Do you think that Abraham was "a self-exile for conscience sake" +when he told Sarah, his wife, to say that she was his +sister—in consequence of which she was taken into Pharaoh's +house, and by reason of which Pharaoh made presents of sheep and +oxen and man servants and maid servants to Abraham? What would you +call such a proceeding now? What would you think of a man who was +willing that his wife should become the mistress of the king, +provided the king would make him presents?</p> +<p>Was it for conscience sake that the same subterfuge was adopted +again, when Abraham said to Abimelech, the King of Gerar, She is my +sister—in consequence of which Abimelech sent for Sarah and +took her?</p> +<p>Mr. Ingersoll having been called to Montana, as counsel in a +long and important law suit, never finished this article.</p> +<center>ANSWER TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.</center> +<pre> + * This fragment (found among Col. Ingersoll's papers) is a + mere outline of a contemplated answer to Archdeacon Farrar's + article in the North American Review, May, 1810, entitled: + "A Few Words on Col. Ingersoll." +</pre> +<p>ARCHDEACON FARRAR, in the opening of his article, in a burst of +confidence, takes occasion to let the world know how perfectly +angelic he intends to be. He publicly proclaims that he can +criticise the arguments of one with whom he disagrees, without +resorting to invective, or becoming discourteous. Does he call +attention to this because most theologians are hateful and +ungentlemanly? Is it a rare thing for the pious to be candid? Why +should an Archdeacon be cruel, or even ill-bred? Yet, in the very +beginning, the Archdeacon in effect says: Behold, I show you a +mystery—a Christian who can write about an infidel, without +invective and without brutality. Is it then so difficult for those +who love their enemies to keep within the bounds of decency when +speaking of unbelievers who have never injured them?</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised when I read the +proclamation to the effect that the writer was not to use +invective, and was to be guilty of no discourtesy; but on reading +the article, and finding that he had failed to keep his promise, I +was not surprised.</p> +<p>It is an old habit with theologians to beat the living with the +bones of the dead. The arguments that cannot be answered provoke +epithet.</p> +<p>ARCHDEACON FARRAR criticises several of my statements: <i>The +same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious +questions as in others</i>.</p> +<p>This apparently self-evident statement seems to excite almost +the ire of this Archdeacon, and for the purpose of showing that it +is not true, he states, first, that "the first postulate of +revelation is that it appeals to man's spirit;" second, that "the +spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the spheres of the +senses and the understanding;" third, that "if a man denies the +existence of a spiritual intuition, he is like a blind man +criticising colors, or a deaf man criticising harmonies;" fourth, +that "revelation must be judged by its own criteria;" and fifth, +that "St. Paul draws a marked distinction between the spirit of the +world and the spirit which is of God," and that the same Saint said +that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of +God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, +because they are spiritually discerned." Let us answer these +objections in their order.</p> +<p>1. "The first postulate of revelation is that it appeals to +man's spirit." What does the Archdeacon mean by "spirit"? A man +says that he has received a revelation from God, and he wishes to +convince another man that he has received a revelation—how +does he proceed? Does he appeal to the man's reason? Will he tell +him the circumstances under which he received the revelation? Will +he tell him why he is convinced that it was from God? Will the +Archdeacon be kind enough to tell how the spirit can be approached +passing by the reason, the understanding, the judgment and the +intellect? If the Archdeacon replies that the revelation itself +will bear the evidence within itself, what then, I ask, does he +mean by the word "evidence"? Evidence about what? Is it such +evidence as satisfies the intelligence, convinces the reason, and +is it in conformity with the known facts of the mind?</p> +<p>It may be said by the Archdeacon that anything that satisfies +what he is pleased to call the spirit, that furnishes what it seems +by nature to require, is of supernatural origin. We hear music, and +this music seems to satisfy the desire for harmony—still, no +one argues, from that fact, that music is of supernatural origin. +It may satisfy a want in the brain—a want unknown until the +music was heard—and yet we all agree in saying that music has +been naturally produced, and no one claims that Beethoven, or +Wagner, was inspired.</p> +<p>The same may be said of things that satisfy the palate—of +statues, of paintings, that reveal to him who looks, the existence +of that of which before that time he had not even dreamed. Why is +it that we love color—that we are pleased with harmonies, or +with a succession of sounds rising and falling at measured +intervals? No one would answer this question by saying that +sculptors and painters and musicians were inspired; neither would +they say that the first postulate of art is that it appeals to +man's spirit, and for that reason the rules or laws of probability +have nothing to do with the question of art.</p> +<p>2. That "the spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the +spheres of the senses and the understanding." Let us imagine a man +without senses. He cannot feel, see, hear, taste, or smell. What is +he? Would it be possible for him to have an idea? Would such a man +have a spirit to which revelation could appeal, or would there be +locked in the dungeon of his brain a spirit, that is to say, a +"sphere of being which transcends the spheres of the senses and the +understanding"? Admit that in the person supposed, the machinery of +life goes on—what is he more than an inanimate machine?</p> +<p>3. That "if a man denies the very existence of a spiritual +intuition, he is like a blind man criticising colors, or a deaf man +criticising harmonies." What do you mean by "spiritual intuition"? +When did this "spiritual intuition" become the property of +man—before, or after, birth? Is it of supernatural, or +miraculous, origin, and is it possible that this "spiritual +intuition" is independent of the man? Is it based upon experience? +Was it in any way born of the senses, or of the effect of nature +upon the brain—that is to say, of things seen, or heard, or +touched? Is a "spiritual intuition" an entity? If man can exist +without the "spiritual intuition," do you insist that the +"spiritual intuition" can exist without the man?</p> +<p>You may remember that Mr. Locke frequently remarked: "Define +your terms." It is to be regretted that in the hurry of writing +your article, you forgot to give an explanation of "spiritual +intuition."</p> +<p>I will also take the liberty of asking you how a blind man could +criticise colors, and how a deaf man could criticise harmonies. +Possibly you may imagine that "spiritual intuition" can take +cognizance of colors, as well as of harmonies. Let me ask: Why +cannot a blind man criticise colors? Let me answer: For the same +reason that Archdeacon Farrar can tell us nothing about an infinite +personality.</p> +<p>4. That "revelation must be judged by its own criteria." Suppose +the Bible had taught that selfishness, larceny and murder were +virtues; would you deny its inspiration? Would not your denial be +based upon a conclusion that had been reached by your reason that +no intelligent being could have been its author—that no good +being could, by any possibility, uphold the commission of such +crimes? In that case would you be guided by "spiritual intuition," +or by your reason?</p> +<p>When we examine the claims of a history—as, for instance, +a history of England, or of America, are we to decide according to +"spiritual intuition," or in accordance with the laws or rules of +probability? Is there a different standard for a history written in +Hebrew, several thousand years ago, and one written in English in +the nineteenth century? If a history should now be written in +England, in which the most miraculous and impossible things should +be related as facts, and if I should deny these alleged facts, +would you consider that the author had overcome my denial by +saying, "history must be judged by its own criteria"?</p> +<p>5. That "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit +of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, +because they are spiritually discerned." The Archdeacon admits that +the natural man cannot know the things of the spirit, because they +are not naturally, but spiritually, discerned. On the next page we +are told, that "the truths which Agnostics repudiate have been, and +are, acknowledged by all except a fraction of the human race." It +goes without saying that a large majority of the human race are +natural; consequently, the statement of the Archdeacon contradicts +the statement of St. Paul. The Archdeacon insists that all except a +fraction of the human race acknowledge the truths which Agnostics +repudiate, and they must acknowledge them because they are by them +spiritually discerned; and yet, St. Paul says that this is +impossible, and insists that "the natural man cannot know the +things of the spirit of God, because they are spiritually +discerned."</p> +<p>There is only one way to harmonize the statement of the +Archdeacon and the Saint, and that is, by saying that nearly all of +the human race are unnatural, and that only a small fraction are +natural, and that the small fraction of men who are natural, are +Agnostics, and only those who accept what the Archdeacon calls +"truths" are unnatural to such a degree that they can discern +spiritual things.</p> +<p>Upon this subject, the last things to which the Archdeacon +appeals, are the very things that he, at first, utterly repudiated. +He asks, "Are we contemptuously to reject the witness of +innumerable multitudes of the good and wise, that—with a +spiritual reality more convincing to them than the material +evidences which converted the apostles,"—they have seen, and +heard, and their hands have handled the "Word of Life"? Thus at +last the Archdeacon appeals to the evidences of the senses.</p> +<center>II.</center> +<p>THE Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following statement: +<i>There is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any human +being is under any obligation to believe without evidence</i>.</p> +<p>One would suppose that it would be impossible to formulate an +objection to this statement. What is or is not evidence, depends +upon the mind to which it is presented. There is no possible +"insinuation" in this statement, one way or the other. There is +nothing sinister in it, any more than there would be in the +statement that twice five are ten. How did it happen to occur to +the Archdeacon that when I spoke of believing without evidence, I +referred to all people who believe in the existence of a God, and +that I intended to say "that one-third of the world's inhabitants +had embraced the faith of Christians without evidence"?</p> +<p>Certain things may convince one mind and utterly fail to +convince others. Undoubtedly the persons who have believed in the +dogmas of Christianity have had what was sufficient evidence for +them. All I said was, that "there is no subject, and can be none, +concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe +without evidence." Does the Archdeacon insist that there is an +obligation resting on any human mind to believe without evidence? +Is he willing to go a step further and say that there is an +obligation resting upon the minds of men to believe contrary to +evidence? If one is under obligation to believe without evidence, +it is just as reasonable to say that he is under obligation to +believe in spite of evidence. What does the word "evidence" mean? A +man in whose honesty I have great confidence, tells me that he saw +a dead man raised to life. I do not believe him. Why? His statement +is not evidence to my mind. Why? Because it contradicts all of my +experience, and, as I believe, the experience of the intelligent +world.</p> +<p>No one pretends that "one-third of the world's inhabitants have +embraced the faith of Christians without evidence"—that is, +that all Christians have embraced the faith without evidence. In +the olden time, when hundreds of thousands of men were given their +choice between being murdered and baptized, they generally accepted +baptism—probably they accepted Christianity without +critically examining the evidence.</p> +<p>Is it historically absurd that millions of people have believed +in systems of religion without evidence? Thousands of millions have +believed that Mohammed was a prophet of God. And not only so, but +have believed in his miraculous power. Did they believe without +evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that Mohammedanism is +based upon mistake? What shall we say of the followers of Buddha, +who far outnumber the followers of Christ? Have they believed +without evidence? And is it historically absurd to say that our +ancestors of a few hundred years ago were as credulous as the +disciples of Buddha? Is it not true that the same gentlemen who +believed thoroughly in all the miracles of the New Testament also +believed the world to be flat, and were perfectly satisfied that +the sun made its daily journey around the earth? Did they have any +evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that they believed +without evidence?</p> +<center>III.</center> +<p><i>Neither is there any intelligent being who can by any +possibility be flattered by the exercise of ignorant +credulity.</i></p> +<p>THE Archdeacon asks what I "gain by stigmatizing as ignorant +credulity that inspired, inspiring, invincible conviction—the +formative principle of noble efforts and self-sacrificing lives, +which at this moment, as during all the long millenniums of the +past, has been held not only by the ignorant and the credulous, but +by those whom all the ages have regarded as the ablest, the wisest, +the most learned and the most gifted of mankind?"</p> +<p>Does the Archdeacon deny that credulity is ignorant? In this +connection, what does the word "credulity" mean? It means that +condition or state of the mind in which the impossible, or the +absurd, is accepted as true. Is not such credulity ignorant? Do we +speak of wise credulity—of intelligent credulity? We may say +theological credulity, or Christian credulity, but certainly not +intelligent credulity. Is the flattery of the ignorant and +credulous—the flattery being based upon that which ignorance +and credulity have accepted—acceptable to any intelligent +being? Is it possible that we can flatter God by pretending to +believe, or by believing, that which is repugnant to reason, that +which upon examination is seen to be absurd? The Archdeacon admits +that God cannot possibly be so flattered. If, then, he agrees with +my statement, why endeavor to controvert it?</p> +<center>IV.</center> +<p>The man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and +New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian.</p> +<p>THE Archdeacon says that he cannot pretend to imagine what my +definition of an orthodox Christian is. I will use his own language +to express my definition. "By an orthodox Christian I mean one who +believes what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed. I also +believe that the essential doctrines of the church must be judged +by her universal formulae, not by the opinions of this or that +theologian, however eminent, or even of any number of theologians, +unless the church has stamped them with the sanction of her formal +and distinct acceptance."</p> +<p>This is the language of the Archdeacon himself, and I accept it +as a definition of orthodoxy. With this definition in mind, I say +that the man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old +and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. By +"prejudice," I mean the tendencies and trends given to his mind by +heredity, by education, by the facts and circumstances entering +into the life of man. We know how children are poisoned in the +cradle, how they are deformed in the Sunday School, how they are +misled by the pulpit. And we know how numberless interests unite +and conspire to prevent the individual soul from examining for +itself. We know that nearly all rewards are in the hands of +Superstition—that she holds the sweet wreath, and that her +hands lead the applause of what is called the civilized world. We +know how many men give up their mental independence for the sake of +pelf and power. We know the influence of mothers and +fathers—of Church and State—of Faith and Fashion. All +these influences produce in honest minds what may be known as +prejudice,—in other minds, what may be known as +hypocrisy.</p> +<p>It is hardly worth my while to speak of the merits of students +of Holy Writ "who," the Archdeacon was polite enough to say, "know +ten thousand times more of the Scriptures" than I do. This, to say +the least of it, is a gratuitous assertion, and one that does not +tend to throw the slightest ray of light on any matter in +controversy. Neither is it true that it was my "point" to say that +all people are prejudiced, merely because they believe in God; it +was my point to say that no man can read the miracles of the Old +Testament, without prejudice, and believe them; it was my point to +say that no man can read many of the cruel and barbarous laws said +to have been given by God himself, and yet believe,—unless he +was prejudiced,—that these laws were divinely given.</p> +<p>Neither do I believe that there is now beneath the cope of +heaven an intelligent man, without prejudice, who believes in the +inspiration of the Bible.</p> +<center>V.</center> +<p>The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any +country, without fear and without prejudice, will not and cannot be +a believer.</p> +<p>IN answering this statement the Archdeacon says: "<i>Argal</i>, +every believer in any religion is either an incompetent idiot, or +coward—with a dash of prejudice."</p> +<p>I hardly know what the gentleman means by an "incompetent +idiot," as I know of no competent ones. It was not my intention to +say that believers in religion are idiots or cowards. I did not +mean, by using the word "fear," to say that persons actuated by +fear are cowards. That was not in my mind. By "fear," I intended to +convey that fear commonly called awe, or superstition,—that +is to say, fear of the supernatural,—fear of the +gods—fear of punishment in another world—fear of some +Supreme Being; not fear of some other man—not the fear that +is branded with cowardice. And, of course, the Archdeacon perfectly +understood my meaning; but it was necessary to give another meaning +in order to make the appearance of an answer possible.</p> +<p>By "prejudice," I mean that state of mind that accepts the false +for the true. All prejudice is honest. And the probability is, that +all men are more or less prejudiced on some subject. But on that +account I do not call them "incompetent idiots, or cowards, with a +dash of prejudice." I have no doubt that the Archdeacon himself +believes that all Mahommedans are prejudiced, and that they are +actuated more or less by fear, inculcated by their parents and by +society at large. Neither have I any doubt that he regards all +Catholics as prejudiced, and believes that they are governed more +or less by fear. It is no answer to what I have said for the +Archdeacon to say that "others have studied every form of religion +with infinitely greater power than I have done." This is a +personality that has nothing to do with the subject in hand. It is +no argument to repeat a list of names. It is an old trick of the +theologians to use names instead of arguments—to appeal to +persons instead of principles—to rest their case upon the +views of kings and nobles and others who pretend eminence in some +department of human learning or ignorance, rather than on human +knowledge.</p> +<p>This is the argument of the old against the new, and on this +appeal the old must of necessity have the advantage. When some man +announces the discovery of a new truth, or of some great fact +contrary to the opinions of the learned, it is easy to overwhelm +him with names. There is but one name on his side—that is to +say, his own. All others who are living, and the dead, are on the +other side. And if this argument is good, it ought to have ended +all progress many thousands of years ago. If this argument is +conclusive, the first man would have had freedom of opinion; the +second man would have stood an equal chance; but if the third man +differed from the other two, he would have been gone. Yet this is +the argument of the church. They say to every man who advances +something new: Are you greater than the dead? The man who is right +is generally modest. Men in the wrong, as a rule, are arrogant; and +arrogance is generally in the majority.</p> +<p>The Archdeacon appeals to certain names to show that I am wrong. +In order for this argument to be good—that is to say, to be +honest—he should agree with all the opinions of the men whose +names he gives. He shows, or endeavors to show, that I am wrong, +because I do not agree with St. Augustine. Does the Archdeacon +agree with St. Augustine? Does he now believe that the bones of a +saint were taken to Hippo—that being in the diocese of St. +Augustine—and that five corpses, having been touched with +these bones, were raised to life? Does he believe that a demoniac, +on being touched with one of these bones, was relieved of a +multitude of devils, and that these devils then and there testified +to the genuineness of the bones, not only, but told the hearers +that the doctrine of the Trinity was true? Does the Archdeacon +agree with St. Augustine that over seventy miracles were performed +with these bones, and that in a neighboring town many hundreds of +miracles were performed? Does he agree with St. Augustine in his +estimate of women—placing them on a par with beasts?</p> +<p>I admit that St. Augustine had great influence with the people +of his day—but what people? I admit also that he was the +founder of the first begging brotherhood—that he organized +mendicancy—and that he most cheerfully lived on the labor of +others.</p> +<p>If St. Augustine lived now he would be the inmate of an asylum. +This same St. Augustine believed that the fire of hell was +material—that the body itself having influenced the soul to +sin, would be burned forever, and that God by a perpetual miracle +would save the body from being annihilated and devoured in those +eternal flames.</p> +<p>Let me ask the Archdeacon a question: Do you agree with St. +Augustine? If you do not, do you claim to be a greater man? Is +"your mole-hill higher than his Dhawalagiri"? Are you looking down +upon him from the altitude of your own inferiority?</p> +<p>Precisely the same could be said of St. Jerome. The Archdeacon +appeals to Charlemagne, one of the great generals of the +world—a man who in his time shed rivers of blood, and who on +one occasion massacred over four thousand helpless +prisoners—a Christian gentleman who had, I think, about nine +wives, and was the supposed father of some twenty children. 'This +same Charlemagne had laws against polygamy, and yet practiced it +himself. Are we under the same obligation to share his vices as his +views? It is wonderful how the church has always appealed to the +so-called great—how it has endeavored to get certificates +from kings and queens, from successful soldiers and statesmen, to +the truth of the Bible and the moral character of Christ! How the +saints have crawled in the dust before the slayers of mankind! +Think of proving the religion of love and forgiveness by +Charlemagne and Napoleon!</p> +<p>An appeal is also made to Roger Bacon. Yet this man attained all +his eminence by going contrary to the opinions and teachings of the +church. In his time, it was matter of congratulation that you knew +nothing of secular things. He was a student of Nature, an +investigator, and by the very construction of his mind was opposed +to the methods of Catholicism.</p> +<p>Copernicus was an astronomer, but he certainly did not get his +astronomy from the church, nor from General Joshua, nor from the +story of the Jewish king for whose benefit the sun was turned back +in heaven ten degrees.</p> +<p>Neither did Kepler find his three laws in the Sermon on the +Mount, nor were they the utterances of Jehovah on Mount Sinai. He +did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian; but in +spite of that fact.</p> +<p>As to Lord Bacon, let me ask, are you willing to accept his +ideas? If not, why do you quote his name? Am I bound by the +opinions of Bacon in matters of religion, and not in matters of +science? Bacon denied the Coperni-can system, and died a believer +in the Ptolemaic—died believing that the earth is stationary +and that the sun and stars move around it as a center. Do you agree +with Bacon? If not, do you pretend that your mind is greater? Would +it be fair for a believer in Bacon to denounce you as an egotist +and charge you with "obstreperousness" because you merely suggested +that Mr. Bacon was a little off in his astronomical opinions? Do +you not see that you have furnished the cord for me to tie your +hands behind you?</p> +<p>I do not know how you ascertained that Shakespeare was what you +call a believer. Substantially all that we know of Shakespeare is +found in what we know as his "works" All else can be read in one +minute. May I ask, how you know that Shakespeare was a believer? Do +you prove it by the words he put in the mouths of his characters? +If so, you can prove that he was anything, nothing, and everything. +Have you literary bread to eat that I know not of? Whether Dante +was, or was not, a Christian, I am not prepared to say. I have +always admired him for one thing: he had the courage to see a pope +in hell.</p> +<p>Probably you are not prepared to agree with +Milton—especially in his opinion that marriage had better be +by contract, for a limited time. And if you disagree with Milton on +this point, do you thereby pretend to say that you could have +written a better poem than Paradise Lost?</p> +<p>So Newton is supposed to have been a Trinitarian. And yet it is +said that, after his death, there was found an article, which had +been published by him in Holland, against the dogma of the +Trinity.</p> +<p>After all, it is quite difficult to find out what the great men +have believed. They have been actuated by so many unknown motives; +they have wished for place; they have desired to be Archdeacons, +Bishops, Cardinals, Popes; their material interests have sometimes +interfered with the expression of their thoughts. Most of the men +to whom you have alluded lived at a time when the world was +controlled by what may be called a Christian mob—when the +expression of an honest thought would have cost the life of the one +who expressed it—when the followers of Christ were ready with +sword and fagot to exterminate philosophy and liberty from the +world.</p> +<p>Is it possible that we are under any obligation to believe the +Mosaic account of the Garden of Eden, or of the talking serpent, +because "Whewell had an encyclopaedic range of knowledge"? Must we +believe that Joshua stopped the sun, because Faraday was "the most +eminent man of science of his day"? Shall we believe the story of +the fiery furnace, because "Mr. Spottiswoode was president of the +Royal Society"—had "rare mathematical genius"—so rare +that he was actually "buried in Westminster Abbey"? Shall we +believe that Jonah spent three days and nights in the inside of a +whale because "Professor Clark Maxwell's death was mourned by +all"?</p> +<p>Are we under any obligation to believe that an infinite God sent +two she bears to tear forty children in pieces because they laughed +at a prophet without hair? Must we believe this because "Sir +Gabriel Stokes is the living president of the Royal Society, and a +Churchman" besides? Are we bound to believe that Daniel spent one +of the happiest evenings of his life in the lion's den, because +"Sir William Dawson of Canada, two years ago, presided over the +British Association"? And must we believe in the ten plagues of +Egypt, including the lice, because "Professor Max Müller made +an eloquent plea in Westminster Abbey in favor of Christian +missions"? Possibly he wanted missionaries to visit heathen lands +so that they could see the difference for themselves between theory +and practice, in what is known as the Christian religion.</p> +<p>Must we believe the miracles of the New Testament—the +casting out of devils—because "Lord Tennyson and Mr. Browning +stand far above all other poets of this generation in England," or +because "Longfellow, Holmes, and Lowell and Whittier" occupy the +same position in America? Must we admit that devils entered into +swine because "Bancroft and Parkman are the leading prose writers +of America"—which I take this occasion to deny?</p> +<p>It is to be hoped that some time the Archdeacon will read that +portion of Mr. Bancroft's history in which he gives the account of +how the soldiers, commonly called Hessians, were raised by the +British Government during the American Revolution.</p> +<p>These poor wretches were sold at so much apiece. For every one +that was killed, so much was paid, and for every one that was +wounded a certain amount was given. Mr. Bancroft tells us that God +was not satisfied with this business, and although he did not +interfere in any way to save the poor soldiers, he did visit the +petty tyrants who made the bargains with his wrath. I remember that +as a punishment to one of these, his wife was induced to leave him; +another one died a good many years afterwards; and several of them +had exceedingly bad luck.</p> +<p>After reading this philosophic dissertation on the dealings of +Providence, I doubt if the Archdeacon will still remain of the +opinion that Mr. Bancroft is one of the leading prose writers of +America. If the Archdeacon will read a few of the sermons of +Theodore Parker, and essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, if he will read +the life of Voltaire by James Parton, he may change his opinion as +to the great prose writers of America.</p> +<p>My argument against miracles is answered by reference to "Dr. +Lightfoot, a man of such immense learning that he became the equal +of his successor Dr. Westcott." And when I say that there are +errors and imperfections in the Bible, I am told that Dr. Westcott +"investigated the Christian religion and its earliest documents +<i>au fond</i>, and was an orthodox believer." Of course the +Archdeacon knows that no one now knows who wrote one of the books +of the Bible. He knows that no one now lives who ever saw one of +the original manuscripts, and that no one now lives who ever saw +anybody who had seen anybody who had seen an original +manuscript.</p> +<center>VI.</center> +<p>Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite +personality?</p> +<p>THE Archdeacon says that it is, and yet in the same article he +quotes the following from Job: "Canst thou by searching find out +God?" "It is as high as Heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than +Hell; what canst thou know?" And immediately after making these +quotations, the Archdeacon takes the ground of the agnostic, and +says, "with the wise ancient Rabbis, we learn to say, <i>I do not +know</i>."</p> +<p>It is impossible for me to say what any other human being cannot +conceive; but I am absolutely certain that my mind cannot conceive +of an infinite personality—of an infinite Ego.</p> +<p>Man is conscious of his individuality. Man has wants. A +multitude of things in nature seems to work against him; and others +seem to be favorable to him. There is conflict between him and +nature.</p> +<p>If man had no wants—if there were no conflict between him +and any other being, or any other thing, he could not say +"I"—that is to say, he could not be conscious of +personality.</p> +<p>Now, it seems to me that an infinite personality is a +contradiction in terms, says "I."</p> +<center>VII.</center> +<p>THE same line of argument applies to the next statement that is +criticised by the Archdeacon: <i>Can the human mind conceive a +beginningless being?</i></p> +<p>We know that there is such a thing as matter, but we do not know +that there is a beginningless being. We say, or some say, that +matter is eternal, because the human mind cannot conceive of its +commencing. Now, if we knew of the existence of an Infinite Being, +we could not conceive of his commencing. But we know of no such +being. We do know of the existence of matter; and my mind is so, +that I cannot conceive of that matter having been created by a +beginningless being. I do not say that there is not a beginningless +being, but I do not believe there is, and it is beyond my power to +conceive of such a being.</p> +<p>The Archdeacon also says that "space is quite as impossible to +conceive as God." But nobody pretends to love space—no one +gives intention and will to space—no one, so far as I know, +builds altars or temples to space. Now, if God is as inconceivable +as space, why should we pray to God?</p> +<p>The Archdeacon, however, after quoting Sir William Hamilton as +to the inconceivability of space as absolute or infinite, takes +occasion to say that "space is an entity." May I be permitted to +ask how he knows that space is an entity? As a matter of fact, the +conception of infinite space is a necessity of the mind, the same +as eternity is a necessity of the mind.</p> +<center>VIII.</center> +<p>THE next sentence or statement to which the Archdeacon objects +is as follows:</p> +<p><i>He who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the +goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with +the goodness or wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it +impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquake and +storm, for slavery, and for the triumph of the strong over the +weak.</i></p> +<p>One objection that he urges to this statement is that St. Paul +had made a stronger one in the same direction. The Archdeacon +however insists that "a world without a contingency, or an agony, +could have had no hero and no saint," and that "science enables us +to demonstrate that much of the apparent misery and anguish is +transitory and even phantasmal; that many of the seeming forces of +destruction are overruled to ends of beneficence; that most of +man's disease and anguish is due to his own sin and folly and +wilfulness."</p> +<p>I will not say that these things have been said before, but I +will say that they have been answered before. The idea that the +world is a school in which character is formed and in which men are +educated is very old. If, however, the world is a school, and there +is trouble and misfortune, and the object is to create +character—that is to say, to produce heroes and +saints—then the question arises, what becomes of those who +die in infancy? They are left without the means of education. Are +they to remain forever without character? Or is there some other +world of suffering and sorrow?</p> +<p>Is it possible to form character in heaven? How did the angels +become good? How do you account for the justice of God? Did he +attain character through struggle and suffering?</p> +<p>What would you say of a school teacher who should kill one-third +of the children on the morning of the first day? And what can you +say of God,—if this world is a school,—who allows a +large per cent, of his children to die in +infancy—consequently without education—therefore, +without character?</p> +<p>If the world is the result of infinite wisdom and goodness, why +is the Christian Church engaged in endeavoring to make it better; +or, rather, in an effort to change it? Why not leave it as an +infinite God made it?</p> +<p>Is it true that most of man's diseases are due to his own sin +and folly and wilfulness? Is it not true that no matter how good +men are they must die, and will they not die of diseases? Is it +true that the wickedness of man has created the microbe? Is it +possible that the sinfulness of man created the countless enemies +of human life that lurk in air and water and food? Certainly the +wickedness of man has had very little influence on tornadoes, +earthquakes and floods. Is it true that "the signature of beauty +with which God has stamped the visible world—alike in the sky +and on the earth—alike in the majestic phenomena of an +intelligent creation and in its humblest and most microscopic +production—is a perpetual proof that God is a God of +love"?</p> +<p>Let us see. The scientists tell us that there is a little +microscopic animal, one who is very particular about his +food—so particular, that he prefers to all other things the +optic nerve, and after he has succeeded in destroying that nerve +and covering the eye with the mask of blindness, he has +intelligence enough to bore his way through the bones of the nose +in search of the other optic nerve. Is it not somewhat difficult to +discover "the signature of beauty with which God has stamped" this +animal? For my part, I see but little beauty in poisonous serpents, +in man-eating sharks, in crocodiles, in alligators. It would be +impossible for me to gaze with admiration upon a cancer. Think, for +a moment, of a God ingenious enough and good enough to feed a +cancer with the quivering flesh of a human being, and to give for +the sustenance of that cancer the life of a mother.</p> +<p>It is well enough to speak of "the myriad voices of nature in +their mirth and sweetness," and it is also well enough to think of +the other side. The singing birds have a few notes of +love—the rest are all of warning and of fear. Nature, +apparently with infinite care, produces a living thing, and at the +same time is just as diligently at work creating another living +thing to devour the first, and at the same time a third to devour +the second, and so on around the great circle of life and death, of +agony and joy—tooth and claw, fang and tusk, hunger and +rapine, massacre and murder, violence and vengeance and vice +everywhere and through all time. [Here the manuscript ends, with +the following notes.]</p> +<center>SAYINGS FROM THE INDIAN.</center> +<p>"The rain seems hardest when the wigwam leaks."</p> +<p>"When the tracks get too large and too numerous, the wise Indian +says that he is hunting something else."</p> +<p>"A little crook in the arrow makes a great miss."</p> +<p>"A great chief counts scalps, not hairs."</p> +<p>"You cannot strengthen the bow by poisoning the arrows."</p> +<p>"No one saves water in a flood."</p> +<center>ORIGEN.</center> +<p>Origen considered that the punishment of the wicked consisted in +separation from God. There was too much pity in his heart to +believe in the flames of hell. But he was condemned as heretical by +the Council of Carthage, A. D., 398, and afterwards by other +councils.</p> +<center>ST. AUGUSTINE.</center> +<p>St. Augustine censures Origen for his merciful view, and says: +"The church, not without reason, condemned him for this error." He +also held that hell was in the centre of the earth, and that God +supplied the centre with perpetual fire by a miracle.</p> +<center>DANTE.</center> +<p>Dante is a wonderful mixture of melancholy and malice, of +religion and revenge, and he represents himself as so pitiless that +when he found his political opponents in hell, he struck their +faces and pulled the hair of the tormented.</p> +<center>AQUINAS.</center> +<p>Aquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who +believed in the undying worm.</p> +<a name="link0017" id="link0017"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING?</h2> +<pre> + * This unfinished and unrevised article was found among Col. + Ingersoll's papers, and is here reproduced without change.— + It is a reply to the Dean of St Paul's Contribution to the + North American Review for Dec., 1891, entitled: "Is Corporal + Punishment Degrading?" +</pre> +<p>THE Dean of St. Paul protests against the kindness of parents, +guardians and teachers toward children, wards and pupils. He +believes in the gospel of ferule and whips, and has perfect faith +in the efficacy of flogging in homes and schools. He longs for the +return of the good old days when fathers were severe, and children +affectionate and obedient.</p> +<p>In America, for many years, even wife-beating has been somewhat +unpopular, and the flogging of children has been considered cruel +and unmanly. Wives with bruised and swollen faces, and children +with lacerated backs, have excited pity for themselves rather than +admiration for savage husbands and brutal fathers. It is also true +that the church has far less power here than in England, and it may +be that those who wander from the orthodox fold grow merciful and +respect the rights even of the weakest.</p> +<p>But whatever the cause may be, the fact is that we, citizens of +the Republic, feel that certain domestic brutalities are the +children of monarchies and despotisms; that they were produced by +superstition, ignorance, and savagery; and that they are not in +accord with the free and superb spirit that founded and preserves +the Great Republic.</p> +<p>Of late years, confidence in the power of kindness has greatly +increased, and there is a wide-spread suspicion that cruelty and +violence are not the instrumentalities of civilization.</p> +<p>Physicians no longer regard corporal punishment as a sure cure +even for insanity—and it is generally admitted that the lash +irritates rather than soothes the victim of melancholia.</p> +<p>Civilized men now insist that criminals cannot always be +reformed even by the most ingenious instruments of torture. It is +known that some convicts repay the smallest acts of kindness with +the sincerest gratitude. Some of the best people go so far as to +say that kindness is the sunshine in which the virtues grow. We +know that for many ages governments tried to make men virtuous with +dungeon and fagot and scaffold; that they tried to cure even +disease of the mind with brandings and maimings and lashes on the +naked flesh of men and women—and that kings endeavored to sow +the seeds of patriotism—to plant and nurture them in the +hearts of their subjects—with whip and chain.</p> +<p>In England, only a few years ago, there were hundreds of brave +soldiers and daring sailors whose breasts were covered with +honorable scars—witnesses of wounds received at Trafalgar and +Balaklava—while on the backs of these same soldiers and +sailors were the marks of English whips. These shameless cruelties +were committed in the name of discipline, and were upheld by +officers, statesmen and clergymen. The same is true of nearly all +civilized nations. These crimes have been excused for the reason +that our ancestors were, at that time, in fact, +barbarians—that they had no idea of justice, no comprehension +of liberty, no conception of the rights of men, women, and +children.</p> +<p>At that time the church was, in most countries, equal to, or +superior to, the state, and was a firm believer in the civilizing +influences of cruelty and torture.</p> +<p>According to the creeds of that day, God intended to torture the +wicked forever, and the church, according to its power, did all +that it could in the same direction. Learning their rights and +duties from priests, fathers not only beat their children, but +their wives. In those days most homes were penitentiaries, in which +wives and children were the convicts and of which husbands and +fathers were the wardens and turnkeys. The king imitated his +supposed God, and imprisoned, flogged, branded, beheaded and burned +his enemies, and the husbands and fathers imitated the king, and +guardians and teachers imitated them.</p> +<p>Yet in spite of all the beatings and burnings, the whippings and +hangings, the world was not reformed. Crimes increased, the cheeks +of wives were furrowed with tears, the faces of children white with +fear—fear of their own fathers; pity was almost driven from +the heart of man and found refuge, for the most part, in the +breasts of women, children, and dogs.</p> +<p>In those days, misfortunes were punished as crimes. Honest +debtors were locked in loathsome dungeons, and trivial offences +were punished with death. Worse than all that, thousands of men and +women were destroyed, not because they were vicious, but because +they were virtuous, honest and noble. Extremes beget obstructions. +The victims at last became too numerous, and the result did not +seem to justify the means. The good, the few, protested against the +savagery of kings and fathers.</p> +<p>Nothing seems clearer to me than that the world has been +gradually growing better for many years. Men have a clearer +conception of rights and obligations—a higher +philosophy—a far nobler ideal. Even kings admit that they +should have some regard for the well-being of their subjects. +Nations and individuals are slowly outgrowing the savagery of +revenge, the desire to kill, and it is generally admitted that +criminals should neither be imprisoned nor tortured for the +gratification of the public. At last we are beginning to know that +revenge is a mistake—that cruelty not only hardens the +victim, but makes a criminal of him who inflicts it, and that mercy +guided by intelligence is the highest form of justice.</p> +<p>The tendency of the world is toward kindness. The religious +creeds are being changed or questioned, because they shock the +heart of the present. All civilized churches, all humane +Christians, have given up the dogma of eternal pain. This infamous +doctrine has for many centuries polluted the imagination and +hardened the heart. This coiled viper no longer inhabits the breast +of a civilized man.</p> +<p>In all civilized countries slavery has been abolished, the +honest debtor released, and all are allowed the liberty of +speech.</p> +<p>Long ago flogging was abolished in our army and navy and all +cruel and unusual punishments prohibited by law. In many parts of +the Republic the whip has been banished from the public schools, +the flogger of children is held in abhorrence, and the wife-beater +is regarded as a cowardly criminal. The gospel of kindness is not +only preached, but practiced. Such has been the result of this +advance of civilization—of this growth of kindness—of +this bursting into blossom of the flower called pity, in the +heart—that we treat our horses (thanks to Henry Bergh) better +than our ancestors did their slaves, their servants or their +tenants. The gentlemen of to-day show more affection for their dogs +than most of the kings of England exhibited toward their wives. The +great tide is toward mercy; the savage creeds are being changed; +heartless laws have been repealed; shackles have been broken; +torture abolished, and the keepers of prisons are no longer allowed +to bruise and scar the flesh of convicts. The insane are treated +with kindness—asylums are in the midst of beautiful grounds, +the rooms are filled with flowers, and the wandering mind is called +back by the golden voice of music.</p> +<p>In the midst of these tendencies—of these +accomplishments—in the general harmony between the minds of +men, acting together, to the end that the world may be governed by +kindness through education and the blessed agencies of reformation +and prevention, the Dean of St. Paul raises his voice in favor of +the methods and brutalities of the past.</p> +<p>The reverend gentleman takes the ground that the effect of +flogging on the flogged is not degrading; that the effect of +corporal punishment is ennobling; that it tends to make boys manly +by ennobling and teaching them to bear bodily pain with fortitude. +To be flogged develops character, self-reliance, courage, contempt +of pain and the highest heroism. The Dean therefore takes the +ground that parents should flog their children, guardians their +wards, and teachers their pupils.</p> +<p>If the Dean is wrong he goes too far, and if he is right he does +not go far enough. He does not advocate the flogging of children +who obey their parents, or of pupils who violate no rule. It +follows then that such children are in great danger of growing up +unmanly, without the courage and fortitude to bear bodily pain. If +flogging is really a blessing it should not be withheld from the +good and lavished on the unworthy. The Dean should have the courage +of his convictions. The teacher should not make a pretext of the +misconduct of the pupil to do him a great service. He should not be +guilty of calling a benefit a punishment He should not deceive the +children under his care and develop their better natures under +false pretences. But what is to become of the boys and girls who +"behave themselves," who attend to their studies, and comply with +the rules? They lose the benefits conferred on those who defy their +parents and teachers, reach maturity without character, and so +remain withered and worthless.</p> +<p>The Dean not only defends his position by an appeal to the +Bible, the history of nations, but to his personal experience. In +order to show the good effects of brutality and the bad +consequences of kindness, he gives two instances that came under +his observation. The first is that of an intelligent father who +treated his sons with great kindness and yet these sons neglected +their affectionate father in his old age. The second instance is +that of a mother who beat her daughter. The wretched child, it +seems, was sent out to gather sticks from the hedges, and when she +brought home a large stick, the mother suspected that she had +obtained it wrongfully and thereupon proceeded to beat the child. +And yet the Dean tells us that this abused daughter treated the +hyena mother with the greatest kindness, and loved her as no other +daughter ever loved a mother. In order to make this case strong and +convincing the Dean states that this mother was a most excellent +Christian.</p> +<p>From these two instances the Dean infers, and by these two +instances proves, that kindness breeds bad sons, and that flogging +makes affectionate daughters. The Dean says to the Christian +mother: "If you wish to be loved by your daughter, you must beat +her." And to the Christian father he says: "If you want to be +neglected in your old age by your sons, you will treat them with +kindness." The Dean does not follow his logic to the end. Let me +give him two instances that support his theory.</p> +<p>A good man married a handsome woman. He was old, rich, kind and +indulgent. He allowed his wife to have her own way. He never +uttered a cross or cruel word. He never thought of beating her. And +yet, as the Dean would say, in consequence of his kindness, she +poisoned him, got his money and married another man.</p> +<p>In this city, not long ago, a man, a foreigner, beat his wife +according to his habit. On this particular occasion the punishment +was excessive. He beat her until she became unconscious; she was +taken to a hospital and the physician said that she could not live. +The husband was brought to the hospital and preparations were made +to take her dying statement. After being told that she was dying, +she was asked if her husband had beaten her. Her face was so +bruised and swollen that the lids of her eyes had to be lifted in +order that she might see the wretch who had killed her. She +beckoned him to her side—threw her arms about his +neck—drew his face to hers—kissed him, and said: "He is +not the man. He did not do it"—then—died.</p> +<p>According to the philosophy of the Dean, these instances show +that kindness causes crime, and that wife-beating cultivates in the +highest degree the affectional nature of woman.</p> +<p>The Dean, if consistent, is a believer in slavery, because the +lash judiciously applied brings out the finer feelings of the +heart. Slaves have been known to die for their masters, while under +similar circumstances hired men have sought safety in flight.</p> +<p>We all know of many instances where the abused, the maligned, +and the tortured have returned good for evil—and many +instances where the loved, the honored, and the trusted have turned +against their benefactors, and yet we know that cruelty and torture +are not superior to love and kindness. Yet, the Dean tries to show +that severity is the real mother of affection, and that kindness +breeds monsters. If kindness and affection on the part of parents +demoralize children, will not kindness and affection on the part of +children demoralize the parents?</p> +<p>When the children are young and weak, the parents who are strong +beat the children in order that they may be affectionate. Now, when +the children get strong and the parents are old and weak, ought not +the children to beat them, so that they too may become kind and +loving?</p> +<p>If you want an affectionate son, beat him. If you desire a +loving wife, beat her.</p> +<p>This is really the advice of the Dean of St Paul. To me it is +one of the most pathetic facts in nature that wives and children +love husbands and fathers who are utterly unworthy. It is enough to +sadden a life to think of the affection that has been lavished upon +the brutal, of the countless pearls that Love has thrown to +swine.</p> +<p>The Dean, quoting from Hooker, insists that "the voice of man is +as the sentence of God himself,"—in other words, that the +general voice, practice and opinion of the human race are true.</p> +<p>And yet, cannibalism, slavery, polygamy, the worship of snakes +and stones, the sacrifice of babes, have during vast periods of +time been practiced and upheld by an overwhelming majority of +mankind. Whether the "general voice" can be depended on depends +much on the time, the epoch, during which the "general voice" was +uttered. There was a time when the "general voice" was in accord +with the appetite of man; when all nations were cannibals and lived +on each other, and yet it can hardly be said that this voice and +appetite were in exact accord with divine goodness. It is hardly +safe to depend on the "general voice" of savages, no matter how +numerous they may have been. Like most people who defend the cruel +and absurd, the Dean appeals to the Bible as the supreme authority +in the moral world,—and yet if the English Parliament should +re-enact the Mosaic Code every member voting in the affirmative +would be subjected to personal violence, and an effort to enforce +that code would produce a revolution that could end only in the +destruction of the government.</p> +<p>The morality of the Old Testament is not always of the purest; +when Jehovah tried to induce Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, he +never took the ground that slavery was wrong. He did not seek to +convince by argument, to soften by pity, or to persuade by +kindness. He depended on miracles and plagues. He killed helpless +babes and the innocent beasts of the fields. No wonder the Dean +appeals to the Bible to justify the beating of children. So, too, +we are told that "all sensible persons, Christian and otherwise, +will admit that there are in every child born into the world +tendencies to evil that need rooting out."</p> +<p>The Dean undoubtedly believes in the creed of the established +church, and yet he does not hesitate to say that a God of infinite +goodness and intelligence never created a child—never allowed +one to be born into the world without planting in its little heart +"tendencies to evil that need rooting out."</p> +<p>So, Solomon is quoted to the effect "that he that spareth his +rod hateth his son." To me it has always been a matter of amazement +why civilized people, living in the century of Darwin and Humboldt, +should quote as authority the words of Solomon, a murderer, an +ingrate, an idolater, and a polygamist—a man so steeped and +sodden in ignorance that he really believed he could be happy with +seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. The Dean seems to +regret that flogging is no longer practiced in the British navy, +and quotes with great cheerfulness a passage from Deuteronomy to +prove that forty lashes on the naked back will meet with the +approval of God. He insists that St. Paul endured corporal +punishment without the feeling of degradation not only, but that he +remembered his sufferings with a sense of satisfaction. Does the +Dean think that the satisfaction of St. Paul justified the wretches +who beat and stoned him? Leaving the Hebrews, the Dean calls the +Greeks as witnesses to establish the beneficence of flogging. They +resorted to corporal punishment in their schools, says the Dean and +then naively remarks "that Plutarch was opposed to this."</p> +<p>The Dean admits that in Rome it was found necessary to limit by +law the punishment that a father might inflict upon his children, +and yet he seems to regret that the legislature interfered. The +Dean observes that "Quintillian severely censured corporal +punishment" and then accounts for the weakness and folly of the +censure, by saying that "Quintillian wrote in the days when the +glories of Rome were departed." And then adds these curiously +savage words: "It is worthy of remark that no children treated +their parents with greater tenderness and reverence than did those +of Rome in the days when the father possessed the unlimited power +of punishment."</p> +<p>Not quite satisfied with the strength of his case although +sustained by Moses and Solomon, St. Paul and several schoolmasters, +he proceeds to show that God is thoroughly on his side, not only in +theory, but in practice; "whom the Lord loveth lie chasteneth, and +scourgeth every sou whom he receiveth.".</p> +<p>The Dean asks this question: "Which custom, kindness or +severity, does experience show to be the less dangerous?" And he +answers from a new heart: "I fear that I must unhesitatingly give +the palm to severity."</p> +<p>"I have found that there have been more reverence and affection, +more willingness to make sacrifices for parents, more pleasure in +contributing to their pleasure or happiness in that life where the +tendency has been to a severe method of treatment."</p> +<p>Is it possible that any good mail exists who is willing to gain +the affection of his children in that way? How could such a man +beat and bruise the flesh of his babes, knowing that they would +give him in return obedience and love; that they would fill the +evening of his days—the leafless winter of his +life—with perfect peace?</p> +<p>Think of being fed and clothed by children you had +whipped—whose flesh you had scarred! Think of feeling in the +hour of death upon your withered lips, your withered cheeks, the +kisses and the tears of one whom, you had beaten—upon whose +flesh were still the marks of your lash!</p> +<p>The whip degrades; a severe father teaches his children to +dissemble; their love is pretence, and their obedience a species of +self-defence. Fear is the father of lies.</p> +<div style="height: 6em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<br /> +<table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4"> +<tbody> +<tr> +<td><big><big><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm"> +TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</tbody> +</table> +<br /> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +</body> +</html> |
