diff options
Diffstat (limited to '38806.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38806.txt | 16338 |
1 files changed, 16338 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/38806.txt b/38806.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7723d30 --- /dev/null +++ b/38806.txt @@ -0,0 +1,16338 @@ +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] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + + + +NEED TO REDO ALL THE "REMOVE" LINES: + +THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL + +"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." + +IN TWELVE VOLUMES VOLUME VI. + +DISCUSSIONS + +1900 + +Dresden Edition + + + + +CONTENTS. + + +THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. + +(1881.) + +I. Col. Ingersoll's Opening Paper--Statement of the Fundamental Truths +of Christianity--Reasons for Thinking that Portions of the Old Testament +are the Product of a Barbarous People--Passages upholding +Slavery, Polygamy, War, and Religious Persecution not Evidences of +Inspiration--If the Words are not Inspired, What Is?--Commands of +Jehovah compared with the Precepts of Pagans and Stoics--Epictetus, +Cicero, Zeno, Seneca, Brahma--II. The New Testament--Why were +Four Gospels Necessary?--Salvation by Belief--The Doctrine of +the Atonement--The Jewish System Culminating in the Sacrifice of +Christ--Except for the Crucifixion of her Son, the Virgin Mary would be +among the Lost--What Christ must have Known would Follow the Acceptance +of His Teachings--The Wars of Sects, the Inquisition, the Fields of +Death--Why did he not Forbid it All?--The Little that he Revealed--The +Dogma of Eternal Punishment--Upon Love's Breast the Church has Placed +the Eternal Asp--III. The "Inspired" Writers--Why did not God furnish +Every Nation with a Bible? + +II. Judge Black's Reply--His Duty that of a Policeman--The Church not +in Danger--Classes who Break out into Articulate Blasphemy--The +Sciolist--Personal Remarks about Col. Ingersoll--Chief-Justice Gibson of +Pennsylvania Quoted--We have no Jurisdiction or Capacity to Rejudge the +Justice of God--The Moral Code of the Bible--Civil Government of the +Jews--No Standard of Justice without Belief in a God--Punishments for +Blasphemy and Idolatry Defended--Wars of Conquest--Allusion to Col. +Ingersoll's War Record--Slavery among the Jews--Polygamy Discouraged by +the Mosaic Constitution--Jesus of Nazareth and the Establishment of +his Religion--Acceptance of Christianity and Adjudication upon its +Divinity--The Evangelists and their Depositions--The Fundamental Truths +of Christianity--Persecution and Triumph of the Church--Ingersoll's +Propositions Compressed and the Compressions Answered--Salvation as a +Reward of Belief--Punishment of Unbelief--The Second Birth, Atonement, +Redemption, Non-resistance, Excessive Punishment of Sinners, Christ and +Persecution, Christianity and Freedom of Thought, Sufficiency of the +Gospel, Miracles, Moral Effect of Christianity. + +III. Col. Ingersoll's Rejoinder--How this Discussion Came About--Natural +Law--The Design Argument--The Right to Rejudge the Justice even of a +God--Violation of the Commandments by Jehovah--Religious Intolerance +of the Old Testament--Judge Black's Justification of Wars of +Extermination--His Defence of Slavery--Polygamy not "Discouraged" by the +Old Testament--Position of Woman under the Jewish System and under that +of the Ancients--a "Policeman's" View of God--Slavery under Jehovah +and in Egypt--The Admission that Jehovah gave no Commandment against +Polygamy--The Learned and Wise Crawl back in Cribs--Alleged Harmony of +Old and New Testaments--On the Assertion that the Spread of Christianity +Proves the Supernatural Origin of the Gospel--The Argument applicable to +All Religions--Communications from Angels ana Gods--Authenticity of +the Statements of the Evangelists--Three Important Manuscripts--Rise +of Mormonism--Ascension of Christ--The Great Public Events alleged +as Fundamental Truths of Christianity--Judge Black's System +of "Compression"--"A Metaphysical Question"--Right and +Wrong--Justice--Christianity and Freedom of Thought--Heaven and +Hell--Production of God and the Devil--Inspiration of the Bible +dependent on the Credulity of the Reader--Doubt of Miracles--The +World before Christ's Advent--Respect for the Man Christ--The Dark +Ages--Institutions of Mercy--Civil Law. + +THE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION. + +(1887.) + +An Open Letter to Robert G. Ingersoll--Superstitions--Basis of +Religion--Napoleon's Question about the Stars--The Idea of God--Crushing +out Hope--Atonement, Regeneration, and Future Retribution--Socrates and +Jesus--The Language of Col. Ingersoll characterized as too Sweeping--The +Sabbath--But a Step from Sneering at Religion to Sneering at Morality. + +A Reply to the Rev. Henry M. Field, D. D.--Honest Differences of +Opinion--Charles Darwin--Dr. Field's Distinction between Superstition +and Religion--The Presbyterian God an Infinite Torquemada--Napoleon's +Sensitiveness to the Divine Influence--The Preference of Agassiz--The +Mysterious as an Explanation--The Certainty that God is not what he +is Thought to Be--Self-preservation the Fibre of Society--Did +the Assassination of Lincoln Illustrate the Justice of God's +Judgments?--Immortality--Hope and the Presbyterian Creed--To a Mother +at the Grave of Her Son--Theological Teaching of Forgiveness--On +Eternal Retribution--Jesus and Mohammed--Attacking the Religion of +Others--Ananias and Sapphira--The Pilgrims and Freedom to Worship--The +Orthodox Sabbath--Natural Restraints on Conduct--Religion and +Morality--The Efficacy of Prayer--Respect for Belief of Father and +Mother--The "Power behind Nature"--Survival of the Fittest--The Saddest +Fact--"Sober Second Thought." + +A Last Word to Robert G. Ingersoll, by Dr. Field--God not a +Presbyterian--Why Col. Ingersoll's Attacks on Religion are Resented--God +is more Merciful than Man--Theories about the Future Life--Retribution +a Necessary Part of the Divine Law--The Case of Robinson +Crusoe--Irresistible Proof of Design--Col. Ingersoll's View of +Immortality--An Almighty Friend. + +Letter to Dr. Field--The Presbyterian God--What the Presbyterians +Claim--The "Incurably Bad"--Responsibility for not seeing Things +Clearly--Good Deeds should Follow even Atheists--No Credit in +Belief--Design Argument that Devours Itself--Belief as a Foundation +of Social Order--No Consolation in Orthodox Religion--The "Almighty +Friend" and the Slave Mother--a Hindu Prayer--Calvinism--Christ not the +Supreme Benefactor of the Race. + +COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY. + +(1888.) + +Some Remarks on his Reply to Dr. Field by the Hon. Wm. E. +Gladstone--External Triumph and Prosperity of the Church--A Truth Half +Stated--Col. Ingersoll's Tumultuous Method and lack of Reverential +Calm--Jephthah's Sacrifice--Hebrews xii Expounded--The Case of +Abraham--Darwinism and the Scriptures--Why God demands Sacrifices of +Man--Problems admitted to be Insoluble--Relation of human Genius +to Human Greatness--Shakespeare and Others--Christ and the Family +Relation--Inaccuracy of Reference in the Reply--Ananias and +Sapphira--The Idea of Immortality--Immunity of Error in Belief from +Moral Responsibility--On Dishonesty in the Formation of Opinion--A +Plausibility of the Shallowest kind--The System of Thuggism--Persecution +for Opinion's Sake--Riding an Unbroken Horse. + +Col. Ingersoll to Mr. Gladstone--On the "Impaired" State of the human +Constitution--Unbelief not Due to Degeneracy--Objections to the +Scheme of Redemption--Does Man Deserve only Punishment?--"Reverential +Calm"--The Deity of the Ancient Jews--Jephthah and Abraham--Relation +between Darwinism and the Inspiration of the Scriptures--Sacrifices to +the Infinite--What is Common Sense?--An Argument that will Defend every +Superstition--The Greatness of Shakespeare--The Absolute Indissolubility +of Marriage--Is the Religion of Christ for this Age?--As to Ananias and +Sapphira--Immortality and People of Low Intellectual Development--Can +we Control our Thought?--Dishonest Opinions Cannot be Formed--Some +Compensations for Riding an "Unbroken Horse." + +ROME OR REASON? + +(1888.) + +"The Church Its Own Witness," by Cardinal Manning--Evidence +that Christianity is of Divine Origin--The Universality of the +Church--Natural Causes not Sufficient to Account for the Catholic +Church---The World in which Christianity Arose--Birth of Christ--From +St Peter to Leo XIII.--The First Effect of Christianity--Domestic +Life's Second Visible Effect--Redemption of Woman from traditional +Degradation--Change Wrought by Christianity upon the Social, Political +and International Relations of the World--Proof that Christianity is of +Divine Origin and Presence--St. John and the Christian Fathers--Sanctity +of the Church not Affected by Human Sins. + +A Reply to Cardinal Manning--I. Success not a Demonstration of either +Divine Origin or Supernatural Aid--Cardinal Manning's Argument +More Forcible in the Mouth of a Mohammedan--Why Churches Rise and +Flourish--Mormonism--Alleged Universality of the Catholic Church--Its +"inexhaustible Fruitfulness" in Good Things--The Inquisition and +Persecution--Not Invincible--Its Sword used by Spain--Its Unity not +Unbroken--The State of the World when Christianity was Established--The +Vicar of Christ--A Selection from Draper's "History of the Intellectual +Development of Europe"--Some infamous Popes--Part II. How the Pope +Speaks--Religions Older than Catholicism and having the Same Rites +and Sacraments--Is Intellectual Stagnation a Demonstration of Divine +Origin?--Integration and Disintegration--The Condition of the World 300 +Years Ago--The Creed of Catholicism--The "One true God" with a Knowledge +of whom Catholicism has "filled the World"--Did the Catholic Church +overthrow Idolatry?--Marriage--Celibacy--Human Passions--The Cardinal's +Explanation of Jehovah's abandonment of the Children of Men for +four thousand Years--Catholicism tested by Paganism--Canon Law +and Convictions had Under It--Rival Popes--Importance of a Greek +"Inflection"--The Cardinal Witnesses. + +IS DIVORCE WRONG? + +(1889.) + +Preface by the Editor of the North American Review--Introduction, by the +Rev. S. W. Dike, LL. D.--A Catholic View by Cardinal Gibbons--Divorce +as Regarded by the Episcopal Church, by Bishop, Henry C. Potter--Four +Questions Answered, by Robert G. Ingersoll. + +DIVORCE. + +Reply to Cardinal Gibbons--Indissolubility of Marriage a Reaction +from Polygamy--Biblical Marriage--Polygamy Simultaneous and +Successive--Marriage and Divorce in the Light of Experience--Reply +to Bishop Potter--Reply to Mr. Gladstone--Justice Bradley--Senator +Dolph--The argument Continued in Colloquial Form--Dialogue between +Cardinal Gibbons and a Maltreated Wife--She Asks the Advice of Mr. +Gladstone--The Priest who Violated his Vow--Absurdity of the Divorce +laws of Some States. + +REPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT. + +(1890) + +Dr. Abbott's Equivocations--Crimes Punishable by Death under Mosaic +and English Law--Severity of Moses Accounted for by Dr. Abbott--The +Necessity for the Acceptance of Christianity--Christians should be +Glad to Know that the Bible is only the Work of Man and that the New +Testament Life of Christ is Untrue--All the Good Commandments, Known +to the World thousands of Years before Moses--Human Happiness of +More Consequence than the Truth about God--The Appeal to Great +Names--Gladstone not the Greatest Statesman--What the Agnostic Says--The +Magnificent Mistakes of Genesis--The Story of Joseph--Abraham as a +"self-Exile for Conscience's Sake." + +REPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR. + +(1890.) + +Revelation as an Appeal to Man's "Spirit"--What is Spirit and what is +"Spiritual Intuition"?--The Archdeacon in Conflict with St. Paul--II. +The Obligation to Believe without Evidence--III. Ignorant Credulity--IV. +A Definition of Orthodoxy--V. Fear not necessarily Cowardice--Prejudice +is Honest--The Ola has the Advantage in an Argument--St. +Augustine--Jerome--the Appeal to Charlemagne--Roger Bacon--Lord Bacon +a Defender of the Copernican System--The Difficulty of finding out +what Great Men Believed--Names Irrelevantly Cited--Bancroft on the +Hessians--Original Manuscripts of the Bible--VI. An Infinite Personality +a Contradiction in Terms--VII. A Beginningless Being--VIII. The +Cruelties of Nature not to be Harmonized with the Goodness of a +Deity--Sayings from the Indian--Origen, St. Augustine, Dante, Aquinas. + +IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING? + +(1890.) + +A Reply to the Dean of St. Paul--Growing Confidence in the Power of +Kindness--Crimes against Soldiers and Sailors--Misfortunes Punished +as Crimes--The Dean's Voice Raised in Favor of the Brutalities of the +Past--Beating of Children--Of Wives--Dictum of Solomon. + + + + +THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; INGERSOLL'S OPENING PAPER + +[Ingersoll-Black] + +By Robert G. Ingersoll + +In the presence of eternity the mountains are as transient as the +clouds. + +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. + +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: + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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."? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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: + +"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." + +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. + + +II. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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 _auto da fe_. 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? + +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: + +"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." + +Is there anything nearer perfect than this from Confucius: "For benefits +return benefits; for injuries return justice without any admixture of +revenge"? + +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. + +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." + + +III. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +The usual answer to these objections is that no country has ever been +civilized without the Bible. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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. + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY JEREMIAH S. BLACK. + +"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."--_Merchant of Venice_. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 "_a profound change_ has taken place in the world of +_thought,_" 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." + +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." + +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. + +_Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum_. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Gibson, the great Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania, once said to certain +skeptical friends of his: "Give Christianity a common-law trial; submit +the evidence _pro_ and _con_ 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. + +Let Christianity have a trial on Mr. Ingersoll's indictment, and give +us a decision _secundum allegata et probata_. 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. + +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. + +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. + + "All discord, harmony not understood, + All partial evil, universal good." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _himself_ 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. + +_First_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +_Second_. 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 _ex necessitate rei_--not +merely justified by the _lex talionis_--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. + +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 +_philoprogenitiveness_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +_Third_. 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 _non sequitur_, 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. + +_Fourth_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +_First_. 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. + +_Second_. I call these statements _depositions_, 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. + +_Third_. 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. + +_Fourth_. 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. + +_Fifth_. 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. + +_Sixth_. 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. + +_Seventh_. 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. + +_Eighth_. 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. + + "It is the very error of the moon, + Which comes more near the earth than she was wont, + And makes men mad!" + +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. + +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 +_italics_, and, taking a look at his misty creations, let them roll away +and vanish into air, one after another. + +_Christianity offers eternal salvation as the reward of belief alone_. +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. + +_The mere failure to believe it is punished in hell_. 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. + +_The mystery of the second birth is incomprehensible_. 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? + +_The doctrine of the atonement is absurd, unjust, and immoral_. 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 _seems to him_ "absurd, +unjust, and immoral." I would not abridge his freedom of thought or +speech, and the _argumentum ad verecundiam_ 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. + +_He does not comprehend how justice and mercy can be blended together in +the plan of redemption, and therefore it cannot be true_. 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? + +_How, he asks, can the sufferings of an innocent person satisfy justice +for the sins of the guilty?_ 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.. + +_What, he again asks, would we think of a man who allowed another to die +for a crime which he himself had committed?_ 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. + +_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_. 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. + +_The punishment of sinners in eternal hell is excessive_. 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. + +_If Christ was God, he knew that his followers would persecute and +murder men for their opinions; yet he did not forbid it_. 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. + +_Christians in modern times carry on wars of detraction and slander +against one another_. 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. + +_But, says he, Christians have been guilty of wanton and wicked +Persecution_. 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 +_auto da fe_ 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? + +_Christianity is opposed to freedom of thought_. 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. + +_The gospel of Christ does not satisfy the hunger of the heart_. +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. + +_Accounts of miracles are always false_. 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 +_a priori_ 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 _all_ miracles are "the children of mendacity." + +_Christianity is pernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind, +narrows the soul, arrests the progress of human society, and hinders +civilization_. 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. + +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. + +"_Adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum_." + +J. S. Black. + + + + +THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. + + +III. + + +"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. + +"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. + + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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 _not_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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: + +"_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_." + +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. + +"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. + +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. + +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." + +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"? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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! + +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. + +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. + +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 _almost_ 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. + +Will Mr. Black have the kindness to state a few of his objections to the +devil? + +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." + +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? + +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." + +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! + +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! + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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--_the mistaken_, 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. + +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? + +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? + +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." + +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." + +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"? + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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 _not_ an impostor. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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 +_without_ 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: + +"_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 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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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, _plus_ 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, _plus_ 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, +_plus_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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! + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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." + +St. Irenaeus 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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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 +_auto da fe_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +FAITH OR AGNOSTICISM. + +[Ingersoll-Field.] + + + + +THE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION. + +An Open Letter to Robert G. Ingersoll. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _that other man_ 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 _stand up_ even against him; but +if he will only _sit down_ 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. + +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 +_know_ that a Creator does not exist! + +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 _believe_ that there is a God. Whether this be a reasonable +conclusion or not, it is at least an intelligible state of mind. + +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: + + "The awful shadow of some unseen power, + Floats, though unseen, among us." + +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 +_conscious_ 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. + +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. + +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 _we_ 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. + +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 _not_ what +we imagined him to be; that He is far greater than any image of Him that +we could frame. + +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. + +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!" + +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_ know anything about, _so +far as I recollect_." This is very wittily put, and some may suppose +it contains an argument; but do you really mean to say that you do not +_know_ 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? + +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!" + +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. + +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. + +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! + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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!" + +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? + +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 _the effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause +is eternal_. 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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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 [legende] will draw tears from beautiful eyes without end; his +sufferings will touch the finest natures; all the ages will proclaim + +THAT AMONG THE SONS OF MEN THERE HAS NOT RISEN A GREATER THAN JESUS;" + +while Rousseau closes his immortal eulogy by saying, "Socrates died like +a philosopher, but Jesus Christ like a God!" + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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 Dore, 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. + +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 _Cotter's +Saturday Night_, and you have taken from them their most sacred hours +and their tenderest memories. + +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: + + "Sweet day I so cool, so calm, so bright, + The bridal of the earth and sky." + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +Henry M. Field. + + + + +A REPLY TO THE REV. HENRY M. FIELD, D.D. + + "Doubt is called the beacon of the wise." + +My Dear Mr. Field: + +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. + +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. + +The first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence of +honest error--as to the right to express an honest thought. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +That which must be, has the right to be. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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"? + +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. + +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. + +Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation. + +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. + +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? + +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 +Caesars. 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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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"? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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? + +"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." + +Or, will you read this? + +"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." + +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? + +"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." + +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? + +"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." + +If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would you +thrust this dagger in her heart? + +"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." + +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? + +"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." + +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." + +What could I say? Let me tell you: + +"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? + +"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. + +"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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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: "_The effect of everything which is +of the nature of a cause, is eternal_." 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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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 Caesar"? 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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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? + +Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been produced by +and are really the children of religion. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +As you have mentioned the apostles, let me call your attention to an +incident. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades. Science +civilizes. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery. + +You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without the +sanctions of religion. + +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. + +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? + +You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that the best +chemists are most likely to poison themselves. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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?" + +You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his parents is +wanting in respect to his father and his mother. + +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? + +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. + +You insist that religion does not leave man in "abject terror"--does not +leave him "in utter darkness as to his fate." + +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! + +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"? + +You insist that "there is a power behind Nature making for +righteousness." + +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. + +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. + +The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only power that +makes for righteousness. + +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. + +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"? + +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"? + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment. If +that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane. + +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? + +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. + +How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this infinite +lie? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +A LAST WORD TO ROBERT G. INGERSOLL + +My Dear Colonel Ingersoll: + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _on principles which you yourself +acknowledge_. 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? + +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. + +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. + +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 _he cannot forgive himself _, and +_never_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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? + +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." + +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: + +"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. + +"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." + +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. + +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." + +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): "_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." 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. + +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, _so far as I recollect_'" 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!" + +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: + + "Nobody knows the sorrows I've seen: + Nobody knows but Jesus?" + +Would you rob her of that Unseen Friend--the only Friend she had on +earth or in heaven? + +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. + +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. + +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 + + "Man's unconquerable mind." + +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." + +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: + + "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." + +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: + +"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?" + +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? + +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. + +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 _he suffers as long as he exists_. 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! + +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! + +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. + +Henry M. Field. + + + + +LETTER TO DR. FIELD. + +My Dear Mr. Field: + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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 _Evangelist_ 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. + +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"? + +Do you find in this flame the bud of hope, or the flower of promise? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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 Actaeon, 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +If wonder suggests a designer, can it go on increasing until it denies +that which it suggested? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 + + "Bade the slave-ship speed from coast to coast, + Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost"? + +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? + +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.". + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +There is an old Hindoo prayer to which I call your attention: + + "Have mercy, God, upon the vicious; + Thou hast already had mercy upon the just by making them just." + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +Compare, for one moment, all that the Savior did, all the pain and +suffering that he relieved,--compare all this with the discovery of +anaesthetics. Compare your prophets with the inventors, your Apostles +with the Keplers, the Humboldts and the Darwins. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Let us banish the shriveled hags of superstition; let us welcome the +beautiful daughters of truth and joy. + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +CONTROVERSY ON CHRISTIANTY + +[Ingersoll-Gladstone.] + + +COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY; SOME REMARKS ON HIS REPLY TO DR. +FIELD. + +By Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone. + +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. + +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. + +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 (_ibid._) "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. _Qui salvandos salvas gratis_ 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 _frustum_. 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). + +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. + +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?" + +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. + +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? + +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): + +"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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _mitrailleuse_. 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. + +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): + +"His discoveries, carried to their legitimate conclusion, destroy the +creeds and sacred Scriptures of mankind." + +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 +_ukases_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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 _Man's Destiny_ (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): + +"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?" + +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 +_petitio_ to import into the glowworm's case. Yes, but it is the very +_petitio_ 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. + +Although the Reply is not careful to supply us with whys, it does not +hesitate to ask for them (p. 479): + +"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?" + +The upholders of belief or of revelation, from Claudian down to Cardinal +Newman (see the very remarkable passage of the _Apologia pro vita sua_, +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? + +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. + +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): + + Or tu chi sei, che vuoi sedere a scranna + Per giudicar da lungi mille miglia + Colla veduta corta d'una spanna? + +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 _obiter_ 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. + +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 _code Napoleon_ 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 _hiatus_, which the Reply has +discovered in the teaching of our Lord, an imaginary _hiatus_? 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? + +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. + +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. + +Again, we have (p. 486) these words given as a quotation from the Bible: + +"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." + +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? + +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. + +"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). + +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. + +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): + +"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 honesty or dishonest, in +the formation of an opinion_. The conclusion is entirely independent of +desire." + +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 _ab initio_. 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. + +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. + +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, _seine zeit, +sein leben, und seine werkes_, 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.* + + * 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. + +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 _ab initio_ by coloring and distorting influences which have +falsified the primary conceptions. + +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. + +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. + + * North American Review for January, 1888, "Another Letter + to Dr. Field." + +"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? + +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.* + + * 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. + +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.): + +"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. + +W. E. Gladstone. + + + + +COL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE. + +To The Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, M. P.: + +My Dear Sir: + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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." + +My objections to this "divine scheme of redemption" are: _first_, that +there is not the slightest evidence that it is divine; _second_, that +it is not in any sense a "scheme," human or divine; and _third_, that it +cannot, by any possibility, result in the redemption of a human being. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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." + +Dr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying: "I am glad that I know +you, _even though some of my brethren look upon you as a monster, +because of your unbelief_." + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Another instance is given of the "tumultuous method in which I conduct, +not, indeed, my argument, but my case." + +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?" + +These simple questions seem to have excited you to an unusual degree, +and you ask in words of some severity: + +"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." + +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"? + +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. + +"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.'" + +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"? + +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. + +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"? + +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? + +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. + +But as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a moment +examine this deity of the ancient Jews. + +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." + +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? + +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? + +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. + +"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." + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +There is another test: How does a man treat the animals in his +power--his faithful horse--his patient ox--his loving dog? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Let me call your attention to a few passages in the thirteenth chapter +of Deuteronomy: + +"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." + +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"? + +These frightful passages, like coiled adders, were in the hearts of +Jehovah's chosen people when they crucified "the Sinless Man." + +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. + +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. + +Let us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis: + +"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." + +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. + +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." + +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"? + +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. + +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"? + +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? + +He commanded his generals to destroy all, men, women and babes: "Thou +shalt save nothing alive that breatheth." + +"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour +flesh." + +"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the +tongue of thy dogs in the same." + +"... 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." + +Is it possible that these words fell from the lips of the Most Merciful? + +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? + +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. + +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: + +"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." + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +I know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime told by +this man. + +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. + +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. + +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.". + +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? + +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? + +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." + +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? + +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? + +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"? + +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? + +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. + +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: + +"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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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?" + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +You ask: "Why then should the father make demands of love, obedience, +and sacrifice from his young child?" + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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? + +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? + +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." + +Why should Jehovah allow his worshipers, his adorers, to be destroyed by +his enemies? Can you by any possibility answer this question? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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. + +You also admit that we are to decide these questions according to the +balance of the evidence. + +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"? + +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? + +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: + +"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"? + +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. + +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? + +What is common sense? Is it the result of observation, reason and +experience, or is it the child of credulity? + +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?" + +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. + +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: + +"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?" + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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? + +You seem to think that you have fully answered my objection when you say +that Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage. + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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. + +It has always seemed to me that reasons are better than names. + +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?" + +Does not this question admit that the teachings of Christ will not serve +for all nations, all ages and all states of civilization? + +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? + +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." + +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? + +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? + +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"? + +You have called me to an account for what I said in regard to Ananias +and Sapphira. _First_, 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; _second_, "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, _third_, that I stated that the +apostles sent for the wife of Ananias--and this is characterized as a +pure invention. + +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: + +"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." + +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. + +"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." + +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. + +According to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks to Ananias, + +"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." + +Whereupon Peter said: + +"'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." + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +You answer this by saying that "the Egyptians were believers in +immortality, but were not a people of high intellectual development." + +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? + +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? + +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 _non sequitur?_ The question is: Were they a loving people? + +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? + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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"? + +Is it not strange that Christ did not tell of another world distinctly, +clearly, without parable, and without the mist of metaphor? + +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. + +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." + +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." + +Does the brain think without our consent? Can we control our thought? +Can we tell what we are going to think tomorrow? + +Can we stop thinking? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +Let us examine your case: If a father is _consciously_ 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. + +The same argument applies to the man who consciously has a desire to +condemn. Such a _conscious_ 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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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, + + "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"? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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? + +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: + +"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." + +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." + +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. + +Again assuring you of my profound respect, I remain, Sincerely yours, + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +ROME OR REASON. + +Col. Ingersoll and Cardinal Manning. + +The Gladstone-Ingersoll Controversy. + + + + +THE CHURCH ITS OWN WITNESS, By Cardinal Manning. + +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. + + * "Const. Dogm. de Fide Catholica, c. iii. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Once more I have the same twofold process of reasoning and of believing +to go through. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +3. In faith, divine worship, sacred ceremonial, discipline, government, +from the highest to the lowest, it is the same in every place. + +4. It speaks all languages in the civilized world. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Thus far we have rested upon the evidence of sense and fact. We must now +go on to history and reason. + +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. + +It may be said in answer, endless divisions have come out of the Church, +from Arius to Photius, and from Photius to Luther. + +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. _Ramus procisus arescit_. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _religiones +licitae_, 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. + + * Daniel, vii. 19. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 Nicaea 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. + +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 _Corpus Juris_, or _Canon Law_, 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 _Gesta Christi_ +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _Zeus Pater_, and the Latins _Jupiter_; but +neither realized the dependence and love of sonship as revealed by the +Founder of Christianity. + + * Isaias, xi. 9-11, 18. + +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. + +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 _Eoria_ 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. + +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--]. + +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. + +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. + +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, _contra ictum fluminis_, by a +power mightier than nature, and by laws of a higher order than the +relaxations of this world. + +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." + +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: + + 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. + +He then draws his conclusion as follows: + +"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.'"* + + * "Ece Homo," Conclusion, p. 329, Fifth Edition. Macmillan, + 1886. + +And yet the writer is, as he was then, still outside of Christianity. + +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. + +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. _Prior liber quam stylus_: 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 Colossae, 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 +_infantibus oquiparantur_ 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." + +Between the death of St. John and the mature lifetime of St. Irenaeus +fifty years elapsed. St. Polycarp was disciple of St. John. St. Irenaeus +was disciple of St. Polycarp. The mind of St. John and the mind of St. +Irenaeus 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. Irenaeus 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. +Irenaeus, which is unfortunately lost, contained either [--Greek--], or +some inflection of [--Greek--] which signifies primacy. However this +may be, St. Irenaeus 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 _potentissimas litteras_ 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. Irenaeus. 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. Irenaeus 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 _charisma veritatis certum_," the spiritual and certain gift of +truth. + +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: _Veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma_.* + + * "Const. Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi," cap. iv. + +But St. Irenaeus 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: + +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 (_was imparted_) 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 (_the Spirit_), and are +not nurtured unto life at the breast of the mother (_the Church_), 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.** + + *St. Irenaeus, Cont. Hezret lib. iii. cap. xxiv. + + ** Lib. i. cap. x. + +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: + +"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."* + + * St. Irenaeus, lib. i. c. x. + +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. + +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."*** + + * St. John, xvi. 7. + + ** Ibid, xiv. 16. + + *** St.John, xiv. 16, 17. + +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. Irenaeus 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. + +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. Irenaeus; 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. + +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. Irenaeus 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. + + *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. + +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. + +In proof of this I have affirmed: + +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, +_intra possibilitatem natures_, within the limits of what is possible to +man. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Henry Edward, (Cardinal Manning), Card. Archbishop of Westminster. + + + + +ROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING. + + Superstition "has ears more deaf than adders to the voice of + any true decision." + +I. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +The reasons given as supporting this proposition are: + +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. + +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." + +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. + +We will examine these assertions as well as some others. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +If the marvelous propagation of the Catholic Church proves its divine +origin, what shall we say of the marvelous propagation of Mohammedanism? + +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. + +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. + +"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." + +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. + +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. + +If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after that another +church arises and defeats the first, what does that prove? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +Do you think that men enough could join this church to prove the truth +of its creed? + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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? + +But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal, and that its +universality demonstrates its divine origin. + +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. + +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. + +The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic Church is divine, +"by its eminent sanctity and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good +things." + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +It is too late to talk about the "invincible stability" of the Catholic +Church. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held "the whole +nation in its unity." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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?" + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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: + +We know that the unity of the church can never be broken, because the +church is of divine origin. + +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. + +Therefore, it never can be broken again. + +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? + +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. + +The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to the pope, +establishes nothing except the thoroughness of the organization. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel. Courage has no knees. + +Fear kneels, or falls upon its ashen face. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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." + +Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper's "History of the +Intellectual Development of Europe." + +"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. + +"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. + +"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. + +"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." + +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. + +"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." + +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." + +"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?" + +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. + +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. + +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? + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + +II. + + "If we live thus tamely,-- + To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,-- + Farewell nobility." + +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." + +How does the pope speak? What does he say? + +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. + +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"? + +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. + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +It is not true that "All natural causes run to disintegration." + +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. + +The Cardinal asserts that "Christendom was created by the world-wide +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. + +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." + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +There are two things that cannot exist in the same universe--an infinite +God and a martyr. + +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 _auto da fe_.? + +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. + +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: + +"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold +the Catholic faith." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +There is still another clause: + +"Which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, without +doubt, he shall everlastingly perish." + +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. + +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. + +What is this Catholic faith that must be held? It is this: + +"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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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 _auto da +fe_ 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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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?" + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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"? + +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. + +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? + +Was not the civil law far better than the Mosaic--more philosophical, +nearer just? + +The civil law was produced without the assistance of God. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +What becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin +because "it has ascended the stream of human license, _contra ictum +fluminis_, by a power mightier than nature"? + +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? + +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. + +Are we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is of divine origin +because the Pagans failed to destroy it by persecution? + +We will put the Cardinal's statement in form: + +Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution, therefore +Catholicism is of divine origin. + +Let us make an application of this logic: + +Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution; therefore, +Catholicism is of divine origin. + +Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecution; therefore, +Protestantism is of divine origin. + +Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity; +therefore, Infidelity is of divine origin. + +Let us make another application: + +Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism; therefore, Paganism +was a false religion. + +Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestantism; therefore, +Catholicism is a false religion. + +Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity; +therefore, both Catholicism and Protestantism are false religions. + +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." + +When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law was supreme. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +The world is wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite +wisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _Corpus Juris +Canonici_, "the law that came from a higher source than man." + +The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the pious canonists +was _propter infidelitatem_, 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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: + +"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." + +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. + +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. + +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? + +Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus 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. + +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. + +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. + +The Cardinal says that "it will appear almost certain that the original +Greek of St. Irenaeus, _which is unfortunately lost_, contained either +[--Greek--], or some inflection of [--Greek--], which signifies +primacy." + +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. Irenaeus, 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? + +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? + +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. + +Irenaeus, 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? + +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. + +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. + +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." + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +IS DIVORCE WRONG? + +By Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter, and Colonel Robert G. +Ingersoll. + +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 _North +American Review_ 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: + +1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances? + +2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any circumstances? + +3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family? + +4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists contribute +to the moral purity of society? + +Editor North American Review, + +Introduction by the Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. _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_. 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 +_Familienrecht_ 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. + +Samuel W. Dike. + + +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. + +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."* + + * Gen., ii., 23-24. + +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. + +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."* + + * Ephes., v., 25-31. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +To the question then, "Can divorce from the bond of marriage ever be +allowed?" the Catholic can only answer no. + + * "Divorce and Divorce Legislation," by Theodore D. Woolsey, + 2d Ed., p. 126. + +And for this no, his first and last and best reason can be but this: +"_Thus saith the Lord_." + +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. + +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. + + * "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Milman's Ed., Vol. + III., p. 236. + +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. + +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 _a vinculo_ 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."* + + * Mark, x., ii, 12. + +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. + +But even if divorce _a vinculo_ 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 _a vinculo_," as Dr. Brownson truly says, "logically +involves divorce _ad libitum."_*** 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."*** + + * 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. + +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: + +"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."* + +How _apropos_ in this connection are the words of Professor Woolsey: + +"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."! + +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. + +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." + + * "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Milman's Ed., Vol. + III., p. 236. + + ** "Divorce and Divorce Legislation," 2d Ed., p. 274. + +The causes which, _positis ponendis_, justify such separation may be +briefly given thus: mutual consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or +body. + +It may be said that there are persons so unhappily mated and so +constituted that for them no relief can come save from divorce _a +vinculo_, 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: + +"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." + +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 _a vinculo_, or +simple separation _a mensa et thoro_, 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 _bona fide_ +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. + +James Cardinal Gibbons. + + +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. + +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. + +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 _Form of Solemnization of Matrimony_ 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 +_Form of Solemnization_, 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 _what the +impediments are_. The Protestant Episcopal Church has never, by canon +or express legislation, published, for instance, a table of prohibited +degrees. + +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. + +It is obvious, then, that the Protestant Episcopal Church allows the +complete validity of a divorce _a vinculo_ 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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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: + +"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." + +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. + +Henry C. Potter. + + +_Question (1.) Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any +circumstances?_ + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + + +_Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any +circumstances?_ + +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? + +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. + + +_Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity of the +family?_ + +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. + +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. + +_Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists +contribute to the moral purity of society?_ + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + + + +DIVORCE. + +A LITTLE while ago the North American Review propounded the following +questions: + +1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances? + +2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry, under any +circumstances? + +3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family? + +4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, contribute +to the moral purity of society? + +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. + +I propose to review these articles, and, first, let me say a few words +in answer to Cardinal Gibbons. + + +REPLY TO CARDINAL GIBBONS. + +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." + +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? + +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." + +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." + +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? + +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." + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + + +REPLY TO BISHOP POTTER. + +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? + +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? + +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, _as a rule_, 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." + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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." +_First_. 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 _nudum pactum_--a vow without +consideration. + +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.* + + * 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. + + +JUSTICE BRADLEY. + +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. + +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." + +Surely, this is good, wholesome, practical common sense. + + +SENATOR DOLPH. + +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." + +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. + + +THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, IN COLLOQUIAL FORM. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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: + +_The Wife_. 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. + +_The Cardinal_. My dear woman, God instituted in Paradise the marriage +state and sanctified it, and he established its law of unity and +declared its indissolubility. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal_. You must remember that the institution of marriage +suffered in the fall of man. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal._ 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. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal._ 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. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal_. 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." + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal_. 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. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_The Cardinal._ Nothing that we can do can effect the well-being of God. +He is infinitely above his children. + +_The Wife_. 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. + +_The Wife_. Mr. Gladstone, you know my story, and so I ask that you will +give me the benefit of your knowledge, of your advice. + +_Mr. Gladstone_. 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. + +_The Wife_. 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? + +_Mr. Gladstone_. 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. + +_The Wife_. 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. + +_Mr. Gladstone_. My dear madam, while divorce of any kind impairs the +integrity of the family, divorce with remarriage destroys it root and +branch. + +_The Wife_. 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. + +_Mr. Gladstone._ But, my dear mistaken woman, the parental and the +conjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the Almighty. + +_The Wife._ 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. + +_Mr. Gladstone._ 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. + +_The Wife._ 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? + +_Mr. Gladstone._ It is not for us to inquire. God's ways are not our +ways. + +_The Wife._ 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. + + +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. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +Robert G. Ingersoll. + + +ANSWER TO LYMAN ABBOTT. + + * 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. + +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? + +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 _North American +Review_, 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? + +You also stated in your own paper, _The Christian Union_, that the title +of your article had been changed by the editor of the _Review_, 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 +_North American Review_, 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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +John Bright, commenting upon this subject, says: + +"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?" + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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." + +"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"? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +"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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +But why should we appeal to names? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +You say that religion tells us that "life is a battle with +temptation--the result is eternal life to the victors." + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +"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? + +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? + +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." + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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. + +I must confess that I have very little admiration for Abraham. (Give +reasons.) + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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, _except the land of the priests only, which became +not Pharaoh's_." + +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. + +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"? + +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. + +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? + +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? + +Mr. Ingersoll having been called to Montana, as counsel in a long and +important law suit, never finished this article. + + +ANSWER TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR. + + * 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." + +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? + +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. + +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. + + +ARCHDEACON FARRAR criticises several of my statements: _The same rules +or laws of probability must govern in religious questions as in others_. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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." + +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. + +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? + +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"? + +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." + +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. + +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. + + +II. + +THE Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following statement: _There +is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any human being is +under any obligation to believe without evidence_. + +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"? + +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. + +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. + +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? + + +III. + +_Neither is there any intelligent being who can by any possibility be +flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity._ + +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?" + +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? + + +IV. + +The man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and New +Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. + +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." + +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. + +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. + +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. + + +V. + +The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country, +without fear and without prejudice, will not and cannot be a believer. + +IN answering this statement the Archdeacon says: "_Argal_, every +believer in any religion is either an incompetent idiot, or coward--with +a dash of prejudice." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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! + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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"? + +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 +Mueller 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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _au fond_, 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. + + +VI. + +Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite +personality? + +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 do not know_." + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Now, it seems to me that an infinite personality is a contradiction in +terms, says "I." + + +VII. + +THE same line of argument applies to the next statement that +is criticised by the Archdeacon: _Can the human mind conceive a +beginningless being?_ + +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. + +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? + +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. + + +VIII. + +THE next sentence or statement to which the Archdeacon objects is as +follows: + +_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._ + +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." + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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? + +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"? + +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. + +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.] + + +SAYINGS FROM THE INDIAN. + +"The rain seems hardest when the wigwam leaks." + +"When the tracks get too large and too numerous, the wise Indian says +that he is hunting something else." + +"A little crook in the arrow makes a great miss." + +"A great chief counts scalps, not hairs." + +"You cannot strengthen the bow by poisoning the arrows." + +"No one saves water in a flood." + + +ORIGEN. + +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. + + +ST. AUGUSTINE. + +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. + + +DANTE. + +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. + + +AQUINAS. + +Aquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who believed in +the undying worm. + + + + +IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING? + + * 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?" + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +In all civilized countries slavery has been abolished, the honest debtor +released, and all are allowed the liberty of speech. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +If you want an affectionate son, beat him. If you desire a loving wife, +beat her. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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." + +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.". + +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." + +"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." + +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? + +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! + +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. + + + + + + + + + +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.txt or 38806.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. |