diff options
Diffstat (limited to '38806-h/38806-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38806-h/38806-h.htm | 17881 |
1 files changed, 17881 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/38806-h/38806-h.htm b/38806-h/38806-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0bf91a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/38806-h/38806-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,17881 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Volume 6 (of 12) by Robert G. Ingersoll + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 6 +(of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 6 (of 12) + Dresden Edition--Discussions + +Author: Robert G. Ingersoll + +Release Date: February 9, 2012 [EBook #38806] +Last Updated: November 15, 2012 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <a name="title" id="title"></a> + </p> + <h1> + THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL + </h1> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By Robert G. Ingersoll + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <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> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h3> + DISCUSSIONS + </h3> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + 1900 + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h3> + Dresden Edition + </h3> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto" cellpadding="4" border="3"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td> + <big><big><a + href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38806/old/orig38806-h/main.htm">This + file has been formatted in a very plain format for use with tablet + readers. Those wishing to view this eBook in its normal more + appealing format for laptops and other computers may click on this + line to to view the original HTML file.</a></big></big> + </td> + </tr> + </tbody> + </table> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <div class="fig" style="width:80%;"> + <img alt="titlepage (63K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" width="100%" /><br /> + </div> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <div class="fig" style="width:80%;"> + <img alt="portrait (63K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" width="100%" /><br /> + </div> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <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> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + CONTENTS. + </h2> + <blockquote> + <p> + 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> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link0005">THE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION.</a> + </p> + <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> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link0011">ROME OR REASON.</a> + </p> + <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> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link0014">IS DIVORCE WRONG?</a> + </p> + <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> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link0016">DIVORCE.</a> + </p> + <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> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link0017">IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING?</a> + </p> + <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 /> + </p> + </blockquote> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link0001" id="link0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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> + <p> + II. + </p> + <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> + <p> + III. + </p> + <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> + <p> + <a name="link0002" id="link0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0003" id="link0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. + </h2> + <p> + III. + </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> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0004" id="link0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + FAITH OR AGNOSTICISM. + </h2> + <h3> + [Ingersoll-Field.] + </h3> + <p> + <a name="link0005" id="link0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + THAT AMONG THE SONS OF MEN THERE HAS NOT RISEN A GREATER THAN JESUS;" + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0006" id="link0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + A REPLY TO THE REV. HENRY M. FIELD, D.D. + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0007" id="link0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0008" id="link0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0009" id="link0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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> + <p> + <a name="link0010" id="link0010"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0011" id="link0011"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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> + <p> + <a name="link0012" id="link0012"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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 xml:space="preserve"> + *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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + *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> + <p> + <a name="link0013" id="link0013"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + ROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING. + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + Superstition "has ears more deaf than adders to the voice of + any true decision." +</pre> + <p> + I. + </p> + <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> + <p> + II. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + "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> + <p> + <a name="link0014" id="link0014"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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> + <p> + <a name="linkINTR" id="linkINTR"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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 xml:space="preserve"> + * "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> + <p> + <a name="link0016" id="link0016"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <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> + <p> + REPLY TO CARDINAL GIBBONS. + </p> + <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> + <p> + REPLY TO BISHOP POTTER. + </p> + <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 xml:space="preserve"> + * 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> + <p> + JUSTICE BRADLEY. + </p> + <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> + <p> + SENATOR DOLPH. + </p> + <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> + <p> + THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, IN COLLOQUIAL FORM. + </p> + <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> + <p> + ANSWER TO LYMAN ABBOTT. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * 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> + <p> + ANSWER TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * 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> + <p> + II. + </p> + <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> + <p> + III. + </p> + <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> + <p> + IV. + </p> + <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> + <p> + V. + </p> + <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> + <p> + VI. + </p> + <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> + <p> + VII. + </p> + <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> + <p> + VIII. + </p> + <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> + <p> + SAYINGS FROM THE INDIAN. + </p> + <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> + <p> + ORIGEN. + </p> + <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> + <p> + ST. AUGUSTINE. + </p> + <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> + <p> + DANTE. + </p> + <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> + <p> + AQUINAS. + </p> + <p> + Aquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who believed in the + undying worm. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link0017" id="link0017"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING? + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * 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> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. +6 (of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL *** + +***** This file should be named 38806-h.htm or 38806-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/8/0/38806/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |