14 files changed, 50060 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/38807-8.txt b/38807-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d4c13f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,12311 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 7
+(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. 7 (of 12)
+       Dresden Edition--Discussions
+
+Author: Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+Release Date: February 9, 2012 [EBook #38807]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
+
+By Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF THOUGHT, AND THE
+CROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL."
+
+In Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.
+
+DISCUSSIONS
+
+Dresden Edition
+
+
+1900
+
+CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.
+
+
+MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
+
+(1877.)
+
+Answer to San Francisco Clergymen--Definition of Liberty, Physical
+and Mental--The Right to Compel Belief--Woman the Equal of Man--The
+Ghosts--Immortality--Slavery--Witchcraft--Aristocracy of the
+Air--Unfairness of Clerical Critics--Force and Matter--Doctrine of
+Negation--Confident Deaths of Murderers--Childhood Scenes returned to
+by the Dying--Death-bed of Voltaire--Thomas Paine--The First
+Sectarians Were Heretics--Reply to Rev. Mr. Guard--Slaughter of
+the Canaanites--Reply to Rev. Samuel Robinson--Protestant
+Persecutions--Toleration--Infidelity and Progress--The
+Occident--Calvinism--Religious Editors--Reply to the Rev. Mr.
+Ijams--Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers?--Reply to
+California _Christian Advocate_--Self-Government of French People at
+and Since the Revolution--On the Site of the Bastile--French
+Peasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ--Was the World created in Six
+Days--Geology--What is the Astronomy of the Bible?--The Earth the Centre
+of the Universe--Joshua's Miracle--Change of Motion into Heat--Geography
+and Astronomy of Cosmas--Does the Bible teach the Existence of
+that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?--Saul and the Woman of
+Endor--Familiar Spirits--Demonology of the New Testament--Temptation of
+Jesus--Possession by Devils--Gadarene Swine Story--Test of Belief--Bible
+Idea of the Rights of Children--Punishment of the Rebellious
+Son--Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice--Persecution of Job--The Gallantry
+of God--Bible Idea of the Rights of Women--Paul's Instructions to
+Wives--Permission given to Steal Wives--Does the Bible Sanction
+Polygamy and Concubinage?--Does the Bible Uphold and Justify Political
+Tyranny?--Powers that be Ordained of God--Religious Liberty of
+God--Sun-Worship punishable with Death--Unbelievers to be damned--Does
+the Bible describe a God of Mercy?--Massacre Commanded--Eternal
+Punishment Taught in the New Testament--The Plan of Salvation--Fall
+and Atonement Moral Bankruptcy--Other Religions--Parsee
+Sect--Brahmins--Confucians--Heretics and Orthodox.
+
+
+MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.
+
+(1879.)
+
+Rev. Robert Collyer--Inspiration of the Scriptures--Rev. Dr.
+Thomas--Formation of the Old Testament--Rev. Dr. Kohler--Rev. Mr.
+Herford--Prof. Swing--Rev. Dr. Ryder.
+
+
+TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.
+
+(1882.)
+
+Rev. David Walk--Character of Jesus--Two or Three Christs Described
+in the Gospels--Christ's Change of Opinions--Gospels Later than the
+Epistles--Divine Parentage of Christ a Late Belief--The Man Christ
+probably a Historical Character--Jesus Belittled by his Worshipers--He
+never Claimed to be Divine--Christ's Omissions--Difference between
+Christian and other Modern Civilizations--Civilization not Promoted
+by Religion--Inventors--French and American Civilization: How
+Produced--Intemperance and Slavery in Christian Nations--Advance due to
+Inventions and Discoveries--Missionaries--Christian Nations Preserved by
+Bayonet and Ball--Dr. T. B. Taylor--Origin of Life on this Planet--Sir
+William Thomson--Origin of Things Undiscoverable--Existence after
+Death--Spiritualists--If the Dead Return--Our Calendar--Christ and
+Christmas-The Existence of Pain--Plato's Theory of Evil--Will God do
+Better in Another World than he does in this?--Consolation--Life Not a
+Probationary Stage--Rev. D.O'Donaghue--The Case of Archibald Armstrong
+and Jonathan Newgate--Inequalities of Life--Can Criminals live a
+Contented Life?--Justice of the Orthodox God Illustrated.
+
+
+THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.
+
+(1883.)
+
+Are the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively
+Read?--Increase in the Number of Infidels--Spread of Scientific
+Literature--Rev. Dr. Eddy--Rev. Dr. Hawkins--Rev. Dr. Haynes--Rev.
+Mr. Pullman--Rev. Mr. Foote--Rev. Mr. Wells--Rev. Dr. Van Dyke--Rev.
+Carpenter--Rev. Mr. Reed--Rev. Dr. McClelland--Ministers Opposed to
+Discussion--Whipping Children--Worldliness as a Foe of the Church--The
+Drama--Human Love--Fires, Cyclones, and Other Afflictions as Promoters
+of Spirituality--Class Distinctions--Rich and Poor--Aristocracies--The
+Right to Choose One's Associates--Churches Social Affairs--Progress
+of the Roman Catholic Church--Substitutes for the Churches--Henry
+Ward Beecher--How far Education is Favored by the Sects--Rivals of the
+Pulpit--Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago--French Revolution
+produced by the Priests--Why the Revolution was a Failure--Infidelity
+of One Hundred Years Ago--Ministers not more Intellectual than a Century
+Ago--Great Preachers of the Past--New Readings of Old Texts--Clerical
+Answerers of Infidelity--Rev. Dr. Baker--Father Fransiola--Faith and
+Reason--Democracy of Kindness--Moral Instruction--Morality Born of Human
+Needs--The Conditions of Happiness--The Chief End of Man.
+
+
+THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.
+
+(1888.)
+
+Discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. Coudert,
+and ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club of
+New York--Propositions--Toleration not a Disclaimer but a Waiver of the
+Right to Persecute--Remarks of Courtlandt Palmer--No Responsibility for
+Thought--Intellectual Hospitality--Right of Free Speech--Origin of the
+term "Toleration"--Slander and False Witness--Nobody can Control his own
+Mind: Anecdote--Remarks of Mr. Coudert--Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, and
+Ingersoll--General Woodford's Speech--Reply by Colonel Ingersoll--A
+Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment to Voltaire--Responsibility for
+Thoughts--The Mexican Unbeliever and his Reception in the Other Country.
+
+
+A CHRISTMAS SERMON.
+
+(1891.)
+
+Christianity's Message of Grief--Christmas a Pagan Festival--Reply
+to Dr. Buckley--Charges by the Editor of the Christian Advocate--The
+Tidings of Christianity--In what the Message of Grief Consists--Fear
+and Flame--An Everlasting Siberia--Dr. Buckley's Proposal to Boycott the
+Telegram--Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. Cana Day
+be Blasphemed?--Hurting Christian feelings--For Revenue only What is
+Blasphemy?--Balaam's Ass wiser than the Prophet--The Universalists--Can
+God do Nothing for this World?--The Universe a Blunder if Christianity
+is true--The Duty of a Newspaper--Facts Not Sectarian--The Rev.
+Mr. Peters--What Infidelity Has Done--Public School System not
+Christian--Orthodox Universities--Bruno on Oxford--As to Public
+Morals--No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe--The Atonement
+Immoral--As to Sciences and Art--Bruno, Humboldt, Darwin--Scientific
+Writers Opposed by the Church--As to the Liberation of Slaves--As to
+the Reclamation of Inebriates--Rum and Religion--The Humanity
+of Infidelity--What Infidelity says to the Dying--The Battle
+Continued--Morality not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity--The
+Inquisition and Religious Persecution--Human Nature Derided by
+Christianity--Dr. DaCosta--"Human Brotherhood" as exemplified by
+the History of the Church--The Church and Science, Art and
+Learning----Astronomy's Revenge--Galileo and Kepler--Mrs. Browning:
+Science Thrust into the Brain of Europe--Our Numerals--Christianity and
+Literature--Institution's of Learning--Stephen Girard--James Lick--Our
+Chronology--Historians--Natural Philosophy--Philology--Metaphysical
+Research--Intelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian--Inventions--John
+Ericsson--Emancipators--Rev. Mr. Ballou--The Right of Goa to
+Punish--Rev. Dr. Hillier--Rev. Mr. Haldeman--George A. Locey--The "Great
+Physician"--Rev. Mr. Talmage--Rev. J. Benson Hamilton--How Voltaire
+Died--The Death-bed of Thomas Paine--Rev. Mr. Holloway--Original
+Sin--Rev. Dr. Tyler--The Good Samaritan a Heathen--Hospitals and
+Asylums--Christian Treatment of the Insane--Rev. Dr. Buckley--The
+North American Review Discussion--Judge Black, Dr. Field,
+Mr. Gladstone--Circulation of Obscene Literature--Eulogy of
+Whiskey--Eulogy of Tobacco--Human Stupidity that Defies the Gods--Rev.
+Charles Deems--Jesus a Believer in a Personal Devil--The Man Christ.
+
+
+SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.
+
+(1892.)
+
+Reply to the _Western Watchman_--Henry D'Arcy--Peter's
+Prevarication-Some Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a
+Catholic--Wishes do not Affect the Judgment--Devout Robbers--Penitent
+Murderers--Reverential Drunkards--Luther's Distich--Judge
+Normile--Self-destruction.
+
+
+IS SUICIDE A SIN?
+
+(1894.)
+
+Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in _The New York World_--Under what
+Circumstances a Man has the Right to take his Own Life--Medicine and the
+Decrees of God--Case of the Betrayed Girl--Suicides not Cowards--Suicide
+under Roman Law--Many Suicides Insane--Insanity Caused by Religion--The
+Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic--Natural and Sufficient Cause for
+Self-destruction--Christ's Death a Suicide--Col. Ingersoll's Reply to his
+Critics--Is Suffering the Work of God?--It is not Man's Duty to
+Endure Hopeless Suffering--When Suicide is Justifiable--The
+Inquisition--Alleged Cowardice of Suicides--Propositions
+Demonstrated--Suicide the Foundation of the Christian
+Religion--Redemption and Atonement--The Clergy on Infidelity
+and Suicide--Morality and Unbelief--Better injure yourself than
+Another--Misquotation by Opponents--Cheerful View the Best--The
+Wonder is that Men endure--Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New
+York Journal)--Causes of Suicide--Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise
+Suicide--Suicides with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets--Suicide a Sin
+(Interview in The New York Herald)--Comments on Rev. Alerle St. Croix
+Wright's Sermon--Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The York World)--As to
+the Cowardice of Suicide--Germany and the Prevalence of Suicide--Killing
+of Idiots and Defective Infants--Virtue, Morality, and Religion.
+
+
+IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?
+
+(1891.)
+
+Reply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, "Brutality and Avarice
+Triumphant"--Croakers and Prophets of Evil--Medical Treatment
+for Believers in Universal Evil--Alleged Fraud in Army
+Contracts--Congressional Extravagance--Railroad "Wreckers"--How
+Stockholders in Some Roads Lost Their Money--The Star-Route
+Trials--Timber and Public Lands--Watering Stock--The Formation
+of Trusts--Unsafe Hotels: European Game and Singing Birds--Seal
+Fisheries--Cruelty to Animals--Our Indians--Sensible and Manly
+Patriotism--Days of Brutality--Defence of Slavery by the Websters,
+Bentons, and Clays--Thirty Years' Accomplishment--Ennobling Influence of
+War for the Right--The Lady ana the Brakeman--American Esteem of Honesty
+in Business--Republics do not Tend to Official Corruption--This the Best
+Country in the World.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
+
+(1878.)
+
+Defence of the Lecture on Moses--How Biblical Miracles are sought to
+be Proved--Some _Non Sequiturs_--A Grammatical Criticism--Christianity
+Destructive of Manners--Cuvier and Agassiz on Mosaic Cosmogony--Clerical
+Advance agents--Christian Threats and Warnings--Catholicism the Upas
+Tree--Hebrew Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding Probababilities
+--Contradictions and Mistranslations of the Bible--Number of Errors in
+the Scriptures--The Sunday Question.
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+(1881.)
+
+Charged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware--Can a Conditionless
+Deity be Injured?--Injustice the only Blasphemy--The Lecture
+in Delaware--Laws of that State--All Sects in turn Charged with
+Blasphemy--Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought
+to Be--A Fatal Biblical Passage--Judge Comegys--Wilmington
+Preachers--States with Laws against Blasphemy--No Danger of Infidel
+Mobs--No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated--Comegys a
+Resurrection--Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict--Advice about the Cutting
+out of Heretics' Tongues--Objections to the Whipping-post--Mr. Bergh's
+Bill--One Remedy for Wife-beating.
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.
+
+(8882.)
+
+Solemnity--Charged with Being Insincere--Irreverence--Old Testament
+Better than the New--"Why Hurt our Feelings?"--Involuntary Action of
+the Brain--Source of our Conceptions of Space--Good and Bad--Right and
+Wrong--The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer--Men Responsible
+for their Actions--The "Gradual" Theory Not Applicable to
+the Omniscient--Prayer Powerless to Alter Results--Religious
+Persecution--Orthodox Ministers Made Ashamed of their
+Creed--Purgatory--Infidelity and Baptism Contrasted--Modern Conception
+of the Universe--The Golden Bridge of Life--"The Only Salutation"--The
+Test for Admission to Heaven--"Scurrility."
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.
+
+(1892.)
+
+Dr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving
+Workers--Cloakmakers' Strike--Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension
+Society--The Uncharitableness of Organized Charity--Defence of the
+Cloakmakers--Life of the Underpaid--On the Assertion that Assistance
+encourages Idleness and Crime--The Man without Pity an Intellectual
+Beast--Tendency of Prosperity to Breed Selfishness--Thousands Idle
+without Fault--Egotism of Riches--Van Norden's Idea of Happiness--The
+Worthy Poor.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.
+
+(1898.)
+
+Interview in a Boston Paper--Why should a Minister call this a "Poor"
+World?--Would an Infinite God make People who Need a Redeemer?--Gospel
+Gossip--Christ's Sayings Repetitions--The Philosophy of Confucius--Rev.
+Mr. Mills--The Charge of "Robbery"--The Divine Plan.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.
+
+(1898.)
+
+Interview in the New York Journal--Rev. Roberts. MacArthur--A
+Personal Devil--Devils who held Conversations with Christ not simply
+personifications of Evil--The Temptation--The "Man of Straw"--Christ's
+Mission authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils--Spain--God
+Responsible for the Actions of Man--Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks--Rev. Dr. E.
+F. Moldehnke--Patience amidst the Misfortunes of Others--Yellow Fever
+as a Divine Agent--The Doctrine that All is for the Best--Rev. Mr.
+Hamlin--Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?--A Compliment by the
+Rev. Mr. Belcher--Rev. W. C. Buchanan--No Argument Old until it is
+Answered--Why should God Create sentient Beings to be Damned?--Rev. J.
+W. Campbell--Rev. Henry Frank--Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on Christ and the
+Devil--Would he make a World like This?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
+
+     * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San
+     Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various
+     clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon
+     him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man,
+     Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts."
+
+
+I.
+
+AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I offer
+in evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent but a small
+part of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that part shall not
+be defiled or smirched by a single personality. Whatever I say, I shall
+say because I believe it will tend to make this world grander, man
+nearer just, the father kinder, the mother more loving, the children
+more affectionate, and because I believe it will make an additional
+flower bloom in the pathway of every one who hears me.
+
+In the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? What
+have I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that
+in the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his innocent
+flock. What have I said?
+
+I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and
+Child." In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical and
+intellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the right to do
+right; the right to do anything that did not interfere with the real
+happiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty to be the right to
+think right, and the right to think wrong--provided you did your best to
+think right.
+
+This must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by which we
+seek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to think, whether
+his thought is in reality right or wrong; and he cannot be accountable
+to any being for thinking wrong. There is upon man, so far as thought
+is concerned, the obligation to think the best he can, and to honestly
+express his best thought. Whenever he finds what is right, or what he
+honestly believes to be the right, he is less than a man if he fears to
+express his conviction before an assembled world.
+
+The right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. "The right
+of one human being ceases where the right of another commences." My
+definition of intellectual liberty is, the right to think, whether you
+think right or wrong, provided you do your best to think right.
+
+I believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality--the Blessed Trinity of
+Humanity.
+
+I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience--the Blessed Trinity of
+Science.
+
+I believe in Man, Woman and Child--the Blessed Trinity of Life and Joy.
+
+I have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor by force
+to compel another to think your way--that man has no right to compel his
+fellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism. I have
+said, and still say, that even an infinite God has and can have no right
+to compel by force or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept
+a dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such a power is
+incapable of being exercised. You may compel a man to say that he has
+changed his mind. You may force him to say that he agrees with you. In
+this way, however, you make hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible
+that a god wishes the worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage
+of a coward? Does he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is
+it possible that he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I
+were a god it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of
+one grand, brave man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain, than
+the blind worship, the ignorant adoration, the trembling homage of a
+universe of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned by the orthodox
+guardians of this great city not to think. I am told that I am in danger
+of hell; that for me to express my honest convictions is to excite the
+wrath of God. They inform me that unless I believe in a certain way,
+meaning their way, I am in danger of everlasting fire.
+
+There was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men with fear.
+That time has substantially passed away. For a hundred years hell has
+been gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly dying out, the
+brimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have been burning lower and
+lower, and the climate gradually changing. To such an extent has the
+change already been effected that if I were going there to-night I would
+take an overcoat and a box of matches.
+
+They say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief. I deny
+it. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be
+a crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so. The god who
+punishes it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As for me, I would
+a thousand times rather go to perdition and suffer its torments with
+the brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go to heaven and keep the
+company of a god who would damn his children for an honest belief.
+
+The next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man; that she
+has every right that man has, and one more--the right to be protected,
+because she is the weaker. I have said that marriage should be an
+absolutely perfect partnership of body and soul; that a man should treat
+his wife like a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life with
+perfume and with joy. I have said that a husband had no right to be
+morose; that he had no right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the
+joy of life.
+
+I have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of light, and
+fill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of the doors and
+windows and illumine even the darkness of night. I said that marriage
+was the holiest, highest, the most sacred institution among men; that
+it took millions of years for woman to advance from the condition of
+absolute servitude, from the absolute slavery where the Bible found her
+and left her, up to the position she occupies at present. I have pleaded
+for the rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what is more, for
+the rights of little children. I have said that they could be governed
+by affection, by love, and that my heart went out to all the children
+of poverty and of crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets
+and in the sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear
+the footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when
+they hear their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the little
+children, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have
+said that my heart goes out to them one and all; I have asked fathers
+and mothers to cease beating their own flesh and blood. I have said to
+them, When your child does wrong, put your arms around him; let him feel
+your heart beat against his. It is easier to control your child with a
+kiss than with a club.
+
+For expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the religious
+press and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of
+order, as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I make no
+complaint. A few years ago they would have burned me at the stake and I
+should have been compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces through
+flame and smoke. They cannot do it now or they would. One hundred years
+ago I would have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights of men.
+Fifty years ago I would have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife
+and my children would have been torn from my arms in the name of the
+most merciful God. Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living
+in the United States at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not
+then have been allowed to express my thought; but I can now, and I will.
+And when I think about the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is
+illuminated with glory and the air is filled with wings.
+
+I then delivered another lecture entitled "Ghosts," in which I sought to
+show that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own imagination;
+in which I sought to show these imps of darkness, these devils, had all
+been produced by superstition; in which I endeavored to prove that man
+had groveled in the dust before monsters of his own creation; in which I
+endeavored to demonstrate that the many had delved in the soil that the
+few might live in idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens
+that the few might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to
+show that man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred,
+except ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms
+man had covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have
+been assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So far
+as any argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any way make
+the slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man. It cannot in
+any way make the slightest difference whether my personal character is
+good or bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I am concerned,
+I am willing to stake the whole question upon that issue. That is not,
+however, the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The
+question is, whether what I said is true.
+
+I did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain things--among other
+things a book known as the Bible. From the ghosts we received that
+book; and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that book rests the
+doctrine of the immortality of the human soul. This I deny.
+
+Whether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and cannot be
+changed by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If am not, no book
+can render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I should live again than
+that I do live.
+
+The doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The foundation
+of that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality, which, like a
+sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating with its countless
+waves of hope and fear against the shores and rocks of fate and time,
+was not born of any book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child
+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. It is the eternal bow--Hope shining
+upon the tears of Grief.
+
+I did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right. If
+there is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of enslaving
+a human being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the master as
+well. When you put a chain upon the limbs of another, you put a fetter
+also upon your own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slaveholder.
+The slave can at least be just--the slaveholder cannot. I had rather be
+robbed than be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a
+thief. I have said, and I do say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and
+sanctioned the institution of human slavery; and before I get through I
+will prove it.
+
+I said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree, for the
+doctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred texts, people
+were hanged and their bodies burned for getting up storms at sea with
+the intent of drowning royal vermin. Every possible offence was punished
+under the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high treason.
+
+I also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the ghosts,
+for the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy;
+and I will also prove that. And the same book teaches, not political
+liberty, but political tyranny.
+
+I also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts knew
+nothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less, if
+possible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.
+
+This is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air. I am
+well aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the truth
+of my words. I have said these things. No one ever said them in better
+nature than I have. I have not the slightest malice--a victor never
+felt malice. As soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen felt
+called upon to answer me. I want to say that if there is anything I like
+in the world it is fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that
+I have had so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean
+and hateful things. I have read a great many religious papers and
+discussions and think that I now know all the infamous words in our
+language. I know how to account for every noble action by a mean and
+wretched motive, and that, in my judgment, embraces nearly the entire
+science of modern theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon "The
+Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," I was charged with having said that
+there is nothing back of nature, and that nature with its infinite arms
+embraces everything; and thereupon I was informed that I believed in
+nothing but matter and force, that I believed only in earth, that I did
+not believe in spirit. If by spirit you mean that which thinks, then I
+am a believer in spirit. If you mean by spirit the something that says
+"I," the something that reasons, hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a
+believer in spirit. Whatever spirit there is in the universe must be a
+natural thing, and not superimposed upon nature. All that I can say
+is, that whatever is, is natural. And there is as much goodness, in my
+judgment, as much spirit in this world as in any other; and you are just
+as near the heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere. One of
+your clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me, that there is
+matter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without force? What
+would keep it together? What would keep the finest possible conceivable
+atom together unless there was force? Can you imagine such a thing as
+matter without force? Can you conceive of force without matter? Can you
+conceive of force floating about attached to nothing? Can you possibly
+conceive of this? No human being can conceive of force without matter.
+"You cannot conceive of force being harnessed or hitched to matter as
+you would hitch horses to a carriage." You cannot. Now, what is spirit?
+They say spirit is the first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as
+though spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement.
+They say it was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without
+any matter--what would that spirit do? No force, no matter!--a spirit
+living in an infinite vacuum. What would such a spirit turn its
+particular attention to? This spirit, according to these theologians,
+created the world, the universe; and if it did, there must have been a
+time when it commenced to create; and back of that there must have
+been an eternity spent in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that
+a spirit existed during an eternity without any force and without any
+matter? Is it possible that force could exist without matter or spirit?
+Is it possible that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean
+something without force? The only answer I can give to all these
+questions is, I do not know. For my part, I do not know what spirit is,
+if there is any. I do not know what matter is, neither am I acquainted
+with the elements of force. If you mean by matter that which I can
+touch, that which occupies space, then I believe in matter. If you mean
+by force anything that can overcome weight, that can overcome what
+we call gravity or inertia; if you mean by force that which moves the
+molecules of matter, or the movement itself, then I believe in force.
+If you mean by spirit that which thinks and loves, then I believe in
+spirit. There is, however, no propriety in wasting any time about the
+science of metaphysics. I will give you my definition of metaphysics:
+Two fools get together; each admits what neither can prove, and
+thereupon both of them say, "hence we infer." That is all there is of
+metaphysics.
+
+These gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about the
+treatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of man, all
+these are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01
+spirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an eternity before
+there was any force or any matter. Exactly how spirit could act without
+force we do not understand. That we must take upon credit. How spirit
+could create matter without force is a serious question, and we are
+too reverent to press such an inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied,
+however, that spirit is entirely independent of force and matter, and
+any man who denies this must be "a malevolent and infamous wretch."
+
+Another reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said as the
+doctrine of negation. And we are informed by him--speaking I presume
+from experience--that negation is a poor thing to die by. He tells us
+that the last hours are the grand testing hours. They are the hours when
+atheists disown their principles and infidels bewail their folly--"that
+Voltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their
+death-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital"--He also states that
+"another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify Voltaire,
+but that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken possession of him,
+and he cried 'Retire! it is you that have brought me to my present
+state--Begone! what a rich glory you have brought me.'" This, my
+friends, is the same old, old falsehood that has been repeated again and
+again by the lips of hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these
+stories a solitary word of truth; and every intelligent man knows all
+these death-bed accounts to be entirely and utterly false. They
+are taken, however, by the mass of the church as evidence that all
+opposition to Christianity, so-called, fills the bed of the dying
+infidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So far as my experience
+goes, the bad die in many instances as placidly as the good. I have
+sometimes thought that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is engraved
+the record of nearly every possible crime, dies without a shudder,
+without a tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering during his
+last moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in the
+heat of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every
+murderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never
+thought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life. Neither have
+I imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he suffered death.
+The fact is, that when man approaches natural death, his powers, his
+intellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a child. He has
+less and less sense. And just in proportion as he loses his reasoning
+powers, he goes back to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes
+of youth cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his mother.
+Of this very fact, there is not a more beautiful description than that
+given by Shakespeare when he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack
+Falstaff, in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: "A' made a finer end, and
+went away, an it had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between
+twelve and one, ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him
+fumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his
+fingers' end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp
+as a pen, and a' babbled of green fields." As the genius of Shakespeare
+makes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes, decked with daisies, so
+death takes the dying back to the scenes of their childhood, and they
+are clasped once more to the breasts of mothers. They go back, for the
+reason that nearly every superstition in the world has been sanctified
+by some sweet and placid mother. Remember, the superstition has never
+sanctified the mother, but the mother has sanctified the superstition.
+The young Mohammedan, who now lies dying upon some field of battle,
+thinks sweet and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will, as the
+blood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy verse from the blessed
+Koran. Every superstition in the world that is now held sacred has been
+made so by mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home. I know
+what it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender, to throw away every
+superstition, although sanctified by the memory of those they loved.
+Whoever has thrown away these superstitions has been pursued by his
+fellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire the church has pursued
+him as though he had been the vilest criminal. A little over one hundred
+years ago, Catholicism, the inventor of instruments of torture, red with
+the innocent blood of millions, felt in its heartless breast the dagger
+of Voltaire. From that blow the Catholic Church never can recover. Livid
+with hatred she launched at her assassin the curse of Rome, and ignorant
+Protestants have echoed that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire, and
+whenever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume floating above
+some grand knight--a knight who rides to a walled city and demands
+an unconditional surrender. I like him. He was once imprisoned in the
+Bastile, and while in that frightful fortress--and I like to tell it--he
+changed his name. His name was Francois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell
+he changed this name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years afterward
+the Bastile was torn down to the very dust, "Voltaire" was the battle
+cry of the destroyers who did it. I like him because he did more for
+religious toleration than any other man who ever lived or died. I admire
+him because he did more to do away with torture in civil proceedings
+than any other man. I like him because he was always upon the side of
+justice, upon the side of progress. I like him in spite of his faults,
+because he had many and splendid virtues. I like him because his
+doctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country. I like him
+because he hated tyranny; and when he died he died as serenely as ever
+mortal died; he spoke to his servant recognizing him as a man. He said
+to him, calling him by name: "My friend, farewell." These were the last
+words of Voltaire. And this was the only frightful scene enacted at his
+bed of death. I like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the
+intellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at
+the foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite
+in Christendom.
+
+I will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a thousand
+dollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death of Voltaire was
+not as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same absurd story is told
+of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a patriot--he was the first man in
+the world to write these words: "The Free and Independent States of
+America." He was the first man to convince the American people that they
+ought to separate themselves from Great Britain. "His pen did as
+much, to say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of
+Washington." The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic services
+repay them with slander and calumny. If there is in this world a crime,
+ingratitude is a crime. And as for myself, I am not willing to receive
+anything from any man without making at least an acknowledgment of my
+obligation. Y et these clergymen, whose very right to stand in their
+pulpits and preach, was secured to them by such men as Thomas Paine,
+delight in slandering the reputation of that great man. They tell their
+hearers that he died in fear,--that he died in agony, hearing devils
+rattle chains, and that the infinite God condescended to frighten a
+dying man. I will give one thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman
+in San Francisco who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories
+concerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is not one word of truth in
+these accounts; not one word.
+
+Let me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what is
+called a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and
+Volney and Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying "My God, My God, why
+hast thou forsaken me?" what would the clergymen of this city then have
+said?
+
+To resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who have
+opposed the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment, unbecoming
+any intelligent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to die? The
+question is, who is right? The great question is not, who died right,
+but who lived right? There is infinitely more responsibility in living
+than in dying. The moment of death is the most unimportant moment of
+life. Nothing can be done then. You cannot even do a favor for a friend,
+except to remember him in your will. It is a moment when life ceases to
+be of value. While living, while you have health and strength, you
+can augment the happiness of your fellow-men; and the man who has made
+others happy need not be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they
+call themselves, these believers who hope for immortality--thousands
+of them, will rob their neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless
+acts of injustice, when, according to their belief, the witnesses of
+their infamy will live forever; and the men whom they have injured and
+outraged, will meet them in every glittering star through all the ages
+yet to be.
+
+As for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the record in
+the grateful faces of my fellow-men.
+
+These gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who started
+their churches were heretics.
+
+The first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a heretic.
+The first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first Christian was
+denounced as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment they get
+numerous enough to be in the majority in some locality, begin to call
+themselves orthodox. Can there be any impudence beyond this?
+
+The first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was the best
+Baptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always liked him. He
+was a good man--Roger Williams. He was the first man, so far as I know,
+in this country, who publicly said that the soul of man should be free.
+And it was a wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to say
+that, could think that any particular form of baptism was necessary to
+salvation. It does strike me that a man of great brain and thought could
+not possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being, the question
+whether he should dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves
+of fire, should be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized.
+That seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is
+a matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance
+of baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at the judgment
+seat to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing, should ask a man:
+
+"Have you been a good man?" and the man replied:
+
+"Tolerably good."
+
+"Did you love your wife and children?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Did you try and make them happy?"
+
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Did you try and make your neighbors happy?" "Yes, I paid my debts: I
+gave heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was thanked for it or
+not."
+
+Suppose the Supreme Being then should say:
+
+"Were you ever baptized?" and the man should reply:
+
+"I am sorry to say I never was."
+
+Could a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by the
+Supreme Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own case was
+to be called next?
+
+I happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders--how I
+ever got into such bad company, I don't know,--and one of them asked
+what I thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much about it; did
+not know much about it; didn't want to say anything, but they insisted
+upon it. I said, "Well, I'll give you my opinion--with soap, baptism is
+a good thing."
+
+The Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon several
+occasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them
+down. He said some things about me not entirely pleasant, which I do not
+wish to repeat. In his reply he takes the ground:
+
+_First_. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he swore upon it
+or by it when he joined the Masons.
+
+_Second_. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the supposition
+that he had softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the
+heart.
+
+_Third._ That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the inhabitants of
+Canaan, according to the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest." He
+takes the ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the ripping
+open of women with child by the sword of war, was an act of sublime
+mercy. He justifies a war of extermination; he applauds every act of
+cruelty and murder. He says that the Canaanites ought to have been
+turned from their homes; that men guilty of no crime except fighting for
+their country, old men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled,
+prattling children, ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war;
+that it was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious
+persecution into the bodies of all, old and young. This is what the
+reverend gentleman is pleased to call mercy. If this is mercy let us
+have injustice. If there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry that
+man exists. All this, however, is justified upon the ground that God
+has the right to do as he pleases with the being he has created. This I
+deny. Such a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose I could take a stone
+and in one moment change it into a sentient, hoping, loving human being,
+would I have the right to torture it? Would I have the right to give it
+pain? No one but a fiend would either exercise or justify such a right.
+Even if there is a God who created us all he has no such right. Above
+any God that can exist, in the infinite serenity forever sits the figure
+of justice; and this God, no matter how great and infinite he may be, is
+bound to do justice.
+
+_Fourth._ That God chose the Jews and governed them personally for
+thousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in order that his
+peculiar people might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters; that
+he wished to make of the Hebrews a great nation, and that, consequently,
+he was justified in destroying the original inhabitants of that country.
+It seems to me that the end hardly justified the means. According to the
+account, God governed the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded
+in civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified him the first
+opportunity they had. Such an administration can hardly be called a
+success.
+
+_Fifth._ The reverend gentleman seems to think that the practice of
+polygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared with the crime
+of exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the corrupting
+influence of such pictures he descants at great length, and attacks with
+all the bitterness of the narrow theologian the masterpieces of art.
+Allow me to say one word about art. That is one of the most beautiful
+words in our language--Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for
+art to go in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of
+Raffaelle. I like the productions of those splendid souls that put their
+ideas of beauty upon the canvas uncovered.
+
+     "There are brave souls in every land
+     Who worship nature, grand and nude,
+     And who with swift indignant hand
+     Tear off the fig leaves of the prude."
+
+_Sixth_. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions slavery, but that
+it is not an immoral book even if it does.
+
+I can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as
+the reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of Solomon--"by a
+softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart."
+
+It does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really thought my
+fellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he was going to
+misery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try and save
+him. It does seem to me, that instead of having my mouth filled with
+epithets and invectives; instead of drawing the lips of malice back from
+the teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would be filled with
+tears. It seems to me that I would do what little I could to reclaim
+him. I would talk to him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms
+of affection about him. I would not speak of him as though he were a
+wild beast. I would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would
+think of him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the
+damned, and my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred--my eyes
+with tears, not scorn.
+
+If there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed and
+withered by the blight and breath of superstition, as cheerfully to
+defend the most frightful crimes of which we have a record--a man so
+hardened and petrified by creed and dogma that he hesitates not to
+defend even the institution of human slavery--so lost to all sense of
+pity that he applauds murder and rapine as though they were acts of the
+loftiest self-denial.
+
+The next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have said, is the
+Rev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled "Ghosts
+against God or Ingersoll against Honesty." I presume he imagines himself
+to be the defendant in both cases.
+
+This gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon the
+ground that he had to contribute to the support of a "materialistic
+demon." To say the least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied.
+I am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so much better than
+did the infidels in the olden time that I am more than satisfied. It is
+a little thing that I bear.
+
+The brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture. They were
+stretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron boots; they stood
+upon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and
+native land. They were taken from their firesides, from their wives,
+from their children; they were taken to the public square; they were
+chained to stakes, and their ashes were scattered by the countless hands
+of hatred. I am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.
+
+This gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a
+"materialistic demon." When I saw that statement I will tell you what I
+did. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom to think
+that he had contributed a dollar toward my support, toward the support
+of a "materialistic demon." I wrote him a letter and I said:
+
+"My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime of having
+contributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I hereby enclose
+the amount you paid to attend my lecture." I then gave him a little
+good advice. I advised him to be charitable, to be kind, and regretted
+exceedingly that any man could listen to one of my talks for an hour
+and a half and not go away satisfied that all men had the same right to
+think.
+
+This man denied having received the money, but it was traced to him
+through a blot on the envelope.
+
+This gentleman avers that everything that I said about persecution
+is applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what he says. The
+Catholics have probably persecuted more than any other church, simply
+because that church has had more power, simply because it has been more
+of a church. It has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the
+Catholics come nearer believing what they say about their church than
+other Christians do. Was it a Catholic persecution that drove the
+Puritan fathers from England? Was it not the storm of Episcopal
+persecution that filled the sails of the Mayflower? Was it not a
+Protestant persecution that drove the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be
+honest. Who went to Scotland and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was
+it that chained to the stake that splendid girl by the sands of the
+sea for not saying "God save the king"? She was worthy to have been the
+mother of Cæsar. She would not say "God save the king," but she would
+say "God save the king, if it be God's will." Protestants ordered her to
+say "God save the king," and no more. She said, "I will not," and they
+chained her to a stake in the sand and allowed her to be drowned by
+the rising of the inexorable tide. Who did this? Protestants. Who drove
+Roger Williams from Massachusetts? Protestants. Who sold white Quaker
+children into slavery? Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers?
+Who burned and destroyed men and women and children charged with
+impossible crimes? Protestants. The Protestants have persecuted exactly
+to the extent of their power. The Catholics have done the same.
+
+I want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of
+religious toleration in the New World were the Catholics of Maryland.
+The next were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger Williams.
+The Catholics passed the act of religious toleration, and after the
+Protestants got into power again in England, and also in the colony of
+Maryland, they repealed the law of toleration and passed another law
+declaring the Catholics from under the protection of all law.
+Afterward, the Catholics again got into power and had the generosity and
+magnanimity to re-enact the old law. And, so far as I know, it is the
+only good record upon the subject of religious toleration the Catholics
+have in this world, and I am always willing to give them credit for it.
+
+This gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for the world
+in the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not know that
+nearly every man who took a forward step was denounced by the church as
+a heretic and infidel? Does he not know that the church has in all ages
+persecuted the astronomers, the geologists, the logicians? Does he not
+know that even to-day the church slanders and maligns the foremost men?
+Has he ever heard of Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John
+W. Draper, one of the leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of
+Auguste Comte, the great Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of
+Laplace, of Spinoza? In short, has he ever heard of a man who took a
+step in advance of his time?
+
+Orthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be orthodoxy
+and becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual
+cloaca; it cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity is simply
+free thought. Every man who really owns his own brain is, in the
+estimation of the church, an infidel.
+
+There is a paper published in this city called _The Occident_. The
+Editor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the people who have assembled
+to hear me, in the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible.
+I cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He alleges that the people
+who assemble to hear me are the low, the debauched and the infamous.
+The man who reads that paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a
+Presbyterian sheet; and would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated
+Castalio. Castalio was the first minister in the history of Christendom
+who acknowledged the innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed
+him like a sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a "dog of Satan;"
+said that he had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very
+grave. The editor of this paper is still warming his hands at the fire
+that burned Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce hatred of
+everything that is free. But what right have we to expect anything good
+of a man who believes in the eternal damnation of infants?
+
+There may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse
+religion than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was, from
+cannibalism to civilization, I have never heard of it.
+
+I make a distinction between the members and the creed of that church. I
+know many who are a thousand times better than the creed--good, warm and
+splendid friends of mine. I would do anything in the world for them. And
+I have said to them a hundred times, "You are a thousand times better
+than your creed." But when you come down to the doctrine of the
+damnation of infants, it is the deformity of deformities. The editor
+of this paper is engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of
+fore-ordination and damnation--those twin comforts of the Presbyterian
+creed, and warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in
+any manner for themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the
+lowest, the vilest and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men
+who are longing to commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off all
+restraint.
+
+My friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional
+obligation upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a responsibility
+upon his brain and upon his heart. You, who never want responsibility,
+give your souls to some church. You, who never want the feeling that you
+are under obligation to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are
+willing to feel and meet responsibility; if you feel that you must give
+an account not only to yourselves but to every human being whom you
+injure, then you must be free. Where there is no freedom, there can be
+no responsibility.
+
+It is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so
+malicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it
+because they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is it
+the result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being written upon
+every orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual inferiority?
+
+This same editor assures his readers that what I say is not worth
+answering, and yet he devotes column after column of his journal to that
+very purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no orator; and upon the
+same page admits that he did not hear me, giving as a reason that he
+does not think it right to pay money for such a purpose. Recollect, that
+in a religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criticises a statue
+or a painting, condemns it, and at the end of the criticism says that he
+never saw it. He criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at
+the end says, "I never heard him, and I never saw him."
+
+As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these gentlemen who
+thought it necessary to hear what any man said in order to answer him.
+
+The next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I must
+say, so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of treatment,
+he is a kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several mistakes as
+to what I really said, but the fault I suppose must have been in the
+report. I am made to say in the report of his sermon, "There is no
+sacred place in all the universe." What I did say was, "There is no
+sacred place in all the universe of thought. There is nothing too holy
+to be investigated, nothing too divine to be understood. The fields of
+thought are fenceless, and without a wall." I say this to-night.
+
+Mr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only the right
+to do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I really said was, man
+has the right to do right, and the right to think right, and the right
+to think wrong. Thought is a means of ascertaining truth, a mode by
+which we arrive at conclusions. And if no one has a right to think,
+unless he thinks right, he would only have the right to think upon
+self-evident propositions. In all respects, with the exception of these
+misstatements to which I have called your attention, so far as I can
+see, Mr. Ijams was perfectly fair, and treated me as though I had the
+ordinary rights of a human being. I take this occasion to thank him.
+
+A great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers and a
+multitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed themselves
+with the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I can only reply to
+those who have made a parade of answering me. Many have said it is not
+worth answering, and then proceeded to answer. They have said, he has
+produced no argument, and then have endeavored to refute it. They have
+said it is simply the old straw that has been thrashed over and over
+again for years and years. If all I have said is nothing, if it is
+all idle and foolish, why do they take up the time of their fellow-men
+replying to me? Why do they fill their religious papers with criticisms,
+if all I have said and done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr.
+Guard, of "some little dog barking at a railway train"? Why stop the
+train, why send for the directors, why hold a consultation and finally
+say, we must settle with that dog or stop running these cars?
+
+Probably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond cavil the
+truth of what I have said.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER?
+
+
+II.
+
+IF this "sacred" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is not
+inspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as
+any devil could be.
+
+"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,
+of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which
+they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.
+
+"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,
+to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever.
+
+"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, _shall be_
+of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen
+and bondmaids."--Leviticus xxv.
+
+This is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another, to buy
+a woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child. This makes
+the whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal tender for labor
+performed. This is the kind of slavery established by the most merciful
+God. The reason given for all this, is, that the persons whom they
+enslaved were heathen. You may enslave them because they are not
+orthodox. If you can find anybody who does not believe in me, the God
+of the Jews, you may steal his wife from his arms, and her babe from
+the cradle. If you can find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew
+Jehovah, you may steal her prattling child from her breast. Can any one
+conceive of anything more infamous? Can any one find in the literature
+of this world more frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all
+this is found in that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the
+25th of Leviticus--from the Bible--from this sacred gift of God--this
+"Magna Charta of human freedom."
+
+2. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the
+seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
+
+3. "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were
+married, then his wife shall go out with him.
+
+4. "If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or
+daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall
+go out by himself.
+
+5. "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and
+children; I w ill not go out free:
+
+6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring
+him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his
+ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."--_Exodus,
+xxi._
+
+The slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his wife and
+children. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife and child. This
+is another of the laws of the most merciful God. This God changes even
+love into a chain. Children are used by him as manacles and fetters,
+and wives become the keepers of prisons. Any man who believes that such
+hideous laws were made by an infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in
+my judgment, insane or totally depraved.
+
+These are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the doctrine
+of the New? What message had he who came from heaven's throne for the
+oppressed of earth? What words of sympathy, what words of cheer, for
+those who labored and toiled without reward? Let us see:
+
+"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters, according to
+the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
+Christ."--_Ephesians, vi._
+
+This is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a woman
+who has been robbed of her child--to a man tracked by hounds through
+lonely swamps--to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding--to a mother
+weeping above an empty cradle.
+
+"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the
+good and gentle, but also to the fro ward."--_I Peter ii., 18_.
+
+"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure
+grief, suffering wrongfully."--_I Peter ii., 19_.
+
+It certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man work
+patiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a slave with
+his wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave escapes
+from slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying of the bloodhound
+must be to the ears of this most merciful God. All this is simply
+infamous. On the throne of this universe there sits no such monster.
+
+"Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh; not
+with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing
+God."--_Col. iii., 22_.
+
+The apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work every moment
+that his strength permitted. He really seems to have feared that
+he might not at all times do the very best he could to promote the
+interests of the thief who claimed to own him. And speaking to all
+slaves, in the name of the Father of All, this apostle says: "Obey in
+all things your masters, not with eye-service, but with singleness of
+heart, fearing God." He says to them in substance, There is no way you
+can so well please God as to work honestly for a thief.
+
+1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
+worthy of all honor, that the name of God and _his_ doctrine be not
+blasphemed."
+
+Think of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the name
+and doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own yourself!
+
+2. "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them,
+because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are
+faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and
+exhort."
+
+That is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of others.
+Do not hold in contempt the "faithful and beloved, partakers of the
+benefit," who turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
+
+3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words
+_even_ to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
+according to godliness.
+
+4. "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes
+of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
+
+5. "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
+truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
+
+This seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the early
+abolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights, seeking to
+give labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that divine
+garment of the soul, Liberty,--all this was denounced by the apostle as
+a simple strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings
+and perverse disputing, destitute of truth.
+
+6. "But godliness with contentment is great gain.
+
+7. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can
+carry nothing out.
+
+8. "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content."--_I Tim.,
+vi._
+
+This was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking of his
+chains. This is the reason he should never try to better his condition.
+He should be contented simply with the right to work for nothing. If
+he only had food and raiment, and a thief to work for, he should be
+contented. He should solace himself with the apostolic reflection, that
+as he brought nothing into the world, he could carry nothing out, and
+that when dead he would be as happily situated as his master.
+
+In order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word
+_servant_, I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and
+21:
+
+"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."
+
+Yet, notwithstanding these passages the _Christian Advocate_ says, "the
+Bible is the Magna Charta of our liberty."
+
+After reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the same
+paper:
+
+"We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of infidelity and
+atheism, not less offensive to good morals than have been the teachings
+of infidelity during the last century. France has been cursed with such
+teachings for a hundred years, and because of it, to-day her citizens
+are incapable of self-government."
+
+What was the condition of France a century ago? Were they capable of
+self-government then? For fourteen hundred years the common people of
+France had suffered. For fourteen hundred years they had been robbed
+by the altar and by the throne. They had been the prey of priests and
+nobles. All were exempt from taxation, except the common people. The
+cup of their suffering was full, and the French people arose in fury and
+frenzy, and tore the drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air
+with the dust of thrones.
+
+Surely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced by the
+teachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at the place
+where once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison
+standing as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked by the populace.
+I could see their stormy faces and hear their cries. And I saw that
+ancient fortification of tyranny go down forever. And now where once
+stood the Bastile stands the Column of July. Upon its summit is a
+magnificent statue of Liberty, holding in one hand a banner, in the
+other a broken chain, and upon its shining forehead is the star of
+progress. There it stands where once stood the Bastile. And France is
+as much superior to what it was when Voltaire was born, as that statue,
+surmounting the Column of July, is more beautiful than the Bastile that
+stood there once with its cells of darkness, and its dungeons of horror.
+
+And yet we are now told that the French people have rendered themselves
+incapable of government, simply because they have listened to the voice
+of progress. There are magnificent men in France. From that country have
+come to the human race some of the grandest and holiest messages the ear
+of man has ever heard. The French people have given to history some
+of the most touching acts of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the
+amazed stars.
+
+For my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue San
+Antoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to remember that
+the tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in chains, and
+while liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in the Inquisition of Spain.
+And yet we are now told by a religious paper, that France is not capable
+of self-government. I suppose it was capable of self-government under
+the old régime, at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I
+suppose it was capable of self-government when women were seen yoked
+with cattle pulling plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government
+when all who labored were in a condition of slavery.
+
+In the old times, even among the priests, there were some good, some
+sincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a sermon
+preached by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. This old
+priest, among other things, said that the soul of a beggar was as dear
+to God as the soul of the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ
+died as much for a beggar as for a prince. One French peasant, rough
+with labor, cried out: "I propose three cheers for Jesus Christ." I like
+such things. I like to hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris has
+been a kind of volcano, and has made the heavens lurid with its lava
+of hatred, but it has also contributed more than any other city to the
+intellectual development of man. France has produced some infamous
+men, among others John Calvin, but for one Calvin, she has produced a
+thousand benefactors of the human race.
+
+The moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the church,
+they will be in the highest sense capable of self-government. The moment
+France succeeds in releasing herself from the coils of Catholicism--from
+the shadows of superstition--from the foolish forms and mummeries of the
+church--from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand years--she will not
+only be capable of self-government, but will govern herself. Let the
+priests be usefully employed. We want no overseers of the mind; no
+slave-drivers for the soul. We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for
+depriving us of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to
+frighten our children, and paralyze the intellect of women.
+
+
+WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?
+
+III.
+
+FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that the earth
+was made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that
+on the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. Geologists have
+driven the church from this position, and it is now claimed that the
+days mentioned in the Bible are periods of time. This is a simple
+evasion, not in any way supported by the Scriptures. The Bible
+distinctly and clearly says that the world was created in six days.
+There is not within its lids a clearer statement. It does not say six
+periods. It was made according to that book in six days:
+
+31. "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very
+good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."--_Genesis i_.
+
+1. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
+them.
+
+2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
+rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
+
+3. "And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and sanctified
+it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
+and made."--_Genesis ii_.
+
+From the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the word
+days:
+
+15. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of
+rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he
+shall surely be put to death."--Served him right!
+
+16. "Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to
+observe the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual
+covenant.
+
+17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for
+in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
+rested and was refreshed.
+
+18. "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with
+him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
+with the finger of God."--_Exodus xxxi_.
+
+12. "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up
+the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of
+Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley
+of Ajalon.
+
+13. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
+avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
+of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; and hasted not
+to go down about a whole day.
+
+14. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the
+Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for
+Israel."--_Josh. x_.
+
+These passages must certainly convey the idea that this world was made
+in six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were to keep the
+Sabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh day--not period.
+If you say six periods, instead of six days, what becomes of your
+Sabbath? The only reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath
+is that God observed it--that he rested from his work that day and was
+refreshed. Take this reason away and the sacredness of that day has no
+foundation in the Scriptures.
+
+
+WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?
+
+IV.
+
+WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was understood
+by those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. From time to
+time discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent with the
+Scriptures. At first, theologians denounced the discoverers of all facts
+inconsistent with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.
+
+The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the universe; that
+the sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck called the earth.
+The men who discovered that all this was a mistake were denounced by
+the ignorant clergy of that day, precisely as the ignorant clergy of our
+time denounce the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine of the
+earth's place in the solar system was demonstrated; when persecution
+could no longer conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church
+made an effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of
+science. When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation
+became apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of
+the Bible. Then it was pretended that the "days" of creation were vast
+periods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible that the sun
+revolved around the earth, then the account given by Joshua of the sun
+standing still for the space of a whole day, was changed into a figure
+of speech. It was said that Joshua merely conformed to the mode of
+speech common in his day; and that when he said the sun stood still, he
+merely intended to convey the idea that the earth ceased turning upon
+its axis. They admitted that stopping the sun could not lengthen the
+day, and for that reason it must have been the earth that stopped.
+But you will remember that the moon stood still in the valley of
+Ajalon--that the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves
+upon their enemies.
+
+One would naturally suppose that the sun would have given sufficient
+light to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their enemies without
+any assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon had not stopped,
+the relations between the earth and moon would have been changed.
+
+Is there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched piece of
+ignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this nineteenth century
+has for its basis such childish absurdities? According to this account,
+what was the sun, or rather the earth, stopped for? It was stopped in
+order that the Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amorites. For
+the accomplishment of such a purpose the earth was made to pause. Why
+should an almost infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of
+destroying a handful of men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain.
+I strike my hands together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat
+come from? Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that
+there can be no destruction of force. It disappears in one form only
+to reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one thousand
+miles an hour, was stopped. The motion of this vast globe would have
+instantly been changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of the
+greatest scientists of the present day that to stop the earth would
+generate as much heat as could be produced by burning a world as large
+as this of solid coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the
+paltry purpose of defeating a few poor barbarians. The employment of so
+much force for the accomplishment of so insignificant an object would
+be as useless as bringing all the intellect of a great man to bear in
+answering the arguments of the clergymen of San Francisco.
+
+The waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their grand
+courses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to
+destroy an insect to which a single drop of water is "an unbounded
+world." How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect, not only to
+endorse such ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those who do not? Can
+anything be more debasing to the intellect of man than a belief in the
+astronomy of the Bible? According to the Scriptures, the world was
+made out of nothing, and the sun, moon, and stars, of the nothing that
+happened to be left. To the writers of the Bible the firmament was
+solid, and in it were grooves along which the stars were pushed by
+angels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed his geography and astronomy.
+His book was passed upon by the church, and was declared to be the truth
+concerning the subjects upon which he treated.
+
+This eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his guide,
+found and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second, that it was a
+vast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there was a vast body
+of land, then a strip of water all around it, then a strip of land.
+He thought that on the outer strip of land people lived before the
+flood--that at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark crossed the strip
+of water and landed on the shore of the country, in the middle of the
+world, where we now are. This great biblical scholar informed the true
+believers of his day that in the outer strip of land were mountains,
+around which the sun and moon revolved; that when the sun was on the
+side of the mountain next the land occupied by man, it was day, and when
+on the other side, it was night.
+
+Mr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most eminent
+astronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament was solid, and
+that the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells us that these angels
+attended strictly to their business, that each one watched the motions
+of all the others so that proper distances might always be maintained,
+and all confusion avoided. All this was believed by the gentlemen who
+made most of our religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to show
+that the earth must be flat, was the fact that the Bible stated that
+when Christ should come the second time, in glory, the whole world
+should see him. "Now," said Cosmas, "if the world is round, how could
+the people on the other side see the Lord when he comes?" This settled
+the question.
+
+These were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men have been
+for centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long after they had
+become dust they governed the world. The superstitions they planted,
+their descendants watered with the best and bravest blood. To maintain
+their ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed for a
+thousand years, and the infamous work is still being prosecuted.
+
+The Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all truth.
+Any new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the light, or
+rather in the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that test it
+was false, it was denounced, and the person bringing it forward forced
+to recant. It would have been a far better course to have discovered
+every theory found to be in harmony with the Scriptures.
+
+And yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this city, that
+the Bible is the foundation of all science.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED
+WITCHCRAFT?
+
+V.
+
+IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to give
+up the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent
+theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, they were right.
+To give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great degree at least, the
+supernatural. To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the mind
+of man to give up the great ones. The founders of nearly all creeds, and
+of all religions properly so called, have taught the existence of good
+and evil spirits. They have peopled the dark with devils and the light
+with angels. They have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs.
+The moment these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends,
+disappear from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted
+for by natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been
+taken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While the
+church believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified form. The
+evil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and more phenomena
+are accounted for by natural means. Just to the extent that belief has
+been lost in spirits, just to that extent the church has lost its power
+and authority. When men ceased to account for the happening of any event
+by ascribing it to the direct action of good or evil spirits, and began
+to reason from known premises, the chains of superstition began to
+grow weak. Into such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many
+Christians not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take
+the ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us see:
+
+"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."--_Exodus xxii., 18_.
+
+7. "Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a
+familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his
+servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at
+Endor.
+
+8. "And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went,
+and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said,
+I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up,
+whom I shall name unto thee.
+
+9. "And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath
+done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the
+wizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my
+life, to cause me to die?
+
+10. "And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth,
+there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
+
+11. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
+Bring me up Samuel.
+
+12. "And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice: and the
+woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art
+Saul.
+
+13. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
+And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
+
+14. "And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man
+cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that
+it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed
+himself.
+
+15. "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me
+up?"--2 Samuels xxviii.
+
+This reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual seance. Is
+it not one of the wonderful things of the world that men and women who
+believe this account of the witch of Endor, who believe all the miracles
+and all the ghost stories of the Bible, deny with all their force the
+truth of modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I would rather
+believe some one who has heard what he relates, who has seen what he
+tells, or at least thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather
+believe somebody I know, whose reputation for truth is good among those
+who know him. I would rather believe these people than to take the words
+of those who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and
+about whom I know nothing.
+
+31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after
+wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your God."--_Leviticus
+xix_.
+
+6 "And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and
+after wizards, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut
+him off from among his people."--_Leviticus xx._
+
+10. "There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination,
+or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
+
+11. "Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or
+a necromancer.
+
+12. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the
+Lord."--_Deut. xviii_.
+
+I have given you a few of the passages found in the Old Testament upon
+this subject, showing conclusively that the Bible teaches the existence
+of witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits. In the New
+Testament there are passages equally strong, showing that the Savior
+himself was a believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the
+existence of a personal devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching
+of the following:
+
+1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be
+tempted of the devil.
+
+2. "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
+an hungered.
+
+3. "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of
+God, command that these stones be made bread.
+
+4. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
+alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
+
+5. "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on
+a pinnacle of the temple.
+
+6. "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:
+for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and
+in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy
+foot against a stone.
+
+7. "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
+Lord, thy God.
+
+8. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
+sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
+
+9. "And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
+fall down and worship me.
+
+10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
+written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
+serve.
+
+11. "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered
+unto him."--_Matt. iv._
+
+If this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there is
+nothing within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence of
+a personal God. If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits,
+there is nothing in the Bible going to show that good spirits exist
+either in this world or the next.
+
+16. "When the even was come they brought unto him many that were
+possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and
+healed all that were sick."--_Matt. vii._
+
+1. "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country
+of the Gadarenes.
+
+2. "And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out
+of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
+
+3. "Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,
+not with chains:
+
+4. "Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and
+the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in
+pieces: neither could any man tame him.
+
+5. "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the
+tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.
+
+6. "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
+
+7. "And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee,
+Jesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou
+torment me not.
+
+8. "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
+
+9. "And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name
+is Legion, for we are many.
+
+11. "Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine
+feeding.
+
+12. "And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine,
+that we may enter into them.
+
+13. "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went
+out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep
+place into the sea, and they were about two thousand; and were choked in
+the sea."--_Mark v_.
+
+The doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of casting out
+devils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and followers, and
+to all who might believe in him throughout all the coming time:
+
+17. "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall
+they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.
+
+18. "And 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."--_Mark xvi._
+
+I would like to see the clergy who have been answering me, tested in
+this way: Let them drink poison, let them take up serpents, let them
+cure the sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then believe that
+they believe.
+
+I deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in the
+ignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them. "They are
+tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
+These devils have covered the world with blood and tears. They have
+filled the earth with fear. They have filled the lives of children with
+darkness and horror. They have peopled the sweet world of imagination
+with monsters. They have made religion a strange mingling of fear and
+ferocity. I am doing what I can to reave the heavens of these monsters.
+For my part, I laugh at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient
+and modern, great and small.
+
+
+THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.
+
+VI.
+
+ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the slavery of
+man.
+
+18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
+the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they
+have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.
+
+19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
+out unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of his place.
+
+20. "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
+stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and
+a drunkard.
+
+21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he
+die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall
+hear, and fear."--_Deut. xxi._
+
+Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He
+proceeded to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of age,
+was not consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a man was
+willing to offer upon the altar his only son. And such was the slavery
+of children, that the only son had not the spirit to resist.
+
+Have you ever read the story of Jephthah?
+
+30 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt
+without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
+
+31. "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 for a burnt offering.
+
+32. "So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against
+them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
+
+33. "And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even
+twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great
+slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children
+of Israel.
+
+34."And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter
+came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only
+child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
+
+35. "And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and
+said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one
+of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I
+cannot go back....
+
+39. "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned
+unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had
+vowed."--_Judges xi._
+
+Is there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this? What can
+we think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God?
+And what can we think of a God who would accept such a sacrifice? Can
+such a God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead for the rights of
+children. I plead for the government of kindness and love. I plead
+for the republic of home, the democracy of the fireside. I plead for
+affection. And for this I am pursued by invective. For this I am called
+a fiend, a devil, a monster, by Christian editors and clergymen,
+by those who pretend to love their enemies and pray for those that
+despitefully use them.
+
+Allow me to give you another instance of affection related in the
+Scriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the name of
+Job. The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to meet Satan, said
+to him: "Are you acquainted with my servant Job? Have you noticed what
+an excellent man he is?" And Satan replied to him and said: "Why should
+he not be an excellent man--you have given him everything he wants? Take
+from him what he has and he will curse you." And thereupon the Lord gave
+Satan the power to destroy the property and children of Job. In a little
+while these high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed
+somewhat elated with his success, and called again the attention of
+Satan to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body
+and he would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the
+body of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this, Job
+did not sin with his lips.
+
+This book seems to have been written to show the excellence of patience,
+and to prove that at last God will reward all who will bear the
+afflictions of heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The sons and
+daughters of Job had been slain, and then the Lord, in order to reward
+Job, gave him other children, other sons and other daughters--not the
+same ones he had lost; but others. And this, according to the writer,
+made ample amends. Is that the idea we now have of love? If I have a
+child, no matter how deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody
+can make the loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want
+the one I loved and the one I lost.
+
+
+THE GALLANTRY OF GOD.
+
+VII.
+
+I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no respect
+for the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It takes something
+besides epithets and invectives to prove or disprove anything. Let us
+see what the sacred volume says concerning the mothers and daughters of
+the human race.
+
+A man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has not
+there an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is less than a
+man.
+
+11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
+
+12. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
+man, but to be in silence."
+
+The reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to the
+sacred writer, was:
+
+13. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
+
+14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
+transgression.
+
+15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they
+continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."--_1 Tim. ii._
+
+3. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
+the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
+
+That is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man that man
+does to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to Christ that Christ
+does to God.
+
+This places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this barbarous
+idiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any woman look other
+than with contempt upon such passages? How can any woman believe that
+this is the will of a most merciful God?
+
+7. "For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is
+the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
+
+And this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the next
+verse:
+
+8. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."
+
+This same chivalric gentleman also says:
+
+9. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the
+man."--_1 Cor. xi._
+
+22. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
+Lord."
+
+Is it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?
+
+23. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
+of the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.
+
+24. "Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives
+be to their own husbands in everything."--_Eph. v._
+
+Even the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A man could
+divorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her husband.
+
+Every noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in contempt.
+According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be
+purified from the crime of having born sons and daughters. To make love
+and maternity crimes is infamous.
+
+10. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord
+thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
+captive,
+
+11. "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
+unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,
+
+12. "Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave
+her head, and pare her nails."--_Deut. xxi_.
+
+This is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from hell,
+from a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem
+or from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism complete and utter.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE?
+
+VIII.
+
+READ the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of Numbers--an
+order unfit to be reproduced in print--an order which I am unwilling
+to repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of
+Deuteronomy. Read the-life of Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of
+Jacob, and then tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and
+concubinage. All the languages of the world are insufficient to express
+the filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast--woman a slave. It destroys
+the fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild
+beasts. It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of the
+Bible--a doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon. It is by the
+Bible that Brigham Young justifies the practice of this beastly horror.
+It takes from language those sweetest words, husband, wife, father
+mother, child and lover. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals,
+and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents
+of loathsome lust. Yet the book justifying this infamy is the book upon
+which rests the civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I
+denounce this frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and
+the infamous _Christian Advocate_ says that the moral sentiment of
+this State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline for his blasphemous
+utterances and for his base and debasing scurrility.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL TYRANNY?
+
+IX.
+
+FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but the right
+to govern himself. All political authority is vested in the people
+themselves, They have the right to select their officers and agents,
+and these officers and agents are responsible to the people. Political
+authority does not come from the clouds. Man should not be governed by
+the aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Republican or Democratic
+book. Exactly the opposite doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn
+that the people have no power whatever; that all power and political
+authority comes from on high, and that all the kings, all the potentates
+and powers, have been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel
+kings have been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of
+Deity. The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one
+duty--the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some of the political
+ideas in the great "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+
+1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
+power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.
+
+2. "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
+of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
+
+According to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King of Great
+Britian by divine right, and by divine right was the lawful King of the
+American Colonies. The leaders in the Revolutionary struggle resisted
+the power, and according to these passages, resisted the ordinances of
+God; and for that resistance they are promised the eternal recompense of
+damnation.
+
+3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
+thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
+shalt have praise of the same....
+
+5. "Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also
+for conscience sake.
+
+6. "For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's
+ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."--_Romans, xiii._
+
+13. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;
+whether it be to the king as supreme.
+
+14. "Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
+punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.
+
+15. "For so is the will of God."--_1 Pet. ii._
+
+Had these ideas been carried out, political progress in the world would
+have been impossible. Upon the necks of the people still would have been
+the feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this infamous doctrine.
+Whether higher powers are ordained of God or not, if those higher powers
+endeavor to destroy the rights of man, I for one shall resist. Whenever
+and wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn in support of a human
+right, I am a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to titled
+wrong and robed injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man.
+The real rulers are the people, and the rulers so-called are but the
+servants of the people. They are not ordained of any God. All political
+power comes from and belongs to man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest
+the thrones of Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses have been
+repeated by brainless kings and heardess priests. For fifteen hundred
+years each one of these texts has been a bastile in which has been
+imprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of these texts has been
+an obstruction on the highway of humanity. Each one has been a
+fortification behind which have crouched the sainted hypocrites and the
+titled robbers. According to these texts, a robber gets his right to rob
+from God. And it is the duty of the robbed to submit. The thief gets his
+right to steal from God. The king gets his right to trample upon human
+liberty from God. I say, fight the king--fight the priest.
+
+
+THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.
+
+X.
+
+THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world with
+blood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, Christians
+are beginning to say that men have a right to differ upon religious
+questions provided the questions about which they differ are not
+considered of great importance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance
+is: "In non-essentials, Liberty; in essentials, Unity."
+
+The Christian world have condescended to say that upon all non-essential
+points we shall have the right to think for ourselves; but upon matters
+of the least importance, they will think and speak for us. In this they
+are consistent. They but follow the teachings of the God they worship.
+They but adhere to the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures.
+Within that volume there is no such thing as religious toleration.
+Within that volume there is not one particle of mercy for an
+unbeliever. For all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners
+of their own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any
+Christian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that extent
+false to his religion. Let us see what the "Magna Charta" of liberty
+says upon this subject:
+
+6. "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.
+
+7. "Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh
+unto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the earth even
+unto the other end of the earth.
+
+8. "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.
+
+9. "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.
+
+10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath
+sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out
+of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."--_Deut. xiii._
+
+That is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your bosom
+had said, "I like the religion of India better than the religion of
+Palestine," it was then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most
+High--understand me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High--said:
+
+"Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand shall be
+the first upon her to put her to death."
+
+This I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to believe
+in such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in order to be
+saved, I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you a few
+more extracts from the "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+
+2. "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord
+thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the
+sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
+
+3. "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the
+sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.
+
+4. "And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired
+diligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such
+abomination is wrought in Israel.
+
+5. "Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have
+committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that
+woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."
+
+Under this law if the woman you loved had said: "Let us worship the sun;
+I am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let us worship the
+sun; let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the world
+with light and love, when the dawn stands jocund on the mountain's misty
+top; it is the sun whose beams illumine and cover the earth with verdure
+and with beauty; it is the sun that covers the trees with leaves, that
+carpets the earth with grass and adorns the world with flowers; I adore
+the sun because in its light I have seen your eyes; it has given to
+me the face of my babe; it has clothed my life with joy; let us in
+gratitude fall down and worship the glorious beams of the sun."
+
+For this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your hands:
+
+"Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither shalt
+thou conceal her.
+
+"But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first upon her to
+put her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
+
+"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die."
+
+For my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a God who
+would make such a law or give such a command. This you may say is the
+doctrine of the Old Testament--what is the doctrine of the New?
+
+"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth
+not shall be damned."
+
+That is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the "tidings
+of great joy."
+
+Every one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip upon
+the backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has been a
+sword. Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack. Every one has
+been a fountain of tears. These words have filled the hearts of men with
+hatred. These words invented all the instruments of torture. These words
+covered the earth with blood.
+
+For the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired book.
+If then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws commanding
+religious intolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this same God
+took upon himself flesh, and came among the Jews and taught a different
+religion, and they crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown?
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY?
+
+XI.
+
+IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, changeable,
+unjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is
+it possible to read the words said to have been spoken by this Deity,
+without a shudder? Is it possible to contemplate his character without
+hatred?
+
+"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour
+flesh."--_Deut. xxxii._
+
+Is this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to his
+weak, his wandering and suffering children?
+
+"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of
+thy dogs in the same." _Psalms, lxviii._
+
+Is it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the blood of
+his children?
+
+22. "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by
+little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts
+of the field increase upon thee.
+
+23. "But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall
+destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
+
+24. "And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt
+destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to
+stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them."--_Deut. vii._
+
+If these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they had been
+spoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have
+been surprised. But these things are attributed to a God of infinite
+mercy.
+
+40. "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
+and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none
+remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of
+Israel commanded."--_Josh, x._
+
+14. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of
+Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with
+the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they
+any to breathe."--_Josh. xi._
+
+19. "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,
+save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in
+battle.
+
+20. "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come
+against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that
+they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
+commanded Moses."--_Josh. xi._
+
+There are no words in our language with which to express the indignation
+I feel when reading these cruel and heartless words.
+
+"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
+peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and
+open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein shall be
+tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no
+peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege
+it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou
+shalt smite every male thereof with the sword. But the women, _and the
+little ones_, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the
+spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the
+spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
+
+"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from
+thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of
+these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance,
+thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."
+
+These terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion. The men
+who were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their homes, their
+firesides, for their wives and for their little children. Yet these
+things, by the clergy of San Francisco, are called acts of sublime
+mercy.
+
+All this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.
+The Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words of
+vengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite
+brutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart the sweet flower
+of pity and trample it in the bloody dust of superstition. Do not, I
+beseech you, justify the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled
+babes. Do not let the gaze of the gorgon of superstition turn your
+hearts to stone.
+
+Is there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not with joy
+and gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect that all the
+passages in the Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and concubinage,
+political tyranny, the subjection of woman, the enslavement of children,
+establishing domestic and political tyranny, and that all the commands
+to destroy men, women and children, are but interpolations of kings
+and priests, made for the purpose of subjugating mankind through the
+instrumentality of fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would
+not think vastly more of the Bible if all these infamous things were
+eliminated from it?
+
+Surely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred from
+the fact that in the same volume are found the frightful passages I have
+quoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and studied precisely as
+we read and study any book whatever. The good in it should be preserved
+and cherished, and that which shocks the human heart should be cast
+aside forever.
+
+While the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with disease,
+famine, war, pestilence and death, there are no threatenings of
+punishment beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punishment is a
+dogma of the New Testament. This doctrine, the most cruel, the most
+infamous of which the human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at
+all, in the Bible--in the New Testament. One cannot imagine what the
+human heart has suffered by reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal
+damnation. It is a doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so
+infinitely cruel, that it is impossible for me to respect either the
+head or heart of any human being who teaches or fears it. This
+doctrine necessarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite
+punishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes committed by finite
+beings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am astonished it ever
+found lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we can be happy in
+heaven while those we loved on earth are suffering infinite torments in
+eternal fire, defames and calumniates the human heart.
+
+
+THE PLAN OF SALVATION.
+
+XII.
+
+WE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the salvation
+of all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made
+manifest to the children of men. According to the great scheme of the
+atonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in order to satisfy a
+law. What kind of law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of
+innocence? Who made this law? If God made it he must have known that the
+innocent would have to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is
+to me a medley of contradictions, impossibilities and theological
+conclusions. We are told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the
+Garden of Eden death never would have entered the world. We are further
+informed that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not
+have been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death
+never would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first
+parents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world, you and
+I never would have existed. The earth would have been filled thousands
+of generations before you and I were born. At the feast of life, death
+made seats vacant for us. According to this doctrine, we are indebted
+to the devil for our existence. Had he not tempted Eve--no sin. If there
+had been no sin--no death. If there had been no death the world would
+have been filled ages before you and I were born. Therefore, we owe our
+existence to the devil. We are further informed that as a consequence of
+original sin the scheme called the atonement became necessary; and that
+if the Savior had not taken upon himself flesh and come to this atom
+called the earth, and if he had not been crucified for us, we should all
+have been cast forever into hell. Had it not been for the bigotry of
+the Jews and the treachery of Judas Iscariot, Christ would not have been
+crucified; and if he had not been crucified, all of us would have had
+our portion in the lake that burneth with eternal fire.
+
+According to this great doctrine, according to this vast and most
+wonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to the devil,
+our salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.
+
+So far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of
+salvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of
+believing a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,
+ample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal fire simply
+because there is not testimony enough to satisfy his mind? Can there be
+such a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?
+
+And yet this same Deity says to me, "resist not evil; pray for those
+that despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will eternally damn
+mine." It seems to me that even gods should practice what they preach.
+
+All atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its
+provisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever
+he is guilty of a wicked action he says, "charge it." This kind of
+bookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in sin.
+
+The truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most creeds
+are better than the Bible, and most men are better than their God.
+
+
+OTHER RELIGIONS.
+
+XIII.
+
+WE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in all ages
+endeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and Whither? He has
+endeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to pluck the secret of
+his existence from the night. He has questioned the spectres of his own
+imagination. He has explored the mysterious avenues of dreams. He
+has peopled the heavens with spirits. He has mistaken his visions for
+realities. In the twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows
+for gods. In all ages he has been the slave of misery, the dupe of
+superstition and the fool of hope. He has suffered and aspired.
+
+Religion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we throw
+aside the grosser and absurder forms of faith--practically at first by
+ceasing to observe them, and lastly, by denying them altogether. Every
+church necessarily by its constitution endeavors to prevent this natural
+growth or development. What has happened to other religions must happen
+to ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing
+away. Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as noble
+as ours can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say the least,
+been as reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.
+
+Man has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these questions
+in all the countries of the world, and I respect all such men and women;
+but let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you that in other
+countries there is something.
+
+The Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the three stairs
+that lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said: "Who is there?"
+"Thy servant, O God!" But the gates would not open. For seven years he
+did every act of kindness; again he came, and the voice said: "Who is
+there?" And he replied: "Thy slave, O God!" Yet the gates were shut. Yet
+seven other years of kindness, and the man again knocked; and the voice
+cried and said: "Who is there?" "Thyself, O God!" And the gates wide
+open flew.
+
+I say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.
+
+A Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful
+descriptions of perdition, wrote these words: "Two angels flying out
+from the blissful city of God--the angel of love and the angel of
+pity--hovered over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of
+hell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and one tear of pity
+extinguished all the fires." Has orthodoxy produced anything as
+generously beautiful as this? Let me read you this: Sectarians, hear
+this: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this: Clergy of America who
+expect to have your happiness in heaven increased by seeing me burning
+in hell, hear this:
+
+This is the prayer of the Brahmins--a prayer that has trembled from
+human lips toward heaven for more than four thousand years:
+
+"Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation. Never will
+I enter into final bliss alone. But forever and everywhere will I labor
+and strive for the final redemption of every creature throughout all
+worlds, and until all are redeemed. Never will I wrongly leave this
+world to sin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain and work and suffer
+where I am."
+
+Has the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the infinite
+charity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all the shining
+worlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine that a
+large majority are going to eternal ruin.
+
+Compare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it with the
+imprecation of Christ: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
+for the devil and his angels;" with the ideas of Jeremy Taylor, with the
+creeds of Christendom, with all the prayers of all the saints, and in no
+church except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like this.
+
+"When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain
+from it."
+
+Since the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human conduct
+given superior to this?
+
+Are the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius? He was
+asked if there was any single word comprising the duties of man. He
+replied: "Reciprocity." Upon being asked what he thought of the
+doctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: "That is not
+my doctrine. If you return benefits for injuries what do you propose
+for benefits? My doctrine is; For benefits return benefits; for injuries
+return justice without any admixture of revenge."
+
+To return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I cannot
+put a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an injury.
+
+Now, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it doing, I
+ask you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth
+century? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this except from the honesty
+of my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a consolation to us now? Is it
+even a consolation when those we love die? The dead are so near and the
+promises are so far away. It is covered with the rubbish of the past.
+I ask you, is it all that is demanded by the brain and heart of the
+nineteenth century?
+
+We want something better; we want something grander; we want
+something that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want to
+advance--that is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a
+heretic--you cannot do it.
+
+Nearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and
+bloodshed. They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon the
+human brain. They have all, however, been perfectly natural productions,
+and under similar circumstances would all be reproduced. Only by
+intellectual development are the old superstitions outgrown. As only
+the few intellectually advance, the majority is left on the side of
+superstition, and remains there until the advanced ideas of the few
+thinkers become general; and by that time there are other thinkers still
+in advance.
+
+And so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully proceeds
+from age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the
+heretics denounce their denouncers as the disciples of superstition
+and ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod was orthodox. Socrates was a
+blasphemer. Anytus worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while
+the sellers of indulgences were the best of Catholics. Roger Williams
+was a heretic, while the Puritans who drove him from Massachusetts were
+all orthodox. Every step in advance in the religious history of the
+world has been taken by heretics. No superstition has been destroyed
+except by a heretic. No creed has been bettered except by a heretic.
+Heretic is the name that the orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing
+pioneer. It is shouted by the dwellers in swamps to the people upon the
+hills. It is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn. It is
+what the rotting says of the growing. Heretic is the name that a stench
+gives to a perfume.
+
+With this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from the lips
+of the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud--heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is
+an epitaph--heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a
+mist--heresy the star shining forever above the child of truth.
+
+I am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe that Want
+will forever extend its withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for
+charity. I do not believe that the children will forever be governed by
+cruelty and brute force. I do not believe that poverty will dwell with
+man forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever cover the earth,
+or that the shadow of the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I
+do not believe that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that
+malice and superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.
+
+I believe the time will come when there will be charity in every heart,
+when there will be love in every family, and when law and liberty and
+justice, like the atmosphere, will surround this world.
+
+We have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated ourselves
+before the ignorance of the past.
+
+Let us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the brightening
+future. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not throw away our idea
+of justice for the sake of any book or of any religion whatever. Let us
+live according to our highest and noblest and purest ideal.
+
+By this time we should know that the real Bible has not been written.
+
+The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or
+apostles, or evangelists, or of Christs.
+
+Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great
+book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes
+no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no
+punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man
+in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no
+fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and
+understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims
+to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader
+to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed.
+This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists
+testifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and
+crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with
+its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower,
+confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite
+abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.
+
+Ladies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this evening; you
+cannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual hospitality of this great
+city by the Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you--I thank you
+again and again, a thousand times.
+
+
+
+
+MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.
+
+
+     * Chicago Times, 1879.
+
+To the Editor:--
+
+NOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received with
+scorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval. Only a few weeks ago,
+I stated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was mistaken; that
+the "flood" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of Babel existed only in
+credulity; that God did not create the universe from nothing, that he
+did not start the first woman with a rib; that he never upheld slavery;
+that he was not a polygamist; that he did not kill people for making
+hair-oil; that he did not order his generals to kill the dimpled babes;
+that he did not allow the roses of love and the violets of modesty to
+be trodden under the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew language
+was written without vowels; that the Bible was composed of many books,
+written by unknown men; that all translations differed from each other;
+and that this book had filled the world with agony and crime.
+
+At that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned clergymen
+in Chicago would substantially agree with me--in public. I have read
+the replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi Kohler, Rev.
+Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr. Ryder, and will now ask them a few
+questions, answering them in their own words.
+
+First. Rev. Robert Collyer.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible? Answer. "It is a splendid
+book. It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the meanest bigots.
+Through this book men give their hearts for good to God, or for evil to
+the devil. The best argument for the intrinsic greatness of the book
+is that it can touch such wide extremes, and seem to maintain us in the
+most unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most tender mercy; that it can
+inspire purity like that of the great saints, and afford arguments in
+favor of polygamy. The Bible is the text book of ironclad Calvinism and
+sunny Universalism. It makes the Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy.
+It inspired the Union soldier to live and grandly die for the right, and
+Stonewall Jackson to live nobly, and die grandly for the wrong."
+
+_Question_. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a book with as
+many passages in favor of wrong as right, is inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "I look upon the Old Testament as a rotting tree. When it
+falls it will fertilize a bank of violets."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that God upheld slavery and polygamy? Do
+you believe that he ordered the killing of babes and the violation of
+maidens?
+
+_Answer._ "There is threefold inspiration in the Bible, the first,
+peerless and perfect, the word of God to man; _the second, simply and
+purely human, and then below this again, there is an inspiration born of
+an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as anything well can
+be_. A threefold inspiration, of heaven first, then of the earth, and
+then of hell, all in the same book, all sometimes in the same chapter,
+and then, besides, a great many things that need no inspiration."
+
+_Question_. Then after all you do not pretend that the Scriptures are
+really inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves as the
+church makes for them. They leave me free to say this is false, or this
+is true. The truth even within the Bible, dies and lives, makes on this
+side and loses on that."
+
+_Question_. What do you say to the last verse in the Bible, where a
+curse is threatened to any man who takes from or adds to the book?
+
+_Answer._ "I have but one answer to this question, and it is: Let who
+will have written this, I cannot for an instant believe that it was
+written by a divine inspiration. Such dogmas and threats as these are
+not of God, but of man, and not of any man of a free spirit and heart
+eager for the truth, but a narrow man who would cripple and confine the
+human soul in its quest after the whole truth of God, and back those who
+have done the shameful things in the name of the most high."
+
+_Question_. Do you not regard such talk as "slang"?
+
+(Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the writer of Revelation
+was narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his discourse as "slang,"
+but I think that Unitarian ministers can do so with the greatest
+propriety.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe in the stories of the Bible, about Jael, and
+the sun standing still, and the walls falling at the blowing of horns?
+
+_Answer._ "They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they will, but
+they are not the word of God. So I say again, it was not the God and
+Father of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that nail crashing
+through the king's temple after she had given him that bowl of milk and
+bid him sleep in safety, but a very mean devil of hatred and revenge,
+that I should hardly expect to find in a squaw on the plains. It was not
+the ram's horns and the shouting before which the walls fell flat. If
+they went down at all, it was through good solid pounding. And not for
+an instant did the steady sun stand still or let his planet stand still
+while barbarian fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he keeps
+now. They might believe it who made the record. I do not. And since the
+whole Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather in
+this church. A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way. Newton
+might believe it as a Christian, and disbelieve it as a philosopher.
+We stand then with the philosopher against the Christian, for we must
+believe what is true to us in the last test, and these things are not
+true."
+
+Second. Rev. Dr. Thomas.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Old Testament?
+
+_Answer._ "My opinion is that it is not one book, but many--thirty-nine
+books bound up in one. The date and authorship of most of these books
+are wholly unknown. The Hebrews wrote without vowels, and without
+dividing the letters into syllables, words, or sentences. The books
+were gathered up by Ezra. At that time only two of the Jewish tribes
+remained. All progress has ceased. In gathering up the sacred book,
+copyists exercised great liberty in making changes and additions."
+
+_Question_. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "There maybe the inspiration of art, of poetry, or oratory;
+of patriotism--and there are such inspirations. There are moments when
+great truths and principles come to men. They seek the man, and not the
+man them."
+
+_Question_. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "But still I know of no way to convince anyone of spirit, and
+inspiration, and God, only as his reason may take hold of these things."
+
+_Question_. Do you think the Old Testament true?
+
+_Answer._ "The story of Eden may be an allegory. The history of the
+children of Israel may have mistakes."
+
+_Question_. Must inspiration claim infallibility? Answer. "It is a
+mistake to say that if you believe one part of the Bible you must
+believe all. Some of the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others not;
+or there may be degrees of inspiration."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers to kill the
+children and the married women, and save for themselves, the maidens, as
+recorded in _Numbers xxxi, 2_,
+
+Do you believe that God upheld slavery?
+
+Do you believe that God upheld polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The Bible may be wrong in some statements. God and right
+cannot be wrong. We must not exalt the Bible above God. It may be that
+we have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby given not a little
+occasion for such men as Mr. Ingersoll to appear at the other extreme,
+denying too much."
+
+_Question_. What then shall be done?
+
+_Answer._ "We must take a middle ground. It is not necessary to believe
+that the bears devoured the forty-two children, nor that Jonah was
+swallowed by the whale."
+
+Third. Rev. Dr. Kohler.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion about the Old Testament?
+
+_Answer._ "I will not make futile attempts of artificially interpreting
+the letter of the Bible so as to make it reflect the philosophical,
+moral and scientific views of our time. The Bible is a sacred record of
+humanity's childhood."
+
+_Question_. Are you an orthodox Christian?
+
+_Answer._ "No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned backward to a ruined
+temple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming like Lot's wife, a pillar of
+salt."
+
+_Question_. Do you really believe the Old Testament was inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men like Voltaire
+and Thomas Paine, whose bold denial and cutting wit were so instrumental
+in bringing about this glorious era of freedom, so congenial and
+blissful, particularly to the long-abused Jewish race."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "Of course there is a destructive axe needed to strike down
+the old building in order to make room for the grander new. The divine
+origin claimed by the Hebrews for their national literature, was claimed
+by all nations for their old records and laws as preserved by the
+priesthood. As Moses, the Hebrew law-giver, is represented as having
+received the law from God on the holy mountain, so is Zoroaster the
+Persian, Manu the Hindoo, Minos the Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and
+Numa the Roman."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe all the stories in the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "All that can and must be said against them is that they have
+been too long retained around the arms and limbs of grown-up manhood, to
+check the spiritual progress of religion; that by Jewish ritualism and
+Christian dogmatism they became fetters unto the soul, turning the light
+of heaven into a misty haze to blind the eye, and even into a hell-fire
+of fanaticism to consume souls."
+
+_Question_. Is the Bible inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "True, the Bible is not free from errors, nor is any work of
+man and time. It abounds in childish views and offensive matter. I
+trust that it will in a time not far off be presented for common use in
+families, schools, synagogues and churches, in a refined shape, cleansed
+from all dross and chaff, and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer
+delights to dwell."
+
+Fourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.
+
+_Question_. Is the Bible true?
+
+_Answer._ "Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The question is not, is
+the Bible inspired, but is it true?' That sounds very plausible, but you
+know as applied to _any ancient book_ it is simply nonsense."
+
+_Question_. Do you think the stories in the Bible exaggerated?
+
+_Answer._ "I dare say the numbers are immensely exaggerated."
+
+_Question_. Do you think that God upheld polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The truth of which simply is, that four thousand years ago
+polygamy existed among the Jews, as everywhere else on earth then, and
+even their prophets did not come to the idea of its being wrong. _But
+what is there to be indignant_ about in that?"
+
+_Question_. And so you really wonder why any man should be indignant
+at the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that beastliness called
+polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "What is there to be indignant about in that?"
+
+
+Fifth. Prof. Swing.
+
+_Question_. What is your idea of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "I think it is a poem."
+
+
+Sixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.
+
+_Question_. And what is your idea of the sacred Scriptures?
+
+_Answer._ "Like other nations, the Hebrews had their patriotic,
+descriptive, didactic and lyrical poems in the same varieties as other
+nations; but with them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form
+of their poetry, it always possesses the characteristic of religion."
+
+_Question_. I suppose you fully appreciate the religious characteristics
+of the Song of Solomon.
+
+No answer.
+
+_Question_. Does the Bible uphold polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The law of Moses did not forbid it, but contained many
+provisions against its worst abuses, and such as were intended to
+restrict it within narrow limits."
+
+_Question_. So you think God corrected some of the worst abuses of
+polygamy, but preserved the institution itself?
+
+I might question many others, but have concluded not to consider those
+as members of my Bible Class who deal in calumnies and epithets.
+From the so-called "replies" of such ministers, it appears that while
+Christianity changes the heart, it does not improve the manners, and
+that one can get into heaven in the next world without having been a
+gentleman in this.
+
+It is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling satisfaction
+I have experienced in reading the admissions of the clergy of Chicago.
+Surely, the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won, when ministers
+admit that the Bible is filled with ignorant and cruel mistakes;
+that each man has the right to think for himself, and that it is not
+necessary to believe the Scriptures in order to be saved. From the
+bottom of my heart I congratulate my pupils on the advance they have
+made, and hope soon to meet them on the serene heights of perfect
+freedom.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+Washington, D. C., May 7, 1879.
+
+
+
+
+TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.
+
+
+     * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.
+
+THE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. David
+Walk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D.
+O'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.
+
+_Question_. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the
+Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?--Rev. David Walk.
+
+_Answer._ In all probability, there was a man by the name of Jesus
+Christ, who was, in his day and generation, a reformer--a man who was
+infinitely shocked at the religion of Jehovah--who became almost insane
+with pity as he contemplated the sufferings of the weak, the poor, and
+the ignorant at the hands of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and
+bloodthirsty church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted the
+downfall of the temple. In all probability, he hated, at last, every
+pillar and stone in it, and despised even the "Holy of Holies." This
+man, of course, like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion
+he held in his youth. He changed his views from time to time--fanned the
+spark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon extended
+and widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and better man.
+
+I find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In some
+portions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he
+says that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because it is God's holy
+city, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond that expression.
+So, too, when it is recorded that he drove the money changers from the
+temple. This, had it happened, would have been the act simply of one who
+had respect for this temple and not for the religion taught in it.
+
+It would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in the
+religion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he wished to
+reform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he devoted
+his life to its destruction. This view shows that he "increased in
+stature and grew in knowledge."
+
+This view is also supported by the fact that, at first, according to
+the account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel was not for
+the Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more patriotism than
+philosophy. In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gentiles by
+the persecution he endured at home. He found, as every Freethinker now
+finds, that there are many saints not in churches and many devils not
+out.
+
+The character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in the
+Gospels, depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make
+a Christ to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth; and
+since the Gospels were finished, millions of men have been adding to and
+changing the character of Christ.
+
+There is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is that
+the Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take it for
+granted that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he
+quotes none of them. There is also this remarkable fact: Paul quotes
+none of the miracles of the New Testament. He says not one word
+about the multitude being fed miraculously, not one word about the
+resurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son. He had never heard of
+the lame, the halt, and the blind that had been cured; or if he had, he
+did not think these incidents of enough importance to be embalmed in an
+epistle.
+
+So we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the four
+Gospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four Gospels were not
+written until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more certain than
+that the early Christians knew nothing of what we call the Gospels of
+Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these things have been growths. At
+first it was believed that Christ was a direct descendant from David. At
+that time the disciples of Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was
+expected through the blood of David.--For that reason, the genealogy of
+Joseph, a descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after,
+that the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the
+son of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given,
+believed that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they
+give the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related to David?
+In other words, why should the son of God attempt to get glory out of
+the fact that he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king? There
+is only one answer to this. The Jews expected the Messiah through
+David, and in order to prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the
+genealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea became popularized that
+Christ was the son of God, and then were interpolated the words "as
+was supposed" in the genealogy of Christ. It was a long time before the
+disciples became great enough to include the world in their scheme, and
+before they thought it proper to tell the "glad tidings of great joy"
+beyond the limits of Judea.
+
+My own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether he
+lived in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is worth its
+example, its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and heroism.
+It is of no earthly importance whether he changed water into wine or
+not. All his miracles are simply dust and darkness compared with what he
+actually said and actually did. We should be kind to each other whether
+Lazarus was raised or not. We should be just and forgiving whether
+Christ lived or not. All the miracles in the world are of no use to
+virtue, morality, or justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to
+ignorance, to fear and folly.
+
+Neither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They are
+worth the truth that is in them and no more.
+
+The words of Paul are often quoted, that "all scripture is given by
+inspiration of God." Of course that could not have applied to anything
+written after that time. It could have applied only to the Scriptures
+then written and then known. It is perfectly clear that the four Gospels
+were not at that time written, and therefore this statement of Paul's
+does not apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply to anything
+written after that statement was written. Neither does it apply to that
+statement. If it applied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not
+the New.
+
+Christ has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of the
+miraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human, he will
+have gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think of him
+as I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus, of Bruno. I place
+him with the great, the generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for
+the man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I think he was in
+many things mistaken. His reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect.
+He seemed to believe that his father in heaven would protect him. He
+thought that if God clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he
+provided for the sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just
+and loving man. In this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death,
+overwhelmed, he cried out: "Why hast thou forsaken me?"
+
+I do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever claimed to
+be inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he
+was an honest man. These claims were all put in his mouth by others--by
+mistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers, by zealous and credulous
+followers, and sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This has
+happened to all the great men of the world. All historical characters
+are, in part, deformed or reformed by fiction. There was a man by the
+name of George Washington, but no such George Washington ever existed
+as we find portrayed in history. The historical Cæsar never lived. The
+historical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism
+to rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to
+find the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the Olympian
+gods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far greater than
+Christ the god.
+
+To me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said nothing as
+to the obligation man is under to his country, nothing as to the rights
+of the people as against the wish and will of kings, nothing against the
+frightful system of human slavery--almost universal in his time. What
+he did not say is altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is
+marvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing
+about education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing
+about art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer a
+reward to those who would desert their wives and families. Of course,
+I do not believe that he said the words that were attributed to him, in
+which a reward is offered to any man who will desert his kindred. But if
+we take the account given in the four Gospels as the true account, then
+Christ did offer a reward to a father who would desert his children. It
+has always been contended that he was a perfect example of mankind, and
+yet he never married. As a result of what he did not teach in connection
+with what he did teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm
+in polygamy. They belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of
+the next. They consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while
+he would exchange his chains for wings. They comforted the captive by
+saying that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for the bowers
+of Paradise. His followers believed that he had said that "Whosoever
+believeth not shall be damned." This passage was the cross upon which
+intellectual liberty was crucified.
+
+If Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how to
+cure disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free; if he had
+crowned the people with their rightful power; if he had placed the home
+above the church; if he had broken all the mental chains; if he had
+flooded all the caves and dens of fear with light, and filled the future
+with a common joy, he would in truth have been the Savior of this world.
+
+_Question_. How do you account for the difference between the Christian
+and other modern civilizations?
+
+_Answer._ I account for the difference between men by the difference in
+their ancestry and surroundings--the difference in soil, climate, food,
+and employment. There would be no civilization in England were it not
+for the Gulf Stream. There would have been very little here had it not
+been for the discovery of Columbus. And even now on this continent there
+would be but little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask:
+How do you account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was
+the greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the
+Egyptian religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time when
+the civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that prove that
+Vishnu was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual world for centuries.
+Does that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of heaven and
+earth? The same may be said of Rome. There was a time when Rome governed
+the world, and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth of the
+Roman mythology. As a matter of fact, Rome was far better than any
+Christian nation ever was to the end of the seventeenth century. A
+thousand years of Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest
+of Rome. There were no poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no
+philosophers as great as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors
+like Marcus Aurelius, no women like the mothers of Rome.
+
+The civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but it
+has never been increased by any form of superstition. When America was
+discovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it would have, for
+instance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake Michigan put the other
+side of it. The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of commerce
+became deserted. The prow of the world turned westward, and, as a
+result, France, England, and all countries bordering on the
+Atlantic became prosperous. The world has really been civilized by
+discoverers--by thinkers. The man who invented powder, and by that means
+released hundreds of thousands of men from the occupations of war, did
+more for mankind than religion. The inventor of paper--and he was not
+a Christian--did more than all the early fathers for mankind. The
+inventors of plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the inventors
+of wagons, coaches, locomotives; the inventors of skiffs, sail-vessels,
+steamships; the men who have made looms--in short, the inventors of
+all useful things--they are the civilizers taken in connection with the
+great thinkers, the poets, the musicians, the actors, the painters, the
+sculptors. The men who have invented the useful, and the men who have
+made the useful beautiful, are the real civilizers of mankind.
+
+The priests, in all ages, have been hindrances--stumbling-blocks. They
+have prevented man from using his reason. They have told ghost stories
+to courage until courage became fear. They have done all in their power
+to keep men from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a state of
+childhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good and wise.
+They have always known that their reputation for wisdom depended upon
+the ignorance of the people.
+
+I account for the civilization of France by such men as Voltaire. He did
+good by assisting to destroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the
+same way. He did harm in building another church. I account, in part,
+for the civilization of England by the fact that she had interests
+greater than the church could control; and by the further fact that her
+greatest men cared nothing for the church. I account in part for the
+civilization of America by the fact that our fathers were wise enough,
+and jealous of each other enough, to absolutely divorce church and
+state. They regarded the church as a dangerous mistress--one not fit to
+govern a president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson
+and Paine were at that time prominent in the councils of the people.
+There is this peculiarity in our country--the only men who can be
+trusted with human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels
+hereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners have an opportunity to
+be heard.
+
+Neither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in the
+world. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country was
+visited by Christians, and they are now used only in those ports where
+Christians are allowed to enter. It has often been claimed that there
+is but one way to make a man temperate, and that is by making him
+a Christian; and this is claimed in face of the fact that Christian
+nations are the most intemperate in the world. For nearly thirteen
+centuries the followers of Mohammed have been absolute teetotalers--not
+one drunkard under the flag of the star and crescent. Wherever, in
+Turkey, a man is seen under the influence of liquor, they call him a
+Christian. You must also remember that almost every Christian nation
+has held slaves. Only a few years ago England was engaged in the slave
+trade. A little while before that our Puritan ancestors sold white
+Quaker children in the Barbadoes, and traded them for rum, sugar, and
+negro slaves. Even now the latest champion of Christianity upholds
+slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.
+
+Sometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether perfect.
+When I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the
+many who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the depravity of the
+great cities; of the starvation in the manufacturing centers of Great
+Britain, and, in fact, of all Europe; when I see women working like
+beasts of burden, and little children deprived, not simply of education,
+but of air, light and food, there is a suspicion in my mind that
+Christian civilization is not a complete and overwhelming success.
+
+After all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we have made,
+by the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For the future I
+rely upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the intellect. I rely
+upon labor; upon human interests in this world; upon the love of wife
+and children and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but upon good
+men and women. I do not rely upon superstition, but upon knowledge; not
+upon miracles, but upon facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living;
+and when we become absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the
+superstitions of the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.
+
+Neither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are pleased
+to call "the heathen." Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We
+exchange ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort to force a religion
+upon the people always ends in war. Commerce, founded upon mutual
+advantage, makes peace. An honest merchant is better than a missionary.
+
+Spain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization, and yet,
+for hundreds of years, that government was simply an organized crime.
+When one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the invasion of
+the New World, the persecution in the Netherlands, the expulsion of the
+Jews, and the Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of Europe
+preserve themselves from each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a
+standing army of six hundred thousand men, France a half million, and
+all their neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized.
+They are in the enjoyment of Christian governments--have their hundreds
+of a thousands of ministers, and the land covered with cathedrals and
+churches--and yet every nation is nearly beggared by keeping armies in
+the field. Christian kings have no confidence in the promises of each
+other. What they call peace is the little time necessarily spent in
+reloading their guns. England has hundreds of ships of war to protect
+her commerce from other Christians, and to force China to open her ports
+to the opium trade. Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in
+one of his dispatches to the English government, used substantially the
+following language: "England regards the opium question simply as one of
+trade, but to China, it has a moral aspect." Think of Christian England
+carrying death and desolation to hundreds of thousands in the name of
+trade. Then think of heathen China protesting in the name of morality.
+At the same time England has the impudence to send missionaries to
+China.
+
+What has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the public
+peace in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so alienated
+nations, nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as
+what has been known as religion. The idea that all men must worship the
+same God, believe the same dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked
+with bloody hands the flower of pity from the human heart.
+
+Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies.
+It is not a result of "inspiration." It is the child of invention, of
+discovery, of applied knowledge--that is to say, of science. When man
+becomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights;
+when thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing
+useful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our
+fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized.
+
+_Question_. Since Laplace and other most distinguished astronomers hold
+to the theory that the earth was originally in a gaseous state, and then
+a molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable or animal life,
+could not exist, how do you account for the origin of life on this
+planet without a "Creator"?--Dr. T. B. Taylor.
+
+_Answer._ Whether or not "the earth was originally in a gaseous state
+and afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of vegetable and animal
+life could not exist," I do not know. My belief is that the earth as it
+is, and as it was, taken in connection with the influence of the sun,
+and of other planets, produced whatever has existed or does exist on
+the earth. I do not see why gas would not need a "creator" as much as
+a vegetable. Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for
+some one to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now
+portions of the world in which there is not one particle of vegetable
+life. It may be that on the wide waste fields of the Arctic zone
+there are places where no vegetable life exists, and there may be many
+thousand miles where no animal life can be found. But if the poles of
+the earth could be changed, and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a
+different relative position to the sun, the snows would melt, the hills
+would appear, and in a little while even the rocks would be clothed with
+vegetation. After a time vegetation would produce more soil, and in a
+few thousand years forests would be filled with beasts and birds.
+
+I think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account for the
+origin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have come from some
+meteoric stone falling from some other planet having in it the germs of
+life. What would you think of a farmer who would prepare his land and
+wait to have it planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you think
+of a Deity who would make a world like this, and allow it to whirl
+thousands and millions of years, barren as a gravestone, waiting for
+some vagrant comet to sow the seeds of life?
+
+I believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of the
+vegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that crystallization is
+the first step toward what we call life, and yet I believe life is back
+of that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a gaseous state, it
+was filled with life. These are subjects about which we know but little.
+How do you account for chemistry? How do you account for the fact that
+just so many particles of one kind seek the society of just so many
+particles of another, and when they meet they instantly form a glad and
+lasting union? How do you know but atoms have love and hatred? How
+do you know that the vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that
+crystallization itself is not an expression of delight? How do you know
+that a vine bursting into flower does not feel a thrill? We find sex in
+the meanest weeds--how can you say they have no loves?
+
+After all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The difficulty is
+not thus solved. You leave your creator as much in need of a creator as
+anything your creator is supposed to have created. The bottom of your
+stairs rests on nothing, and the top of your stairs leans upon nothing.
+You have reached no solution.
+
+The word "God" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as we can,
+and we say the rest of the way is "God." We look as far as we can,
+and beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we know but
+blindness, we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal segment of a
+circle, and we say the rest is "God."
+
+Man must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one knows the
+origin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and
+the whither are questions that no man can answer. In the presence of
+these questions all intellects are upon a level. The barbarian knows
+exactly the same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher. Only
+those who think that they have had some supernatural information pretend
+to answer these questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the
+unfathomable, is the realm wholly occupied by the "inspired."
+
+We are satisfied that all organized things must have had a beginning,
+but we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be. Forms change,
+but substance remains eternally the same. A beginning of substance is
+unthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of anything commencing to
+exist _without_ a cause as _with_ a cause. There must be something for
+cause to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing--were such a thing
+possible--would produce nothing. There can be no relation between cause
+and nothing. We can understand how things can be arranged, joined or
+separated--and how relations can be changed or destroyed, but we cannot
+conceive of creation--of nothing being changed into something, nor of
+something being made--except from preexisting materials.
+
+_Question_. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in the
+affirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of
+man after death--which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the
+phenomena of the nineteenth century--what further evidence should
+thoughtful people require in order to settle the question, "Does death
+end all?"
+
+_Answer._ I admit that in all ages men have believed in spooks and
+ghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves nothing. Men have
+for thousands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped the absurd.
+Our ancestors have worshiped snakes and birds and beasts. I do not admit
+that any ghost ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever performed
+except in imagination; and what you are pleased to call the "phenomena
+of the nineteenth century," I fear are on an exact equality with the
+phenomena of the Dark Ages.
+
+We do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows the
+origin of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any
+more than one knows why or how his heart beats. People, I imagine, have
+always had dreams. In dreams they often met persons whom they knew to be
+dead, and it may be that much of the philosophy of the present was born
+of dreams. I cannot admit that anything supernatural ever has happened
+or ever will happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you call the
+"phenomena of the nineteenth century," if by such "phenomena" you mean
+the reappearance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future
+state, because I do not know. Neither do I aver that there is one,
+because I do not know. Upon this question I am simply honest. I find
+that people who believe in immortality--or at least those who say they
+do--are just as afraid of death as anybody else. I find that the most
+devout Christian weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who says
+that death ends all. You see the promises are so far away, and the dead
+are so near. Still, I do not say that man is not immortal; but I do say
+that there is nothing in the Bible to show that he is. The Old
+Testament has not a word upon the subject--except to show us how we lost
+immortality. According to that book, man was driven from the Garden of
+Eden, lest he should put forth his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree
+of life and live forever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us
+how we lost immortality. In the New Testament we are told to seek for
+immortality, and it is also stated that "God alone hath immortality."
+
+There is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists: The
+Spiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the miracles of
+the New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the story about the
+witch of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at the Spiritualists for
+believing that the same kind of things happen now. As a matter of fact,
+the Spiritualists have the best of it, because their witnesses are now
+living, whereas the Christians take simply the word of the dead--of
+men they never saw and of men about whom they know nothing. The
+Spiritualist, at least, takes the testimony of men and women that he can
+cross-examine. It would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make
+common cause. Then the Christians could prove their miracles by the
+Spiritualists, and the Spiritualists could prove their "phenomena" by
+the Christians.
+
+I believe that thoughtful people require some additional testimony in
+order to settle the question, "Does death end all?" If the dead return
+to this world they should bring us information of value.
+
+There are thousands of questions that studious historians and savants
+are endeavoring to settle--questions of history, of philosophy, of law,
+of art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able to shed a
+flood of light. All the questions of the past ought to be settled. Some
+modern ghosts ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs, and
+give us an outline of the history of Egypt. They ought to be able to
+read the arrow-headed writing and all the records of the past. The
+hieroglyphics of all ancient peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts
+and facts that have been imprisoned for so many thousand years should be
+released and once again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought
+to be able to give us the history of buried cities. They should clothe
+with life the dust of all the past. If they could only bring us valuable
+information; if they could only tell us about some steamer in distress
+so that succor could be sent; if they could only do something useful,
+the world would cheerfully accept their theories and admit their
+"facts." I think that thoughtful people have the right to demand such
+evidence. I would like to have the spirits give us the history of
+all the books of the New Testament and tell us who first told of the
+miracles. If they could give us the history of any religion, or nation,
+or anything, I should have far more confidence in the "phenomena of the
+nineteenth century."
+
+There is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is, they are
+liberal. They give to others the rights they claim for themselves. They
+do not pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain. They do
+not slander and persecute even those who deny their "phenomena." But
+I cannot admit that they have furnished conclusive evidence that death
+does not end all. Beyond the horizon of this life we have not seen. From
+the mysterious beyond no messenger has come to me.
+
+For the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future a single
+star. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.
+
+_Question_. How, when, where, and by whom was our present calendar
+originated,--that is "Anno Domini,"--and what event in the history of
+the nations does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of Jesus of
+Nazareth?
+
+_Answer._ I have already said, in answer to a question by another
+gentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date
+from somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about his having been
+born on Christmas, because in reading other religions, I find that that
+time has been celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of it is
+this:
+
+About the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After that the
+days begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for many centuries
+in most nations they had a festival in commemoration of that event. The
+Christians, I presume, adopted this day, and made the birth of Christ
+fit it. Three months afterward--the 21st of March--the days and nights
+again become equal, and the day then begins to lengthen. For centuries
+the nations living in the temperate zones have held festivals to
+commemorate the coming of spring--the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud
+and flower. This is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians
+adopted that in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a
+matter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend
+to show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth
+or resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly the
+other way.
+
+While we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to say that
+we get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas
+of algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from the same source.
+So from the Arabs we receive chemistry, and our first true notions of
+geography. They gave us also paper and cotton.
+
+Owing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in the exact
+time of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to
+the fact that it was a long time before any near approach was made to
+the actual time, all calendars after awhile became too inaccurate for
+general use, and they were from time to time changed.
+
+Right here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the monuments and
+festivals in the world are not sufficient to establish an impossible
+event. No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of living evidence,
+can substantiate a miracle. The monument only proves the _belief_ of the
+builders.
+
+If we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and
+festivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated. Turkey
+is filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in such
+festivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such celebration does
+not even tend to prove that God, by his special providence, protected
+Washington from the arrows of an Indian. The Hebrews celebrate what is
+called the Passover, but this celebration does not even tend to prove
+that the angel of the Lord put blood on the door-posts in Egypt. The
+Mohammedans celebrate to-day the flight of Mohammed, but that does not
+tend to prove that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of God.
+
+Nobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a monument.
+Monuments simply prove that people endeavor to substantiate truths and
+falsehoods by the same means.
+
+_Question_. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest for the
+present, how do you account for the hell here--namely, the existence
+of pain? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this
+present time in misery. If for these there is no life to come, their
+existence is a mistake; but if there is a life to come, it may be that
+the sequel to the acts of the play to come will justify the pain and
+misery of this present time?--Rev. Myron W. Reed.
+
+_Answer._ There are four principal theories:
+
+_First_--That there is behind the universe a being of infinite power and
+wisdom, kindness, and justice.
+
+_Second_--That the universe has existed from eternity, and that it is
+the only eternal existence, and that behind it is no creator.
+
+_Third_--That there is a God who made the universe, but who is not
+all-powerful and who is, under the circumstances, doing the best he can.
+
+_Fourth_--That there is an all-powerful God who made the universe, and
+that there is also a nearly all-powerful devil, and this devil ravels
+about as fast as this God knits.
+
+By the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to account
+for the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a malevolent
+being with power enough, and with cunning enough, to frequently
+circumvent God, the problem of evil becomes solved so far as this world
+is concerned. But why this being was evil is still unsolved; why the
+devil is malevolent is still a mystery. Consequently you will have to go
+back of this world, on that theory, to account for the origin of evil.
+If this devil always existed, then, of course, the universe at one time
+was inhabited only by this God and this devil.
+
+If the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that God
+does not see to it that justice is always done.
+
+If the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from
+eternity, and is without a creator, then we must account for the
+existence of evil and good, not by personalities behind the universe,
+but by the nature of things.
+
+If there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all, it seems
+to me that he should have made a world in which innocence should be a
+sufficient shield. He should have made a world where the just man should
+have nothing to fear.
+
+My belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled
+with wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must protect
+ourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our conflict with
+these obstacles, with each other, and with what may be called the forces
+of nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like
+begets like; that man gives his constitution, at least in part, to his
+children; that weakness and strength are in some degree both hereditary.
+This is a fact in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for this
+fact--filled as it is with pain and joy. But it seems to me that an
+infinite God should so have arranged matters that the bad would not
+pass--that it would die with its possessor--that the good should
+survive, and that the man should give to his son, not the result of his
+vices, but the fruit of his virtues.
+
+I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in
+another world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to prevail
+here, why will he not allow the same thing in the world to come? If
+there is any being with power to prevent it, why is crime permitted? If
+a man standing upon the railway should ascertain that a bridge had been
+carried off by a flood, and if he also knew that the train was coming
+filled with men, women, and children; with husbands going to their
+wives, and wives rejoining their families; if he made no effort to
+stop that train; if he simply sat down by the roadside to witness the
+catastrophe, and so remained until the train dashed off the precipice,
+and its load of life became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be
+denounced by every good man as the most monstrous of human beings. And
+yet this is exactly what the supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees
+the train rushing to the gulf. He gives no notice. He sees the ship
+rushing for the hidden rock. He makes no sign. And he so constructed
+the world that assassins lurk in the air--hide even in the sunshine--and
+when we imagine that we are breathing the breath of life, we are taking
+into ourselves the seeds of death.
+
+There are two facts inconsistent in my mind--a martyr and a God.
+Injustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.
+
+I would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of
+happiness hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from them
+the fear of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for me to
+explain the facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit the existence of
+an infinite Being. I find in this world that physical and mental evils
+afflict the good. It seems to me that I have the same reason to expect
+the bad to be rewarded hereafter. I have no right to suppose that
+infinite wisdom will ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence
+will increase in kindness, or that the justice of the eternal can
+change. If, then, this eternal being allows the good to suffer pain
+here, what right have we to say that he will not allow them to suffer
+forever?
+
+Some people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for the
+production of self-denying men and women--that is, for the production
+of character. The statistics show that a large majority die under five
+years of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster who killed the most
+of his pupils the first day? If this doctrine is true, and if manhood
+cannot be produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are infinitely
+unfortunate.
+
+I admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still, all pain,
+all misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there is an infinitely
+wise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that
+happens must be for the best. That philosophy of special providence,
+going to the extreme, is infinitely better than most of the Christian
+creeds. There seems to be no half-way house between special providence
+and atheism. You know some of the Buddhists say that when a man commits
+murder, that is the best thing he could have done, and that to be
+murdered was the best thing that could have happened to the killed. They
+insist that every step taken is the necessary step and the best step;
+that crimes are as necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and
+virtue is finally the same.
+
+But whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by the
+facts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease
+are hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn truth rises
+the religion of the body. Every man should refuse to increase the misery
+of this world. And it may be that the time will come when man will be
+great enough and grand enough utterly to refrain from the propagation
+of disease and deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers
+and mothers. We do know that the misery in this world can be lessened;
+consequently I believe in the religion of this world. And whether there
+is a heaven or hell here, or hereafter, every good man has enough to
+do to make this world a little better than it is. Millions of lives are
+wasted in the vain effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny
+of man. This world has been neglected. We have been taught that life
+should be merely a preparation for death.
+
+To avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the
+accomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead
+of faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by
+ignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.
+
+_Question_. State with what words you can comfort those who have, by
+their own fault, or by the fault of others, found this life not worth
+living?
+
+_Answer._ If there is no life beyond this, and so believing I come to
+the bedside of the dying--of one whose life has been a failure--a "life
+not worth living," I could at least say to such an one, "Your failure
+ends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is nothing for you--neither
+pain nor misery, neither grief nor joy." But if I were a good orthodox
+Christen, then I would have to say to this man, "Your life has been a
+failure; you have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended
+eternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you will be
+a failure forever."
+
+Admitting that there is another world, and that the man's life had been
+a failure in this, then I should say to him, "If you live again, you
+will have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be no time, no
+date, no matter how many millions and billions of ages may have passed
+away, at which you will not have the opportunity of doing right."
+
+Under no circumstances could I consistently say to this man: "Although
+your life has been a failure; although you have made hundreds and
+thousands of others suffer; although you have deceived and betrayed the
+woman who loved you; although you have murdered your benefactor; still,
+if you will now repent and believe a something that is unreasonable
+or reasonable to your mind, you will, at the moment of death, be
+transferred to a world of eternal joy." This I could not say. I would
+tell him, "If you die a bad man here, you will commence the life to
+come with the same character you leave this. Character cannot be made by
+another for you. You must be the architect of your own." There is to me
+unspeakably more comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than
+that it is to be perpetuated forever.
+
+How can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died without
+believing in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away
+her tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the mother whose brave
+boy fell in defence of his country, she knowing and you knowing, that
+the boy was not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible, and
+had no faith in the blood of the atonement? What words of comfort have
+you for such fathers and for such mothers?
+
+To me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea that this
+life is a probationary state--that the few moments spent here decide the
+fate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived more merciless,
+more unjust. I am doing all I can to destroy that doctrine. I want, if
+possible, to get the shadow of hell from the human heart.
+
+Why has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of infinite
+wisdom and kindness, why does he make failures? What excuse has infinite
+wisdom for peopling the world with savages? Why should one feel grateful
+to God for having made him with a poor, weak and diseased brain; for
+having allowed him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of
+insanity? Why should one thank God, who lived and died a slave?
+
+After all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute truth?
+Is it not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to convey comfort
+through falsehood? People must reap not only what they sow, but what
+others have sown. The people of the whole world are united in spite of
+themselves.
+
+Next to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is to
+enjoy an immortality of delight--next to that, is to assure him that a
+place of eternal punishment does not exist.
+
+After all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and
+splendid sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made no
+exception in favor of man. To the greatest, to the most successful,
+there comes a time when the fevered lips of life long for the cool,
+delicious kiss of death--when, tired of the dust and glare of day, they
+hear with joy the rustling garments of the night.
+
+Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends. Their views
+in regard to the question of a future life, and the existence of a God,
+were in perfect accord. They said:
+
+"'We know so little about these matters that we are not justified in
+giving them any serious consideration. Our motto and rule of life shall
+be for each one to make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy
+every pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself to be influenced
+at all by thoughts of a future life.'
+
+"Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a time
+when no human eye saw him--and he had no belief in a God--Jonathan stole
+every dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him penniless. He had no
+fear, no remorse; no one saw him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed
+life immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old
+age he went the way of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were
+against him.
+
+"His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent, dissatisfied with
+mankind and with himself, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and
+depressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest in painless suicide."
+
+_Question_. What are we to think of the rule of life laid down by these
+men? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is there no remedy to
+correct such irregularities?--Rev. D. O'Donaghue.
+
+_Answer._ The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain strange ideas as
+to right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan
+Newgate concluded to make themselves as comfortable as they could and
+enjoy every pleasure within their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue
+states that one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to
+steal what little money Mr. Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman
+think that Mr. Newgate made or could make himself comfortable in that
+way? He tells us that Mr. Newgate "had no remorse,"--that he "became
+rich and enjoyed life immensely,"--that he "lived in contentment and
+pleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all flesh."
+
+Does the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal without
+fear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the
+fruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and happy life,
+that one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow and delightful old
+age? Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue?
+
+And right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.
+O'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without remorse, to
+enjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And why did he allow
+Mr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in penury and discontent,
+until at last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in suicide? Does
+the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say that if there is no future life it
+is wise to steal in this? If the grave is the eternal home, would the
+Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise people to commit crimes in order that they
+may enjoy this life? Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God
+or not, truth is better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or
+hell, honesty is always the best policy. There is no world, and can be
+none, where vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of joy.
+
+According to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more fortunate than
+Mr. Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had
+rather be of such a disposition that I would be driven to suicide by
+misfortune than to live in contentment upon the misfortunes of
+others. The reverend gentleman, however, should have made his question
+complete--he should have gone the entire distance. He should have added
+that Mr. Newgate, after having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly
+converted, joined the church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the
+very day that his victim committed suicide.
+
+But I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a fact.
+
+A young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful, and
+trustful. She belonged to no church--knew nothing about a future
+world--basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled with
+gentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her cheeks. She
+believed in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved
+everything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered her. He was
+tried; convicted; a motion for a new trial overruled and a pardon
+refused. In his cell, in the shadow of death, he was converted--he
+became a Catholic. With the white lips of fear he confessed to a priest.
+He received the sacrament.
+
+He was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the realms of
+bliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs
+of hell.
+
+The poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while her
+murderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is the
+justice of the orthodox God.
+
+Allow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: "Is there no
+remedy to correct such irregularities?"
+
+As long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the
+Christian system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart and
+brain. Of all religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous,
+and absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the enemies of human
+happiness; they are the assassins of natural joy. Every father, every
+mother, every good man, every loving woman, should hold this doctrine in
+abhorrence; they should refuse to pay men for preaching it; they should
+not build churches in which this infamy is taught; they should teach
+their little children that it is a lie; they should take this horror
+from childhood's heart--a horror that makes the cradle as terrible as
+the coffin.
+
+
+
+
+THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.
+
+
+     * Brooklyn Union, 1883.
+
+
+_Question_. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost unanimously
+have declared that the church is suffering very little from the
+skepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers,
+whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel, is not great; and
+that the books of such writers are not read as much as some people think
+they are. What is your opinion with regard to that subject?
+
+_Answer._ It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by
+his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for
+the ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. By
+comparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that
+has been made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite
+orthodox would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy.
+Only a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and
+Darwin and Humboldt would have been considered as the most infamous of
+monsters.
+
+Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The
+scientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat
+in hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked
+the forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that
+time every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was
+authority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of
+the world. Now everything has changed, and everybody knows it except
+the clergy. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is
+finding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in
+the language of the common people; that he was not teaching any science;
+that he allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them
+there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question
+of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way.
+All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be
+regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute
+of fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of
+inspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in
+contempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of men who combat
+and deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher
+than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought
+than all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel
+twenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I
+would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn
+leaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and
+employments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply
+disbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with
+indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of
+thousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.
+Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of
+eternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd
+by millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and
+vicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to
+answer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful
+reason: That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from
+reading the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he
+cannot defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more
+infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the
+theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who
+feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his congregation is
+concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the
+young people in his church don't know enough to have intelligent doubts,
+and that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr.
+Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other
+defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity
+should never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been
+successfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the
+impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells
+tells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not
+be spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling
+of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great
+majority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current
+infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it
+would be dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position
+of the infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help
+of God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree.
+Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is
+all smoke.
+
+He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks
+that the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his
+brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that
+infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
+his general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his
+brethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never had a
+discussion. The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the
+catechism; that there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the
+brute force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to
+use the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the rod is
+a divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for their children;
+that mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the religion of
+universal love. The man who cannot raise children without whipping them
+ought not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl
+is unfit to have the control of a human being. The father who keeps
+a rod in his house keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There
+is nothing reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in fear.
+Kindness, guided by intelligence, is the only reforming force. An appeal
+to brute force is an abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and
+child upon a savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father
+prompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in the
+victim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is infamous.
+All this is passing away, however, with orthodox Christianity. That
+children are treated better than formerly shows conclusively the
+increase of what is called infidelity. Infidelity has always been a
+protest against tyranny in the state, against intolerance in the church,
+against barbarism in the family. It has always been an appeal for light,
+for justice, for universal kindness and tenderness.
+
+_Question_. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is
+the greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is on the increase?
+
+_Answer._ I see that all the ministers you have interviewed regard
+worldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is worldliness? I
+suppose worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs of this
+world; getting enjoyment out of this life; gratifying the senses, giving
+the ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food;
+cultivating the imagination; playing games of chance; adorning the
+person; developing the body; enriching the mind; investigating the facts
+by which we are surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking;
+working; inventing; buying; selling; hoping--all this, I suppose, is
+worldliness. These "worldly" people have cleared the forests, plowed
+the land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and
+have produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the
+preachers denounce them. Were it not for "worldly" people how would the
+preachers get along? Who would build the churches? Who would fill the
+contribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all questions)
+would pay the salaries? It is the habit of the ministers to belittle men
+who support them--to slander the spirit by which they live. "It is as
+though the mouth should tear the hand that feeds it." The nobility of
+the Old World hold the honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so
+contemptible themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor.
+And so the minister pretending to be spiritual--pretending to be a
+spiritual guide--looks with contempt upon the men who make it possible
+for him to live. It may be said by "worldliness" they only mean
+enjoyment--that is, hearing music, going to the theater and the opera,
+taking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea. Of course,
+ministers look upon theaters as rival attractions, and most of their
+hatred is born of business views. They think people ought to be driven
+to church by having all other places closed. In my judgment the theater
+has done good, while the church has done harm. The drama never has
+insisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On
+the contrary, upon the stage have forever been found impersonations
+of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and these
+impersonations have always been applauded, and have been represented
+that they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites have been
+worshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and
+execration. Shakespeare has done far more for the world than the Bible.
+The ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldliness.
+Nothing can be more absurd than this talk of spirituality. As though
+readers of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were
+engaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher
+than human love? A man is in love with a girl, and he has determined to
+work for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is
+there anything more spiritual than that--anything higher? They marry. He
+clears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of this
+hovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few simple things
+of beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers call "worldliness."
+Is there anything more spiritual? In a little while, in this cabin, in
+this home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle's rock, while
+softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything more
+spiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender than to see husband
+and wife bending, with clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the
+dimpled miracle of love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you
+love; spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind--for he who
+improves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the
+plowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of "Health &
+Heresy" rather than the old partnership of "Disease & Divinity," doing
+business at the old sign of the "Skull & Crossbones." Some of the
+ministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells
+us the cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and
+cyclones, and things of that character for the purpose of making people
+spiritual; of calling their attention to the fact that everything in
+this world is of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had great
+faith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is
+a thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for
+a banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the average
+Christian that thick soup has, according to Bumble, on the English
+pauper: "It makes 'em impudent." The devil made a mistake in not
+doubling Job's property instead of leaving him a pauper. In prosperity
+the ministers think that we forget death and are too happy. In the arms
+of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment forgotten.
+According to the ministers, God kills our children in order that we
+may not forget him. They imagine that the man who goes into Dakota,
+cultivates the soil and rears him a little home, is getting too
+"worldly." And so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs
+of wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers in
+Brooklyn say this is done because we are getting too "worldly." They
+think we should be more "spiritual;" that is to say, willing to live
+upon the labor of others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime,
+"It is more blessed to give than to receive." If this is so, why not
+give the money back? "Spiritual" people are those who eat oatmeal and
+prunes, have great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's "Task" and
+Pollok's "Course of Time," laugh at the jokes in _Harper's Monthly_,
+wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has
+elevated the world "beggarly elements."
+
+_Question_. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit
+that the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the
+establishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and
+fashionable churches.
+
+_Answer._ The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was
+at hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the
+presence of such a belief what are known as class distinctions could not
+easily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond
+of union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they
+lack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.
+He took in part the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the
+older parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the
+traveler gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As
+they become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is
+the same in the church. The church no longer believes the creed, no
+longer acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the
+sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister
+to a man just above the falls; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as
+a lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If
+he really believed that the coachman had an immortal soul, capable of
+eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make
+the calling and election of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact
+the rich man now cares but little for servants. They are not included
+in the scheme of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The church
+has become a club. It is a social affair, and the rich do not care to
+associate in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at
+church. As they expect to be in heaven together forever, they can afford
+to be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to
+get acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The
+church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of place
+in such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest seat; like
+poor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table
+of Christ they are below the salt.
+
+They are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they
+feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the
+millionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the
+contribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the church.
+It costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary,
+fashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too
+many jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be
+superiority.
+
+_Question_. Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of
+churches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not the rich there
+predominate and the poor be just as much out of place?
+
+_Answer._ I think the effect would be precisely the same, no matter what
+the society is, what object it has, if composed of rich and poor. Class
+distinctions, to a greater or less extent, will creep in--in fact, they
+do not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement, and they
+are born of the different conditions of the members.
+
+These class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For
+instance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs. Others
+obtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according
+to the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on intellectual
+grounds, for instance.
+
+There is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power,
+but there are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of
+character, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
+mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any
+one blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with arrogant
+wealth. The right to make the distinction is with all classes, and with
+the individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have any society
+for any purpose--that is, where they meet together--without certain
+embarrassments being produced by these distinctions. Nowt for instance,
+suppose there should be a society simply of intelligent and cultured
+people. There, wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded. But,
+after all, the distinction that intelligence draws between talent and
+genius is as marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and
+wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such
+vast importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are
+forgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and
+intelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political parties, in
+time of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion has been
+founded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions
+are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave liberty to the
+slave during the Civil war, and clad him in the uniform of the nation;
+we wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly
+willing to forget the distinction of color. Common peril produces pure
+democracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor young man
+coming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about
+the old fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of
+the trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;
+shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed;
+let him have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and
+coaches; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for more
+police. He will then say: "We want protection; the rabble must be put
+down." We have an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country an
+aristocracy of literature--men and women who imagine themselves writers
+and who hold in contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces in
+the most elegant diction--people who look upon a mistake in grammar as
+far worse than a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy
+of muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness.
+Intellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel as wealth
+without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle without mercy. So that,
+after all, the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where the
+intellect is directed by the heart.
+
+_Question_. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as cruel
+as the aristocracy of wealth--what do you mean by that?
+
+_Answer._ By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to say, the
+aristocracy of education--of simple brain--expressed in innumerable
+ways--in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say
+that that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth.
+After all, why should a man be proud of something given him by
+nature--something that he did not earn, did not produce--something that
+he could not help? Is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth which
+you have accumulated than of brain which nature gave you? And, to carry
+this idea clearly out, why should we be proud of anything? Is there any
+proper occasion on which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows for
+you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And why
+should a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition or
+of good acts?
+
+_Question_. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of
+course, you must recognize the right of every one to select his own
+companions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the
+companionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace
+and unintelligent persons?
+
+_Answer._ All men should have the same rights, and one right that
+every man should have is to associate with congenial people. There are
+thousands of good men whose society I do not covet. They may be stupid,
+or they may be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested,
+and may be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care
+nothing. In either case they are not congenial. They have the right to
+select congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus
+made, they are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the
+good of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and
+are consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these
+distinctions in the church more than we do in the club is that the
+church talks one way and acts another; because the church insists that a
+certain line of conduct is essential to salvation, and that every human
+being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were true, then, in
+the presence of such an infinite verity, all earthly distinctions should
+instantly vanish. Every Christian should exert himself for the salvation
+of the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness that he
+would show to save a king. The accidents of wealth, education, social
+position, should be esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly
+work side by side with the poorest. The churches will never reach the
+poor as long as they sell pews; as long as the rich members wear their
+best clothes on Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-room
+are taken to the table of the last supper, the poor will remain in the
+highways and hedges. Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So
+long as the ministers shut up their churches, and allow the poor to go
+to hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil without a competitor
+for three months in the year, the churches will not materially impede
+the march of human progress. People often, unconsciously and without any
+malice, say something or do something that throws an unexpected light
+upon a question. The other day, in one of the New York comic papers,
+there was a picture representing the foremost preachers of the country
+at the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy
+each others society. These ministers are supposed to be the apostles of
+the religion of kindness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and
+yet the idea that they could associate happily together is regarded as
+a joke! After all, churches are like other institutions, they have to
+be managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather than
+upon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up
+the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their
+hold. The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to be a fire,
+and they offered to insure; and as long as the fire was expected
+the premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then came the
+Universalist Church, saying that there would be no fire, and yet
+asking the people to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It
+undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other churches. So with the
+Unitarian. That church has no basis for organization; no reason, because
+no hell is threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the
+churches have lost their belief in eternal fire, they have lost their
+influence, and the reason they have lost their belief is on account
+of the diffusion of knowledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and
+infamous. Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelligent
+people can no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the
+churches must finally abandon it, and when they do, that is the end of
+the church militant.
+
+_Question_. What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic
+Church, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in
+any particular, in regard to future punishment?
+
+_Answer._ Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another
+battle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations
+have not been converted since then. The time has passed to preach
+with sword and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no
+more victories. That church increases in this country mostly from
+immigration. Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It is at war
+with the idea of our Government, antagonistic to true republicanism, and
+is in every sense anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control
+its members. That church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of
+education. It is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used
+as a political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are
+thousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably believe the creed
+of the church. That church has lost the power to anathematize. It can
+no longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces--upon persuasion,
+sophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity.
+
+_Question_. You have stated your objections to the churches, what would
+you have to take their place?
+
+_Answer._ There was a time when men had to meet together for the purpose
+of being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds and
+hundreds of years most people depended for their information on what
+they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of
+course, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not
+only all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he
+was a gentleman; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was
+necessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no
+way of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily
+press gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you
+the thoughts of the greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can
+command the principal sources of information. There is no necessity for
+going to the church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister
+write what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,
+people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a church in
+the name of duty and there inflict upon them a sermon that under no
+circumstances they would read. Of course, there will always be meetings,
+occasions when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear what a
+man has to say upon some questions, but the idea of going fifty-two days
+in a year to hear anybody on the same subject is absurd.
+
+_Question_. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that
+statement?
+
+_Answer._ Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not
+orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his
+creed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes
+the ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, consequently, no
+one could be an infidel. Every one believes in kindness, at least
+theoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes to
+the conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of
+intellectual convictions upon certain subjects. The more sermons like
+that are preached, probably the better. What I intended was the eternal
+repetition of the old story: That God made the world and a man, and
+then allowed the devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme
+of salvation, of vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned
+everybody except Noah and his family, and afterward, when he failed
+to civilize the Jewish people, came in person and suffered death, and
+announced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved,
+and those who did not, eternally lost. Now, this story, with occasional
+references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding
+heat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of Paradise, is the average
+sermon, and this story is told again, again, and again, by the same men,
+listened to by the same people without any effect except to tire the
+speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would take their texts from
+Shakespeare; if they would read every Sunday a selection from some of
+the great plays, the result would be infinitely better. They would all
+learn something; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear
+short. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness of
+the pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The dignified
+dullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has never been
+excelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the ministry were
+given no new weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock of a century
+ago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than their
+weapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by
+keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring
+the facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor
+of education; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a
+Protestant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The
+Catholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a
+Catholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
+belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a
+doubt; a doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are
+warned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow
+whatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes no
+difference, and they are expected to get their revenge by treating
+their flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of
+the churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing,
+because they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden
+aunts.
+
+Thousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with
+trade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence. But when you
+get at the real opinions of people, a vast majority have outgrown the
+doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good
+for women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep
+order. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of independence.
+They are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they
+are beginning everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a
+probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad;
+that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous; that
+it must have been written by men. And the people at large are beginning
+to find that the ministers have kept back the facts; have not told the
+history of the Bible; have not given to their congregations the latest
+advices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
+Christianity has outlived its usefulness. The church has a great deal
+to contend with. The scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at
+Genesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of
+the motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws
+of Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is
+something besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival of the
+pulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers
+take hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at
+work all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so
+universal that the preacher is following his example. The flock has
+ceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In
+a little while all the libraries will be open--all the museums. There
+will be music in the public parks; the opera, the theater. And what
+will churches do then? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty
+pews, unless the church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands
+of the present.
+
+_Question_. You speak as if the influences working against Christianity
+to-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you think that
+Christianity is any worse off now than it was during the French
+Revolution, when the priests were banished from the country and
+reason was worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume,
+Bolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it?
+
+_Answer._ You must remember that the French Revolution was produced by
+Catholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to infinite extremes;
+that it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand
+those times, provided you know the history of the Catholic Church.
+The seeds of the French Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The
+people had suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and
+the French Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs
+no longer. It was something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted
+from intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were
+carried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to
+tear down palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of
+all the centuries. Catholicism has never recovered--it never will. The
+dagger of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism
+has staggered from that day to this.
+
+It has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire there
+were twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In the French
+Revolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated reason. There
+was destruction without the genius of construction. They had to use
+materials that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.
+
+The French Revolution was a failure because the French people were a
+failure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism
+had made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him.
+Probably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have
+read the works of Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little
+while ago, a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one
+hundred dollars to repeat a paragraph, or to give the title, even, of
+one of Voltaire's volumes. Most ministers think he was an atheist. The
+trouble with the infidels in England a hundred years ago was that they
+did not go far enough. It may be that they could not have gone further
+and been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground that there was
+an infinite, all-wise, beneficent God, creator of the universe, and that
+this all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of
+the Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the author of
+nature, and the theologians completely turned the tables by showing
+that this god of nature was in the pestilence and plague business,
+manufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of
+necessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment, the Deists
+were all successfully answered. The god of nature is certainly as bad as
+the God of the Old Testament. It is only when we discard the idea of a
+deity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are able
+ever to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that I am neither
+a favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not
+believe in the existence of any personal god. I regard the universe as
+the one fact, as the one existence--that is, as the absolute thing. I am
+a part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply say that I
+do not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say
+that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not know,
+and the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that subject
+give me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on
+the subject, because I know that they know that they do not know. The
+infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, comparatively speaking,
+of geology; nothing of astronomy; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and
+Darwin; nothing of evolution; nothing, comparatively speaking, of other
+religions; nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other
+words, the infidels of a hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox
+Christianity to be false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The
+infidels of to-day have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred
+years ago it was a guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and
+fulfillment. Everything in nature is working against superstition
+to-day. Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from
+dust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The smallest
+pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of grass, rightly
+understood, destroys the orthodox creed.
+
+_Question_. You say that the pews will be empty in the future unless
+the church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the
+ministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than
+those of a hundred years ago, and are not the "liberal" views in regard
+to the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the
+fall of man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in
+many churches, an indication that the church is meeting the demands of
+many people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in
+Christianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions?
+
+_Answer._ As to the first part of this question, I do not think the
+ministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were a hundred years
+ago; that is, I do not think they have greater brain capacity, but
+I think on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The
+amelioration of orthodox Christianity is not by the intelligence in the
+pulpit, but by the brain in the pews. Another thing: One hundred years
+ago the church had intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened
+a career. Not so now. There are too many avenues to distinction and
+wealth--too much worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit.
+Martyrs had rather be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day
+are not naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence.
+There are some great exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers
+nearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher
+is a great man--not the most consistent man in the world--but he is
+certainly a man of mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get rid
+of the idea that Plymouth Church is necessary to him--after that time
+he would not utter an orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might
+mention some others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable
+for intelligence. The intelligent men of the world do not believe in
+orthodox Christianity. It is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The
+conservative ministers are the stupid ones. The conservative professors
+are those upon whose ideas will be found the centuries' moss, old red
+sandstone theories, pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the second part
+of the question: The views of the church are changing, the clergy of
+Brooklyn to the contrary, notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind
+of boa-constrictor; anything it can not dodge it will swallow. The
+church is bound to have something for sale that somebody wants to buy.
+According to the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the
+pulpit dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on
+business principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories insists
+on having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and
+they must supply the market with such religious vegetables as the
+congregations desire. Thousands have given up belief in the inspiration
+of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement idea and original
+sin. Millions believe now, that this is not a state of probation; that
+a man, provided he is well off and has given liberally to the church, or
+whose wife has been a regular attendant, will, in the next world, have
+another chance; that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new
+trial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it used to be supposed;
+that, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are
+cool; and that, after all, there is not so much to fear from the future.
+They regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give
+them the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their old
+clothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off,
+somewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for paupers. There is a
+great trade of this kind going on now--selling old theological clothes
+to the colored people in the South. All I have said applies to all
+churches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not change its
+ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that
+clothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and throb of
+life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the spirit
+that emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned in
+another direction. Of course, the churches are all going to endeavor to
+meet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for old texts.
+They will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They will find
+that "flat" meant "a little rounding;" that "six days" meant "six long
+times;" that the word "flood" should have been translated "dampness,"
+"dew," or "threatened rain;" that Daniel in the lion's den was an
+historical myth; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with
+this world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to
+harmonize with the facts of modern science. They will not change the
+words of the creed; they will simply give "new meanings and the highest
+criticism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other words, the
+churches will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that
+which can be sold. Already the old goods are being "marked down." If,
+however, the church should fail, why then it must go. I see no reason,
+myself, for its existence. It apparently does no good; it devours
+without producing; it eats without planting, and is a perpetual burden.
+It teaches nothing of value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents.
+It threatens without knowledge and promises without power. In my
+judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it
+does not go in name, it must go in fact, because it must change; and,
+therefore, it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert from
+useful channels the blood and muscle of the world.
+
+_Question_. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons delivered lately
+the theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping out
+of discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years
+preached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosticism, and
+infidelity, so much so as to lead to their being reprimanded by some of
+their more conservative brethren?
+
+_Answer._ Of course there are hundreds of thousands of ministers
+perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so
+much harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them
+to stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most
+part, are like this: Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of
+Genesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement
+is true, because in the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And
+we know, too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because
+Voltaire was nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are
+the usual arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself.
+And, in my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer
+a man's argument, the next best thing is to attack his character. "You
+have no case," said an attorney to the plaintiff. "No matter," said the
+plaintiff, "I want you to give the defendant the devil."
+
+_Question_. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's statement that
+he generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives them
+to young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are said
+to speak of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such
+immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away
+the mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that
+accounts for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would
+not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly
+indebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and
+take this occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all
+the converts to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think
+it honest in young men to play a game like that on the doctor.
+
+_Question_. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of
+Christianity and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher
+preached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the
+present time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral,
+social, and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke
+criticism on the part of the secular newspaper press?
+
+_Answer._ I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to
+preach about things happening in this world; in other words, that the
+preachers themselves are beginning to be touched with worldliness.
+They find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons
+dealing in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are
+losing interest in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more interest
+in gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find
+that their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetually of death and
+coffins; and worms and dust and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs
+and hearses, biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That they
+prefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in which they have a
+present interest, and about which something cheerful can be said.
+In fact, it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art,
+something about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it
+necessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something that
+has happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that, for
+the time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the
+furnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably honest.
+Maybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are
+endeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church members
+think that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not
+criticising their motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the
+character or reputation of ministers, but simply giving my ideas,
+avoiding anything personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor very
+bad---just fair to middling.
+
+_Question_. You say that Christians will not read for fear that they
+will unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in
+the interview I had with him: "If you do not allow man to reason you
+crush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credibility of
+his faith, and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth,
+and so satisfies his wants."
+
+_Answer._ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father
+Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not
+think that reason should be guided by faith; I think that faith should
+be guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith
+would be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be
+based on what has not happened, but upon what has; not upon something
+we know nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are
+acquainted. The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we
+reason, we must have something as a basis, something secular, something
+that we think we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by
+analogy, and we say thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may
+happen. We do not say thus and so _may_ happen, therefore something else
+_has_ happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from
+the unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you do not allow a
+man to reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must
+govern reason. Who makes the faith? The church. And the church tells the
+man that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he
+may afterward reason, taking the faith as a fact. This makes him an
+intellectual slave, and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right
+to examine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their
+prisoners by insisting that there is nothing beyond the walls.
+
+_Question_. You criticise the church for not encouring the poor to
+mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose
+his own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-confessing
+Christians in real life, and will not there always be some greater,
+richer, wiser, than the rest?
+
+_Answer._ I do not blame the church because there are these distinctions
+based on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the church for
+is pretending to do away with these distinctions. These distinctions in
+men are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood, in education,
+and they are differences that will eternally exist--that is, as long as
+the human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some
+generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with
+is the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich and poor. I
+want the democracy of kindness--what you might call the republicanism of
+justice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep from robbing him.
+I can give him his rights without enjoying his company, and he can give
+me my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not poverty have
+rights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in
+contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same church
+or not? We cannot judge men by their wealth, or by the position they
+hold in society. I like every kind man; I hate every cruel one. I like
+the generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I
+like men that love their families, that are kind to their wives,
+gentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or
+mendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is the
+fairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel, or
+bursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
+man because he is rich; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor.
+
+_Question_. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infidelity is
+greatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and creates more notice
+than conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of
+the accepted line of thought.
+
+_Answer._ There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced, was
+a wonder. At that time the church had great power; it could retaliate;
+it could destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when too many men
+objected to being burned. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in
+novelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been
+turned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless
+influences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion.
+Other religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was
+found but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our
+own religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great
+comment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have
+already about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error.
+
+Thousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question,
+because they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear
+their own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the
+spirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage
+of the world is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox
+minister who believes the Thirty-nine articles with all his might, is
+regarded to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by
+the galvanic battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those
+of life--not quite.
+
+_Question_. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and
+what kind of instruction would you give?
+
+_Answer._ I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is
+Christianity? I do not include in the word "Christianity" the average
+morality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion;
+that is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in
+the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and
+resurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ,
+and eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity
+its miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and
+the inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as
+I understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I
+suppose Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness.
+I do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my
+friends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep
+the viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in
+self-defence. Christianity--that is, the miraculous part--must be
+abandoned. As to morality--morality is born, is born of the instinct of
+self-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word "conscience" never
+would have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime.
+Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to
+being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of
+human want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired
+work. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of
+the product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to
+do it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume
+it was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible
+other things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of
+the Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a
+mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without
+miracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is
+not a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder
+is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to
+investigate and to reason for themselves, and that there are facts
+enough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two
+families; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians,
+and they teach their children their creed; teach them that they are
+naturally totally depraved; that they can only hope for happiness in
+a future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain
+belief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his children
+forever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the
+father and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each
+other because kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle;
+that they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And
+suppose this father and mother say to their children: "If you are happy
+it must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must
+suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer
+for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you
+plant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant." And suppose
+these parents also say: "You must find out the conditions of happiness.
+You must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You
+must ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act
+in accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and
+peace." In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my
+judgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the
+other. The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this
+world, but not in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the
+dividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they
+must serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my
+doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the
+highest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is
+wrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here
+and now. It means health; it means intelligence, contentment, success.
+Vice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than
+judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion
+we are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved
+by faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We must be saved by
+knowledge, by intelligence--the only lever capable of raising mankind.
+
+_Question_. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says "that
+man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is your
+idea of the chief end of man?
+
+_Answer._ It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should
+be held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal
+reward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy
+here? Why not go to heaven now--that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the
+sunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad
+enough; so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent
+deity; but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do
+I believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the
+Infinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no
+superiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve
+what we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average
+Presbyterian? What good will it do him to know that his course has been
+approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even,
+for the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges?
+I do not see how we can help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite
+Being, certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can
+affect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin
+against man. For that reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is
+the only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with
+the ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the
+angels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care to
+associate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such society.
+I suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat touched with
+worldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough
+to say about the Infinite "I know nothing of eternal joy, I have no
+conception about another world, I know nothing." At the same time, I am
+not attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can
+hope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to
+drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out
+the fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.
+
+
+
+
+THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.
+
+
+     * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon.
+     Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the
+     Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan
+     Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as
+     submitted in advance, were the following propositions:
+
+Colonel Ingersoll's Opening.
+
+Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:
+
+I AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to differ
+with me. I want to convince you that you are under no compulsion to
+accept my creed; that you are, so far as I am concerned, absolutely free
+to follow the torch of your reason according to your conscience; and I
+believe that you are civilized to that degree that you will extend to me
+the right that you claim for yourselves.
+
+
+First. Thought is a necessary natural product--the result of what is
+called impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain,
+not forgetting the Fact of heredity.
+
+Second. No human being is accountable to any being-human or divine--for
+his thoughts.
+
+Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each
+other, and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.
+
+Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all
+subjects.
+
+Fifth. For one man to say to another, "I tolerate you," is an assumption
+of authority--not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute.
+
+Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his
+ideas, that the rest of the world have to express their thoughts to him.
+
+Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing Mr.
+Ingersoll, among other things said:
+
+"The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that of the
+great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august saying, 'There shall be no
+slavery of the mind.'
+
+"When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the tomb of Victor
+Hugo. It was placed in a recess in the crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite
+it was the tomb of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another recess, was
+the memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked at these three
+monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been born in France, and had he
+passed in his long life account, the acclaim of the liberal culture of
+France would have enlarged that trio into a quartette.
+
+"Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in print,
+notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black formerly Attorney-General of the
+United States: lately in the pages of The North American Review with the
+Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and last but not least the Right Hon. William
+E Gladstone, England's greatest citizen, has taken up the cudgel against
+him in behalf of his view of Orthodoxy To-night, I believe-for the first
+time, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial discussion. I
+have now the honor to introduce this distinguished orator."
+
+I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being thinks as he
+must; and the first proposition really is, whether man has the right to
+think. It will bear but little discussion, for the reason that no man
+can control his thought. If you think you can, what are you going to
+think to-morrow? What are you going to think next year? If you can
+absolutely control your thought, can you stop thinking?
+
+The question is, Has the will any power over the thought? What is
+thought? It is the result of nature--of the outer world--first upon the
+senses--those impressions left upon the brain as pictures of things in
+the outward world, and these pictures are transformed into, or produce,
+thought; and as long as the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will
+be produced. Whoever looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears
+any sound--or any symphony--no matter what--thinks. Whoever looks upon
+the sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the face of a fellow-man,
+thinks, and the result of that look is an absolute necessity. The
+thought produced will depend upon your brain, upon your experience, upon
+the history of your life.
+
+One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one he loved the best had
+been devoured by its hungry waves, will have certain thoughts; and he
+who sees it for the first time, will have different thoughts. In other
+words, no two brains are alike; no two lives have been or are or ever
+will be the same. Consequently, nature cannot produce the same effect
+upon any two brains, or upon any two hearts.
+
+The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is that we are
+different. If we were all the same, we would die dumb. No thought would
+be expressed after we found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We
+differ--our thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce that we call
+conversation.
+
+Back of language is thought. Back of language is the desire to express
+our thought to another. This desire not only gave us language--this
+desire has given us the libraries of the world. And not only the
+libraries; this desire to express thought, to show to others the
+splendid children of the brain, has written every book, formed every
+language, painted every picture, and chiseled every statue--this desire
+to express our thought to others, to reap the harvest of the brain.
+
+If, then, thought is a necessity, "it follows as the night the day"
+that there is, there can be, no responsibility for thought to any being,
+human or divine.
+
+A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes upon it, and the
+sensitive plate receives a picture. Is it in fault, is it responsible,
+for the picture? So with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture
+is imprinted there. The plate may not be perfectly level--it may be too
+concave, or too convex, and the picture may be a deformity; so with the
+brain. But the man does not make his own brain, and the consequence is,
+if the picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.
+
+We take then these two steps: first, thought is a necessity; and second,
+the thought depends upon the brain.
+
+Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with careless hands
+the seeds of thought. Some brains are poor and barren fields, producing
+weeds and thorns, and some are like the tropic world where grow the palm
+and pine--children of the sun and soil.
+
+You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of Shakespeare? All that your
+brain is able to hold. It depends upon your brain. If you are great--if
+you have been cultivated--if the wings of your imagination have been
+spread--if you have had great, free, and splendid thoughts--'r you have
+stood upon the edge of things--if you have had the courage to meet all
+that can come--you get an immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived
+nobly--if you have loved with every drop of your blood and every fibre
+of your being--if you have suffered--if you have enjoyed--then you get
+an immensity from Shakespeare. But if you have lived a poor, little,
+mean, wasted, barren, weedy life--you get very little from that immortal
+man.
+
+So it is from every source in nature--what you get depends upon what you
+are.
+
+Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity, there can be
+no responsibility for thought. And why has man ever believed that his
+fellow-man was responsible for his thought?
+
+Everything that is, everything that has been, has been naturally
+produced. Man has acted as, under the same circumstances, we would have
+acted; because when you say "under the circumstances," it is the same as
+to say that you would do exactly as they have done.
+
+There has always been in men the instinct of self-preservation. There was
+a time when men believed, and honestly believed, that there was above
+them a God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient
+for my illustration to say, one. Man believed that there was in the sky
+above him a God who attended to the affairs of men. He believed that
+that God, sitting upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He
+believed also, that that God held the community responsible for the sins
+of individuals. He honestly believed it. When the flood came, or when
+the earthquake devoured, he really believed that some God was filled
+with anger--with holy indignation--at his children. He believed it, and
+so he looked about among his neighbors to see who was in fault, and if
+there was any man who had failed to bring his sacrifice to the altar,
+had failed to kneel, it may be to the priest, failed to be present in
+the temple, or had given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe
+or of that nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God, they
+seized the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance
+and of their fear.
+
+They believed when the lightning leaped from the cloud and left its
+blackened mark upon the man, that he had done something--that he had
+excited the wrath of the gods.
+
+And while man so believed, while he believed that it was necessary, in
+order to defend himself, to kill his neighbor--he acted simply according
+to the dictates of his nature.
+
+What I claim is that we have nov-advanced far enough not only to
+think, but to know, that the conduct of man has nothing to do with the
+phenomena of nature. We are now advanced far enough to absolutely know
+that no man can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough to cause an
+earthquake. I think we have got to that point that we absolutely
+know that no man can be wicked enough to entice one of the bolts from
+heaven--that no man can be cruel enough to cause a drought--and that you
+could not have infidels enough on the earth to cause another flood.
+I think we have advanced far enough not only to say that, but to
+absolutely know it--I mean people who have thought, and in whose minds
+there is something like reasoning.
+
+We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is just as apt to hit
+a good man as a bad man. We know it. We know that the earthquake is just
+as liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as
+well as I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt to outride
+the storm as one crowded with missionaries. You know it.
+
+I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I believe, as much as
+I believe that I live, that the reason a thing is right is because it
+tends to the happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as I be-believe
+that I live, that on the average the good man is not only the happier
+man, but that no man is happy who is not good.
+
+If then we have gotten over that frightful, that awful superstition--we
+are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts of each other.
+
+I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as saying, that there
+is no God. All I intend to say is, that so far as we can see, no man
+is punished, no nation is punished by lightning, or famine, or storm.
+Everything happens to the one as to the other.
+
+Now, let us admit that there is an infinite God. That has nothing to do
+with the sinlessness of thought--nothing to do with the fact that no man
+is accountable to any being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And
+let me tell you why.
+
+If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men who sin against
+him. You can trust him, if you believe in him. He has the power. He has
+a heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that
+the earthquake will not swallow you, or the lightning strike you, simply
+because you tell your thoughts, if one of your neighbors differs with
+you, and acts improperly or thinks or speaks improperly of your God,
+leave him with your God--he can attend to him a thousand times better
+than you can, He has the time. He lives from eternity to eternity. More
+than that, he has the means. So that, whether there be this Being or
+not, you have no right to interfere with your neighbor.
+
+The next proposition is, that I have the same right to express my
+thought to the whole world, that the whole world has to express its
+thought to me.
+
+I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy, where
+the majority rule; it is not a republic. It is a country with one
+inhabitant. This brain is the world in which my mind lives, and my mind
+is the sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances
+the rest of the world as one drop of water balances the sea. Each soul
+is crowned. Each soul wears the purple and the tiara; and only those are
+good citizens of the intellectual world who give to every other human
+being every right that they claim for themselves, and only those are
+traitors in the great realm of thought who abandon reason and appeal to
+force.
+
+If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you must abuse your
+neighbors to keep on good terms with God, then the question of religion
+is exactly like every question--I mean of thought, of mind--I have
+nothing to say now about action.
+
+Is there authority in the world of art? Can a legislature pass a law
+that a certain picture is beautiful, and can it pass a law putting in
+the penitentiary any impudent artistic wretch who says that to him it is
+not beautiful? Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all
+the same; we are not touched by the same sounds--the same beautiful
+memories* do not arise. Suppose you have an authority in music? You may
+make men, it may be, by offering them office or by threatening them with
+punishment, swear that they all like that tune--but you never will
+know till the day of your death whether they do or not. The moment you
+introduce a despotism in the world of thought, you succeed in making
+hypocrites--and you get in such a position that you never know what your
+neighbor thinks.
+
+So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force. No one can be
+compelled to pray. No matter how you tie him down, or crush him down on
+his face or on his knees, it is above the power of the human race to put
+in that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do it. Neither
+can you compel anybody to worship a God. Worship rises from the heart
+like perfume from a flower. It cannot obey; it cannot do that which
+some one else commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its
+own nature. And do you think any God would be satisfied with compulsory
+worship? Would he like to see long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on
+their terrified knees repeating words without a soul--giving him what
+you might call the shucks of sound? Will any God be satisfied with
+that? And so I say, we must be as free in one department of thought as
+another.
+
+Now, I take the next step, and that is, that the rights of all are
+absolutely equal.
+
+I have the same right to give you my opinion that you have to give me
+yours. I have no right to compel you to hear, if you do not want to. I
+have no right to compel you to speak if you do not want to. If you do
+not wish to know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.
+
+The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this liberty of
+expression, is of more value than any other thing beneath the stars. Of
+more value than any religion, of more value than any government, of more
+value than all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws
+that he has passed, is this liberty--the absolute liberty of the human
+mind. Take away that word from language, and all other words become
+meaningless sounds, and there is then no reason for a man being and
+living upon the earth.
+
+So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality--that is all.
+You come to me with a new idea. I invite you into the house. Let us see
+what you have. Let us talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I
+will bid it a polite "good day." If I do like it, I will say: "Sit down;
+stay with me, and become a part of the intellectual wealth of my world."
+That is all.
+
+And how any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the
+right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man
+who speaks--who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can
+liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond
+the liberty to speak against liberty--the real believer in free speech
+allowing others to speak against the right to speak? Is there any
+limitation beyond that?
+
+So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has admitted that he
+violated his own doctrine. No man can open his mouth against the freedom
+of speech without denying every argument he may put forward. Why? He is
+exercising the right that he denies. How did he get it? Suppose there
+is one man on an island. You will all admit now that he would have the
+right to do his own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right
+to express his thought. Now, will somebody tell me how many men would
+have to emigrate to that island before the original settler would lose
+his right to think and his right to express himself?
+
+If there be an infinite Being--and it is a question that I know nothing
+about--you would be perfectly astonished to know how little I do know on
+that subject, and yet I know as much as the aggregated world knows, and
+as little as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy wings the
+summer air--if there be such a Being, I have the same right to think
+that he has simply because it is a necessity of my nature--because I
+cannot help it. And the Infinite would be just as responsible to the
+smallest intelligence living in the infinite spaces--he would be just
+as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can be to him,
+provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity of his nature.
+
+There is another phrase to which I object--"toleration." "The limits
+of toleration." Why say "toleration"? I will tell you why. When
+the thinkers were in the minority--when the philosophers were
+vagabonds--when the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires--when
+the majority were ignorantly orthodox--when they hated the heretic as a
+last year's leaf hates a this year's bud--in that delightful time
+these poor people in the minority had to say to ignorant power, to
+conscientious rascality, to cruelty born of universal love: "Don't kill
+us; don't be so arrogantly meek as to burn us; tolerate us." At that
+time the minority was too small to talk about rights, and the great big
+ignorant majority when tired of shedding blood, said: "Well, we will
+tolerate you; we can afford to wait; you will not live long, and when
+the Being of infinite compassion gets hold of you we will glut our
+revenge through an eternity of joy; we will ask you every now and then,
+'What is your opinion now?'"
+
+Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness would have his
+revenge, they "tolerated" these thinkers, and that word finally took
+the place almost of liberty. But I do not like it. When you say "I
+tolerate," you do not say you have no right to punish, no right to
+persecute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for a few
+years, but you retain the right. I deny it.
+
+And let me say here to-night--it is your experience, it is mine--that
+the bigger a man is the more charitable he is; you know it. The more
+brain he has, the more excuses he finds for all the world; you know it.
+And if there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander than any
+man; he must have a thousand times more charity than the human heart can
+hold, and is it possible that he is going to hold his ignorant children
+responsible for the impressions made by nature upon their brain? Let us
+have some sense.
+
+There is another side to this question, and that is with regard to the
+freedom of thought and expression in matters pertaining to this world.
+
+No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor. He has no right
+to utter slander. He has no right to bear false witness. He has no right
+to be actuated by any motive except for the general good--but the
+things he does here to his neighbor--these are easily defined and easily
+punished. All that I object to is setting up a standard of authority in
+the world of art, the world of beauty, the world of poetry, the world
+of worship, the world of religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is
+what I object to; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every
+human being that has benefited this world would have been destroyed.
+If the people who believe that a certain belief is necessary to insure
+salvation had had control of this world, we would have been as ignorant
+to-night as wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in spite of
+them. There has not been a book of any value printed since the invention
+of that art--and when I say "of value," I mean that contained new
+and splendid truths--that was not anathematized by the gentlemen who
+believed that man is responsible for his thought. Every step has been
+taken in spite of that doctrine.
+
+Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of mind. And I have no
+fear about any other world--not the slightest. When I get there, I will
+give my honest opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought
+there; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least my
+self-respect.
+
+A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it. I cannot help
+it. I read a story--no matter whether in the original Hebrew, or whether
+it has been translated. I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter
+whether it is written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner--I have
+my idea about its truth. And I insist that each man has the right to
+judge that for himself, and for that reason, as I have already said, I
+am defending your right to differ with me--that is all. And if you do
+differ with me, all that it proves is that I do not agree with you.
+There is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars--there is no
+being--that can force my soul upon its knees, unless the reason is
+given. I will be no slave. I do not care how big my master is, I am just
+as small, if a slave, as though the master were small. It is not the
+greatness of the master that can honor the slave. In other words, I
+am going to act according to my right, as I understand it, without
+interfering with any other human being. And now, if you think--any of
+you, that you can control your thought, I want you to try it. There is
+not one here who can by any possibility think, only as he must.
+
+You remember the story of the Methodist minister who insisted that he
+could control his thoughts. A man said to him, "Nobody can control his
+own mind." "Oh, yes, he can," the preacher replied. "My dear sir," said
+the man, "you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without thinking of
+something else." "Oh, yes, I can." "Well, if you will do it, I will give
+you that horse, the best riding horse in this county." "Well, who is to
+judge?" said the preacher. "I will take your own word for it, and if you
+say the Lord's Prayer through without thinking of anything else, I will
+give you that horse." So the minister shut his eyes and began: "Our
+Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy
+will be done,"--"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"
+
+I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel more interest
+in the freedom of thought and speech than in all other questions,
+knowing, as I do, that it is the condition of great and splendid
+progress for the race; remembering, as I do, that the opposite idea has
+covered the cheek of the world with tears; remembering, and knowing, as
+I do, that the enemies of free thought and free speech have covered this
+world with blood. These men have filled the heavens with an infinite
+monster; they have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have
+made the present, when they have had the power, a perdition. These men,
+these doctrines, have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. These
+men, these doctrines, have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day.
+These men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced and
+killed every philosopher they could lay their bloody, cruel, ignorant
+hands upon.
+
+And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought, everywhere,
+in every department, domain, and realm of the human mind.
+
+
+REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.
+
+_Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President_: It is not only "the sense of
+the church" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is any sense at all;
+and I am only wondering how a reasonably intelligent being--meaning
+myself--could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr. Kernan, have
+undertaken to speak to-night.
+
+This is a new experience. I have never sung in any of Verdi's operas--I
+have never listened to one through--but I think I would prefer to try
+all three of these performances rather than go on with this duty which,
+in a vain moment of deluded vanity, I heedlessly undertook.
+
+I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the master of a ship
+who thinks that he can safely guide his bark. (I am not alluding to the
+traditional bark of St. Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always
+be, but the ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a
+guide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which we generally
+take for granted, and which are as necessary to our safety as the air
+which we breathe, or the sunshine that we enjoy, have been quietly,
+pleasantly, and smilingly thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just
+preceded me.
+
+Carlyle once said--and the thought came to me as the gentleman was
+speaking--"A Comic History of England!"--for some wretch had just
+written such a book--(talk of free thought and free speech when men do
+such things!)--"A Comic History of England!" The next thing we shall
+hear of will be "A Comic History of the Bible!" I think we have heard
+the first chapter of that comic history to-night; and the only comfort
+that I have--and possibly some other antiquated and superannuated
+persons of either sex, if such there be within my hearing--is that
+such things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the order of
+blasphemy, have been uttered with such charming bonhomie, and received
+with such enthusiastic admiration, that I have wondered whether we are
+in a Christian audience of the nineteenth century, or in a possible
+Ingersollian audience of the twenty-third.
+
+And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and desultory
+remarks, which are the only ones that I can make now and with which I
+may claim your polite attention--let me say a word about the comparison
+with which your worthy President opened these proceedings.
+
+There are two or three things upon which I am a little sensitive: One,
+aspersions upon the land of my birth--the city of New York; the next,
+the land of my fathers; and the next, the bark that I was just speaking
+of.
+
+Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to exhibit in the
+best possible style the new actor upon his stage, said that he had seen
+Victor Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques Rousseau's, and
+that he thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll.
+If that had been merely the expression of a natural desire to see him
+speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the interests of the Christian
+community have thought, but not said, "Amen!" (Here you will at once
+observe the distinction I make between free thought and free speech!)
+
+I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and particularly the
+eloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will think, that in anything I may
+say I intend any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent
+in freedom of speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as this
+rises entirely above and beyond the plane of personalities.
+
+I suppose that your President intended to compare Colonel Ingersoll to
+Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau. I have no retainer from either of
+those gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave you, I wish to
+defend their memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I do not
+think--with all respect to the eloquent and learned gentleman--that he
+is entitled to a place in that niche. Voltaire did many wrong things.
+He did them for many reasons, and chiefly because he was human.
+But Voltaire did a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble
+tragedies, which charmed and delighted his audiences, and dignified the
+stage, throughout his work was some effort to ameliorate the condition
+of the human race. He fought against torture; he fought against
+persecution; he fought against bigotry; he clamored and wrote against
+littleness and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed when he
+entered upon his domains at Fernay, to erect a church to the God of
+whom the most our friend can say is, "I do not know whether he exists or
+not."
+
+Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman, and in our
+day would probably have been locked up in an asylum and treated by
+intelligent doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a religious
+education, and if there be in his works or sayings anything to parallel
+what we have heard tonight--whether a parody on divine revelation, or a
+parody upon the prayer of prayers--I have not seen it.
+
+Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with prose and poetry
+that have made him the Shakespeare of the nineteenth century--poems as
+deeply imbued with a devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as
+the writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left the traces
+of his beneficent action all over the literature of his day, of his
+country, and of his race.
+
+All these men, then, have built up something. Will anyone, the most
+ardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell me what he has built up?
+
+To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman says that freedom of
+thought is a grand thing. Unfortunately, freedom of thought exists. What
+one of us would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts, if he
+only could? What persecution have any of us suffered to compare with the
+involuntary recurrence of these demons that enter our brain--that bring
+back past events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even with
+our blood--and make us slaves of a power unseen but uncontrollable and
+uncontrolled? Is it not unworthy of so eloquent and intelligent a man to
+preach before you here to-night that thought must always be free?
+
+When in the history of the world has thought ever been fettered? If
+there be a page in history upon which such an absurdity is written, I
+have failed to find it.
+
+Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most cruel and arbitrary ruler
+can no more penetrate into your bosom and mine and extract the inner
+workings of our brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun
+from its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is unseen, unhandled and
+untouched, and no despot has yet been able to reach it, except when the
+thoughts burst into words. And therefore, may we not consider now, and
+say, that liberty of word is what he wants, and not liberty of thought,
+which no one has ever gainsaid, or disputed?
+
+Liberty of speech!--and the gentleman generously tells us, "Why, I only
+ask for myself what I would cheerfully extend to you. I wish you to be
+free; and you can even entertain those old delusions which your mothers
+taught, and look with envious admiration upon me while I scale the giddy
+heights of Olympus, gather the honey and approach the stars and tell
+you how pure the air is in those upper regions which you are unable to
+reach."
+
+Thanks for his kindness! But I think that it is one thing for us to
+extend to him that liberty that he asks for--the liberty to destroy--and
+another thing for him to give us the liberty which we claim--the liberty
+to conserve.
+
+Oh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so pleasant! It marks the
+footsteps all through our life. The baby begins by destroying his bib;
+the older child by destroying his horse, and when the man is grown up
+and he joins the regiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a
+chance he will destroy human life.
+
+This building cost many thousand days' work. It was planned by more or
+less skillful architects (ignorant of ventilation, but well-meaning).
+Men lavished their thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance,
+upon this building. It took months and possibly years to build it and to
+adorn it and to beautify it. And yet, as it stands complete tonight with
+all of you here in the vigor of your life and in the enjoyment of such
+entertainment as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen
+men who with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all of us to
+instant destruction.
+
+The dynamite man may say to me, "I give you full liberty to build and
+occupy and insure, if you will give me liberty to blow up." Is that a
+fair bargain? Am I bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it?
+Liberty of speech! Tell me where liberty of speech has ever existed.
+There have been free societies, England was a free country. France has
+struggled through crisis after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We
+think we have liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would
+undertake to say that our society could live with liberty of speech?
+We have gone through many crises in our short history, and we know that
+thought is nothing before the law, but the word is an act--as guilty at
+times as the act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes
+that disgrace humanity and require the police.
+
+A word is an act--an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go
+unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker
+than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously?
+Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona--is it Iago, or
+Othello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the
+scaffold--who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned
+the ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer--but
+Iago went scot free. That was a word.
+
+"Oh," says the counsel, "but that does not apply to individuals; be
+tender and charitable to individuals." Tender and charitable to men if
+they endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate and respect!
+
+Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my house, my castle,
+and debauch my children from the faith that they have been taught? Are
+you tender and charitable to them and to me when you teach them that I
+have instructed them in falsehood, that their mother has rocked them in
+blasphemy, and that they are now among the fools and the witlings of the
+world because they believe in my precepts? Is that the charity that you
+speak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such as that, should ever
+invade my home or yours!
+
+We all understand, and the learned gentleman will admit, that his
+discourse is but an eloquent apology for blasphemy. And when I say this,
+I beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice
+of strong words to give point to a pointless argument, or to offend
+a courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he would, with
+characteristic candor, say, "Yes, that is what I claim--the liberty to
+blaspheme; the world has outgrown these things; and I claim to-day, as I
+claimed a few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of New
+Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your tongue is free to revile
+and insult man's maker." New Jersey was behind in the race for progress,
+and did not accept his argument. His unfortunate client was convicted
+and had to pay the fine which the press--which is seldom mistaken--says
+came from the pocket of his generous counsel.
+
+The argument was a strong one; the argument was brilliant, and was able;
+and I say now, with all my predilections for the church of my fathers,
+and for your church (because it is not a question of our differences,
+but it is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the roots, not
+what branches may bear richer fruit or deserve to be lopped off)--I say,
+why has every Christian State passed these statutes against blasphemy?
+Turning into ridicule sacred things--firing off the Lord's Prayer as
+you would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem--that is what I mean by
+blasphemy. If there is any other or better definition, give it me, and I
+will use it.
+
+Now understand. All these States of ours care not one fig what our
+religion is. Behave yourselves properly, obey the laws, do not require
+the intervention of the police, and the majesty of your conscience will
+be as exalted as the sun. But the wisest men and the best men--possibly
+not so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without offence to
+him--other names that shine brightly in the galaxy of our best men, have
+insisted and maintained that the Christian faith was the ligament that
+kept our modern society together, and our laws have said, and the laws
+of most of our States say, to this day, "Think what you like, but do
+not, like Samson, pull the pillars down upon us all."
+
+If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that I should
+say it now. My exordium has been very long, but it was no longer than
+the dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.
+
+Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech we never had. Did we
+have it before the war? Many of us here remember that if you crossed an
+imaginary line and went among some of the noblest and best men that ever
+adorned this continent, one word against slavery meant death. And if you
+say that that was the influence of slavery, I will carry you to Boston,
+that city which numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to
+the acre as any city on the globe--was it different there?
+
+Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he got there, was
+seized and turned back; and when a few good and brave men, in defence
+of free speech, undertook to defend the slave and to try and give him
+liberty, they were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city. You
+may say, "That proves there was no liberty of speech." No; it proves
+this: that wherever, and wheresoever, and whenever, liberty of speech is
+incompatible with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall
+back and give way, in order that the State may be preserved.
+
+First, above everything, above all things, the safety of the people is
+the supreme law. And if rhetoricians, anxious to tear down, anxious to
+pluck the faith from the young ones who are unable to defend it, come
+forward with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces clothed in
+second-hand purple and tinsel, and try to tear down the temple, then
+it is time, I shall not say for good men--for I know so few they make a
+small battalion--but for good women, to come to the rescue.
+
+
+GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.
+
+Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen>: At this late hour, I could not
+attempt--even if I would--the eloquence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll;
+nor the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend Mr.
+Coudert. But there are some things so serious about this subject that
+we discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if, without preface, and
+without rhetoric, I get at once to what from my Protestant standpoint
+seems the fatal logical error of Mr. Inger-soll's position.
+
+Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement--and that I may not, for I could
+not, do him injustice, nor myself injustice, in the quotation, I will
+give it as he stated it--he starts with this statement: that thought is
+a necessary natural product, the result of what we call impressions made
+through the medium of the senses upon the brain.
+
+Do you think that is thought? Now stop--turn right into your own
+minds--is that thought? Does not will power take hold? Does not reason
+take hold? Does not memory take hold, and is not thought the action of
+the brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed by manifold
+and varying influences?
+
+Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human being is
+accountable to any being, human or divine, for his thought.
+
+He starts with the assumption that thought is the inevitable impression
+burnt upon the mind at once, and then jumps to the conclusion that there
+is no responsibility. Now, is not that a fair logical analysis of what
+he has said?
+
+My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then my mind, out
+of that impression, works good or evil. The glass of brandy, being
+presented to my physical sense, inspires thirst--inspires the thought
+of thirst--inspires the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for
+the result of the mind given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise
+to the dignity of self-control?
+
+Every thing of sense leaves its impression upon the mind. If there be no
+responsibility anywhere, then is this world blind chance. If there be
+no responsibility anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he
+be guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve no censure if I be
+carrying you back into the path of superstition. Why, admit for a moment
+that a man has no control over his thought, and you destroy absolutely
+the power of regenerating the world, the power of improving the world.
+The world swings one way, or it swings the other. If it be true that in
+all these ages we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that
+is true simply and alone because the mind of man through reason, through
+memory, through a thousand inspirations and desires and hopes, has ever
+tended toward better results and higher achievements.
+
+No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I recognize that I
+am accountable to myself; I recognize that whether I rise or fall, that
+whether my life goes upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And
+so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in spite
+of all eloquence, each woman, each man within this audience is
+responsible--first of all to herself and himself--whether when bad
+thoughts, when passion, when murder, when evil come into the heart or
+brain he harbors them there or he casts them out.
+
+I am responsible further--I am responsible to my neighbor. I know that I
+am my neighbor's keeper, I know that as I touch your life, as you touch
+mine, I am responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my
+influence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am dragging you
+down; you are either helping me up or you are dragging me down--and you
+know it. Sophistry cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us
+from it. You know that if you look back through the record of your life,
+there are lives that you have helped and lives that you have hurt. You
+know that there are lives on the downward plane that went down because
+in an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with blessing, lives
+that have gone up because you have reached out to them a helping
+hand. That responsibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an
+accountability that you and I cannot avoid or evade.
+
+I believe one thing further: that because there is a creation there is a
+Creator. I believe that because there is force, there is a Projector of
+force; because there is matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe
+these things. I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not; it
+may be that he is right, that I am wrong; but if there be a Power
+that sent me into this world, so far as that Power has given me wrong
+direction, or permitted wrong direction, that Power will judge me
+justly. So far as I disregard the light that I have, whatever it
+may be--whether it br light of reason, light of conscience, light of
+history--so far as I do that which my judgment tells me is wrong, I am
+responsible and I am accountable.
+
+Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply this: It would
+vary from the theory as taught by the mother church--it certainly swings
+far away from the theory as suggested by my friend; I understand the
+Protestant theory to be this: That every man is responsible to himself,
+to his neighbor, and to his God, for his thought. Not for the first
+impression--but for that impression, for that direction and result which
+he intelligently gives to the first impression or deduces from it. I
+understand that the Protestant idea is this: that man may think--we know
+he will think--for himself; but that he is responsible for it. That a
+man may speak his thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He
+must use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the well-being of
+any other one--so that when using this liberty, when exercising this
+freedom, he is accountable at the last to his God. And so Protestantism
+sends me into the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.
+
+It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the bar of his
+conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man, but it holds him in the
+inevitable grip of absolute responsibility for every light word idly
+spoken.
+
+God grant that he may use that power so that he can face that
+responsibility at the last!
+
+It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and stand by his church
+according to his own conviction.
+
+It stands for this; the absolute liberty of each individual man to
+think, to write, to speak, to act, according to the best light within
+him; limited as to his fellows, by the condition that he shall not use
+that liberty so as to injure them; limited in the other direction, by
+those tremendous laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in
+spite of all logic.
+
+If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a wrong, that
+wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If
+I would try to escape what you call judgment, what you call penalty, I
+cannot escape the working of the inevitable-law that follows a cause by
+effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law--not the creation of
+some dark monster flashing through the skies--but, as I believe, the
+beneficent creation which puts into the spiritual life the same control
+of law that guides the material life, which wisely makes me responsible,
+that in the solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my
+brother up and never to drag my brother down.
+
+
+REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.
+
+The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground boldly that
+expression is not free--that no man has the right to express his real
+thoughts--and I suppose that he acted in accordance with that idea. How
+are you to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he said, or
+not? How is it possible for us to ascertain whether he is simply the
+mouthpiece of some other? Whether he is a free man, or whether he says
+that which he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.
+
+He tells you that I am about to take away the religion of your mothers.
+I have heard that said a great many times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has
+the religion of his mother, and judging from the argument he made, his
+mother knew at least as much about these questions as her son. I believe
+that every good father and good mother wants to see the son and the
+daughter climb higher upon the great and splendid mount of thought than
+they reached.
+
+You never can honor your father by going around swearing to his
+mistakes. You never can honor your mother by saying that ignorance is
+blessed because she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents
+by finding out more than they did.
+
+There is another thing that I was a little astonished at--that Mr.
+Coudert, knowing that he would be in eternal felicity with his harp in
+his hand, seeing me in the world of the damned, could yet grow envious
+here to-night at my imaginary monument.
+
+And he tells you--this Catholic--that Voltaire was an exceedingly good
+Christian compared with me. Do you know I am glad that I have compelled
+a Catholic--one who does not believe he has the right to express his
+honest thoughts--to pay a compliment to Voltaire simply because he
+thought it was at my expense?
+
+I have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and when I hear that
+name pronounced, I think of a plume floating over a mailed knight--I
+think of a man that rode to the beleaguered City of Catholicism and
+demanded a surrender--I think of a great man who thrust the dagger of
+assassination into your Mother Church, and from that wound she never
+will recover.
+
+One word more. This gentleman says that children are destructive--that
+the first thing they do is to destroy their bibs. The gentleman, I
+should think from his talk, has preserved his!
+
+They talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy? Let us be honest with each
+other. Whoever lives upon the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.
+Whoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. Whoever denies
+to others the rights that he claims for himself is a blasphemer.
+
+Who is a worshiper? One who makes a happy home--one who fills the
+lives of wife and children with sunlight--one who has a heart where
+the flowers of kindness burst into blossom and fill the air with
+perfume--the man who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted,
+and holds her thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately and
+loves her as truly and as rapturously as when she was a bride--he is a
+worshiper--that is worship.
+
+And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why we should not have
+free speech, that only a few years ago some of the best men in the
+world, if you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you down.
+What an argument was that! They were not good men. They were
+the whippers of women and the stealers of babes--robbers of the
+trundlebed--assassins of human liberty. They knew no better, but I do
+not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly
+a barbarian.
+
+So much for debauching his family by telling them that his precepts
+are false. If he has taught them as he has taught us to-night, he has
+debauched their minds. I would be honest at the cradle. I would not
+tell a child anything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be
+absolutely honest.
+
+But he says that thought is absolutely free--nobody can control thought.
+Let me tell him: Superstition is the jailer of the mind. You can so
+stuff a child with superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile
+and its poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind, and
+superstition is the assassin of liberty.
+
+So when anybody goes into his family and tells these great and shining
+truths, instead of debauching his children they will kill the snakes
+that crawl in their cradles. Let us be honest and free.
+
+And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a Protestant. The
+Catholic Church says: "Don't think; pay your fare; this is a through
+ticket, and we will look out for your baggage." The Protestant Church
+says: "Read that Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves; but if you
+do not come to a right conclusion you will be eternally damned." Any
+sensible man will say, "Then I won't read it--I'll believe it without
+reading it." And that is the only way you can be sure you will believe
+it; don't read it.
+
+Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our thoughts. Why?
+Could you help thinking as you did on this subject? No, Could you help
+believing the Bible? I suppose not. Could you help believing that story
+of Jonah? Certainly not--it looks reasonable in Brooklyn.
+
+I stated that thought was the result of the impressions of nature upon
+the mind through the medium of the senses. He says you cannot have
+thought without memory. How did you get the first one?
+
+Of course I intended to be understood--and the language is clear--that
+there could be no thought except through the impressions made upon the
+brain by nature through the avenues called the senses. Take away the
+senses, how would you think then? If you thought at all, I think you
+would agree with Mr. Coudert.
+
+Now, I admit--so we need never have a contradiction about it--I admit
+that every human being is responsible to the person he injures. If he
+injures any man, woman, or child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that
+crawls, he is responsible to that animal, to that being--in other words,
+he is responsible to any being that he has injured.
+
+But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one. I will tell
+you why. You cannot help him, and you cannot hurt him. If there be an
+infinite Being, he is conditionless--he does not want anything--he has
+it. You cannot help anybody that does not want something--you cannot
+help him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a conditioned being
+and you change his condition so as to inflict a harm. But if God be
+conditionless, you cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do
+not trouble yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within
+reach--all our duties are right here; and my religion is simply this:
+
+_First_. Give to every other human being every right that you claim for
+yourself.
+
+_Second_. If you tell your thought at all, tell your honest thought. Do
+not be a parrot--do not be an instrumentality for an organization. Tell
+your own thought, honor bright, what you think.
+
+My next idea is, that the only possible good in the universe is
+happiness. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here.
+The way to be happy is to try and make somebody else so.
+
+My good friend General Woodford--and he is a good man telling the best
+he knows--says that I will be accountable at the bar up yonder. I am
+ready to settle that account now, and expect to be, every moment of my
+life--and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I do not believe
+that a solitary being can rise and say that I ever injured him or her.
+
+But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story, how we will settle
+if we do get there.
+
+You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his
+country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told
+him that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or
+twelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when
+that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body.
+But he denied it. He was one of those men who would not believe further
+than his vision extended.
+
+So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose
+and he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was
+blown so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said,
+"My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no
+other country, and here it is!" So he did his best--paddled with what
+little strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat.
+Sure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high.
+The poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the
+tall man as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied
+your existence--I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such
+country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going
+to kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my
+misery. Do it now!"
+
+The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till
+he asked, "What are you going to do with me, because over in that other
+country I denied your existence?" "What am I going to do with you?" said
+the supposed God. "Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I
+am going to treat you well."
+
+
+
+
+A CHRISTMAS SERMON.
+
+
+     * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel
+     Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December
+     19,1891.
+
+
+I.
+
+THE good part of Christmas is not always Christian--it is generally
+Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.
+
+Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message
+of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its
+lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.
+
+It taught some good things--the beauty of love and kindness in man. But
+as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has
+given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the
+soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled
+the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not
+satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.
+
+In answer to this "Christmas Sermon" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor
+of the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist
+Church, wrote an article, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening
+Telegram for publishing such a "sermon."
+
+This attack was headed "Lies That Are Mountainous." The Telegram
+promptly accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do
+his utmost. On the very same day it published an answer from Colonel
+Ingersoll that echoed throughout America.'
+
+And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the
+old festival called Christmas.
+
+Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers
+of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin
+perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the
+sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a
+festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is
+the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed
+from the Pagans the best it has.
+
+I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy.
+We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much
+like the English.
+
+I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming
+Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman.
+We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days--the
+more the better.
+
+Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget--a good day to throw away
+prejudices and hatreds--a good day to fill your heart and your house,
+and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.
+
+R. G Ingersoll.
+
+
+COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.
+
+II.
+
+WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for
+kindness, charity and love.
+
+The gentle editor of the _Christian Advocate_ charges me with having
+written three "gigantic falsehoods," and he points them out as follows:
+_First_--"Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy? but with
+a message of eternal grief."
+
+_Second_--"It [Christianity] has filled the future with fear and flame,
+and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the
+home of nearly all the sons of men."
+
+_Third_--"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity] has deprived God of
+the pardoning power."
+
+Now, let us take up these "gigantic falsehoods" in their order and see
+whether they are in accord with the New Testament or not--whether they
+are supported by the creed of the Methodist Church.
+
+I insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but
+with a message of eternal grief.
+
+According to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the tidings
+that the human race was totally depraved, and that all men were in a
+lost condition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe the new
+religion, would be tormented in eternal fire.
+
+These were not "tidings of great joy."
+
+If the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was to be
+wrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would go to
+the bottom, would they talk about "tidings of great joy"? It is to be
+presumed that Christ knew what his mission was, and what he came for.
+He says: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to
+send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
+his father, and the daughter against her mother." In my judgment, these
+are not "tidings of great joy."
+
+Now, as to the message of eternal grief:
+
+"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
+cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
+
+"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous
+[meaning the Methodists] into life eternal."
+
+"He that believeth not shall be damned."
+
+"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
+abideth on him."
+
+"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
+but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
+hell."
+
+"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever."
+
+Knowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that during
+the last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has died in the
+faith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it can
+truthfully be said that Christianity came with a message of eternal
+grief.
+
+Now, as to the second "gigantic falsehood," to the effect that
+Christianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the
+keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all
+the sons of men.
+
+In the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some other
+world, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah
+killed one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was glutted
+when the victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future to sleep and
+oblivion. But in the New Testament we are told that the punishment
+in another world is everlasting, and that "the smoke of their torment
+ascendeth up forever and ever."
+
+This awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future with
+fear and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox churches have
+constructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are
+to be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this prison God is the
+keeper. The doors are opened only to receive.
+
+The doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As I have
+often said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the justice of
+endless pain, is suffering from at least two diseases--petrifaction of
+the heart and putrefaction of the brain.
+
+The next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of the
+pardoning power.
+
+The Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life
+is a period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation
+after death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.
+
+This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then
+God will never release a soul from hell--the pardoning power will never
+be exercised.
+
+How happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing
+that billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers,
+brothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal
+dungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!
+
+Yet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New
+Testament, of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those who
+would desert brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or
+children.
+
+It seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring "tidings of great
+joy," but that it came with a "message of eternal grief"--that it did
+"fill the future with fear and flame," that it did make God "the keeper
+of an eternal penitentiary," that the penitentiary "was destined to be
+the home of nearly all the sons of men," and that "it deprived God of
+the pardoning power."
+
+Of course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible, others of
+war--some filled with mercy, and others cruel as the fangs of a wild
+beast.
+
+According to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison--an everlasting
+Siberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony and shame.
+
+What do I think of what the Doctor says about the _Telegram_ for having
+published my Christmas sermon?
+
+The editor of the _Christian Advocate_ has no idea of what intellectual
+liberty means. He ought to know that a man should not be insulted
+because another man disagrees with him.
+
+What right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons, and what
+right has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley? The same right
+that I have to disagree with them both.
+
+I do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist papers or
+books. But I do tell them to investigate for themselves--to stand by
+what they believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all things,
+to preserve their mental manhood. The good Doctor wants the _Telegram_
+destroyed--wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of
+punishing the _Telegram_--because it published something with which the
+reverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree with the
+Doctor.
+
+It is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The doctor
+of theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost its
+lightning--it is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it and
+amusing those who hear.
+
+The _Telegram_ has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest sense, a
+newspaper--wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to its friends, fair
+with its enemies, and true to the public.
+
+What have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?
+
+Nothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say that I
+am incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this
+proves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.
+
+I cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental manners.
+The cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained
+by an ignorant or a malicious personality.
+
+I know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so I
+say--More light!
+
+
+III.
+
+THE Rev. James M. King--who seems to have taken this occasion to become
+known--finds fault because "blasphemous utterances concerning Christmas"
+were published in the _Telegram_, and were allowed "to greet the eyes of
+innocent children and pure women."
+
+How is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,
+holier than another--that is to say, two equal spaces of time are
+substantially alike. We call a day "good" or "bad" according to what
+happens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with
+noble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and
+misery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?
+
+A man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of
+December, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned,
+with good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe
+that Christ was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all
+his friends unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called "clean
+families" be violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to
+whether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor
+of the triumph of the sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian
+families so weak intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other
+side? Or is their case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows
+it? Why do all these ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise
+a question as to the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability
+of the impossible?
+
+A minister says to me that I am going to hell--that I am bound to be
+punished forever and ever--and thereupon I say to him: "There is no
+hell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to
+suffer agony forever;" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me
+this question: "Why do you hurt my feelings?" It does not occur to him
+that I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal
+grief.
+
+Does the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ
+with him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the
+memory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his
+divine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other
+than a good and heroic man. And there are thousands of people who
+admire the character of Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever
+existed--who admire the character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or
+Per-dita, not believing that any of the characters mentioned actually
+lived.
+
+And it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any
+really good man or good woman--that is, no human being hates a man known
+to be good--a woman known to be pure and good. No human being hates a
+lovable character.
+
+It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to
+understand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad
+motive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a
+man is a Christian or a Mohammedan "for revenue only." I do not say that
+a man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches
+with the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his
+reasons--with his motives I have nothing to do.
+
+Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity "for revenue
+only." Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox
+religion that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can
+hardly believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far.
+I regret exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his
+remark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for
+any human being to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his
+fellow-men. Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read, even
+in this ignorant present, that there is one man, and that man myself,
+who advocates human liberty--the absolute enfranchisement of the
+soul--and does it "for revenue"--because this charge is such a splendid
+compliment to my fellow-men.
+
+Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the
+_Telegram_ and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is
+in harmony with the intelligence of the age.
+
+My opinion is that the _Telegram_ will receive the praise of enlightened
+and generous people.
+
+Personally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,
+and I would much rather meet on the desert--were I about to perish for
+want of water--a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a Christian
+who would not; because, after all is said and done, we are compelled to
+judge people by their actions.
+
+I do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,
+inhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes
+place there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,
+masked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we
+can possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the
+actions of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the
+character, of the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good
+or bad, not by his theories, but by his actions.
+
+Under no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched
+in becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well
+enough to inquire: What is blasphemy?
+
+A man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain
+the pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A
+man who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He
+who runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a
+blasphemer.
+
+In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there
+is one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In
+the presence of this statue the good man worships--the bad man
+blasphemes--that is to say, he is not true to the ideal.
+
+A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So,
+too, a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is
+a blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as
+portrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as
+bad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes that the character of
+Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it
+good, he is a blasphemer and a coward.
+
+All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed by the numerically strong
+and intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who,
+finding no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.
+
+Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do
+not say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests
+had not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to
+God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not
+use, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.
+
+Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests "for revenue
+only," but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that
+the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without
+revenue.
+
+I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel
+has a right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost
+cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have
+ever objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of
+others.
+
+I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as
+the Christmas Sermon are "revolting to a vast majority of the people who
+give character to the community in which we live." I suppose that a
+very large majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly
+satisfied that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not
+disagree with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me.
+And I also imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are
+perfectly willing to hear the other side.
+
+I do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that
+have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense
+or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth
+preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate
+of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.
+
+I do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words
+published by, the _Telegram_. The most that can possibly be said against
+them, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that they
+were true--that they cannot be answered except by abuse.
+
+It is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood
+of intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print.
+The church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most
+of this time it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many
+centuries it controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had
+within its gift wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world
+is concerned, of heaven and hell--that is to say, of prosperity and
+misfortune. It pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the
+scaffold with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet
+for many centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.
+Millions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has made
+millions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this world,
+but it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under this
+pretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal flames.
+
+At last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous
+assumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many
+years gradually losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now
+to the people. The partnership between altar and throne has in many
+countries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of church and state
+has ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their honest thoughts.
+In the arena where speech is free, superstition is driven to the wall.
+Man relies more and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest is
+the interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its power. In a little
+while religion will take its place with astrology, with the black art,
+and its ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand
+performers.
+
+With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but
+little to say.
+
+I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press--that he,
+like Lucretia Mott, believes in "truth for authority, and not authority
+for truth." At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am not a
+scientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there is
+any fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be
+pointed out. I admit also, that I am a "sentimentalist"--that is, that I
+am governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment--that my mind is so that
+cruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and admiration. I
+admit that I am so much of "a sentimentalist" that I have no love for
+the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for me
+to believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless
+billions of men, women and children.
+
+I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have "stabbed
+to the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies," and I hope to stab
+many, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the
+heart there will be no foundation left for what I called "orthodox"
+Christianity--but goodness will survive, justice will live, and the
+flower of mercy will shed its perfume forever.
+
+When we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a
+minister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a
+divine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion:
+"If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not
+see why he could not utilize the Colonel." It is natural for a man to
+justify himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however,
+will remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and
+that the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that
+the spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet.
+It was the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I
+suggest to the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he
+will find:--
+
+_First_, that the ass _first_ saw the angel of the Lord; _second_, that
+the prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; _third_, that
+the prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent
+ass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and
+demonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In
+addition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the
+prophet--in other words, had to work a miracle--in order to make the
+prophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his
+cruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever
+the ass saw him--the angel--showing that the spiritual discernment of
+the ass in those days was far superior to that of the prophet.
+
+I regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.
+Dixon is not quite polite.
+
+All of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he
+who seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.
+
+And there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the
+justice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the
+foundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument
+fails passion comes to the rescue.
+
+Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each
+other.
+
+The course pursued by the _Telegram_ is worthy of all praise. It has not
+only been just to both sides, but it has been--as is its custom--true to
+the public.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+INGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.
+
+IV.
+
+_To the Editor of the Evening Telegram _:
+
+SOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the columns of
+the _Telegram_ have wandered from the questions under discussion. It may
+be well enough to state what is really in dispute.
+
+I was called to account for having stated that Christianity did not
+bring "tidings of great joy," but a message of eternal grief--that it
+filled the future with fear and flame--made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned
+forever, and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the
+pardoning power.
+
+These statements were called "mountainous lies" by the Rev. Dr.
+Buckley, and because the _Telegram_ had published the "Christmas Sermon"
+containing these statements, he insisted that such a paper should not be
+allowed in the families of Christians or of Jews--in other words, that
+the _Telegram_ should be punished, and that good people should refuse to
+allow that sheet to come into their homes.
+
+It will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if the
+orthodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the bearer of a
+message of eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race are to
+become eternal convicts, and God has deprived himself of the pardoning
+power. According to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost
+can ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.
+
+The Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of
+Christianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that
+doctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with "tidings of
+great joy."
+
+Personally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I have no
+quarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the human race.
+I find fault with no one for filling the future with joy--for dreaming
+splendid dreams and for uttering splendid prophecies. I do not object
+to Christianity because it promises heaven to a few, but because it
+threatens the many with perdition.
+
+It does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that degree
+that he died that they might be saved, abandons his children the moment
+they are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might do something
+for a soul after it has reached the other world.
+
+Is it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done for a
+majority of souls in this world?
+
+Think of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in poverty and
+crime. Think of the millions who are only partially developed in this
+world. Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of passion. Think
+of the temptations innumerable. Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of
+the arrogance of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak--and
+can we then say that an infinite God has done, in this world, all
+that could be done for the salvation of his children? Is it not barely
+possible that something may be done in another world? Is there nothing
+left for God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it
+leaves this world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence
+of eternal pain?
+
+I insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did not come
+with "tidings of great joy," but that its message was and is one of
+eternal grief.
+
+If the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast blunder--an
+infinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that every pulse of life
+should cease--better that all the gods should fall palsied from their
+thrones, than that the creed of Christendom should be true.
+
+There is another question and that involves the freedom of the press.
+
+The _Telegram_ has acted with the utmost fairness and with the highest
+courage. After all, the American people admire the man who takes
+his stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality of
+progress, the press must be free. Only the free can carry a torch.
+Liberty sheds light.
+
+The editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position, and
+he must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and ignorant
+children. He must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, suppress the
+truth--neither must he be dictated to by any church or any society of
+believers or unbelievers. The _Telegram_, by its course, has given
+a certificate of its manliness, and the public, by its course, has
+certified that it appreciates true courage.
+
+All Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and that
+the sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember that there
+are no such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany, or
+Catholic chemistry. The sciences are secular. .
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues--and yet, in some
+things, I agree with him. He is certainly right when he says that "Mr.
+Buckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-American," but I
+am not certain that he is right when he says that it is un-Christian.
+
+The church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with kind
+words and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always been rather
+relentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has never forgiven.
+There is in the history of Christendom no instance where the church has
+extended the hand of friendship to a man who denied the truth of its
+creed.
+
+There is in the church no spirit--no climate--of compromise. In the
+nature of things there can be none, because the church claims that it
+is absolutely right--that there is only one road leading to heaven.
+It demands unconditional surrender. It will not bear contradiction.
+It claims to have the absolute truth. For these reasons it cannot
+consistently compromise, any more than a mathematician could change the
+multiplication table to meet the view of some one who should deny that
+five times five are twenty-five.
+
+The church does not give its opinion--it claims to know--it demands
+belief. Honesty, industry, generosity count for nothing in the absence
+of belief. It has taught and still teaches that no man can reach heaven
+simply through good and honest deeds. It believes and teaches that the
+man who relies upon himself will be eternally punished--and why should
+the church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat
+impatiently to damn?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters asks--and probably honestly thinks that the
+questions are pertinent to the issues involved--"What has infidelity
+done for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it
+founded? What has it done for the elevation of public morals?" And he
+inquires what science or art has been originated by infidelity. He asks
+how many slaves it has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed,
+how many fallen women it has restored, and what it did for the relief
+of the wounded and dying soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it
+ever assisted to higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.
+
+Although these questions have nothing whatever to do with the matters
+under discussion, still it may be well enough to answer them.
+
+It is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been built
+by Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted that
+hospitals and asylums have been built in countries not Christian; that
+there were such institutions in China thousands of years before Christ
+was born, and that many centuries before the establishment of any
+orthodox church there were asylums on the banks of the Nile--asylums for
+the old, the poor, the infirm--asylums for the blind and for the insane,
+and that the Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity
+with kindness and affection. The same is true of India and probably of
+most ancient nations.
+
+There has always been more or less humanity in man--more or less
+goodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have always
+loved their children. There must always have been more good than evil,
+otherwise the human race would have perished. The best things in the
+Christian religion came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered
+the sublimest of truths, and all ages have been redeemed by honesty,
+heroism, and love.
+
+But let me answer these questions in their order.
+
+_First_--As to the schools.
+
+It is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always been
+in favor of education--that is to say, of education enough to make a
+Catholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have
+always been in favor of enough education to make a Protestant out of a
+Catholic. Many schools and many colleges have been established for the
+spread of what is called the Gospel and for the education of the clergy.
+Presbyterians have founded schools for the benefit of their creed.
+The Methodists have established colleges for the purpose of making
+Methodists. The same is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of
+fact, these schools have in many important directions hindered rather
+than helped the cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to
+investigate for themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were
+told that thought is dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with
+creeds--with the ideas of others. Their credulity was applauded and
+their curiosity condemned. If all the people had been educated in these
+sectarian schools, all the people would have been far more ignorant
+than they are. These schools have been, and most of them still are, the
+enemies of higher education, and just to the extent that they are under
+the control of theologians they are hindrances, and just to the extent
+that they have become secularized they have been and are a benefit.
+
+Our public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I admit
+that it never could have been established without the assistance of
+Christians--neither could it have been supported without the assistance
+of others. But such is the value placed upon education that people of
+nearly all denominations, and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all
+opinions, for the most part agree that the children of a nation should
+be educated by the nation. Some religious people are opposed to these
+schools because they are not religious--because they do not teach some
+creed--but a large majority of the people stand by the public schools
+as they are. These schools are growing better and better, simply because
+they are growing less and less theological, more and more secular.
+
+Infidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that only that
+should be taught in schools which somebody knows or has good reason to
+believe.
+
+The greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who have the
+least confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that stand highest
+in the estimation of the most intelligent are those that have drifted
+farthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought has always been and ever
+must be the friend of education. Without free thought there can be no
+such thing--in the highest sense--as a school. Unless the mind is free,
+there are no teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and splendid
+sense.
+
+The church has been and still is the enemy of education, because it has
+been in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological schools have
+been what might be called the deformatories of the human mind.
+
+For instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In this
+university he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua
+stopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts the truth
+of the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and yet believes that
+water was turned into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory of
+cause and effect, and at the same time he thoroughly believes in the
+miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes. Can such an institution,
+with any propriety, be called a seat of learning? Can we not say of such
+a university what Bruno said of Oxford: "Learning is dead and Oxford is
+its widow."
+
+Year after year the religious colleges are improving--simply because
+they are becoming more and more secular, less and less theological.
+Whether infidelity has founded universities or not, it can truthfully be
+said that the spirit of investigation, the spirit of free thought, the
+attitude of mental independence, contended for by those who are called
+infidels, have made schools useful instead of hurtful.
+
+Can it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice against
+education? Can there be found in the literature of free thought one
+line against the enlightenment of the human race? Has free thought ever
+endeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not always appealed to the
+senses--to demonstration? It has not said, "He that hath ears to hear,
+let him hear," but it has said, "He that hath brains to think, let him
+think."
+
+The object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every direction,
+to the end that man may know the conditions of happiness--and every
+school should be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by anything
+except a perceived fact. He should not be the slave of a creed, engaged
+in the business of enslaving others.
+
+So much for schools.
+
+
+Second--As to public morals.
+
+Christianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every church
+unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I do not
+mean by this that any church consciously advocates immorality. I
+most cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of ministers are
+endeavoring to do good--that they are pure, self-denying men, trying
+to make this world better. But there is a frightful defect in their
+philosophy. They say to the bank cashier: You must not steal, you must
+not take a dollar--larceny is wrong, it is contrary to all law, human
+and divine--but if you do steal every cent in the bank, God will as
+gladly, quickly forgive you in Canada as he will in the United States.
+On the other hand, what is called infidelity says: There is no being in
+the universe who rewards, and there is no being who punishes--every act
+has its consequences. If the act is good, the consequences are good; if
+the act is bad, the consequences are bad; and these consequences must be
+borne by the actor. It says to every human being: You must reap what
+you sow. There is no reward, there is no punishment, but there are
+consequences, and these consequences are the invisible and implacable
+police of nature. They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No
+power can awe them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make
+them pause. Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant
+their victim.
+
+This great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If all
+men knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of their own
+actions--if they absolutely knew that they could not injure another
+without injuring themselves, the world, in my judgment, would be far
+better than it is.
+
+Free thought has attacked the morality of what is called the atonement.
+The innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the innocent
+does suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the
+guilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in some way, causes
+the innocent to suffer. This being the very essence of wrong, how can
+the suffering of innocence justify the guilty? If there be a world of
+joy, he who is worthy to enter that world must be willing to carry his
+own burdens in this.
+
+So much for morality.
+
+
+Third--As to sciences and art.
+
+I do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any science.
+I do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New Testament.
+There is not one word, so far as I remember, about education--nothing
+about any science, nothing about art. The writers of the New Testament
+seem to have thought that the world was about coming to an end. This
+world was to be sacrificed absolutely to the next. The affairs of this
+life were not worth speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at
+once for the other life.
+
+The sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not interfere
+with orthodox theology. To the extent that they were supposed to
+interfere with theology they have been obstructed and denounced.
+Astronomy was found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the
+astronomers were imprisoned and despised. Geology contradicted the
+Mosaic account, and the geologists were denounced and persecuted. Every
+step taken in astronomy was taken in spite of the church, and every fact
+in geology had to fight its way. The same is true as to the science of
+medicine. The church wished to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and
+prayer, and with the bones of the saints. The church wished man to
+rely entirely upon God--that is to say, upon the church--and not upon
+himself. The physician interfered with the power and prosperity of the
+priest, and those who appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking
+faith in God. This state of things existed even in the Old Testament
+times. A king failed to send for the prophets, but sent for a physician,
+and then comes this piece of grim humor: "And Asa slept with his
+fathers."
+
+The great names in science are not those of recognized saints.
+
+Bruno--one of the greatest and bravest of men--greatest of all
+martyrs--perished at the stake, because he insisted on the existence of
+other worlds and taught the astronomy of Galileo.
+
+Humboldt--in some respects the wisest man known to the scientific
+world--denied the existence of the supernatural and "the truths of
+revealed religion," and yet he revolutionized the thought of his day and
+left a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.
+
+Darwin--greatest of scientists--so great that our time will probably
+be known as "Darwin's Century"--had not the slightest confidence in any
+possible phase of the so-called supernatural. This great man left the
+creed of Christendom without a foundation. He brought as witnesses
+against the inspiration of the Scriptures such a multitude of facts,
+such an overwhelming amount of testimony, that it seems impossible to
+me that any unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain
+a believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the
+schools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded. He
+revolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.
+
+The writers who have done most for science have been the most bitterly
+opposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries
+of the world that cannot be found on the "Index Expurgatorius." Kant
+and Fichte and Spinoza were far above and beyond the orthodox-world.
+Voltaire did more for freedom than any other man, and yet the church
+denounced him with a fury amounting to insanity--called him an atheist,
+although he believed not only in God, but in special providence. He was
+opposed to the church--that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that
+reason he was despised.
+
+And what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of Draper,
+of Haeckel, of Büchner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and
+hundreds and thousands of others who have filled the scientific world
+with light and the heart of man with love and kindness?
+
+It may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that Christianity is
+indebted to Greece and Rome for its highest conceptions, and it may be
+well to add that for many centuries Christianity did the best it could
+to destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and Rome. A few were buried,
+and in that way were saved from Christian fury.
+
+The same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few fragments
+were rescued, and these became the seeds of modern literature. A few
+statues were preserved, and they are to-day models for all the world.
+
+Of course it will be admitted that there is much art in Christian lands,
+because, in spite of the creeds, Christians, so-called, have turned
+their attention to this world. They have beautified their homes, they
+have endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and fine linen. They have
+been forced from banquets or from luxury by the difficulty of camels
+going through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of carrying water
+to the rich man. They have cultivated this world, and the arts have
+lived. Did they obey the precepts that they find in their sacred
+writings there would be no art, they would "take no thought for the
+morrow," they would "consider the lilies of the field."
+
+
+Fourth--As to the liberation of slaves.
+
+It was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he spoke of
+slavery. The Bible upholds human slavery--white slavery. The Bible was
+quoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The man who went to Africa
+to steal women and children took the Bible with him. He planted himself
+firmly on the Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:
+
+     "He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,
+     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."
+
+So when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the planters
+defended their action by reading the Bible. When a poor woman was sold,
+her children torn from her breast, the auction block on which she stood
+was the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her quoted the Scriptures; the
+man who bought her repeated the quotations, and the ministers from
+the pulpit said to the weeping woman, as her child was carried away:
+"Servants, be obedient unto your masters."
+
+Freethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas Paine
+did more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood upon the
+western world. The first article he ever wrote in this country was one
+against the institution of slavery. Freethinkers have also been in favor
+of free bodies. Freethinkers have always said "free hands," and the
+infidels, the wide world over, have been friends of freedom.
+
+
+Fifth--As to the reclamation of inebriates.
+
+Much has been said, and for many years, on the subject of
+temperance--much has been uttered by priests and laymen--and yet there
+seems to be a subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland is
+extremely orthodox, yet it is not extremely temperate. England is
+nothing if not religious, and London is, par excellence, the
+Christian city of the world, and yet it is the most intemperate. The
+Mohammedans--followers of a false prophet--do not drink.
+
+
+Sixth--As to the humanity of infidelity.
+
+Can it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying only
+because they were orthodox?
+
+Is it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the creed of
+forgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more than one hundred
+and fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true that where the church
+has cared for one orphan it has created hundreds? Can Christianity
+afford to speak of war?
+
+The Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each
+other. In Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation--all that can be
+borrowed by pledging the prosperity of the future--the labor of those
+yet unborn--is used for the purpose of keeping Christians in the field,
+to the end that they may destroy other Christians, or at least prevent
+other Christians from destroying them. Europe is covered with churches
+and fortifications, with temples and with forts--hundreds of thousands
+of priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and countless
+bayonets--and that whole country is oppressed and impoverished for the
+purpose of carrying on war. The people have become deformed by labor,
+and yet Christianity boasts of peace.
+
+
+Seventh--"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?"
+
+Is it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying when the
+dying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and that he, unless
+he has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict? Will it cheer him to
+know that, even if he is to be saved, countless millions are to be lost?
+Is it possible for the Christian religion to put a smile upon the face
+of death?
+
+On the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying: What
+happens to you will happen to all. If there be another world of joy, it
+is for all. If there is another life, every human being will have the
+eternal opportunity of doing right--the eternal opportunity to live, to
+reform, to enjoy. There is no monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who
+delights in the agony of his children. These frightful things are savage
+dreams.
+
+Infidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of pity.
+
+Infidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every grave.
+
+Let us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under
+discussion. Let us not wander away.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+Jan'y 9, 1891.
+
+
+INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.
+
+V.
+
+NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.
+
+The industrious people of the world--those who have anything--are, as
+a rule, opposed to larceny; a very large majority of people object to
+being murdered, and so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large
+majority of people believe in what they call, or what they understand
+to be, justice--at least as between others. There is no very great
+difference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not
+moral.
+
+It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks
+all morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything
+that tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind; but he attacks
+Buddhism. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack
+kindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been
+added to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but what he
+believes to be the parasite.
+
+If people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues common
+to all religions, they should not give Christianity credit for all the
+good that has been done. There were millions of virtuous men and women,
+millions of heroic and self-denying souls before Christianity was known.
+
+It does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or
+charity ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these virtues
+to persecute his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief. If
+Christianity has persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the
+virtues it has inculcated. If this reason--this cause--is inherent in
+that something else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then
+Christianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of
+course back of Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may
+be responsible.
+
+Is there anything in Christianity that will account for such
+persecutions--for the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by the church
+that belief was necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same
+time that the fate of man was eternal punishment; that the state of man
+was that of depravity, and that there was but one way by which he could
+be saved, and that was through belief--through faith. As long as this
+was honestly believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels
+to preach a doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves
+which, in their judgment, would result in the damnation of souls.
+
+The law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great
+bodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the life
+of a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how much
+more would he have the right to take the life of one who was about to
+assassinate the soul of his son!
+
+Christians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt that
+God would hold the community responsible if the community allowed
+a blasphemer to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed the
+freethinker, or rather the free talker, in self-defence.
+
+At the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of self-defence;
+that is to say, the defence of the soul. If the founder of Christianity
+had plainly said: "It is not necessary to believe in order to be saved;
+it is only necessary to do, and he who really loves his fellow-men, who
+is kind, honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest"--if he had
+only said that, there would probably have been but little persecution.
+
+If he had added to this: "You must not persecute in my name. The
+religion I teach is the Religion of Love--not the Religion of Force and
+Hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not stretch them
+upon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them
+alive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour molten lead into
+their ears. You must treat all with absolute kindness. If you cannot
+convert your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument, that is the end.
+You must never resort to force, and, whether he believes as you do or
+not, treat him always with kindness"--his followers then would not have
+murdered their fellows in his name.
+
+If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be
+carried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death
+through torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what
+he must have known, if he were God, would happen.
+
+All that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless.
+Not only so--it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and
+the useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless
+remains.
+
+Now, falling back on the old assertion, "By its fruits we may know
+Christianity," then I think we are justified in saying that, as
+Christianity consists of a mixture of morality and _something else_, and
+as morality never has persecuted a human being, and as Christianity has
+persecuted millions, the cause of the persecution must be the _something
+else_ that was added to morality.
+
+I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that
+"Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of
+human nature." On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the
+whole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act
+in accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would be
+doomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been held up
+to contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions denounced as wicked
+and filthy.
+
+Dr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the value of
+freedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free thought; and
+what is freedom worth if the mind is to be enslaved?
+
+Dr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their efforts
+to be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for exercising their
+freedom as against the church.
+
+It is not true that the church "has taught and established the fact of
+human brotherhood." This has been the result of a civilization to which
+Christianity itself has been hostile.
+
+Can we prove that "the church established human brotherhood" by
+banishing the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the tortures
+of the Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland; by the
+burning of Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution of the Irish; by
+whipping and hanging Quakers in New England; by the slave trade; and by
+the hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ?
+
+We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and most
+cruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded upon a Bible
+that upholds the institution of slavery has taught and established the
+fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination to conceive.
+
+Neither do I think it true that "we are indebted to Christianity for the
+advancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and learning."
+
+I cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some
+learning, and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion
+of the absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have
+had what might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have
+been somewhat broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities,
+contradictions, and impossibilities. The church was not the friend of
+science or learning when it burned Vanini for writing his "Dialogues
+Concerning Nature." What shall we say of the "Index Expurgatorius"? For
+hundreds of years all books of any particular value were placed on the
+"Index," and good Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of
+science and learning?
+
+That we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of science
+seems absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the enemy of
+astronomy, and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy
+took her revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens
+bears a Christian name.
+
+Can it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of any
+true philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.
+
+The church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object
+is to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result
+that the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the result
+reached by the mind must be abandoned.
+
+For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever
+anything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church
+immediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been
+changed, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science
+does not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.
+
+Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians
+destroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could lay
+their violent hands; and nothing has been produced by the Christian
+world equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved. There
+have been many artists who were Christians; but they were not artists
+because they were Christians; because there have been many Christians
+who were not artists. It cannot be said that art is born of any creed.
+The mode of expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain
+degree, by the belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and
+feeling.
+
+So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian,
+but in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so was his creed.
+Consequently, they could not by any possibility have assisted him.
+Kepler did not discover or announce what are known as the "Three Laws"
+because he was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of
+his creed.
+
+Every Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and clung to
+a fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has
+done so certainly without the assistance of his creed.
+
+Let me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each other to
+please God; when they were ready to destroy a man with sword and
+flame for teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in Spain were
+teaching geography to their children with brass globes. So, too, they
+had observatories and knew something of the orbits of the stars.
+
+They did not find out these things because they were Mohammedans, or
+on account of their belief in the impossible. They were far beyond the
+Christians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically said by Mrs.
+Browning, that "Science was thrust into the brain of Europe on the point
+of a Moorish lance."
+
+From the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the higher
+branches practical. We also got from them the art of making cotton
+paper, which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence. We
+learned from them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness possible in
+Christendom.
+
+So from among people of different religions we have learned many useful
+things; but they did not discover them on account of their religion.
+
+It will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true because the
+Greeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor
+of monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men, was born and lived in
+a monarchy.
+
+Dr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of a vast
+number of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects,
+but of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for
+many centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by
+Christianity.
+
+As a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result of
+countless causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way
+of hindrance.
+
+Does the Doctor think that the material progress of the world was caused
+by this passage: "Take no thought for the morrow"?
+
+Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on this
+inspired declaration: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye
+of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible has
+produced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever seen.
+
+This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature
+been produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many
+generations, take the ground that the Bible was the only important book,
+and that books differing from the Bible should be destroyed?
+
+If Christianity--Catholic and Protestant--could have had its way, the
+works of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin, Haeckel,
+Spencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gibbon, Buckle and
+Büchner would not have been published. In short, the philosophy that
+enlightens and the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.
+
+The greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my judgment, the
+poetic--the dramatic; that is to say, the literature of fiction in its
+widest sense. Certainly if the church could have had control, the plays
+of Shakespeare never would have been written; the literature of the
+stage could not have existed; most works of fiction, and nearly all
+poetry, would have perished in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to
+say that "the Bible has produced the richest and most varied literature
+the world has ever seen."
+
+Thousands of theological books have been written on thousands of
+questions of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on
+subjects not worth discussing--not worth thinking about--and that will,
+in a few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.
+
+Mr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:
+
+"Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone
+of them!"
+
+Stephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best
+charity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land; and under
+the roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans
+have been reared, clothed, fed and educated, not only in books, but in
+avocations, and become happy and useful citizens. Under his will
+there has been distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more than
+$500,000; and this distribution goes on year after year.
+
+One of the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity
+of James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two cases simply
+to show that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried
+away by his zeal.
+
+So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that "we are indebted to
+Christianity for our chronology."
+
+According to Christianity this world has been peopled about six thousand
+years. Christian chronology gives the age of the first man, and then
+gives the line from father to son down to the flood, and from the flood
+down to the coming of Christ, showing that men have been upon the earth
+only about six thousand years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and
+I do not believe that there is an intelligent, well-educated Christian
+in the world, having examined the subject, who will say that the
+Christian chronology is correct.
+
+Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that "we are indebted
+to Christianity for the continuation of history." The best modern
+historians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,
+Buckle and Draper.
+
+Neither can I admit that "we are indebted to Christianity for natural
+philosophy."
+
+I do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been Christians,
+or, rather, that some Christians have been natural philosophers to the
+extent that their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Humboldt and
+Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more
+for natural philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.
+
+Whoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural
+philosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to interfere
+with nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind, each
+inconsistent with the other. To the extent that he believes in the
+supernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with the natural, and to
+that extent fails to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include the
+caprice of the Infinite. It is founded on the absolute integrity and
+invariability of nature.
+
+Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that "we are
+indebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology."
+
+The church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language and
+that other languages had been derived from that; and for hundreds and
+hundreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested simply
+because they started with that absurd assumption and believed in the
+Tower of Babel.
+
+Christianity cannot now take the credit for "metaphysical research." It
+has always been the enemy of metaphysical research. It never has said
+to any human being, "Think!" It has always said, "Hear!" It does not
+ask anybody to investigate. It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely
+true, and, instead of asking investigation, it threatens every
+investigator with eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroying what
+has been called Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.
+
+This gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one. This is his
+argument: Christian countries are the most intelligent; therefore they
+owe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next step is taken.
+Christianity, being the best, having produced these results, must have
+been of divine origin.
+
+Let us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the first
+nation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have used the
+same arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the religion
+of Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: "Egypt is the most
+intelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all nations; it has
+been made so by its religion; its religion is, therefore, divine"?
+
+So there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same argument.
+Certainly this argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have
+been repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the
+religion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true,
+or that Jupiter was in fact a god.
+
+Is it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been
+institutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been
+observatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature, the
+world would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?
+
+Countries depend on something besides their religion for progress.
+Nations with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly
+poor religion; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth
+or happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and
+barren.
+
+Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat,
+no corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual
+mendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has the arrogance
+to pretend that it supports the giver.
+
+Mr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: "Every discovery in
+science, invention and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels
+have contributed their share, but never one of them has reached the
+grandeur of originality."
+
+This, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered with
+one name--John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics I ever met.
+
+I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original. Darwin was
+certainly regarded as such.
+
+I do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some
+doubts about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph.
+
+Neither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of
+the abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were
+Christians. But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The
+Quakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the
+Christians of New England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from
+town to town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their bodied, not
+only, but took their lives.
+
+Mr. Peters asks: "What name is there among the world's emancipators
+after which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'" Well, let me give
+him a few--Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.
+
+Mr. Peters asks: "Why is it that in Christian countries you find the
+greatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the greatest
+freedom of thought, speech, and action?"
+
+Is this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more
+infidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty in
+France than in Spain.
+
+There is far more infidelity in England than there was a century ago,
+and there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There is far
+more infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years ago, and
+a hundred infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago; and there
+is far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech and
+action, than ever before.
+
+A few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest extent.
+Now there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand times less
+religion.
+
+Orthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.
+
+Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to have
+wandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that when one
+denies the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man,
+but when he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes a
+Christian, that he is a very faithful, good and loving son.
+
+Mr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that Nature
+has, or that the State has. I do not think he understands what I have
+said. The State ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The
+State may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first, for its
+own protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If
+no one could do the State any injury, certainly the State would have
+no right to punish under the plea of protection; and if no human being
+could by any possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reformation
+could not be given.
+
+Let us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him. Therefore
+he need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn anybody for his
+protection.
+
+Let us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two
+grounds--that is, the protection of society and the reformation of the
+punished--how can eternal punishment be justified? In the first place,
+God does not punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the
+punishment is to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished.
+What excuse then is left?
+
+Let us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we say
+"consequences," and that every good man has the right to reap the good
+consequences of good actions, and that every bad man must bear the
+consequences of bad actions, then you must say to the good: If you stop
+doing good you will lose the harvest. You must say to the bad: If you
+stop doing bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it be a fact
+in Nature that all must reap what they sow, there is neither mercy nor
+cruelty in this fact, and I hold no God responsible for it. The trouble
+with the Christian creed is that God is described as the one who gives
+rewards and the one who inflicts eternal pain.
+
+There is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have known
+when he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned. What right
+had he to create men, knowing that they were to be damned?
+
+So much for Mr. Ballou.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He takes the
+ground, in the first place, that "infidelity, Christianity, science, and
+experience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty, in
+the inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap."
+He then takes the ground that, "if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we
+must not sow the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the
+cause; the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this,
+and this only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary."
+
+Very good; but that is not the point. The real thing under discussion
+is this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man fails to live
+a good life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in
+another world, if there be one? Can he cease to do evil in the eternal
+penitentiary? and if he does, can he be pardoned--can he be released?
+
+It is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If the
+consequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences are
+bad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain acts tend
+to unhappiness and others to happiness.
+
+Now, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live in
+harmony with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we have an
+opportunity of reforming in another world? If not, then the few years
+that we live here determine whether we shall be angels or devils
+forever.
+
+It seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do
+good, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems to me that
+they may reform.
+
+I do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest in his
+children, simply because they leave this world and go where he is. Is
+it possible that an infinite God does all for his children here, in this
+poor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and that if he
+fails to reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make them
+eternal convicts?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that "an
+infinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up
+under conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their
+concentrated agony and not break his heart."
+
+I do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an infinite God,
+without mercy. I do not admit that there is an infinite Being anywhere
+responsible for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors
+of this life. I cannot believe that there is in the universe a Being
+with power to prevent these things. I hold no God responsible. I
+attribute neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps
+nor rejoices. I cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has
+been, was created by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent
+God. But it is far better that we should all go down "with souls
+unsatisfied" to the dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the
+voiceless dust, than that countless millions of human souls should
+suffer forever.
+
+Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal
+revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.
+
+Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small
+compass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is:
+"If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a
+physician can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies, ought
+there to be any escape?"
+
+He concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the patient was
+obdurate and suffered the penalty.
+
+The application he makes is this:
+
+"The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the Great
+Physician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain, and a
+life of eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not
+tidings of great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it not unreasonable on
+the part of Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak out and throw the blame
+on God?"
+
+The answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an
+infinite God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he
+gave us free will it does not change the result, because he knew how we
+would use the free will.
+
+Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take the
+remedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create them?
+There would have been much less misery in the world had he left them
+dust.
+
+What right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change dust into
+a sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the heir of endless
+agony?
+
+If the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to take
+the medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would refuse to
+take it, the cases might be parallel.
+
+According to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who never
+heard of the medicine or of the "Great Physician."
+
+There is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly think
+he could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is the
+following paragraph:
+
+"Who" (speaking of Jesus) "has such an eye to our need; such a lip to
+kiss away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the fire; _such
+a foot to trample our enemies_; such a heart to embrace all our
+necessities?"
+
+What does the reverend gentleman mean by "_such a foot to trample our
+enemies_"?
+
+This, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the
+history of the church. In the name of its founder it has "trampled on
+its enemies," and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of
+the world.
+
+The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this discussion
+with a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states that
+"Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or
+sorrow comes he" (meaning the infidel) "does not paw nor mock nor cry
+'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and
+whines and howls."
+
+The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems to
+think that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being brave,
+or demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of death.
+
+Thousands of people have died for false religions and in honor of false
+gods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the religion, but it did
+prove the sincerity of their convictions.
+
+A great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the scaffold
+the utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage exhibited by dying
+murderers has never been appealed to in justification of murder.
+
+The reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies endured by
+Thomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that he wished his
+work had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil ever had any
+agency in any work he had in the writing of that book (meaning "The Age
+of Reason,") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus to have mercy
+upon him.
+
+Of course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its falsity has
+been demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and yet ministers of
+the Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.
+
+So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close his
+letters with the words, "Crush the wretch!" (meaning Christ). This is
+not so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.
+
+This gentleman also says that "Voltaire was the prey of anguish and
+dread, alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he complained
+that he was abandoned by God; that when he died his friends fled from
+the room, declaring the sight too terrible to be endured."
+
+There is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read the life
+of Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost serenity.
+
+Let me tell you how Voltaire died.
+
+He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the comforts
+of life. He was a man of wealth--of genius. Among the literary men of
+the world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of
+success. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery.
+He stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They
+began to fear that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to
+make a terrible example of Voltaire.
+
+Toward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire
+was dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of
+superstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.
+
+"Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the Curé of St.
+Sulpice and the Abbé Gautier, and brought them into his uncle's
+sick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.
+
+"'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my thanks.'
+
+"The abbé spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to patience. The
+Curé of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced himself, and
+asked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of
+our Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands against the
+curé's coif shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other
+side:
+
+"'Let me die in peace!'
+
+"The curé seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif dishonored
+by the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him a little
+brushing and went out with the Abbé Gautier.
+
+"He expired," says Wagniere, "on the 30th of May, 1788, at about a
+quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.
+
+"Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his
+_valet-de-chambre_, who was watching by him, pressed it and said:
+'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone!'
+
+"These were his last words."
+
+From this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful--from
+these words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch--all the
+frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and
+made. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed
+all the shameless calumnies about the death of this great and wonderful
+man.
+
+Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at
+the foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite
+in Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin
+of superstition. Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the
+darkness of myth and miracle; through the midnight of Christianity;
+through the blackness of bigotry; past cathedral and dungeon; past rack
+and stake; past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the
+sacred torch of Reason.
+
+Let me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the
+publication of his "Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason", every
+falsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to the
+world. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another
+infidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the
+public streets.
+
+Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not
+respected. Under the Constitution that he had first suggested, his life
+was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three millions
+of his fellow-citizens, and they were willing to deny it unto him.
+
+He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But he
+maintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind, and
+never for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died almost alone.
+
+The moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for his
+death-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains,
+and these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even of the
+present day.
+
+The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some ministers
+were impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he
+ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness
+of arrogance, called that they might enjoy the agonies of the dying
+friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments of
+expiring life fanned into flame by the breath of indignation, had the
+goodness to curse them both.
+
+His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold
+hand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled
+ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that
+Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"
+
+And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that subject."
+
+These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as
+serenely as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession of
+his mind, and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the doctrines of
+his life.
+
+Every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover of
+the great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the
+splendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the American
+Revolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, "The Crisis" was the first
+star that glittered in the wide horizon of despair.
+
+We should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these
+words: "The United States of America."
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining what
+infidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though he
+would like to be present.
+
+For my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will die in
+peace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades to night.
+
+Of course when I said that "Christianity did not bring tidings of great
+joy, but a message of eternal grief," I meant orthodox Christianity; and
+when I said that "Christianity fills the future with fire and flame,
+and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in which most of
+the children of men were to be imprisoned forever," I was giving what I
+understood to be the Evangelical belief on that subject.
+
+If the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal punishment, then
+for one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what little I have done
+toward that end has not been done in vain.
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says:
+"Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when Death's icy
+fingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his
+like who have gone before him have done, he will sing another strain."
+
+How shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the writing of
+such a sentence?
+
+The reverend gentleman "loves his enemies," and yet he is filled with
+glee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's icy
+fingers feel for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him no harm.
+
+He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the prophet
+Isaiah, commencing: "The vile person will speak villainy."
+
+Is this passage applicable only to me?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the "Christmas Sermon."
+For his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the "Christmas Sermon"
+contains:
+
+If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of
+probation, that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all who
+have heard the Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to be
+eternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not "bring tidings of
+great joy," but a Message of Eternal Grief. And if the orthodox churches
+are still preaching the doctrine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be
+far better if every church crumbled into dust than that such preaching
+and such teaching should be continued.
+
+It would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted
+and their congregations enlightened.
+
+I admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside hell; but
+if they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they ought publicly
+to change their creeds.
+
+I admit, also, that the average minister advises his congregation to be
+honest and to treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these
+ministers fail to follow their own advice when they make what they call
+"replies" to me.
+
+Of course there are many good things about the church. To the extent
+that it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes charity,
+it is good. To the extent that it causes men and women to lead moral
+lives it is good. But to the extent that it fills the future with fear
+it is bad. To the extent that it convinces any human being that there is
+any God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal torments on his own
+children, it is bad.
+
+And such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching does
+pollute the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does furrow the
+cheeks of the best and tenderest with tears..Such teaching does rob old
+age of all its joy, and covers every cradle with a curse!
+
+The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God. He says:
+"God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto
+the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human mind could
+suggest for the weal of the race."
+
+According to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose
+of seeing what the world would do, _knowing all the time exactly what
+would be done_.
+
+Let us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then all people
+became tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what
+is known as "Original Sin."
+
+According to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse and
+worse. It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve them,
+but he patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years without having
+established any church, without having given them a Bible, and then he
+drowned all but eight persons.
+
+Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of Original Sin
+was also in their blood.
+
+It seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have killed
+the remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out of his
+garden, and furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presbyterian
+Confession of Faith.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness
+are the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues
+were in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will be
+convinced by the words of Christ himself. He will probably remember
+the story of the Good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that it is
+exactly in point. The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He was not one
+of "the chosen people." He was a poor, "miserable heathen," who knew
+nothing about the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never heard
+of the "scheme of salvation." And yet, according to Christ, he was far
+more charitable than the Levites--the priests of Jehovah, the highest
+of "the chosen people." Is it not perfectly plain from this story that
+charity was in the world before Christianity was established?
+
+A great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though the
+Christians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler
+will read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of
+"Mental Diseases," he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane
+with the utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its throne
+by the voice of music; that the temples were resorted to by crowds of
+the insane; and that "whatever gifts of nature or productions of art
+were calculated to impress the imagination were there united. Games
+and recreations were instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens
+surrounded these holy retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes
+transported patients to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile."
+
+So in ancient Greece it is said that "from the hands of the priest the
+cure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medicine,
+with the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for the
+cure of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples exhibits
+a profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The early
+morning was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and music.
+Then came conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate
+diet. Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine;
+then reading, music and conversation concluded the day."
+
+So "Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders.
+He recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as
+possible." It is also stated that "the philosophy and arts of Greece
+spread to Rome, and the first special treatise on insanity is that
+of Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper
+treatment."
+
+"Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and ignorance
+of the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud
+worse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again consigned to the
+miracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else totally neglected.
+Idiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The
+frantic and furious were chained in lonesome dungeons and exhibited
+for money, like wild beasts. The monomaniacs became, according to
+circumstance, the objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They
+were regarded as possessed with demons and subjected either to priestly
+exorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel
+treatment of the insane continued with little or no alleviation down to
+the end of the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe."
+
+Let me quote a description of these Christian asylums.
+
+"Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan cities of
+Europe, but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome,
+confined in jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons or
+made the butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public
+asylums the inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained
+to floors or walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like
+wild beasts. They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of
+their keepers."
+
+I call particular attention to the following paragraph: "Such was the
+state of the insane generally throughout Europe at the commencement of
+this century. Such it continued to be in England so late as 1815 and
+in Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of parliamentary
+commissions in those years respectively."
+
+Dr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.
+
+Not only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance of
+the Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the
+Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700 years, and in
+addition to this they treated their lunatics with great kindness.
+
+The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent debtors, and
+the Thesium was a refuge for slaves.
+
+Again, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of
+Christianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for
+people, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy
+is that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always
+been engaged in maligning human nature--in attacking the human heart--in
+efforts to destroy all natural passions.
+
+Perfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated in
+India and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the Christian
+era. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced. All the good that
+Christianity has in it came from the human heart. Everything in that
+system of religion came from this world; and in it you will find not
+only the goodness of man, but the imperfections of man--not only the
+love of man, but the malice of man.
+
+Let me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected
+or abused the insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly
+supposed that the insane were filled with devils.
+
+In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand it,
+is a doctor of theology--and I should think such theology stood in need
+of a doctor--and the _Telegram_, I have nothing to say. There is only
+one side to that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore criticised
+what is known as the "Christmas Sermon," I have answered him, leaving
+but very little to which I care to reply in his last article.
+
+Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of
+reasons--instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John
+Howard, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only names;
+and, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give the reasons
+advanced by those whose names he pronounces.
+
+Jonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology
+was infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible
+for him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of the
+"Real Presence."
+
+Milton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of
+brigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular battles;
+but Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of his
+poetical and absurd vagaries.
+
+All the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend to prove
+the existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions
+and millions of the most devoted men could not, by their devotion,
+substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.
+
+There are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that
+ought not to be passed over in silence.
+
+The first is to the effect that I was invited to write an article for
+the _North American Review_, Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that
+Judge Black was improperly treated.
+
+Now, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did write
+one; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is also true
+that Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his reply appeared
+in the same number of the _Review._
+
+Dr. Buckley alleges that the _North American Review_ gave me an
+opportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an
+opportunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in
+fact. Mr. Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the _Review_, is
+still living and will tell the facts. Personally I had nothing to do
+with it, one way or the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as
+formidable, and was not only willing that he should be heard again, but
+anxious that he should.
+
+So much for that.
+
+As to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them to say
+whether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor,
+by his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my respect and
+love.
+
+Most ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a
+blasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips.
+They cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as much and with
+as sincere devotion as they love God. They cannot imagine that another
+prizes liberty above all gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine
+that any mind is so that it places Justice above all persons, a mind
+that cannot conceive even of a God who is not bound to do justice.
+
+If God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice.
+
+Neither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah and
+Jupiter as substantially the same, with this exception--that he thinks
+far more of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human feelings.
+
+I do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who states his
+honest thoughts in proper language, his object being, not to torture
+the feelings of others, but simply to give his thought--to find and
+establish the truth.
+
+Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be without
+foundation. Speaking of myself, he said: "In him the laws to prevent the
+circulation of obscene publications through the mails have found their
+most vigorous opponent."
+
+It is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are
+that an effort was made to classify obscene literature with what the
+pious call "blasphemous and immoral works." A petition was forwarded to
+Congress to amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could
+not be thrown from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be
+made, the law should be repealed.
+
+It was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly should have
+done so had it been presented to me. The petition was absolutely proper.
+
+A few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while it bore
+my name it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes of this
+answer I am perfectly willing that the signature should be regarded as
+genuine, as there is nothing in the petition that should not have been
+granted.
+
+The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League--but not a member
+of that society was in favor of the circulation of obscene literature;
+but they did think that the privacy of the mails had been violated, and
+that it was of the utmost importance to maintain the inviolability of
+the postal service.
+
+I disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of obscene
+literature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it
+through the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to that
+effect that were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others
+were passed, and I resigned from the League on that account.
+
+Nothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or indirectly, or
+could have been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications
+through the mails; and I will pay a premium of $1,000 a word for
+each and every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene
+publications through the mails.
+
+I might use much stronger language. I might follow the example of
+Dr. Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy all
+unprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.
+
+Now, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to read
+that even now, and I believe the readers of the _Telegram_ would like to
+read it once more; so here it is:
+
+"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the
+skeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is
+the mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine
+and the shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields; the
+breath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth
+of summer and autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned light.
+Drink it and you will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the
+'Harvest Home,' mingled with the laughter of children. Drink it and you
+will feel within your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks
+of many perfect days. For forty years this liquid joy has been within
+the happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips of men."
+
+I re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very
+accurate, made some mistakes in his version.
+
+Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have sunk in
+this direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco,
+and here it is:
+
+"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed
+island of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.
+Above their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene,
+and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were
+kind, innocent, gentle and loving.
+
+"The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and of this
+climate the sacred leaves were born--the leaves that breed in the mind
+of him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they grew.
+
+"These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the vows of
+peace. They have given consolation to the world. They are the companions
+of the lonely--the friends of the imprisoned, of the exile, of workers
+in mines, of fellers of forests, of sailors on the desolate seas. They
+are the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds of
+those who build with thought and dream the temples of the soul.
+
+"They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of
+pain--drive fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the mind and
+fill the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof
+some potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that, when released by fire,
+doth softly steal within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the
+captured sentinels of care and grief.
+
+"These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke, like
+incense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile of the
+sea."
+
+There are some people so constituted that there is no room in the heaven
+of their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread their
+wings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest. Such men would
+hold Shakespeare responsible for what Falstaff said about "sack," and
+for Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety.
+
+There is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: "In the presence
+of human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless."
+
+John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense of humor.
+He preached a sermon on "The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes." He insisted
+that they were caused by the wickedness of man, and that the only way to
+cure them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
+
+The man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in danger of
+falling into the pit of Absurdity.
+
+The Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,
+contributes his part to the discussion.
+
+He took a text from John, as follows: "He that committeth sin is of the
+devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose
+the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the
+devil."
+
+According to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed
+sin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is not a
+metaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand with words.
+He stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth,
+but a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a physical
+body, and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.
+
+According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the
+beginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the
+beginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the
+Creator of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of
+the devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies,
+and Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil--that is to say, the
+grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost "blasphemous."
+
+The Doctor also tells us "that Jesus believed as much in the personality
+of the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter."
+
+That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be
+true, that Christ believed in a personal devil--a devil with whom he had
+conversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and
+endeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below.
+
+Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed
+in thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary
+Magdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or,
+rather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might
+go into a drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man.
+
+I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that
+some devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.
+
+Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the
+integrity of the New Testament.
+
+The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New
+Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says:
+
+"The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,
+shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the
+authority of God's law."
+
+How does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial
+intellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd
+and persevering?
+
+If the devil has an "imperial intellect," why does he attempt the
+impossible?
+
+Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the
+devil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and
+mend.
+
+Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems
+to be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the "Arch Enemy of God"--of
+that "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the
+church"--the Doctor says:
+
+"The devil may be conceded to be sincere."
+
+It has been said:
+
+"An honest God is the noblest work of man," and it may now be added: A
+sincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.
+
+But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the
+Doctor says that he "cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver
+lectures" (like myself, I suppose), "edit a newspaper" (like the editor
+of the _Telegram_), "or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his
+servants to do these things for him."
+
+There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting
+(I quote from the _Telegram's_ report):
+
+"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of the
+Bible--_not the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures_--is
+operating to overcome all these works."
+
+I take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have said
+about Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I give it
+here:
+
+"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have
+infinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has
+died for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that
+great and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my admiration and my
+tears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. He
+was regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites,
+who have, in all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and
+manhood out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have
+been his friend, and should he come again he will not find a better
+friend than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation
+I have a different feeling."
+
+I have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither have I
+mentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to
+thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have manfully advocated the
+right of free speech, and who have upheld the _Telegram_ in the course
+it has taken.
+
+I thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel quite
+grateful to those who have failed to say unkind words. Epithets are
+not arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice
+illogical.
+
+And, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist that
+orthodox Christianity did not come with "tidings of great joy," but with
+a message of eternal grief.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+New York, February 5, 1892.
+
+
+
+
+SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.
+
+
+     *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis
+     Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.
+
+_Question_. Have you read an article in the _Western Watchman_, entitled
+"Suicide of Judge Normile"? If so, what is your opinion of it?
+
+_Answer._ I have read the article, and I think the spirit in which it
+is written is in exact accord with the creed, with the belief, that
+prompted it.
+
+In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but of
+Henry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had been
+shocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no right "to
+feel special concern in the life or death of either," for the reason,
+"that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as infidels and
+scoffers."
+
+According to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on
+the direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the _Watchman_ is to be
+believed, Catholics have no right to have special concern for the fate
+of such people, even after their death.
+
+The church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the lost--that
+it was trying in every way to convert the infidels and save the
+scoffers--that it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the fold
+than for the one that had strayed. We have been told that God so loved
+infidels and scoffers, that he came to this poor world and gave his life
+that they might be saved. But now we are told by the _Western Watchman_
+that the church, said to have been founded by Christ, has no right to
+feel any special concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.
+
+Possibly the _Watchman_ only refers to the infidels and scoffers who
+were once Catholics.
+
+If the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a Christian;
+that is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from grace and not only
+denied his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that he did not
+know him; that he never had made his acquaintance. And yet, this same
+Peter was taken back and became the rock on which the Catholic Church is
+supposed to rest.
+
+Are the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ, when
+they publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of one who
+left the church and who died in his sins?
+
+The _Watchman_, in order to show that it was simply doing its duty, and
+was not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as follows: "A warm
+personal friendship existed between D'Arcy and Normile and the managers
+of this paper." What would the _Watchman_ have said if these men had
+been the personal enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm
+personal friends, once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers
+of the _Watchman_, "warm personal friends" of the dead, had no right to
+feel any special concern about these friends in the flames of perdition.
+One would think that pity had changed to piety.
+
+Another wonderful statement is that "both of these men determined to go
+to hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there
+was a heaven."
+
+Admitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good place, and
+that hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be, unpleasant, why
+should any sane man unalterably determine to go to hell? It is hard to
+think of any reason, unless he was afraid of meeting those Catholics in
+heaven who had been his "warm personal friends" in this world. The truth
+is that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or any other country. The
+truth is that Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that
+the Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that
+it is the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that
+they were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their "warm
+personal friends."
+
+It is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile "studied"
+to convince themselves "that there was no God, that they went back to
+Paganism and lived among the ancients," and "that they soon revelled
+in the grossness of Paganism." If they went back to Paganism, they
+certainly found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and earth with
+deities. The Catholics have only three, while the Pagans had hundreds.
+And yet there were some very good Pagans. By associating with Socrates
+and Plato one would not necessarily become a groveling wretch. Zeno was
+not altogether abominable. He would compare favorably, at least, with
+the average pope. Aristotle was not entirely despicable, although wrong,
+it may be, in many things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He
+perceived the beauty of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and
+joy. He did not teach his disciples to revel in grossness, although his
+maligners have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he uttered
+some very sublime and generous sentiments. Among other things, he said
+this: "When we say that we should love Romans, but not foreigners, we
+destroy the bond of universal brotherhood and drive from our hearts
+charity and justice."
+
+Suppose a Pagan had written about "two warm personal friends" of his,
+who had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said this:
+"Although our two warm personal friends have both died by their own
+hands, and although both have gone to the lowest hell, and are now
+suffering inconceivable agonies, we have no right to feel any special
+concern about them or about their sufferings; and, to speak frankly, we
+care nothing for their agonies, nothing for their tears, and we mention
+them only to keep other Pagans from joining that blasphemous and
+ignorant church. Both of our friends were raised as Pagans, both were
+educated in our holy religion, and both had read the works of our
+greatest and wisest authors, and yet they fell into apostasy, and
+studied day and night, in season and out of season, to convince
+themselves that a young carpenter of Palestine was in fact, Jupiter,
+whom we call Stator, the creator, the sustainer and governor of all."
+
+It is probable that the editor of the _Watchman_ was perfectly
+conscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a sense of
+religious duty could induce any man to attack the character of a "warm
+personal friend," and to say that although the friend was in hell, he
+felt no special concern as to his fate.
+
+The _Watchman_ seems to think that it is hardly probable or possible
+that a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of every religion
+feel substantially in this way. It is probable that the Mohammedan is
+of the opinion that no sane believer in the religion of Islam could
+possibly become a Catholic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I do
+not know.
+
+Now, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history of
+his church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword, of
+philosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the "Bride of
+God," and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may reasonably
+come to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the best possible
+church in this, the best possible of all worlds.
+
+It would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history of
+superstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The
+truth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no matter
+whether they are for or against the Catholic creed. All intelligent
+people are intellectually hospitable. Every man who knows something of
+the operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that his wish has
+not, to his knowledge, influenced his judgment. He may admit that his
+wish has influenced his speech, but he must certainly know that it has
+not affected his judgment.
+
+In other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of solitaire and
+really believe that he has won the game. No matter what the appearance
+of the cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost or won. So, men
+may say that their judgment is a certain way, and they may so affirm in
+accordance with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the declaration
+can affect the real judgment. So, a man must know whether he believes a
+certain creed or not, or, at least, what the real state of his mind
+is. When a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural, in the
+miraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for
+granted that he is telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me
+that the man could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he
+does not know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does
+not believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the
+Scriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly
+believe every word he says.
+
+I admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women who
+believe what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,
+undoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.
+
+Let us give to others the liberty which we claim for ourselves.
+
+The _Watchman_ seems to think that unbelief, especially when coupled
+with what they call "the sins of the flesh," is the lowest possible
+depth, and tells us that "robbers may be devout," "murderers penitent,"
+and "drunkards reverential."
+
+In some of these statements the _Watchman_ is probably correct. There
+have been "devout robbers." There have been gentlemen of the highway,
+agents of the road, who carried sacred images, who bowed, at holy
+shrines for the purpose of securing success. For many centuries the
+devout Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand and Isabella
+were great robbers. A great many popes have indulged in this theological
+pastime, not to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the _Watchman_ is
+right. There is nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with
+devotion.
+
+There have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless impelled
+by a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent. David, with
+dying breath, advised his son to murder the old friends of his father.
+He certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without
+remorse, and Calvin burned his "warm personal friend" to gain the
+applause of God. Philip the Second was a murderer, not penitent, because
+he deemed it his duty. The same may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of
+thousands of others.
+
+Robert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly virtuous,
+and yet I like him better than I do those who planned and carried into
+bloody execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
+
+Undoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California cut the
+throat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at the same
+time that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for her prayers.
+He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He made a motion for
+a new trial. This was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the
+executive refused to interfere. Then he became penitent and experienced
+religion. On the scaffold he remarked that he was going to heaven; that
+his only regret was that he would not meet the woman he had murdered,
+as she was not a Christian when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be
+penitent.
+
+An old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer the last
+sacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must forgive all
+his enemies. "I have no enemies," said the dying man, "I killed the last
+one three weeks ago." Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.
+
+So, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and I might
+add, honest and generous.
+
+Some good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a hospitable
+glass, and there have been priests who used the blood of the grape for
+other than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good Catholic in his
+day, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the world this couplet:
+
+     "Who loves not woman, wine and song,
+     Will live a fool his whole life long."
+
+The _Watchman_, in effect, says that a devout robber is better than an
+infidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a freethinker, in the
+sight of God.
+
+Another curious thing in this article is that after sending both men to
+hell, the _Watchman_ says: "As to their moral habits we know nothing."
+
+It may then be taken for granted, if these "warm personal friends" knew
+nothing against the dead, that their lives were, at least, what the
+church calls moral. We know, if we know anything, that there is no
+necessary connection between what is called religion and morality.
+Certainly there were millions of moral people, those who loved mercy
+and dealt honestly, before the Catholic Church existed. The virtues were
+well known, and practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning
+brain of an Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the _Auto da
+fé_ delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of people died
+for the right, before the wrong organized the infallible church.
+
+But why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to say
+harsh and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of death with
+the thorns of hatred? Suppose the editor of the _Watchman_ had died, and
+Judge Normile had been the survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have
+attacked the unreplying dead?
+
+Henry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and I
+was his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my admiration and
+respect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly intelligent man, well
+informed on many subjects, of varied reading, possessed of a clear and
+logical mind, a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things in
+literature and art, and the noble things in life. He gave his opinions
+freely, but without the least arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing
+that others should enjoy the privilege of differing with him. He was, so
+far as I could perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others,
+free and manly in his bearing, "of most excellent fancy," and a most
+charming and agreeable companion.
+
+According, however, to the _Watchman_, such a man is far below a "devout
+robber" or a "penitent murderer." Is it possible that an assassin like
+Ravillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire; and that all
+the Catholic robbers and murderers who retain their faith, give greater
+delight to God than the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have filled
+the world with intellectual light?
+
+Possibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the _Watchman_ is in
+error, and possibly there may be for the erring, even in another world,
+some asylum besides hell.
+
+Judge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid of
+the future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own hand. Can
+anything be more pitiful--more terrible? How can a man in the flowing
+tide and noon of life destroy himself? What storms there must have
+been within the brain; what tempests must have raved and wrecked; what
+lightnings blinded and revealed; what hurrying clouds obscured and hid
+the stars; what monstrous shapes emerged from gloom; what darkness fell
+upon the day; what visions filled the night; how the light failed; how
+paths were lost; how highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one
+thought--the thought of death--swift, compassionate and endless--became
+the insane monarch of the mind.
+
+Standing by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it is far
+better to pity than to revile--to kiss the clay than curse the man.
+
+The editor of the _Watchman_ has done himself injustice. He has not
+injured the dead, but the living.
+
+I am an infidel--an unbeliever--and yet I hope that all the children of
+men may find peace and joy. No matter how they leave this world, from
+altar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with crime, I
+hope that good may come to all.
+
+R. G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+
+
+IS SUICIDE A SIN?
+
+
+     * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.
+
+Col. Ingersoll's First Letter.
+
+I DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it
+is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow,
+more failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In
+civilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many
+fail. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the
+country a man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help,
+but in the city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In
+the roar of the streets, his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only
+friend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so
+the poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and
+falls asleep.
+
+To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and
+suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts
+and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want;
+support it by beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to
+whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why
+should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones
+dead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the
+future have for him?
+
+Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life
+is of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others,
+why should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden
+to those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that God made
+us and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our duty to remain
+until he called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What
+pleasure can it give God to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the
+quivering flesh slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is
+this a festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A
+little morphine would give him sleep--the agony would be forgotten and
+he would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.
+
+If God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine and why
+should doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of God? No one,
+except a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition.
+Why should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning
+building, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet
+through his brain or a dagger in his heart? Would it give God pleasure
+to see him burn? When did the man lose the right of self-defence?
+
+So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and
+ruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should
+he live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others,
+with grief and pain, with agony and tears?
+
+Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still
+his heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the
+ache of toil. The dead have no masters.
+
+So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against
+her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that
+will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes
+of dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds
+broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying
+from horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door
+of death.
+
+Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide--cases
+in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.
+
+As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man
+honestly decides that death is best--best for him and others--and acts
+upon the decision, why should he be blamed?
+
+Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may
+have lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some
+men fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two
+fires--the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take
+the chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their
+belief, between two fires--the flames of the fagot that could burn but
+for a few moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they
+chose the flames of the fagot.
+
+Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and
+pangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot afford to call the
+suicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or
+that Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was
+not a craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who
+felt that they had reached the end---that the journey was done, the
+voyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man
+who commits suicide, who "does the thing that ends all other deeds,
+that shackles accident and bolts up change" is not lacking in physical
+courage.
+
+If men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,
+in hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the
+stains of dishonor; they would not live in filth and want, in poverty
+and hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can
+be accounted for only by the fear of death or "of something after."
+
+Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He
+knew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that "at the bottom of
+every river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger,
+Liberty sat and smiled." He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed
+himself to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said: "There is
+this blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits
+innumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in
+which I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death."
+
+To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman law
+persons found guilty of certain offences were not only destroyed,
+but their blood was polluted and their children became outcasts. If,
+however, they died before conviction their children were saved. Many
+committed suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards.
+Although guilty of great crimes they had enough of honor, of manhood,
+left to save their innocent children. This was not cowardice.
+
+Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their
+property. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose
+proportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of
+frenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart--the
+light fading from their lives--seek the refuge of death.
+
+Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways--who mangle their
+throats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take
+poisons that torture like the rack--such persons must be insane. But
+those who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and
+against, and who decide that death is best--the only good--and then
+resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full
+possession of their minds.
+
+Life is not the same to all--to some a blessing, to some a curse, to
+some not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some
+with the keenest joy and some with indifference.
+
+Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number
+of suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the
+hand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural
+death. A belief in eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such
+believers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the
+future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have
+less hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox
+religion has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to
+murder their children and many thousands to destroy themselves and
+others.
+
+It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill
+themselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is
+forgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.
+
+I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the
+twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.
+
+The law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is
+cruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful
+suicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so
+persecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of
+death, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man
+seeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take
+extra pains and precautions to make death certain.
+
+This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and
+enforced by ignorance and cruelty.
+
+When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and
+narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death,
+why should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?
+
+Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take
+gods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my
+estimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world.
+People should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for
+other worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our
+sufferings and our duties are here.
+
+The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law
+as to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent
+suicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and
+its penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.
+
+We should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every
+suicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient
+cause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each
+other. There is no space between--no room for chance. Given a certain
+heart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary
+result. If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must
+by education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value
+of the average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart--do away with
+false pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help
+our fellows without degrading them. We must make industry--useful work
+of all kinds--honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our
+charity--a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned to
+really reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done,
+but we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the
+sick. Why should they despise the mentally weak--the diseased in brain?
+
+Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances--of
+conditions--and we do as we must.
+
+This great truth should fill the heart with pity for the failures of our
+race.
+
+Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide; that
+in olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove a stake
+through his body, and then took his property from his children and gave
+it to the State.
+
+If Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox religion
+rests upon suicide--that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without
+suicide the whole world would have been lost.
+
+If Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the
+Jews without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed
+them to take his life.
+
+If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death
+with knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not
+say that he committed suicide?
+
+There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed the
+Jews to kill him, then he consented to his own death--refused, though
+perfectly able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in fact, a
+suicide.
+
+We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there
+shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and
+women will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.
+
+To the hopelessly imprisoned--to the dishonored and despised--to those
+who have failed, who have no future, no hope--to the abandoned, the
+brokenhearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and
+women--how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!
+
+And even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome deliverer.
+Death is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed
+long--when we are weary--when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk,
+for the cool kisses of the night--when the senses are dull--when
+the pulse is faint and low--when the mists gather on the mirror
+of memory--when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly
+perceived--when the future has but empty hands--death is as welcome as a
+strain of music.
+
+After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal
+happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by
+no dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and
+forever.
+
+The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in
+spite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and stagger
+and crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is
+that so few of the miserable are brave enough to die--that so many are
+terrified by the "something after death"--by the spectres and phantoms
+of superstition.
+
+Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic
+snows--how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea--how they
+linger in famine--how they fight disaster and despair! On the crumbling
+edge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full of hope
+and courage.
+
+But many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are
+disheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and
+give the earth their blood.
+
+They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or
+blame--we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.
+
+One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming
+and loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous
+impulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and
+so sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he
+thought was wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be
+merciful in our judgments.
+
+All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the
+malignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the
+ignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances
+and conditions--sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in
+passion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of
+insanity--raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out
+the light of life.
+
+Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane
+they should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be
+reasoned with, calmed and assisted.
+
+R. G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.
+
+IN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that
+"under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself."
+
+This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and
+the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of
+self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the
+gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that
+it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience.
+Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes--worse than the
+murder of another.
+
+The first question, then, is:
+
+Has a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?
+
+A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer--his agony is intense--his
+suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken.
+Is this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the
+cancer so that it might feed on the quiverering flesh of this victim?
+
+This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no
+use to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use
+to his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is
+rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to
+sleep.
+
+Has he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to
+take refuge in sleep?
+
+If there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure in the
+sufferings of men--that he gloats over the agonies of his children. If
+there be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power, lessen the
+evils of life.
+
+So I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer--a burden to himself
+and others, useless in every way--has the right to end his pain and pass
+through happy sleep to dreamless rest.
+
+But those who have answered me would say to this man: "It is your duty
+to be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift
+of God. You hold it in trust and you have no right to end it. The cancer
+is the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it with food."
+
+Take another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the rest
+of the passengers have escaped--gone in the lifeboats--and he is left
+alone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He cannot
+swim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the ship he
+burns. In any event he can live but a few moments.
+
+Those who have answered me, those who insist that under no circumstances
+a man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,
+"Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly Father
+that you be clothed in flame--that you slowly roast--that your eyes be
+scorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is
+not your own, only the agony is yours."
+
+I would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to
+burning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right
+of choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing yourself to be
+burned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier
+death.
+
+Let us suppose another case:
+
+A man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is about to
+be tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pine
+into his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make
+the preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is
+about to suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of
+poison. He knows that he can take it and in one moment pass beyond their
+power, leaving to them only the dead body.
+
+Is this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it, until
+the savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good
+God? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is it the duty of this man
+to allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to
+defend himself? Is it the will of God that he die by torture? What would
+any man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room
+for discussion?
+
+If the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped
+the tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another
+world be tortured forever by an infinite savage?
+
+Suppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition
+flourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends,
+many frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of
+pain.
+
+Those who loved God, who had been "born twice," would take a fellow-man
+who had been convicted of "heresy," lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,
+secure his arms and legs with chains, fasten him to the earth so that
+he could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his
+stomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his
+body. Then these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking
+food and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.
+
+Now, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within his hand
+a dagger, would it excite the wrath of the "good God," if with one quick
+stroke he found the protection of death?
+
+To this question there can be but one answer.
+
+In the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have
+the right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was
+under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the ship and
+perish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by
+savages; to drop the dagger and endure the "mercies" of the church.
+
+If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their
+lives, then I was right when I said that "under many circumstances a man
+has a right to kill himself."
+
+_Second_.--I denied that persons who killed themselves were physical
+cowards. They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their
+misfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the
+dagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps
+from some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not and
+cannot be a physical coward.
+
+The basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and
+when that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die,
+no matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist.
+The suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears. He seeks the very
+thing that cowardice endeavors to escape.
+
+So, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a
+coward, but a reasonable man.
+
+It must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He is to
+bear the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just
+as certainly there is no physical cowardice.
+
+Is the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer
+a coward?
+
+Is the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is
+the man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages or
+"Christians" a coward?
+
+_Third_.--I also took the position that some suicides were sane; that
+they acted on their best judgment, and that they were in full possession
+of their minds. Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the right to
+take his life, and, if, under such circumstances, he does take his life,
+then it cannot be said that he was insane.
+
+Most of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground
+that suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it
+is the greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must
+have been sane. So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal
+admit that he was sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapable of
+committing a crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who have
+passionately asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion
+admitted that those who killed themselves were sane.
+
+They agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that "some who have
+committed suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds."
+
+It seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to
+be true: _First_, that under some circumstances a man has the right
+to take his life; _second_, that the man who commits suicide is not a
+physical coward, and, _third_, that some who have committed suicide were
+at the time sane and in full possession of their minds.
+
+_Fourth_.--I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is the
+foundation of the Christian religion.
+
+I still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to protect
+himself without injuring his assailants--that having that power it was
+his duty to use it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own
+death and was guilty of suicide.
+
+To this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the redemption
+of man, that he made an atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas
+about redemption and atonement are born of a belief in the "fall
+of man," on account of the sins of our first "parents," and of the
+declaration that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of
+sin." The foundation has crumbled. No intelligent person now believes in
+the "fall of man"--that our first parents were perfect, and that their
+descendants grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.
+
+Intelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of
+history, man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage,
+whose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and
+delight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but
+not all the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from the den to the
+home, the palace, has been long and painful, through many centuries
+of suffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages of discovery,
+invention, self-sacrifice and thought.
+
+Redemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest. The
+idea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain
+of sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and
+scribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put him to death that
+he might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from
+the consequences of his own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and
+natural brain.
+
+In no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be found.
+
+But if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times because
+it was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a religion of
+kindness, of good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and
+ceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he believed to be right and
+true, he suffered death, then he was a noble man--a benefactor of his
+race. But if he were God there was no need of this. The Jews did not
+wish to kill God. If he had only made himself known all knees would have
+touched the ground. If he were God it required no heroism to die. He
+knew that what we call death is but the opening of the gates of eternal
+life. If he were God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need to
+suffer pain. He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.
+
+Even the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from
+these conclusions--from these arguments--and so, instead of attacking
+the arguments, they attack the man who makes them.
+
+_Fifth_.--I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt to
+commit suicide a crime.
+
+It seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately
+longs for death should be pitied, instead of punished--helped rather
+than imprisoned.
+
+A despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman
+without home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with
+tear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night
+leaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of
+death. She is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the
+authorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb and
+locked in a felon's cell.
+
+To me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages would
+enforce.
+
+_Sixth_.--In this discussion a curious thing has happened. For several
+centuries the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very good
+thing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the
+hour of death. They have in spite of the truth, declared that all
+the great unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,
+surrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair. Think of the thousands
+and thousands of clergymen who have described the last agonies of
+Voltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from
+play to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep
+as serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks, reaches
+the sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the
+noblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a star that meets
+the morning.
+
+At the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer
+could meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could
+smilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him killed to meet him
+in heaven.
+
+But the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the
+creed of the church in power could not die in peace. God would see to it
+that his last moments should be filled with the insanity of fear--that
+with his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for
+pardon.
+
+This has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering me,
+declare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death--that
+to avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience, they gladly
+and cheerfully put out the light of life. It is now said that infidels
+believe that death is the end--that it is a dreamless sleep--that it is
+without pain--that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for gods,
+or heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing for
+the day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they carelessly
+throw it down.
+
+The infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide.
+
+This certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having
+forced the clergy to contradict themselves.
+
+_Seventh_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+unbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real
+conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+far above himself.
+
+In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being superior to himself?
+
+What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.
+What is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will
+increase the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness
+in its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases
+or preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.
+
+It is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands
+out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his
+well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+
+So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so
+far as what he considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is
+swayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really
+intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for
+him. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for
+him is good for others--for all the world.
+
+It is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the supernatural is
+necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who
+has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give
+the same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of
+all morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in
+the supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural
+heavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed
+by the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
+governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are
+obedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by
+alms.
+
+Right and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just as
+criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments.
+
+_Eighth_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+unbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real
+conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+far above himself.
+
+In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being superior to himself?
+
+What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.
+What is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will
+increase the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness
+in its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases
+or preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.
+
+It is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands
+out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his
+well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+
+So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so
+far as what he Considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is
+swayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really
+intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for
+him. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for
+him is food for others--for all the world.
+
+It is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is
+necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who
+has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give
+the same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of
+all morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in
+the supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural
+heavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed
+by the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
+governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are
+obedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by
+alms.
+
+Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.
+
+Murder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten
+Commandments.
+
+_Eighth_.--Many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of
+letters who have answered me, have said that suicide is the worst of
+crimes--that a man had better murder somebody else than himself. One
+clergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in
+an act of sin, and therefore he had better kill another person. Probably
+he would commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.
+
+I do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To say
+that it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd.
+The man about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for him to
+kill another man, who wishes to live?
+
+To my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than
+another. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw away your
+own money than steal the money of another--better kill yourself if you
+wish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.
+
+The clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the
+greatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is wonderful
+how much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men.
+Wonderful the amount of their information about other worlds and how
+limited their knowledge is of this.
+
+There may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor deny. I
+am honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid enough to admit
+that the question is beyond the limitations of my mind. Yet I think I
+know as much on that subject as any human being knows or ever knew, and
+that is--nothing. I do not say that there is not another world, another
+life; neither do I say that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems
+to me that every sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is
+an infinitely good God and another world, then the infinitely good
+God will be just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If this
+infinitely good God loves his children in this world, he will love them
+in another. If he loves a man when he is alive, he will not hate him the
+instant he is dead.
+
+If we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God, he knew
+exactly what we would do--the temptations that we could and could not
+withstand--knew exactly the effect that everything would have upon us,
+knew under what circumstances we would take our lives--and produced
+such circumstances himself. It is perfectly apparent that there are many
+people incapable by nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable of
+preserving their mental poise in stress and strain of disaster, disease
+and loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to
+despair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes like a flash
+of lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so strong,
+so vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all
+obligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains except a fierce and
+wild desire to die. Thousands and thousands become moody, melancholy,
+brood upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until reason
+abdicates and frenzy takes possession of the soul. If there be an
+infinitely wise and powerful God, all this was known to him from the
+beginning, and he so created things, established relations, put in
+operation causes and effects, that all that has happened was the
+necessary result of his own acts.
+
+_Ninth_.--Nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have been
+exceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I
+never uttered. They have declared that I have advised people who were in
+trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men who
+have lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not good in
+health, to kill themselves at once, without taking into consideration
+any duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or society.
+
+No man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he
+is able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if he can
+possibly be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those he
+loves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery, between child
+and want, as long as he can be of any use, it is his duty to remain.
+
+I believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things,
+in bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against
+adversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having
+confidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints
+and shards, and in changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things
+to good. I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and good
+nature.
+
+Of the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the world--of
+all that live. My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the
+phantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no
+fear.
+
+The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality
+of the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope--hope for all of the
+children of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor
+the immortality of the soul. For many years I have said 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.
+
+What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.
+
+After all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People do not
+kill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All wish to be
+happy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for
+friends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of self-destruction
+never enters the human mind.
+
+The oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,
+the robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point, the
+ministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal pain;
+these are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless
+down to death.
+
+It will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to die. Of
+this there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that
+any god takes any interest in the affairs of men--that any sides with
+the right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the
+oppressed. Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has
+allowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and
+murdered by his enemies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of
+prayers have been uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague,
+pestilence and famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to
+overwhelm?
+
+_Tenth_.--Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that so many men, so
+many women endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that so
+many, in spite of "age, ache and penury," guard with trembling hands the
+spark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last; that
+the helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that the
+exiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live
+on; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the
+future has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of death.
+
+It is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short
+journey. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon,
+the twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what
+he cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of madness,
+or in the calm of thought and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the
+serenity of death.
+
+Let us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing of any
+realm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of life.
+Let us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the suffering,
+the despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by grief and shame,
+by misery and want, by chance and fate until their only friend is death.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+SUICIDE A SIN.
+
+     * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Do you think that what you have written about suicide has
+caused people to take their lives?
+
+_Answer._ No, I do not. People do not kill themselves because of the
+ideas of others. They are the victims of misfortune.
+
+_Question_. What do you consider the chief cause of suicide?
+
+_Answer._ There are many causes. Some individuals are crossed in love,
+others are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still others are diseased
+in body and frequently in mind. There are a thousand and one causes that
+lead up to the final act.
+
+_Question_. Do you consider that nationality plays a part in these
+tragedies?
+
+_Answer._ No, it is a question of individuals. There are those whose
+sorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace
+of death.
+
+_Question_. Do you, then, advise suicide?
+
+_Answer._ No, I have never done so, but I have said, and still say, that
+there are circumstances under which it is justifiable for a person to
+take his life.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the law which prohibits
+self-destruction?
+
+_Answer._ That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a man was
+tried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I think he
+pleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible crime of
+the poor wretch, sentenced him to the penitentiary for two years.
+This was an outrage; infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our
+civilization.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the frequency of
+suicides?
+
+_Answer._ By no means. After this, persons in New York who have made up
+their minds to commit suicide will see to it that they succeed.
+
+_Question_. Have your opinions been in any way modified since your first
+announcement of them?
+
+_Answer._ No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No one can
+answer my articles on suicide, because no one can satisfactorily refute
+them. Every man of sense knows that a person being devoured by a cancer
+has the right to take morphine, and pass from agony to dreamless sleep.
+So, too, there are circumstances under which a man has the right to end
+his pain of mind.
+
+_Question_. Have you seen in the papers that many who have killed
+themselves have had on their persons some article of yours on suicide?
+
+_Answer._ Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that I do not
+think these persons were led to kill themselves by reading the articles.
+Many people who have killed themselves were found to have Bibles or
+tracts in their pockets.
+
+_Question_. How do you account for the presence of the latter?
+
+_Answer._ The reason of this is that the theologians know nothing.
+The pious imagine that their God has placed us here for some wise and
+inscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us when he wants us. All
+this is idiotic. When a man is of no use to himself or to others, when
+his days and nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should he
+remain to endure them longer?
+
+
+SUICIDE A SIN.
+
+     * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.
+
+COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he had read
+the Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.
+
+_Answer._ Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an interview had with
+the reverend gentleman.
+
+Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same views
+still. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion among the
+orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected when anything
+sensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common
+sense with his theology, and, of course this has displeased the truly
+orthodox.
+
+Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of supernatural
+religion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. The orthodox
+ministers take the ground that an infinite Being created man, put him
+on the earth and determined his days. They say that God desires every
+person to live until he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that
+we are all on guard and must remain so until relieved by a higher
+power--the superior officer.
+
+The trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It proves
+that God kills every person who dies as we say, "according to nature."
+It proves that we ought to say, "according to God." It proves that God
+sends the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence, for the purpose of
+killing people. It proves that all diseases and all accidents are his
+messengers, and that all who do not kill themselves, die by the act,
+and in accordance with the will of God. It also shows that when a man is
+murdered, it is in harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When God
+created the man who was murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and
+when he made the man who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he
+would do. So that the murder was the act of God.
+
+Can it be said that God intended that thousands should die of famine and
+that he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain? Can we say that
+he intended that thousands of innocent men should die in dungeons and on
+scaffolds?
+
+Is it possible that a man, "slowly being devoured by a cancer," whose
+days and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to himself and
+a burden to others, is carrying out the will of God? Does God enjoy
+his agony? Is God thrilled by the music of his moans--the melody of his
+shrieks?
+
+This frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every human
+being a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous but it is
+idiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the universe.
+
+Now, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our minds,
+and have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of the world's
+history, then we know--if we know anything--that man has taken his
+chances, precisely the same as other animals. He has been destroyed
+by heat and cold, by flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless
+diseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his
+strength, his foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He
+has defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has
+he been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever happened in
+nature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure the human race.
+
+Consequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is not in any
+way affected by a supposed obligation to the Infinite.
+
+All theological considerations must be thrown aside because we see and
+know that the laws of life are the same for all living things--that when
+the conditions are favorable, the living multiply and life lengthens,
+and when the conditions are unfavorable, the living decrease and life
+shortens. We have no evidence of any interference of any power superior
+to nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and
+obligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here in
+this world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to any
+phantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a man under
+certain circumstances has the right to end his life.
+
+If he can be of no use to others--if he is of no use to himself--if
+he is a burden to others--a curse to himself--why should he remain? By
+ending his life he ends his sufferings and adds to the well-being
+of others. He lessens misery and increases happiness. Under such
+circumstances undoubtedly a man has the right to stop the pulse of pain
+and woo the sleep that has no dream.
+
+I do not think that the discussion of this question is of much
+importance, but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and a
+sensible position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister, but
+like a man.
+
+When wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised. I feel
+then that there is a little light in the East, possibly the dawn of a
+better day.
+
+I congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave and
+philosophic words.
+
+There is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to avoid
+death, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has this right,
+then the theologians must admit that God, in making his decrees, took
+into consideration the result of such actions. Now, if God knew that
+while most men would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his decrees
+were so made that they would harmonize with the acts of those who would
+avoid death, can we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take
+into consideration the acts of those who would seek death? Let us
+remember that all actions, good, bad and indifferent, are the necessary
+children of conditions--that there is no chance in the natural world in
+which we live.
+
+So, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and that all
+have the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be charitable.
+
+When some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret, frenzied
+with fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life, let us have
+pity--Let us be generous.
+
+
+SUICIDE AND SANITY.
+
+     * New York Press, 1897. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first question, to
+which Colonel Ingersoll replied:
+
+_Answer._ No. At the same time I believe that a great majority of
+suicides are insane. There are circumstances under which suicide is
+natural, sensible and right. When a man is of no use to himself, when he
+can be of no use to others, when his life is filled with agony, when the
+future has no promise of relief, then I think he has the right to cast
+the burden of life away and seek the repose of death.
+
+_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?
+
+_Answer._ I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with suicide. Of
+nearly all things death is the most feared. And the man who voluntarily
+enters the realm of death cannot properly be called a coward. Many men
+who kill themselves forget the duties they owe to others--forget their
+wives and children. Such men are heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are
+not cowards.
+
+_Question_. When is the suicide of the sane justifiable?
+
+_Answer._ To escape death by torture; to avoid being devoured by a
+cancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love; when you can be of
+no use to others or to yourself; when life is unbearable; when in all
+the horizon of the future there is no star of hope.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that any suicides have been caused or
+encouraged by your declaration three years ago that suicide sometimes
+was justifiable?
+
+_Answer._ Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated, invented,
+suicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever
+taken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts, you cannot induce
+a man to kill himself. The man who takes his own life does not go to
+others to find reasons or excuses.
+
+_Question_. On the whole is the world made better or worse by suicides?
+
+_Answer._ Better by some and poorer by others.
+
+_Question_. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most educated of
+civilized nations, leads the world in suicides?
+
+_Answer._ I do not know that Germany is the most educated; neither do I
+know that suicide is more frequent there than in all other countries. I
+know that the struggle for life is severe in Germany, that the laws
+are unjust, that the government is oppressive, that the people are
+sentimental, that they brood over their troubles and easily become
+hopeless.
+
+_Question_. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not killing of born
+idiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth equally so?
+
+_Answer._ There is no relation between the questions--between suicides
+and killing idiots. Suicide may, under certain circumstances, be right
+and killing idiots may be wrong; killing idiots may be right and suicide
+may be wrong. When we look about us, when we read interviews with
+preachers about Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.
+
+_Question_. Should suicide be forbidden by law?
+
+_Answer._ No. A law that provides for the punishment of those who
+attempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are willing to meet
+death are not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law would be to
+make the person who had concluded to kill himself a little more careful
+to succeed.
+
+_Question_. What is your belief about virtue, morality and religion?
+
+_Answer._ I believe that all actions that tend to the well-being of
+sentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe that real religion
+consists in doing good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in
+the uniformity of nature; that matter will forever attract matter in
+proportion to mass and distance; that, under the same circumstances,
+falling bodies will attain the same speed, increasing in exact
+proportion to distance; that light will always, under the same
+circumstances, be reflected at the same angle; that it will always
+travel with the same velocity; that air will forever be lighter than
+water, and gold heavier than iron; that all substances will be true
+to their natures; that a certain degree of heat will always expand the
+metals and change water into steam; that a certain degree of cold will
+cause the metals to shrink and change water into ice; that all atoms
+will forever be in motion; that like causes will forever produce like
+effects, that force will be overcome only by force; that no atom
+of matter will ever be created or destroyed; that the energy in the
+universe will forever remain the same, nothing lost, nothing gained;
+that all that has been possible has happened, and that all that will be
+possible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all thoughts, dreams,
+fancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of all successes
+and all failures, are in nature; that there is in the universe no power
+superior to nature; that man is under no obligation to the imaginary
+gods; that all his obligations and duties are to be discharged and done
+in this world; that right and wrong do not depend on the will of an
+infinite Being, but on the consequences of actions, and that these
+consequences necessarily flow from the nature of things. I believe that
+the universe is natural.
+
+
+
+
+IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?
+
+
+     *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and
+     Avarice Triumphant," published in the North American Review,
+     June, 1891.
+
+THERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy individual
+and national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They
+mistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening of the world.
+To them everything has changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and
+women have ceased to be beautiful. They are dyspeptic, and it gives them
+the greatest pleasure to say that the art of cooking has been lost.
+
+For many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. They
+lifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step in
+advance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and goodness
+and self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. They doubted
+the morality of well-dressed people--considered it impossible that the
+prosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on the limbs of a dead
+tree, they hooted the obsequies of spring, believing it would come no
+more.
+
+There are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and slander
+the land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of Cassandra
+mission, and they really seem to enjoy their work. They honestly believe
+that every kind of crime is on the increase, that the courts are
+all corrupt, that the legislators are bribed, that the witnesses are
+suborned, that all holders of office are dishonest; and they feel like a
+modern Marius sitting amid the ruins of all the virtues.
+
+It is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are wrong.
+They do not want arguments, because they will not heed them. They need
+medicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a physician.
+
+General Hawkins is probably right when he says that some fraudulent
+shoes, some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels were sold to the
+Government during the war; but we must remember that there were millions
+and millions of as good shoes as art and honesty could make, millions of
+the best muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most magnificent
+ships ever built, sold to the Government during the same period. We must
+not mistake an eddy for the main stream. We must also remember another
+thing: there were millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the
+shoes, to use the muskets, and to man the ships.
+
+So it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land subsidies
+voted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured by bribery
+is preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is not the
+slightest evidence tending to show that the general policy of hastening
+the construction of railways through the Territories of the United
+States was corruptly adopted--not the slightest. At the same time,
+it may be that some members of Congress were induced by personal
+considerations to vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the
+policy was wise, and through the granting of the subsidies thousands
+of miles of railways were built, and these railways have given to
+civilization vast territories which otherwise would have remained
+substantially useless to the world. Where at that time was a wilderness,
+now are some of the most thriving cities in the United States--a
+great, an industrious, and a happy population. The results have
+justified the action of Congress.
+
+It is also true that some railroads have been "wrecked" in the United
+States, but most of these wrecks have been the result of competition. It
+is the same with corporations as with individuals--the powerful combine
+against the weak. In the world of commerce and business is the great
+law of the survival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary
+institutions. They have but little regard for the rights of one another.
+Some fortunes have been made by the criminal "wrecking" of roads, but
+even in the business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the
+companies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard, other
+things being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.
+
+Many railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to develop the
+country through which they passed. While they waited for immigration,
+interest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took place; then
+reorganization. By that time the country had been populated; towns were
+springing up along the line; increased business was the result. On the
+new bonds and the new stock the company paid interest and dividends.
+Then the ones who first invested and lost their money felt that they had
+been defrauded.
+
+So it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of crimes--easy
+to indict the entire nation, and at the same time impossible to
+substantiate one of the charges. Everyone who knows the history of
+the Star-Route trials knows that nothing was established against the
+defendants, knows that every effort was made by the Government to
+convict them, and also knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men,
+never suspected of being improperly influenced, after having heard
+the entire case, pronounced the defendants not guilty. After this, of
+course, any one can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who cares
+nothing for the facts, that the defendants were all guilty.
+
+It may also be true that some settlers in the far West have taken timber
+from the public lands, and it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws
+and regulations were such that where a settler was entitled to take up a
+certain amount of land he had to take it all in one place; he could not
+take a certain number of acres on the plains and a certain number of
+acres in the timber. The consequence was that when he settled upon
+the land--the land that he could cultivate--he took the timber that he
+needed from the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I
+suppose it may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass and
+possibly drank the Government's water.
+
+It will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been "watered" in
+this country. And what is the crime or practice known as watering stock?
+
+For instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth, we will
+say, $3,000,000--able to pay interest on that sum at the rate of six per
+cent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued has nothing to do
+with the value of the thing represented by the stock. If there was
+one share of stock representing this railroad, it would be worth three
+million dollars, whether it said on its face it was one dollar or one
+hundred dollars. If there were three million shares of stock issued on
+this property, they would be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter
+whether it said on this stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a
+thousand dollars, the share would be worth one dollar--no more, no less.
+If any one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value
+of the thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if a
+pie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each piece is
+worth twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do
+not increase the value of the pie.
+
+If, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find its
+relation to the thing represented by all the stock.
+
+It can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The reason
+is perfectly clear. Corporations are like individuals--they combine.
+Unfortunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out
+against the abuses of trusts. It is natural for corporations to defend
+themselves--natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a profitable
+pool; and when strong corporations combine, little corporations suffer.
+It is with corporations as with fishes--the large eat the little; and it
+may be that this will prove a public benefit in the end. When the large
+corporations have taken possession of the little ones, it may be that
+the Government will take possession of them--the Government being the
+largest corporation of them all.
+
+It is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but certainly
+no one imagines that the people of this country build houses for the
+purpose of having them burned, or that they erect hotels having in view
+the broiling of guests. Men act as they must; that is to say, according
+to wants and necessities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper
+than in an old one, money is scarcer, interest higher, and consequently
+people build cheaply and take the risks of fire. They do not do this
+on account of the Constitution of the United States, or the action of
+political parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free.
+In the hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of
+fire as of famine.
+
+The destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be greatly
+regretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The people
+of America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and
+building houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the aesthetic side
+of their natures. Nature has been somewhat ruthless with us. The storms
+of winter breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer,
+have tended, it may be, to harden somewhat the sensibilities; in
+consequence of which they have allowed their horses and cattle to bear
+the rigors of the same climate.
+
+It is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in the
+interest of the present, by those who care nothing for the future. All
+these things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against; but we
+must not hint, provided we are lovers of the Republic, that such things
+are caused by free institutions.
+
+General Hawkins asserts that "Christianity has neither preached nor
+practiced humanity towards animals," while at the same time "Sunday
+school children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a terrible
+thing it is to break the Sabbath;" that "museum trustees tremble with
+pious horror at the suggestion of opening the doors leading to the
+collections on that day," and that no protests have come "from lawmakers
+or the Christian clergy." Few people will suspect me of going out of my
+way to take care of Christianity or of the clergy. At the same time, I
+can afford to state the truth. While there is not much in the Bible with
+regard to practicing humanity toward animals, there is at least this:
+"The merciful man is merciful to his beast." Of course, I am not
+alluding now to the example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle
+of the Egyptians with hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of
+their owners.
+
+In regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much like
+other people.
+
+So, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against cruelty to
+animals, but enough have protested against it to secure the enactment of
+laws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry Bergh, who did as much
+good as any man who has lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded
+in his efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds
+and thousands of professing Christians--probably millions. Let us be
+honest.
+
+It is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction between
+offences and virtues, to regard the little as the important--that is to
+say, to invert the pyramid.
+
+It is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true that the
+fringe of civilization has been composed of many low and cruel men. It
+is true that the red man has been demoralized by the vices of the white.
+It is a frightful fact that, when a superior race meets an inferior, the
+inferior imitates only the vices of the superior, and the superior those
+of the inferior. They exchange faults and failings. This is one of the
+most terrible facts in the history of the human race.
+
+Nothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians. There is,
+however, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when we lived along
+the Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors that they could ever
+go beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with the Indians drove them back
+but a few miles. In a little while, through immigration, the white race
+passed the line, and another treaty was made, forcing the Indians still
+further west; yet the tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while
+again the line was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was
+made, pushing the Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the
+Illinois, across the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at
+every step some treaty made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of
+the white men who made it to foretell the growth of the Republic.
+
+But the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" made a great
+mistake when he selected the last thirty years of our national life as
+the period within which the Americans have made a change of the national
+motto appropriate, and asserted that now there should be in place of the
+old motto the words, "Plundering Made Easy."
+
+Most men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one should be
+blind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his country. He
+should call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing his
+country into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease and the defects
+be corrected. He should do what he can to make his country great,
+prosperous, just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate the
+faults of your country for the purpose of calling attention to your own
+virtues, or to earn the praise of a nation that hates your own. This is
+what might be called wallowing in the gutter of reform.
+
+The thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have passed
+from virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact,
+the most glorious years in the life of this or of any other nation.
+
+In 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national institution.
+It was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave
+Law was in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in nearly all
+of the Northern States it was a crime to give food, shelter, or raiment
+to a man or woman seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal,
+hospitality a misdemeanor, and charity a crime. Men and women were sold
+like beasts. Mothers were robbed of their babes while they stood under
+our flag. All the sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the
+bloody feet of brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery
+fixed in law and creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of
+honest men were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by
+Northern lovers of the "Union."
+
+Now, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto could
+properly have been, "Plundering Made Easy." Those were the days of
+brutality, and the brutality was practiced to the end that we might make
+money out of the unpaid labor of others.
+
+It is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the then
+condition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North and South,
+was responsible. There were many years of compromise, and thousands of
+statesmen, so-called, through conventions and platforms, did what they
+could to preserve slavery and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted
+politics, demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and poisoned
+our literature. The Websters, Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary
+expedients for principles, and really thought that the progress of
+the world could be stopped by the resolutions of a packed political
+convention. Yet these men, mistaken as they really were, worked and
+wrought unconsciously in the cause of human freedom. They believed that
+the preservation of the Union was the one important thing, and that it
+could not be preserved unless slavery was protected--unless the North
+would be faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution. For
+the purpose of keeping the nation true to the Union and false to itself,
+these men exerted every faculty and all their strength. They exhausted
+their genius in showing that slavery was not, after all, very bad,
+and that disunion was the most terrible calamity that could by any
+possibility befall the nation, and that the Union, even at the price of
+slavery, was the greatest possible blessing. They did not suspect that
+slavery would finally strike the blow for disunion. But when the time
+came and the South unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as
+to the infinite value of the Union gave to our flag millions of brave
+defenders.
+
+Now, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty years of
+"Brutality and Avarice."
+
+The Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain one
+people for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's protest
+against disunion. The Constitution of the United States is now the
+charter of human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with the idea that
+all men are entitled to liberty have been repealed. The black man knows
+that the Constitution is his shield, that the laws protect him, that our
+flag is his, and the black mother feels that her babe belongs to her.
+Where the slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse. The dealer
+in human flesh is now a teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a
+child, he develops and illumines the mind of a pupil.
+
+There is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their thoughts.
+Lips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the history of our
+world has so much been done for education.
+
+The amount of business done in a country on credit is the measure of
+confidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it may truthfully
+be said that, where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an
+exceedingly large per cent. of the people are regarded as honest. In our
+country a very large per cent. of contracts are faithfully fulfilled.
+Probably there is no nation in the world where so much business is
+done on credit as in the United States. The fact that the credit of the
+Republic is second to that of no other nation on the globe would seem to
+be at least an indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.
+
+The author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" seems to be of the
+opinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who fight for
+the right are not degraded--they are ennobled. When men face death and
+march to the mouths of the guns for a principle, they grow great; and if
+they come out of the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur; they
+become better men, better citizens, and they love more intensely than
+ever the great cause for the success of which they put their lives in
+pawn.
+
+The period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great victory
+the sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the greatest principles
+involved in the Revolution were almost forgotten.
+
+During the Civil war the North grew great and the South was educated.
+Never before in the history of mankind was there such a period of moral
+exaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest light on
+the pages of our history became famous then. Against the few who were
+actuated by base and unworthy motives let us set the great army that
+fought for the Republic, the millions who bared their breasts to
+the storm, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who did their duty
+honestly, nobly, and went back to their wives and children with no
+thought except to preserve the liberties of themselves and their
+fellow-men.
+
+Of course there were some men who did not do their duty--some men false
+to themselves and to their country. No one expects to find sixty-five
+millions of saints in America. A few years ago a lady complained to the
+president of a Western railroad that a brakeman had spoken to her with
+great rudeness. The president expressed his regret at the incident, and
+said among other things: "Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is
+for us to get gentlemen to fill all those places."
+
+It is hardly to be expected that the American people should excel all
+others in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have been very busy
+taking possession of the Republic. It is hard to overestimate the
+courage, the industry, the self-denial it has required to fell the
+forests, to subdue the fields, to construct the roads, and to build the
+countless homes. What has been done is a certificate of the honesty and
+industry of our people.
+
+It is not true that "one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals
+seem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: 'Successful wrong is
+right.'" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are
+rich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how
+they use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the
+golden calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much
+of the gold of the calf--and this distinction is seen by the calves
+themselves.
+
+Nowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than
+here. There are millions of business men--merchants, bankers, and men
+engaged in all trades and professions--to whom reputation is as dear as
+life.
+
+There is one thing in the article "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"
+that seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the
+statement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the
+shortcomings of the American people can be accounted for by the fact
+that our Government is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a
+French official complained to a friend that he was compelled to employ
+twenty clerks to do the work done by four under the empire, and on being
+asked the reason answered: "It is the Republic." He was told that, as
+he was the head of the bureau, he could prevent the abuse, to which he
+replied: "I know I have the power; but I have been in this position for
+more than thirty years, and am now too old to learn another occupation,
+and I _must_ make places for the friends of the deputies." And then it
+is added by General Hawkins: "_And so it is here_."
+
+It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the
+Indians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the
+law, or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from
+the consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading
+of the history of the world will show that nations under the control of
+kings and emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the
+bad we do by the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should
+not be made responsible for our vices.
+
+Is it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization of men?
+Is a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men?
+In order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor?
+Is human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great
+Republic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to
+abdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the
+rights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing
+to become a serf, a servant or a slave?
+
+Is it possible that "high character is impracticable" in this Republic?
+Is this the experience of the author of "Brutality and Avarice
+Triumphant"? Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays no
+dividends"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best market in
+the world for books, for music, and for art?
+
+There is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping
+slanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best
+country, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the
+average, better clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They
+are fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of
+the forces of nature, than any other of the children of men. Here
+the burdens of government are lightest, the responsibilities of the
+individual greatest, and here, in my judgment, are to be worked out the
+most important problems of social science.
+
+Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than
+you will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has
+crowned; we stand erect.
+
+Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national
+failing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great
+calamities open the hearts and hands of all.
+
+Here you will find democracy in the family--republicanism by the
+fireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the
+government. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines
+himself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into
+the family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and
+wives are beginning to be equals.
+
+The highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.
+By this standard America stands first among nations.
+
+There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country--an
+amplitude--that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our
+faults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.
+
+No American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an
+enemy of the great Republic.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
+
+     * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.
+
+
+_Question_. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your
+lectures by the _Cincinnati Gazette_ and the _Catholic Telegraph_?
+
+_Answer._ I have read portions of the articles.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of them?
+
+_Answer._ Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a distinct
+subject of thought.
+
+_Question_. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the
+_Gazette_ against your lecture on Moses?
+
+_Answer._ The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance
+prevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one could
+reasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the advantage
+of telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a
+few mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also shows that,
+although God was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms; but
+whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the
+slave is not stated. The article has nothing to do with my position. I
+am perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called Egypt; that
+the Jews were once slaves; that they got away and started a little
+country of their own. All this may be true without proving that they
+were miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or
+that God went into partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have
+been a man by the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned
+into snakes.
+
+A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of
+his remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought
+a stone from the mountain. He requested the children to pass in line
+before him so that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone.
+After they had all seen it he said: "You will as you grow up meet people
+who will deny that there ever was a flood, or that God saved Noah and
+the animals in the ark, and then you can tell them that you know better,
+because you saw a stone from the very mountain where the ark rested."
+
+That is precisely the kind of argument used in the _Gazette_. The
+article was written by some one who does not quite believe in the
+inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of
+hell, would probably say so.
+
+I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca,
+such a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made known his will
+to Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the _Gazette_ would
+answer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore
+God must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general
+as Washington, but I do not admit that God kept him from being shot. I
+admit that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not
+admit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses,
+but I do not admit that God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I
+admit that there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit
+that he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the
+river, and put his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit
+that the article appeared in the _Gazette_, but I do not admit that it
+amounted to anything whatever.
+
+_Question_. Did you notice what the _Catholic Telegraph_ said about your
+lecture being ungrammatical?
+
+_Answer._ Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the _Catholic Telegraph_
+occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as brilliant as
+Ingersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After making this
+statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault
+with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes the following sentence:
+"It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive
+language." After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman
+says on the subject of grammar.
+
+In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more
+remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one
+exception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except
+in an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the
+usual amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile,
+ignorant and malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a
+gentleman who worships a God who will damn dimpled babes to an eternity
+of fire, simply because they were not baptized.
+
+_Question_. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history
+and the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the
+Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and
+has been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in
+science. What do you think of that statement?
+
+_Answer._ I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is
+substantially like the gentleman's theology, depending simply upon
+persistent assertion.
+
+I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil
+animals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed
+that God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then
+produced other forms. Agassiz was the last scientist of any standing who
+ventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.
+
+_Question_. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists
+regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?
+
+_Answer._ I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look
+upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the
+same relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this
+opinion. The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley,
+Tyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others
+in the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened
+orthodox gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a
+rule, both are exceedingly small.
+
+_Question_. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that
+God went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no
+such passage in the Bible.
+
+_Answer._ Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the
+twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before thee,
+which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from
+before thee."
+
+_Question_. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your ideas
+are generally received with favor?
+
+_Answer._ Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers
+as there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the
+majority.
+
+_Question_. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make
+strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going
+to hear you?
+
+_Answer._ Yes; in many places ministers have advised their congregations
+to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The
+result has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever failed to
+publicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance agents.
+
+_Question_. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?
+
+_Answer._ Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters,
+threatening me with the wrath of God, and calling my attention to the
+uncertainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These letters are
+nearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say,
+full of hatred and impertinence.
+
+_Question_. Don't you think it remarkable that the _Telegraph_, a
+Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from
+such an orthodox sheet as the _Gazette_?
+
+_Answer._ I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All
+superstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few
+years all the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of
+liberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of arrogance,
+of theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic
+quoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the same men would have
+taken great pleasure in swearing that the Catholic Church was the
+worst possible organization. That church should forever hold its peace.
+Wherever it has had authority it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced
+Italy to a hand organ, Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to
+contempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of
+man has withered. The recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew
+should make a priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre
+should make a Protestant careful.
+
+I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces
+Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor Emmanuel. I
+could not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the point that no one is able to judge
+of these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?
+
+_Answer._ I do not think it is necessary to understand Hebrew to decide
+as to the probability of springs gushing out of dead bones, or of
+the dead getting out of their graves, or of the probability of ravens
+keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I hardly think it is necessary
+even to be a Greek scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils
+actually left a person and took refuge in the bodies of swine. Besides,
+if the Bible is not properly translated, the circulation ought to stop
+until the corrections are made. I am not accountable if God made a
+revelation to me in a language that he knew I never would understand. If
+he wishes to convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do
+it in English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to
+it.
+
+_Question_. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible owing to
+mistranslations?
+
+_Answer._ No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to help
+out the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it
+been correctly translated. Nearly all of the _mistakes_, as Mr. Weller
+would say, have been made for the purposes of harmony.
+
+_Question_. How many errors do you suppose there are?
+
+_Answer._ Well, I do not know. It has been reported that the American
+Bible Society appointed a committee to hunt for errors, and the said
+committee returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand. And
+thereupon the leading men said, to correct so many errors will destroy
+the confidence of the common people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.
+Thereupon it was decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other
+day that a very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that
+they knew they were publishing a book full of errors.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?
+
+_Answer._ My first objection is, it is not true.
+
+Second.--It is not inspired.
+
+Third.--It upholds human slavery.
+
+Fourth.--It sanctions concubinage.
+
+Fifth.--It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as the
+utter destruction of old men and little children.
+
+Sixth.--After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it commands the
+generals to divide the girls among the soldiers and priests. Beyond
+this, infamy has never gone. If any God made this order I am opposed to
+him.
+
+Seventh.--It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems to, from the
+following:
+
+"Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord
+of all that he hath, both of _man_ and _beast_, and of the field of his
+possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy
+unto the Lord."
+
+"None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be redeemed; but
+shall surely be put to death." (Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus,
+28th and 29th verses.)
+
+Eighth.--Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and unjust.
+Think of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of killing a man for
+picking up sticks on Sunday!
+
+Ninth.--It upholds polygamy.
+
+Tenth.--It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of
+any science whatever.
+
+Eleventh.--It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches a man to kill
+his own wife if she differs with him on religion; that is to say, if he
+is orthodox. There is no book in the world in which can be found so much
+that is thoroughly despicable and infamous. Of course there are some
+good passages, some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old
+Testament, few and far between.
+
+Twelfth.--It treats woman like a beast, and man like a slave. It fills
+heaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and grief.
+
+_Question_. Do you think any book inspired?
+
+_Answer._ No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if it had been
+the intention of this God to give to man an inspired book, he should
+have waited until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare as the
+instrument. Then there never would have been any doubt as to the
+inspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more goodness, more
+intelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of this world.
+
+_Question_. What do you think as a freethinker of the Sunday question in
+Cincinnati?
+
+_Answer._ I think that it is a good thing to have a day of recreation, a
+day of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and theology. I am
+in favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness on Sunday. I am
+opposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy will take half
+the pains to make the people intelligent that they do to make them
+superstitious, the world will soon have advanced so far that it can
+enjoy itself without excess. The ministers want Sunday for themselves.
+They want everybody to come to church because they can go no where
+else. It is like the story of a man coming home at three o'clock in the
+morning, who, upon being asked by his wife how he could come at such a
+time of night, replied, "The fact is, every other place is shut up." The
+orthodox clergy know that their churches will remain empty if any other
+place remains open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,
+orthodox clergy, because I have great respect for Unitarians and
+Universalists.
+
+
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+
+     * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.
+
+_Question_. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have been indicted
+in the State of Delaware for the crime of blasphemy?
+
+_Answer._ Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is the
+Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington
+to the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in which he
+almost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against me, for
+what he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter
+of fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God, provided
+always that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by
+the orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is
+conditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take
+from a man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and
+he suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is
+because he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless,
+he cannot in any way be affected by what anybody else may do; and,
+consequently, a sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the
+principle of the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy
+was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able
+to take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind
+which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. Injustice is the
+only blasphemy that can be committed, and justice is the only true
+worship. Man can sin against man, but not against God. But even if man
+could sin against God, it has always struck me that an infinite being
+would be entirely able to take care of himself without the assistance of
+a Chief Justice. Men have always been violating the rights of men, under
+the plea of defending the rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so
+perfectly delightful to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,
+and get God in his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has
+taken this occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in
+heaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified
+copy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help
+satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little ahead.
+
+The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That
+lecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; and,
+to tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what a Yankee
+would call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for me to tell
+whether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I have
+no personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In fact he has done me
+a favor. He has called the attention of the civilized world to certain
+barbarian laws that disfigure and disgrace the statute books of most
+of the States. These laws were passed when our honest ancestors were
+burning witches, trading Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and
+molasses, branding people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with
+hot irons, putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the
+name of God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We
+have outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter
+of fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the States,
+like Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though there might be
+trouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware, without getting one
+man broad enough, sensible enough, and honest enough, to do justice. I
+hardly think it would be possible in any State to select a jury in the
+ordinary way that would convict any person charged with what is commonly
+known as blasphemy.
+
+All the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of being
+blasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as
+blasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists; the Baptists, the
+Presbyterians, and the Catholics all united in denouncing the Quakers,
+and they all together denounced the Unitarians--called them blasphemers
+because they did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ--the
+Unitarians only insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary,
+that one infinite being could do all the business, and that the other
+two were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.
+
+Then all the churches united to call the Universalists blasphemers.
+I can remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with a thousand times
+more horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this strange thing about
+the history of theology--nobody has ever been charged with blasphemy
+who thought God bad. For instance, it never would have excited any
+theological hatred if a man had insisted that God would finally damn
+everybody. Nearly all heresy has consisted in making God better than the
+majority in the churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never
+will forgive the Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn
+anybody eternally. Now, all these sects have charged each other with
+blasphemy, without anyone of them knowing really what blasphemy is. I
+suppose they have occasionally been honest, because they have mostly
+been ignorant. It is said that Torquemada used to shed tears over the
+agonies of his victims and that he recommended slow burning, not because
+he wished to inflict pain, but because he really desired to give the
+gentleman or lady he was burning a chance to repent of his or her sins,
+and make his or her peace with God previous to becoming a cinder.
+
+The root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious persecution
+is the idea that some certain belief is necessary to salvation. If
+orthodox Christians are right in this idea, then persecution of all
+heretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right to defend my body
+from attack, surely I should have a like right to defend my soul. Under
+our laws I could kill any man who was endeavoring, for example, to take
+the life of my child. How much more would I be justified in killing
+any wretch who was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a
+doctrine which, if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of
+that child's soul?
+
+If the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is true, no
+infidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be hunted
+from the wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They should not
+be allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to poison the minds of
+women and children; in other words, they should not be allowed to empty
+heaven and fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this country is
+because the Christians of this country do not believe their doctrine.
+The passage from the Bible, "Go ye into all the world and preach the
+Gospel to every creature," coupled with the assurance that, "Whosoever
+believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall
+be damned," is the foundation of most religious persecution. Every
+word in that passage has been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain
+and dungeon. That one passage has probably caused more agony among men,
+women and children, than all the passages of all other books that
+were ever printed. Now, this passage was not in the book of Mark when
+originally written, but was put there many years after the gentleman who
+evolved the book of Mark from his inner consciousness, had passed
+away. It was put there by the church--that is to say, by hypocrisy and
+priestly craft, to bind the consciences of men and force them to come
+under ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that passage has been
+received and believed, and been made binding by law in most countries
+ever since.
+
+What would you think of a law compelling a man to admire Shakespeare, or
+calling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not a statute necessary
+to uphold the reputation of Raphael or of Michael Angelo? Is it possible
+that God cannot write a book good enough and great enough and grand
+enough not to excite the laughter of his children? Is it possible that
+he is compelled to have his literary reputation supported by the State
+of Delaware?
+
+There is another very strange thing about this business. Admitting that
+the Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his work than are the
+sun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for disbelieving this
+Bible we are to be damned forever, we ought to be equally damned for
+a mistake in geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man to go
+to heaven who swears that the earth is flat, and damning a fellow who
+thinks it is round, but who-has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to
+me to be perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this view of it, it
+is just as necessary to be right on the subject of the equator as on the
+doctrine of infant baptism.
+
+_Question_. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge Comegys? Is he
+a personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him? Have you any idea what
+reason he had for attacking you?
+
+_Answer._ I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside of the
+political reason I have intimated, I do not know why he attacked me. I
+once delivered a lecture entitled "What must we do to be Saved?" in the
+city of Wilmington, and in that lecture I proceeded to show, or at
+least tried to show, that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about
+Christianity, as it is understood in Delaware; and I also endeavored to
+show that all men have an equal right to think, and that a man is only
+under obligations to be honest with himself, and with all men, and that
+he is not accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed
+with--otherwise it might be Judge Comegys himself would be damned--but
+that he is only accountable for the use he makes of what little mind
+he has received. I held that the safest thing for every man was to be
+absolutely honest, and to express his honest thought. After the delivery
+of this lecture various ministers in Wilmington began replying, and
+after the preaching of twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which,
+considered as a reply, was a success, I presume it occurred to these
+ministers that the shortest and easiest way would be to have me indicted
+and imprisoned.
+
+In this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and time-honored way.
+I believe it is, as it always has been, easier to kill two infidels than
+to answer one; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that is
+now slowly rising over the intellectual world, it must be done by brute
+force, and by brute force alone. And it must be done pretty soon,
+or they will not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they have a
+majority of the civilized world on their side to-day. No heretic ever
+would have been burned if he could have been answered. No theologian
+ever called for the help of the law until his logic gave out.
+
+I suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get his right
+to be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to decide which creed
+is the correct one? How did he dare to pit his little brain against the
+word of God? He may say that his father was a Presbyterian. But what
+was his grandfather? If he will only go back far enough he will, in all
+probability, find that his ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go
+back a little farther still, that they were barbarians; that at one time
+they were naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right
+had they to change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the
+same kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented
+any change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and they
+would have said: "Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon his
+body shall be held guilty of blasphemy;" and all the ancestors of this
+Judge, and of these ministers, would have said, Amen!
+
+What right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He must have
+been a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might have changed
+his religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is incapable of
+any improvement in a religious point of view? Does he think that the
+Presbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now, but that they will
+forever be the best that God can make? Is there to be no advancement?
+Has there been no advancement? Are the pillory and the whipping-post to
+be used to prevent an excess of thought in the county of New Castle? Has
+the county ever been troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms
+of any such disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge,
+and my principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his
+race. He will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no
+other Chief Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his
+illustrious example. The next Judge will say: "So far as I am concerned,
+the Lord may attend to his own business, and deal with infidels as he
+may see proper." Thus great good has been accomplished by this Judge,
+which shows, as Burns puts it, "that a pot can be boiled, even if the
+devil tries to prevent it."
+
+_Question_. How will this action of Delaware, in your opinion, affect
+the other States?
+
+_Answer._ Probably a few other States needed an example exactly of this
+kind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say: "Delaware is perfectly
+ridiculous," and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New Jersey might have
+done the same thing. Maryland will exclaim: "Did you ever see such a
+fool!" And yet I was threatened in that State. The average American
+citizen, taking into consideration the fact that we are blest, or
+cursed, with about one hundred thousand preachers, and that these
+preachers preach on the average one hundred thousand sermons a
+week--some of which are heard clear through--will unquestionably hold
+that a man who happens to differ with all these parsons, ought to have
+and shall have the privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one
+hundred thousand clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who
+happens to disagree with them, without calling on the army or navy to do
+it, especially when it is taken into consideration that an infinite
+God is already on their side. Under these circumstances, the average
+American will say: "Let him talk, and let the hundred thousand preachers
+answer him to their hearts' content." So that in my judgment the result
+of the action of Delaware will be: First, to liberalize all other
+States, and second, finally to liberalize Delaware itself. In many of
+the States they have the same idiotic kind of laws as those found in
+Delaware--with the exception of those blessed institutions for the
+spread of the Gospel, known as the pillory and the whipping-post. There
+is a law in Maine by which a man can be put into the penitentiary
+for denying the providence of God, and the day of judgment. There are
+similar laws in most of the New England States. One can be imprisoned in
+Maryland for a like offence.
+
+In North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain
+religious belief; and so in several other of the Southern States.
+In half the States of this Union, if my wife and children should be
+murdered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a court of justice
+to tell who the murderer was. You see that, for hundreds of years,
+Christianity has endeavored to put the brand of infamy on every
+intellectual brow.
+
+_Question_. I see that one objection to your lectures urged by Judge
+Comegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach of the
+peace--to riot and bloodshed.
+
+_Answer._ Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people who love
+their enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that those disciples
+who, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be smitten also, will
+get up a riot. He seems to imagine that good Christians feel called upon
+to violate the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's reputation.
+If Christianity produces people who cannot hear their doctrines
+discussed without raising mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is
+stopped being preached the better.
+
+There is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a Christian
+for His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob for such a
+purpose. Christians can teach and preach their views to their hearts'
+content. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal hell, if it gives
+them the least pleasure, and they may bang their Bibles as long as their
+fists last, but no infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop
+them, or put them down by brute force, or even by an appeal to the
+law, and I would advise Judge Comegys, if he wishes to compliment
+Christianity, to change his language and say that he feared a breach of
+the peace might be committed by the infidels--not by the Christians. He
+may possibly have thought that it was my intention to attack his State.
+But I can assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,
+I shall take some State of my size. There is no glory to be won in
+wringing the neck of a "Blue Hen!"
+
+_Question_. I should judge, Colonel, that you are prejudiced against the
+State of Delaware?
+
+_Answer._ Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many splendid people
+in Delaware, and since I have known more of their surroundings, my
+admiration for them has increased. They are, on the whole, a very good
+people in that State. I heard a story the other day: An old fellow in
+Delaware has been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering peaches
+there in their season--a kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just as
+the season closed, he was leaning sadly against a tree, "Boys!" said he,
+"I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years from now." The boys
+asked, "What for?" The old fellow replied: "Just to see how damned
+little they'd get the baskets by that time." And it occurred to me that
+people who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be as
+quiet as possible on the subject of blasphemy.
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+
+     * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.
+
+_Question_. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' compliments to you
+before the Delaware grand jury?
+
+_Answer._ Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies upon the law
+passed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to me as though he
+had died about the date of the law, had risen from the dead, and had
+gone right on where he had left off. I presume he is a good man, but
+compared with other men, is something like his State when compared with
+other States.
+
+A great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge Comegys
+as unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in
+exact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip-ping-post,
+and the suppression of free speech are the natural fruit of the Old and
+New Testament.
+
+Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, without
+the protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the protection
+of law, and all church property would be taxed like other property. The
+Sabbath would be no longer a day devoted to superstition. Everyone
+could express his honest thought upon every possible subject. Everyone,
+notwithstanding his belief, could testify in a court of justice. In
+other words, honesty would be on an equality with hypocrisy.
+Science would stand on a level, so far as the law is concerned, with
+superstition. Whenever this happens the end of orthodox Christianity
+will be near.
+
+By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness. I
+mean no natural virtue, because all the natural virtues existed and had
+been practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions before Christ was
+born. There certainly were some good men even in the days of Christ in
+Jerusalem, before his death.
+
+By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a good man
+dying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By
+Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the next world a
+few will be forever happy, while the many will be eternally miserable.
+Christianity, as I have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and
+sustained by law. It was founded by the sword that is to say, by physical
+force,--and must be preserved by like means.
+
+In many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to testify.
+In the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were living, he
+could not be a witness, although he had more brains than the State of
+Delaware has ever produced, or is likely to produce as long as the laws
+of 1740 remain in force. Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could
+be fined and imprisoned in the State of Delaware, and, in fact, in many
+States of this Union.
+
+Christianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of infamy on
+the brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter "C," standing for
+"convict" every brain that is great enough to discover the frauds. I
+have no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good and sincere Christian. I
+believe that he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the Jewish
+Jehovah. I believe that every word he said was in exact accord with
+the spirit of orthodox Christianity. Against this man personally I have
+nothing to say. I know nothing of his character except as I gather it
+from this charge, and after reading the charge I am forced simply to
+say, Judge Comegys is a Christian.
+
+It seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,
+notwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge. Although
+the Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of blessed memory;
+although he had quoted to them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became
+a Judge simply because of his hatred of the English colonists, simply
+because he despised liberty in the new world; notwithstanding the fact
+that I could have been punished with insult, with imprisonment, and with
+stripes, and with every form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a
+few years ago I could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through
+the tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance even
+in the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one
+lecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely refused to
+indict me.
+
+The grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply by
+making a report in which they declared that my lecture had "no parallel
+in the habits of respectable vagabondism" that I was "an arch-blasphemer
+and reviler of God and religion," and recommended that should I ever
+attempt to lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware blasphemy
+is a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. I have no doubt that
+every member of the grand jury signing this report was entirely honest;
+that he acted in exact accord with what he understood to be the demand
+of the Christian religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report
+is exceedingly mild and gentle.
+
+I have now in the house, letters that passed between certain bishops in
+the fifteenth century, in which they discussed the propriety of cutting
+out the tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some of the bishops
+were in favor of and some against it. One argument for cutting out their
+tongues which seemed to have settled the question was, that unless the
+tongues of heretics were cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen
+who were burning them, by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would
+commend these letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand
+jury.
+
+I want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against Judge
+Comegys or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would, raised in
+Delaware, in the shadow of the whipping-post and the pillory. We
+must remember that Delaware was a slave State; that the Bible
+became extremely dear to the people because it upheld that peculiar
+institution. We must remember that the Bible was the block on which
+mother and child stood for sale when they were separated by the
+Christians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as the title-pages to
+slavery, and as the book of all books that gave the right to masters to
+whip mothers and to sell children.
+
+There are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping and
+standing in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain crimes
+and sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from the
+penitentiary are furnished by the State with a dark jacket plainly
+marked on the back with a large Roman "C," the letter to be of a light
+color. This they are to wear for six months after being discharged,
+and if they are found at any time without the dark jacket and the
+illuminated "C" they are to be punished with twenty lashes upon the bare
+back. The object, I presume, of this law, is to drive from the State all
+the discharged convicts for the benefit of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
+Maryland--that is to say, other Christian communities. A cruel people
+make cruel laws.
+
+The objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a punishment
+which cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who administers the
+punishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded as the person who
+receives it. I am opposed to any kind of punishment that cannot be
+administered by a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment
+everywhere. It should be taken from the asylums and penitentiaries, and
+any man who would apply the lash to the naked back of another is beneath
+the contempt of honest people.
+
+_Question_. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced in the New
+York Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a punishment for
+wife-beating?
+
+_Answer._ The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr. Bergh's bill.
+He will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters, who, under the
+same circumstances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they are not
+wife-beaters when they commence the business of beating others, they
+soon will be. I think that wife-beating in great cities could be stopped
+by putting all the wife-beaters at work at some government employment,
+the value of the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The
+trouble now is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely
+poor, so that the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last
+crust out of her own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging for
+the prison here, you will in the first place prevent thousands of wives
+from informing, and in many cases, where the wife would inform, she
+would afterward be murdered by the flogged brute. This brute would
+naturally resort to the same means to reform his wife that the State
+had resorted to for the purpose of reforming him. Flogging would beget
+flogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness of heart. When he reads
+that a wife has been beaten, he says the husband deserves to be beaten
+himself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be the executioner, I imagine you could
+not prove by the back of the man that the punishment had been inflicted.
+
+Another good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the Catholic
+Church. We should also do away with the idea that a marriage is a
+sacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered happy by seeing a
+husband and wife live together, although the husband gets most of his
+earthly enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman should live with
+a man a moment after he has struck her. Just as the idea of liberty
+enlarges, confidence in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will
+diminish. Delaware occupies toward freethinkers precisely the same
+position that a wife-beater does toward the wife. Delaware knows that
+there are no reasons sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently
+these reasons are supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post.
+The whipping-post is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory
+is a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a kind
+of holy and serene delight. I am opposed to the religion of brute force,
+but all these frightful things have grown principally out of a belief in
+eternal punishment and out of the further idea that a certain belief is
+necessary to avoid eternal pain.
+
+If Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn every body
+forever simply for being intellectually honest, surely he ought to
+allow the good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentleman for two
+months. Of course there are thousands and thousands of good people in
+Delaware, people who have been in other States, people who have listened
+to Republican speeches, people who have read the works of scientists,
+who hold the laws of 1740 in utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge
+Comegys and who have a kind of sympathy for the grand jury.
+
+You will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six or seven
+hundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884 will stand
+redeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged from the
+statute book. Delaware has not had the best of opportunities. You must
+remember that it is next to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle
+in the path of progress. It is just beyond Maryland, which is another
+obstacle. I heard the other day that God originally made oysters with
+legs, and afterward took them off, knowing that the people of Delaware
+would starve to death before they would run to catch anything. Judge
+Comegys is the last judge who will make such a charge in the United
+States. He has immortalized himself as the last mile-stone on that road.
+He is the last of his race. No more can be born. Outside of this he
+probably was a very clever man, and it may be, he does not believe
+a word he utters. The probability is that he has underestimated the
+intelligence of the people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that he is
+entirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate him intellectually,
+and overestimate him morally. Nothing could tempt me to do this man
+injustice, though I could hardly add to the injury he has done himself.
+He has called attention to laws that ought to be repealed, and to
+lectures that ought to be repeated. I feel in my heart that he has done
+me a great service, second only to that for which I am indebted to the
+grand jury. Had the Judge known me personally he probably would have
+said nothing. Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in his State
+and sentenced to two months of solitary confinement, the Judge having
+become acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist on
+spending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months he
+would, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy, providing
+he had honor enough to express his honest thought. After all, it is
+all a question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot convince myself
+there is any God who will ever damn a man for having been honest. This
+gives me a certain hope for the Judge and the grand jury.
+
+For two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must have been
+in heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and remarked
+to the angels in the language of the late Adjt. Gen. Thomas: "The eyes
+of all Delaware are upon you."
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.
+
+
+     * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday
+     afternoon, when he answered the question "What Must We Do to
+     Be Saved?" But before doing so he replied to the recent
+     criticisms of city clergymen on his "Talmagian Theology"--
+     Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.
+
+_Ladies and Gentlemen_:
+
+WHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their duty to
+reply for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that I am
+blasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always been considered
+by theologians as a crime. Ministers have always said you will have no
+respect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solemnity is a condition
+precedent to believing anything without evidence. And if you can only
+get a man solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe anything.
+
+In this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I may say
+by way of preface that I have always held him in the highest esteem. He
+struggles, according to his statement, with the problem of my sincerity,
+and he about half concludes that I am not sincere. There is a little
+of the minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always account for a
+difference of opinion by attacking the motive. Now, to him, it makes no
+difference whether I am sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my
+argument be answered? Suppose you could prove that the maker of the
+multiplication table held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times
+ten would be a hundred still.
+
+My sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the argument--not the
+slightest. But this gentleman begins to suspect that I am doing what
+I do for the sake of applause. What a commentary on the Christian
+religion, that, after they have been preaching it for sixteen or
+eighteen hundred years, a man attacks it for the sake of popularity--a
+man attacks it for the purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to
+speak upon this subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my
+fellow-citizens differed with me; and I was denounced as though I had
+been a wild beast. But I have lived to see the majority of the men and
+women of intellect in the United States on my side; I have lived to see
+the church deny her creed; I have lived to see ministers apologize in
+public for what they preached; and a great and glorious work is going
+on until, in a little while, you will not find one of them, unless it
+is some old petrifaction of the red-stone period, who will admit that
+he ever believed in the Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of
+Eternal Agony. The religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the
+intellect of America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go
+to hear infidelity it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the
+orthodox Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They are beginning
+to hold it in contempt.
+
+But this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I attacked
+certain doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain.
+I hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in
+this universe who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who
+denies to any human being the right of reformation, then that God is not
+good, that God is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I
+despise that doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that
+horror from the cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that
+horror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers,
+and sisters. It is a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of
+life and all the hopes of mankind. I despise it.
+
+And the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I admit
+here to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how
+old it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men were inspired
+or not. I have no reverence for what I believe to be false, and in
+determining what is false I go by my reason. And whenever another man
+gives me an argument I examine it. If it is good I follow it. If it is
+bad I throw it away. I have no reverence for any book that upholds human
+slavery. I despise such a book. I have no reverence for any book that
+upholds or palliates the infamous institution of polygamy. I have no
+reverence for any book that tells a husband to kill his wife if she
+differs with him upon the subject of religion. I have no reverence for
+any book that defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have
+no reverence for a God that orders his legions to slay the old and
+helpless, and to whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers
+and babes. I have no reverence for such a book; neither have I any
+reverence for the author of that book. No matter whether he be God or
+man, I have no reverence. I have no reverence for the miracles of the
+Bible. I have no reverence for the story that God allowed bears to tear
+children in pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but I have
+reverence for the truth, for justice, for charity, for humanity, for
+intellectual liberty, and for human progress.
+
+I have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I have
+never met any minister that I thought had brain enough to think for
+himself and for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence for barbarism,
+no matter how ancient it may be, and no reverence for the savagery of
+the Old Testament; no reverence for the malice of the New. And let me
+tell you here to-night that the Old Testament is a thousand times better
+than the New. The Old Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the
+grave. God was satisfied when his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for
+the New Testament--it was reserved for universal benevolence--to rend
+the veil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze of man
+upon the abyss of hell. The New Testament is just as much worse than the
+Old, as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the fashion to say that
+the Old Testament is bad and that the New Testament is good. I have no
+reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my reason;
+no reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my heart;
+and, no matter how old it is, no matter how many have believed it, no
+matter how many have died on account of it, no matter how many live for
+it, I have no reverence for that book, and I am glad of it.
+
+Dr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things with
+infinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy,
+or religious persecution, but that I should "mildly
+suggest"--mildly,--should not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to
+church the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When I meet one I tell
+him, "There is no hell," and he says: "What do you want to hurt our
+feelings for?" He wishes me mildly to suggest that the sun and moon did
+not stop, that may be the bears only frightened the children, and that,
+after all, Lot's wife was only scared. Why, there was a minister in this
+city of Chicago who imagined that his congregation were progressive,
+and, in his pulpit, he said that he did not believe the story of Lot's
+wife--said that he did not think that any sensible man would believe
+that a woman was changed into salt; and they tried him, and the
+congregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And finally he went
+before that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and owned up to
+the chloride of sodium, and said: "I not only take the Bible _cum grano
+salis_, but with a whole barrelful."
+
+My doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so; no need
+of going away around the bush and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly,
+peradventure. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.
+
+I am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well as the
+bad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one word against
+honesty, one word against liberty, one word against charity, one word
+against any institution that is good. I attack the bad, not the good,
+and I would like to have some minister point out in some lecture or
+speech that I have delivered, one word against the good, against the
+highest happiness of the human race.
+
+I have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor of
+liberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in favor of
+progress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one word in favor
+of the bad, and I never expect to.
+
+Dr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in spite of
+us.
+
+Doesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You
+see, you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell--these are the avenues by
+which Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought,
+and you cannot by any possibility help thinking.
+
+Neither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are
+made independently of your will. "But," says this reverend doctor,
+"Whence comes this conception of space?" I can tell him. There is such
+a thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies room--space--and,
+in our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes
+naturally--not supernaturally.
+
+Does the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God for us to
+conceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something.
+We can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say space.
+"But," says this gentleman, "Where do we get the idea of good and bad?"
+I can tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to
+enjoy and the capacity to suffer--every man. Whenever a man enjoys
+himself he calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad.
+The animals that are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the
+hurtful, he calls bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls
+good; those that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good
+ones, he calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is
+out that ministers to him, he says "this is good;" when the storm comes
+and blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his crop,
+he says "this is bad." And all phenomena that affect men well he calls
+good; all that affect him ill he calls bad.
+
+Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect
+in nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That
+is the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man
+could not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and
+the words right and wrong never could have passed human lips. There are
+no supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience--some of them
+from our forefathers, many from experience. A man works--food does not
+come of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in
+the sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a
+revelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it
+than the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen,
+we never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten
+Commandments been given from Mount Sinai.
+
+You go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and
+let a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and
+the hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you
+would see whether he would need a direct revelation from God in order
+to make up his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of
+right and wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think
+for a moment he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite
+of us. I heard a story of a man who said, "No man can think of one thing
+a minute, he will think of something else." Well, there was a little
+Methodist preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute--that he
+could say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing. "Well,"
+said the man, "I'll tell you what I will do. There is the best
+road-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you will just
+say the Lord's Prayer, and not think of another thing." And the little
+fellow shut up his eyes: "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be
+thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done--I suppose you will throw
+in the saddle and bridle?"
+
+I have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some
+fact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of
+thought--that every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown,
+and that some are very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very
+rich. That is my opinion.
+
+Again he asks: "If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any
+one blamed for thinking as he does?" It is not a question of blame, it
+is a question of who is right--a question of who is wrong. Admit that
+every one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought
+is right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.
+Admit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that
+does not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss
+is just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it
+prove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it
+prove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold
+men responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their
+actions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this--the
+right to do anything that does not interfere with another--in other
+words, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this--the right to
+think right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to
+think right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.
+
+The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I
+believe in that theory.
+
+If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct
+interference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is right. It is a
+theory of evolution.
+
+I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came
+from the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in
+science. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed,
+the shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the
+spreading and the growing; and that is as true in every other department
+of the world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not
+account for the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely
+inspired, and it will not do to say God gradually grows. If he is
+infinite now, he knows as much as he ever will. If he has been always
+infinite, he knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible as he knows
+to-day; and, consequently, whatever he said then must be as true now
+as it was then. You see they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with
+religion--a little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the
+supernatural.
+
+Hear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in
+the world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.
+All the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said
+all the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried
+it last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world
+upon its knees implored God to save one life, and the man died. The man
+died! Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it
+was in answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say
+now? What is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: "There is
+prayer and there is rain." Good. "Can he that is himself or any one else
+say there is no possible relation between one and the other?" I do. Let
+us put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any
+one say there is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr.
+Thomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year's crops? And yet
+this gentleman really throws out the idea that there is some possible
+relation between prayer and rain, between rain and health; and he tells
+us that he would have died twenty-five years ago had it not been for
+prayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon certain
+facts--not upon prayer. All the prayer in the world cannot take the
+place of the circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is
+no substitute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take the
+place of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find that he
+eats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This reverend Doctor
+says: "Shall we say that all the love of the unseen world"--how does he
+know there is any love in the unseen world? "and the love of God"--how
+does he know there is any love in God? "heed not the cries and tears of
+earth?"
+
+I do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious
+persecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons,
+of those who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled prayer with
+the clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving
+this God, simply for worshiping this God. And what did God do? Nothing.
+The chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in
+the dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God
+do? Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were
+piled around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did
+God do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and
+thousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands
+to God and implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and
+what did God do?
+
+Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the
+naked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children were sold from
+the arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden
+beneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did God do? Nothing. Human
+beings, his children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and
+what did God do? Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the
+shipwrecked go down in the billows; and what does God do? Nothing. There
+come plague and pestilence and famine. What does God do? Thousands
+and thousands perish. Little children die upon the withered breasts of
+mothers; and what does God do? Nothing.
+
+What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever
+touched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history
+of the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and
+imprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and
+best. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of
+help ever been reached from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe
+it.
+
+Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he
+to tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much
+brain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt--and a doubt is
+born of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church
+to be unorthodox. They have passed on his case and they have found him
+unconstitutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here
+is what he says: "Christianity"--orthodox Christianity I suppose
+he means--"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and
+punishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles
+of the government of God are the same there as here; that character, and
+not profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and Dickens, and
+all others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their
+just rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the
+time, be it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what
+Christianity teaches."
+
+If it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity.
+It never has taught it. Christianity--orthodox Christianity--teaches
+that when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity
+for reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the
+eternal line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion
+in this life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That is
+Christianity. They say: "Now is the accepted time." If you put it off
+until you die, that is too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world
+is that there is no opportunity for reformation in another world. The
+doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord
+Jesus Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in
+the next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail here,
+God in his infinite wisdom will never give you another chance. That
+is orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox Christianity, the
+greatest, the best and the sublimest of the world are now in hell. And
+why is it that they say it is not orthodox Christianity? I have made
+them ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to their attention the
+fact that such men as Darwin, such men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow,
+Laplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in hell, it struck them all at
+once that the company in heaven would not be very interesting with such
+men left out.
+
+And now they begin to say: "We think the Lord will give those men
+another chance." I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine
+expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have
+made them ashamed of their doctrine--and that is glory enough. They will
+let me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine that
+God will treat us as we treat others--I admit that is taught by Matthew,
+Mark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that
+understood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he
+was driven out of the church because he thought God too good to damn
+men forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic
+Church is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon that
+question. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory--that is, a place
+where a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new trial.
+
+Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell
+your congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine
+inspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people
+whether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.
+
+Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever upheld
+polygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor of
+religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether
+you honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the
+bad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think
+and there will not be as much difference between you and myself as you
+imagine.
+
+The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the
+rescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he
+is a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a choice as to the
+manner in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman
+regards modern infidelity as "pitifully shallow" as to its intellectual
+conceptions and as to its philosophical views of the universe and of
+the problems regarding man's place in it and of his destiny. "Pitifully
+shallow!"
+
+What is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception
+is that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern
+conception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms
+all matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has
+been, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe.
+And this is called "pitiful."
+
+What is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the
+universe is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who
+made it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world.
+And they even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in
+which he signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in
+a garden and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of
+infinite wisdom made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he
+would have to drown them. That Being peopled a planet like this with
+men, women and children, knowing that he would have to consign most of
+them to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That
+is an infamous conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception
+of Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall
+and of every other man who has thought. I love to think of the whole
+universe together as one eternal fact. I love to think that everything
+is alive; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy. I love to
+think that when a bud bursts into blossom it feels a thrill. I love to
+have the universe full of feeling and full of joy, and not full of
+simple dead, inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all eternity.
+
+Another thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose
+to banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our
+relations to the present and to the possible future from human thought.
+
+I have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do
+not make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know
+anything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y
+or do not know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of
+heaven. Wait until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble
+then. This is what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of
+life from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it.
+Life is a shadowy strange and winding road on which we travel for a few
+short steps, just a little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love,
+to the low and quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where
+the only salutation is "Good-Night!" Whether there is a good morning I
+do not know, but I am willing to wait.
+
+Let us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for
+the future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who
+happen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of
+Humboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare
+their splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist
+creed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he
+tells me that, "No one has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and
+Darwin are castaways!" Why not? They were not Christians. They did
+not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the
+inspiration of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they
+are castaways. But he says: "No one has the right to say that orthodoxy
+condemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right, and
+who has tried to bless the earth he is raised on." That is what I say,
+but that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man
+in the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of God, or in the
+divinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there
+an orthodox minister in this town now who will stand up and say that an
+honest atheist can be saved? He will not. Let any preacher say it, and
+he will be tried for heresy.
+
+I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment,
+and they cross-examine him, and they say to him:
+
+"Did you believe the Bible?"
+
+"No."
+
+"Did you belong to the church?"
+
+"No."
+
+"Did you take care of your wife and children?"
+
+"Yes?"
+
+"Pay your debts?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Love your country?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Love the whole world?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Never made anybody unhappy?"
+
+"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged
+let them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but," said
+he, "I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity
+of Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the
+existence of God. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine."
+Now, I want to know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with
+that man?
+
+He is sent to hell.
+
+That is their doctrine.
+
+Then the next fellow comes. He says:
+
+"Where did you come from?"
+
+And he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and he says:
+
+"I came from the gallows. I was just hung."
+
+"What were you hung for?"
+
+"Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left. The day
+I was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb."
+
+That is Christianity. And they say to him: "Come in! Let the band play!"
+
+That is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is hanged--there is a
+minister there, and the minister tells him he is all right. All he has
+to do is just to believe on the Lord.
+
+Another objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am scurrilous.
+Scurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he is not
+scurrilous, calls infidels, "donkeys, serpents, buzzards." That is
+simply to show that he is not scurrilous.
+
+Dr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks independently of
+the will; and I propose to prove by him that it does. He is the last
+man in the world to controvert that doctrine--the last man. In spite of
+himself his mind absorbed the sermon of another man, and he repeated it
+as his own. I am satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind
+acted independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence
+in favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely
+obliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously offered.
+
+He also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and renders him
+unfit for the discharge of the highest duties pertaining to life, and
+that we show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor to overthrow
+Calvinism. What is Calvinism? It is the doctrine that an infinite God
+made millions of people, knowing that they would be damned. I have
+answered that a thousand times. I answer it again. No God has a right to
+make a mistake, and then damn the mistake. No God has a right to make
+a failure, and a man who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous
+success. No God has a right to make an investment that will not finally
+pay a dividend.
+
+The world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life and all
+mine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all going wrong,
+that immorality was stalking through the land, that crime was about to
+engulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their prophecies, the world
+has steadily grown better, and there is more justice, more charity, more
+kindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the world to-day than
+ever before. And there is more infidelity in the world to-day than ever
+before.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.
+
+
+     * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the
+     issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts
+     transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the
+     starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had
+     struck because they could not live on reduced wages.
+     Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing
+     starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up
+     the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle
+     for higher wages
+
+     While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of
+     destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a
+     fund "for the extension of the church." The extension
+     committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with
+     such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city.
+     The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter
+     twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging
+     between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning
+     Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money
+     contributed for the extension of the church would find its
+     way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.
+
+     Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the
+     matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other
+     things that demanded his immediate attention.
+
+     Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension
+     Committee, was seen at his office in the North American
+     Bank, of which institution he is President.
+
+     He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their
+     trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the
+     charitable to extend to them direct aid.
+
+     Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor
+     and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the
+     church.
+
+     "The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the
+     giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their
+     idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save
+     men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.
+
+     "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own
+     resources. If the poor felt that they could get material
+     help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or
+     woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my
+     typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she
+     gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the
+     lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where
+     people are poor, it's their own fault.
+
+     "After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of
+     material things--it is the soul that makes life worth
+     living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see
+     this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have
+     been working all day, singing hymns and following the leader
+     in prayer."
+
+     Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who
+     need material help?" was asked.
+
+     "No, sir; I do not," said Mr. Van Norden. "If a man or woman
+     wants money, they should work for It."
+
+     "But is employment always to be had?"
+
+     "I think it is by Americans. You'll find that most of the
+     people out of work are those who are not adapted to the
+     conditions of this country.
+
+Colonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such
+philosophy.--New York Morning Advertiser, March 10,1892.
+
+_Question_. Have you read the article in the Morning Advertiser entitled
+"Workers Starving"?
+
+_Answer._ I have read it, and was greatly surprised at the answers made
+to the reporter of the Advertiser.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the remarks of the Rev. John Hall and
+by Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the "Church Extension Committee"?
+
+_Answer._ My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have answered under some
+irritation, or that the reporter did not happen to take down all he
+said. It hardly seems probable that Dr. Hall should have said that he
+had no time to discuss the matter of aiding the needy poor, giving as a
+reason that there were so many other things that demanded his immediate
+attention. The church is always insisting that it is, above all things,
+a charitable institution; that it collects and distributes many millions
+every year for the relief of the needy, and it is always quoting: "Sell
+that thou hast and give to the poor." It is hard to imagine anything of
+more importance than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppressed.
+Of course, I know that the church itself produces nothing, and that it
+lives on contributions; but its claim is that it receives from those who
+are able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent need.
+
+I have sometimes thought, that the most uncharitable thing in the
+world is an organized charity. It seems to have the peculiarities of a
+corporation, and becomes as soulless as its kindred. To use a very old
+phrase, it generally acts like "a beggar on horseback."
+
+Probably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for the poor, and I
+imagine that he must have been irritated or annoyed when he made the
+answer attributed to him in the _Advertiser_. The good Samaritan may
+have been in a hurry, but he said nothing about it. The Levites
+that passed by on the other side seemed to have had other business.
+Understand me, I am saying nothing against Dr. Hall, but it does seem
+to me that there are few other matters more important than assisting our
+needy fellow-men.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Warner Van Norden's sentiments as
+expressed to the reporter?
+
+_Answer._ In the first place, I think he is entirely mistaken. I do not
+think the cloakmakers brought their trouble upon themselves. The wages
+they receive were and are insufficient to support reasonable human
+beings. They work for almost nothing, and it is hard for me to
+understand why they live at all, when life is so expensive and death so
+cheap. All they can possibly do is to earn enough one day to buy food
+to enable them to work the next. Life with them is a perpetual struggle.
+They live on the edge of death. Under their feet they must feel the side
+of the grave crumbling, and thus they go through, day by day, month by
+month, year by year. They are, I presume, sustained by a hope that is
+never realized.
+
+Mr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of helping the poor and
+needy of the city, save in the way employed by the church, and that the
+experience of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms to the poor
+only encourages them in their idleness and their crimes.
+
+Is Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground that when Christ said: "Sell
+that thou hast and give to the poor," he intended to encourage idleness
+and crime?
+
+Is it possible that when it was said, "It is better to give than to
+receive," the real meaning was, It is better to encourage idleness and
+crime than to receive assistance?
+
+For instance, a man falls into the water. Why should one standing on the
+shore attempt to rescue him? Could he not properly say: "If all who fall
+into the water are rescued, it will only encourage people to fall into
+the water; it will make sailors careless, and persons who stand on
+wharves, will care very little whether they fall in or not. Therefore,
+in order to make people careful who have not fallen into the water,
+let those in the water drown." In other words, why should anybody
+be assisted, if assistance encourages carelessness, or idleness, or
+negligence?
+
+According to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of place in this world,
+kindness is a mistake, and hospitality springs from a lack of
+philosophy. In other words, all should take the consequences of their
+acts, not only, but the consequences of the acts of others.
+
+If I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still insist that men
+should be charitable on their own account. A man without pity, no matter
+how intelligent he may be, is at best only an intellectual beast, and
+if by withholding all assistance we could finally people the world
+with those who are actually self-supporting, we would have a population
+without sympathy, without charity--that is to say, without goodness. In
+my judgment, it would be far better that none should exist.
+
+Mr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty of the church is to save
+men's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally. I think that
+conditions have a vast deal to do with morality and goodness. If you
+wish to change the conduct of your fellow-men, the first thing to do is
+to change their conditions, their surroundings; in other words, to help
+them to help themselves--help them to get away from bad influences, away
+from the darkness of ignorance, away from the temptations of poverty and
+want, not only into the light intellectually, but into the climate of
+prosperity. It is useless to give a hungry man a religious tract, and it
+is almost useless to preach morality to those who are so situated that
+the necessity of the present, the hunger of the moment, overrides every
+other consideration. There is a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a
+good deal of persuasion in necessity.
+
+Prosperity is apt to make men selfish. They imagine that because they
+have succeeded, others and all others, might or may succeed. If any man
+will go over his own life honestly, he will find that he has not always
+succeeded because he was good, or that he has always failed because
+he was bad. He will find that many things happened with which he had
+nothing to do, for his benefit, and that, after all is said and done, he
+cannot account for all of his successes by his absolute goodness. So,
+if a man will think of all the bad things he has done--of all the bad
+things he wanted to do--of all the bad things he would have done had he
+had the chance, and had he known that detection was impossible, he will
+find but little foundation for egotism.
+
+_Question_. What do you say to this language of Mr. Van Norden. "It is
+best to teach people to rely upon their own resources. If the poor felt
+that they could get material help they would want it always, and in this
+day, if a man and woman cannot get along, it is their own fault"?
+
+_Answer._ All I can say is that I do not agree with him. Often there are
+many more men in a certain trade than there is work for such men. Often
+great factories shut down, leaving many thousands out of employment. You
+may say that it was the fault of these men that they learned that trade;
+that they might have known it would be overcrowded; so you may say it
+was the fault of the capitalist to start a factory in that particular
+line, because he should have known that it was to be overdone.
+
+As no man can look very far into the future, the truth is it was
+nobody's fault, and without fault thousands and thousands are thrown out
+of employment. Competition is so sharp, wages are so small, that to be
+out of employment for a few weeks means want. You cannot say that this
+is the fault of the man who wants bread. He certainly did not wish to go
+hungry; neither did he deliberately plan a failure. He did the best he
+could. There are plenty of bankers who fail in business, not because
+they wish to fail; so there are plenty of professional men who cannot
+make a living, yet it may not be their fault; and there are others who
+get rich, and it may not be by reason of their virtues.
+
+Without doubt, there are many people in the city of New York who
+cannot make a living. Competition is too sharp; life is too complex;
+consequently the percentage of failures is large. In savage life there
+are few failures, but in civilized life there are many. There are many
+thousands out of work and out of food in Berlin to-day. It can hardly be
+said to be their fault. So there are many thousands in London, and every
+other great city of the world. You cannot account for all this want by
+saying that the people who want are entirely to blame.
+
+A man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough to think that his
+wealth was the result of his own unaided efforts; and he is sometimes
+heartless enough to say that others should get rich by following his
+example.
+
+Mr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter who gets two dollars a
+day, and that she dresses better than the lords and ladies did of olden
+times. He must refer to the times of the Garden of Eden. Out of two
+dollars a day one must live, and there is very little left for gorgeous
+robes. I hardly think a lady is to be envied because she receives two
+dollars a day, and the probability is that the manner in which she
+dresses on that sum--having first deducted the expenses of living--is
+not calculated to excite envy.
+
+The philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to be concentrated into this
+line: "Where people are poor it is their own fault." Of course this is
+the death of all charity.
+
+We are then informed by this gentleman that "happiness does not lie in
+the enjoyment of material things--that it is the soul that makes life
+worth living."
+
+Is it the soul without pity that makes life worth living? Is it the soul
+in which the blossom of charity has never shed its perfume that makes
+life so desirable? Is it the soul, having all material things, wrapped
+in the robes of prosperity, and that says to all the poor: It is your
+own fault; die of hunger if you must--that makes life worth living?
+
+It may be asked whether it is worth while for such a soul to live.
+
+If this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I do not wish to visit his
+working girls' club, or to "hear girls who have been working all day
+singing hymns and following the leader in prayer." Why should a soul
+without pity pray? Why should any one ask God to be merciful to the poor
+if he is not merciful himself? For my own part, I would rather see
+poor people eat than to hear them pray. I would rather see them clothed
+comfortably than to see them shivering, and at the same time hear them
+sing hymns.
+
+It does not seem possible that any man can say that there are no worthy
+poor in this city who need material help. Neither does it seem possible
+that any man can say to one who is starving that if he wants money he
+must work for it. There are hundreds and thousands in this city willing
+to work who can find no employment. There are good and pure women
+standing between their children and starvation, living in rooms
+worse than cells in penitentiaries--giving their own lives to their
+children--hundreds and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross of every
+suffering, worthy of the reverence and love of mankind. So there are men
+wandering about these streets in search of work, willing to do anything
+to feed the ones they love.
+
+Mr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I do not believe that he
+expresses his real sentiments. But, after all, why should we expect
+charity in a church that believes in the dogma of eternal pain? Why
+cannot the rich be happy here in their palaces, while the poor suffer
+and starve in huts, when these same rich expect to enjoy heaven forever,
+with all the unbelievers in hell? Why should the agony of time interfere
+with their happiness, when the agonies of eternity will not and cannot
+affect their joy? But I have nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr. Van
+Norden--only against their ideas.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.
+
+
+     * Boston, 1898.
+
+_Question_. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some attention to the
+lecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a
+report of it, and what have you to say?
+
+_Answer._ Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. Mr. Mills. I
+do not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr.
+Plumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with his
+religion and some science with his superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to
+have successfully avoided both. His manners do not appear to me to be of
+the best. Why should he call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply
+because he does not happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to
+say that this "poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven,
+a majestic being--unique--peculiar--who "trod the sea and hushed the
+storm and raised the dead"? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world a "poor"
+world? According to his creed, it was created by infinite wisdom,
+infinite goodness and infinite power. How dare he call the work of such
+a being "poor"?
+
+Is it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work of the
+Infinite and say to God that he made a "poor" world? If I believed
+this world had been made by an infinitely wise and good Being, I should
+certainly insist that this is not a poor world, but, on the contrary,
+a perfect world. I would insist that everything that happens is for the
+best. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I would insist that the
+fault we thought we saw, lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and
+benevolent Creator.
+
+Dr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor mechanic
+and a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious
+preachers, takes several things for granted; things that have not been
+established by evidence, and things which in their nature cannot be
+established.
+
+He tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty Redeemer from
+Heaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven is? Does he know
+that any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure that an infinite God
+would be foolish enough to make people who needed a redeemer?
+
+He also says that this Being "trod the sea, hushed the storm and raised
+the dead." Is there any evidence that this Being trod the sea? Any more
+evidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the ocean? Any evidence
+that he hushed the storm any more than there is that the storm comes
+from the cave of Æolus? Is there any evidence that he raised the dead?
+How would it be possible to prove that the dead were raised? How
+could we prove such a thing if it happened now? Who would believe
+the evidence? As a matter of fact, the witnesses themselves would
+not believe and could not believe until raising of the dead became so
+general as to be regarded as natural.
+
+Dr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the only
+evidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the
+storm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows anything, that
+these stories were not written until Christ himself had been dead for at
+least four generations. He knows also that these accounts were written
+at a time when the belief in miracles was almost universal, and
+when everything that actually happened was regarded of no particular
+importance, and only the things that did not happen were carefully
+written out with all the details.
+
+So Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm "spake as never man
+spake." Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who denounced human slavery
+many years before Christ was born? Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the
+greatest of the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha? Has he read
+the dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna? If he has, he knows that every
+great and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he
+lived. Did he ever read Lao-tsze? If he did--and this man lived many
+centuries before the coming of our Lord--he knows that Lao-tsze said "we
+should render benefits for injuries. We should love our enemies, and
+we should not resist evil." So it will hardly do now to say that Christ
+spake as never man spake, because he repeated the very things that other
+men had said.
+
+So he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly groping
+Socrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius? Only a
+little while ago a book was published by Mr. For-long showing the origin
+of the principal religion and the creeds that have been taught. In this
+book you will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you
+will also find a few pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and
+after you have read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you
+will find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,
+while the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of stone or
+piles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply
+a sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by feeling, but he had
+intelligence--a great brain in which burned the torch of reason. Read
+Confucius, and you will think that he must have known the sciences of
+to-day; that is to say, the conclusions that have been reached by modern
+thinkers. It could have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he
+spake as never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him
+you will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the
+intelligence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.
+
+Dr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct theology.
+Whether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I do know that I
+am not trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring to destroy it.
+I have no more confidence in theology than I have in astrology or in
+the black art. Theology is a science that exists wholly independent of
+facts, and that reaches conclusions without the assistance of evidence.
+It also scorns experience and does what little it can to do away with
+thought.
+
+I make a very great distinction between theology and real religion. I
+can conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now, here we are, men
+and women in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain senses.
+There are things that we can ascertain, and by developing our brain we
+can avoid mistakes, keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles
+out of our hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we
+should use all our senses, gathering information from every possible
+quarter, and this information should be only used for the purpose of
+ascertaining the facts, for finding out the conditions of well-being, to
+the end that we may add to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.
+
+In other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in mental
+hospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I say reason,
+I mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the flame small and
+flickering, but, after all, it is the only light I have, and never with
+my consent shall any preacher blow it out.
+
+Now, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men of their
+greatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why do you call
+Christ good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do you put him
+above mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because he was just? Why
+do you put him before justice? Suppose it should turn out that no such
+person as Christ ever lived. What harm would that do justice or mercy?
+Wouldn't the tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't justice,
+holding aloft her scales, from which she blows even the dust of
+prejudice, be as noble, as admirable as now? Is it not better to love,
+justice and mercy than to love a name, and when you put a name above
+justice, above mercy, are you sure that you are benefiting your
+fellow-men?
+
+If Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my argument
+instead of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness instead
+of telling the consequences that would follow from my action? We have
+nothing to do with the consequences. I said that to believe without
+evidence, or in spite of evidence, was superstition. If that definition
+is correct, Dr. Plumb is a superstitious man, because he believes at
+least without evidence. What evidence has he that Christ was God? In
+the nature of things, how could he have evidence? The only evidence
+he pretends to have is the dream of Joseph, and he does not know that
+Joseph ever dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not write an account
+of his dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only hearsay for the dream, and the
+dream is the foundation of his creed.
+
+Now, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me with
+being a burglar--a coarse, blasphemous burglar--who wishes to rob
+somebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesitate to tell a
+Mohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He would tell a Mormon in
+Utah that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham Young was
+no better. In other words, if in Turkey, he would be a coarse and
+blasphemous burglar, and he would follow the same profession in Utah. So
+probably he would tell the Chinese that Confucius was an ignorant
+wretch and that their religion was idiotic, and the Chinese priest would
+denounce Dr. Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr.
+Plumb would be perfectly astonished that a priest could be so low, so
+impudent and malicious.
+
+Of course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to it.
+
+If Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a
+little and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in all
+probability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb,
+and yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a little
+superstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his many virtues,
+there may be a little righteous malice.
+
+The Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I suppose
+he has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So I believe
+him to be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am concerned, I
+have no objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he can to get all the
+churches to act together. He may never succeed, but I am not responsible
+for that.
+
+So I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes to be the
+gospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an infinitely good
+God made a poor world; that he made man and woman and put them in the
+Garden of Eden, and that this same God before that time had manufactured
+a devil, and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew that he would
+corrupt the man and woman that he had determined to make; that he could
+have defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he allowed his
+Satanic Majesty to succeed; that at the time he allowed him to succeed,
+he knew that in consequence of his success that he (God) in about
+fifteen or sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole
+world with the exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for
+seed. At the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were totally
+depraved, that they were saturated with the sin of Adam and Eve, and
+that their children would be their natural heirs. He also knew at the
+time he allowed the devil to succeed, that he (God), some four thousand
+years afterward, would be compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe,
+to learn the carpenter's trade, and to go about the country for three
+years preaching to the people and discussing with the rabbis of his
+chosen people, and he also knew that these chosen people--these people
+who had been governed and educated by him, to whom he had sent a
+multitude of prophets, would at that time be so savage that they would
+crucify him, although he would be at that time the only sinless being
+who had ever stood upon the earth. This he knew would be the effect of
+his government, of his education of his chosen people. He also knew at
+the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in consequence of that
+success a vast majority of the human race would become eternal convicts
+in the prison of hell.
+
+All this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is
+infinitely wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What would
+this God have done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or goodness?
+
+Of all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of
+savagery, there is none more perfectly absurd than Christianity.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.
+
+
+     * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, the interest
+manifested in the letters to the _Journal_ which have followed your
+lecture of Sunday, and what do you think of them?
+
+_Answer._ I have read the letters and reports that have been published
+in the _Journal_. Some of them seem to be very sincere, some not quite
+honest, and some a little of both.
+
+The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many Christians
+do not believe in a personal devil, but are still Christians. He states
+that they hold that the references in the New Testament to the devil
+are simply to personifications of evil, and do not apply to any personal
+existence. He says that he could give the names of a number of pastors
+who hold such views. He does not state what his view is. Consequently, I
+do not know whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.
+
+The statement that the references in the New Testament to a devil
+are simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any personal
+existence, seems to me utterly absurd.
+
+The references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as good and
+satisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the angels referred
+to in the New Testament simply personifications of good, and are there
+no such personal existences? If devils are only personifications of
+evil, how is it that these personifications of evil could hold arguments
+with Jesus Christ? How could they talk back? How could they publicly
+acknowledge the divinity of Christ? As a matter of fact, the best
+evidences of Christ's divinity in the New Testament are the declarations
+of devils. These devils were supposed to be acquainted with supernatural
+things, and consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the
+average Jew, not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was
+unable to recognize a deity when he met him.
+
+Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls them, were
+of various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others could talk, and
+Christ said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they were very difficult
+to expel from the bodies of men; that it required fasting and prayer to
+get them out. Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did not exist?
+That they were only "personifications of evil"?
+
+Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted
+by the devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and that this
+personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to
+induce him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come
+from? Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not
+have been. Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it
+existed it came from the inside of Christ, so that, according to
+MacArthur, Christ was the creator of his own devil.
+
+I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur's
+opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some
+time he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or
+whether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New
+Testament can be explained away by calling the devils "personifications
+of evil." Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a
+"personification of evil" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the
+world, and whether Christ expelled seven "personifications of evil" from
+Mary Magdalene, and how did they come to count these "personifications
+of evil"? If the devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil,"
+then, of course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may
+be different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet
+Mary Magdalene had seven.
+
+Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously
+beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take
+it for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in
+their creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word
+of God; that they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in
+salvation by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I
+take it for granted that they believe these things. Of course, the only
+evidence I have is what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon.
+They may be dealing only in the "personification of truth."
+
+When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am
+told that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after
+all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this
+"man of straw," and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A
+preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio,
+challenged this "man of straw," and the straw man put him out.
+
+Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the
+Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain
+what he calls the "religious thinking of the hour," the "straw man" will
+put him out too.
+
+Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of
+representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which
+leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have
+the goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds
+of representative thinkers--that is, of orthodox thinkers--that any
+orthodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the
+kindness to give just one?
+
+In my lecture on "Superstition" I did say that to deny the existence
+of evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the
+truth of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps
+of darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that
+if we give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of
+the Old and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ.
+Upon that declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then
+Jesus Christ was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true
+account of what he said and of what he pretended to do. If the New
+Testament gives a true account of his words and pretended actions, then
+he did claim to cast out devils. That was his principal business. That
+was his certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated
+his mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.
+
+Now, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the
+veracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that
+divinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the
+great fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.
+
+Now, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister,
+but like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have
+a little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become
+spiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious
+and pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into
+a corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry
+"_Blasphemy!_" I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply
+mean that they are illogical.
+
+Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of
+progressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive
+religious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If
+religion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress.
+It may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but
+if it is not understood when given, why is it called a "revelation"?
+There is no progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better
+mathematicians than others, but the old multiplication table remains the
+same. So there can be no progress in a revelation from God.
+
+Now, Spain--and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune--has
+remained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to
+their superstition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that
+Catholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly
+admit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with
+Spain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of
+them has progressed to any great extent.
+
+Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man
+grows better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man
+is, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized,
+will be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has
+progressed, it is a demonstration that it was not originally founded on
+a revelation from God.
+
+In my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction
+between the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if God
+created and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him
+at all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily
+for famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if
+President McKinley thanked God for the victory at Santiago, he also
+should have thanked him for sending the yellow fever.
+
+I stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any
+distinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If God
+governs this world, then everything that happens is the very best that
+could happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is
+to be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was
+to be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by
+infinite wisdom and goodness.
+
+It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This God who
+made man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom,
+and consequently this God cannot escape the responsibility for the
+actions of men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is
+responsible.
+
+If I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he
+would murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would
+think as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with
+me.
+
+The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss
+Ingersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of
+course I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the
+address. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without
+being dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis
+Parks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants,
+denounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity
+is not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that
+we do not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know
+that there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head
+under the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.
+
+Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the
+devil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that
+the devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say
+it honestly?
+
+But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go
+along with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it
+visited our soldiers, came from God, and that we should thank God for
+it. He does not say the soldiers should thank God for it, or that those
+who had it should thank God for it, but that we should thank God for it,
+and there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us
+to bear with great fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the
+misfortunes of others.
+
+He says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of course I am
+not as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to
+be. I have not the faintest idea of what God's purposes are. He works,
+even according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with
+the little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why God
+should have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or
+cholera, or why he should ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in
+partnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have
+never been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my
+ignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be
+that everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not
+believe it.
+
+There is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on
+the workings of the average orthodox mind.
+
+One morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father,
+"One of the ewe lambs is dead."
+
+"Well," said the father; "that is all for the best. Twins never do very
+well, any how."
+
+The next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the
+old man said, "Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have
+more wool."
+
+The next morning the son said, "The old ewe is dead."
+
+"Well," replied the old man; "that may be for the best, but I don't see
+it this morning."
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on
+the wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly
+obliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily
+refuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation
+might be an advertisement for me.
+
+Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are
+some things in the lecture on "Superstition" worth the while even of a
+Methodist minister to answer.
+
+Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will
+he Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that God
+created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this
+question: Why did God create a successful rival? When God created the
+devil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That
+he was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and
+did he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That
+in consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that
+he would have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in
+consequence of that he himself would have to be born into this world as
+a Judean peasant? That he would have to be crucified and suffer for
+the sins of these people who had been misled by this devil that he
+deliberately created, and that after all he would be able only to save a
+few Methodists?
+
+Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can
+answer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no
+advertisement for him.
+
+The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I
+now return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, "Ingersoll in many
+respects is like Voltaire." I think no finer compliment has been paid me
+by any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank
+the Rev. Mr. Belcher.
+
+The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that
+every utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that
+every argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in
+ringing the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over
+again for hundreds of years.
+
+Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives;
+that you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it.
+You must answer not the man, but the argument.
+
+Another thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that
+no argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not
+been answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is
+still as fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old
+until it has been answered.
+
+It is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have
+been answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course
+it will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.
+
+Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you
+believe in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and
+women become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you
+believe that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe
+the stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?
+
+Now, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.
+Answer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is
+a person, that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you another
+question: Why should this devil punish souls in hell for rebelling
+against God? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish
+God's enemies? This may have been answered many times, but one more
+repetition will do but little harm.
+
+Another thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you
+believe that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which
+open only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment
+is the highest expression of justice and mercy?
+
+If you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you
+knew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to hell and
+suffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing
+this, you changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend?
+Now, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the
+Presbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.
+
+I say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for
+any of the children of men--I say to you that your God is a wild beast,
+an insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.
+
+At the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac
+Arthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.
+
+The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely
+sincere. He is orthodox--true blue. He believes in a devil; in an
+acting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think
+this devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but
+a little more cunning.
+
+According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the
+universe--king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will
+not admit that if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all
+crumble, but I think he will admit that if the devil does not exist,
+then Christ was mistaken, or that the writers of the New Testament did
+not truthfully give us his utterances.
+
+Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he
+was mistaken about the existence of God. In other words, if Christ
+made a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine,
+although ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see
+exactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the
+Christian creeds do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean
+orthodox creeds. Is there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil
+in it?
+
+Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall
+of man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the
+keystone. Remove him, the arch falls.
+
+Now, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains intact
+without crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the atonement and
+the existence of the devil are all thrown aside?
+
+Of course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being
+good, forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not Christianity.
+Orthodox Christians say that a man must believe on Christ, must have
+faith, and that to act as Christ did, is not enough; that a man who acts
+exactly as Christ did, dying without faith, would go to hell. So when
+Mr. Campbell speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox
+Christian.
+
+Now, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he knows
+a good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every conceivable
+disguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring lion; that at
+another time he is a god of this world; on another occasion a dragon,
+and in the afternoon of the same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light,
+and all the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often assumes the
+disguise of the serpent.
+
+So the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the
+wilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made him
+more than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ could
+not see through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil with a mask
+to fool God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ
+by offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they already belonged to
+Christ, and when Christ knew that the devil had no title, and when the
+devil knew that Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil
+knew that Christ knew that he was the devil, and when the devil knew
+that he was Christ? Does the reverend gentleman still think that it was
+the disguise of the devil that tempted Christ?
+
+I would like some of these questions answered, because I have a very
+inquiring mind.
+
+So Mr. Campbell tells us--and it is very good and comforting of
+him--that there is a time coming when the devil shall deceive the
+nations no more. He also tells us that God is more powerful than the
+devil, and that he is going to put an end to him.
+
+Will Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the devil?
+If he is going to put an end to him why did he start him? Was it not a
+waste of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair to let this devil,
+so powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put
+Adam and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his power, and not
+only Adam and Eve within his power, but their descendants, so that the
+slime of the serpent has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence
+of what happened in the Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless
+millions in the presence of the most merciful God?
+
+Now, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these things.
+He may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think of his own
+congregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves of doubt and
+thought.
+
+The Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good sense; one
+who thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of
+course I am sorry that he does not agree with me, but I have become used
+to that, and so I thank him for the truths he utters.
+
+He does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I guess by
+following him up we would find that he did not believe in the existence
+of a personal God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In fact,
+he tells us that he has given up the infallibility of the Bible. At the
+same time, he says it is the most perfect compendium of religious and
+moral thought. In that I think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast
+deal of irreligion in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral
+thought in the Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired
+nor infallible.
+
+The Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church, declares
+that those who do not believe in a personal God do not believe in a
+personal Satan, and _vice versa_. The one, he says, necessitates the
+other. In this I do not think he is quite correct. I think many people
+believe in a personal God who do not believe in a personal devil, but I
+know of none who do believe in a personal devil who do not also believe
+in a personal God. The orthodox generally believe in both of them, and
+for many centuries Christians spoke with great respect of the devil.
+They were afraid of him.
+
+But I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny a
+personal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I agree with
+this because I suppose by "God's word" he means the Bible.
+
+He further says, and I agree with him, that a "Christian" needs no
+scientific argument on which to base his belief in the personality of
+Satan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a scientific
+argument it is equally true that he never will have one.
+
+You see this word "Science" means something that somebody knows; not
+something that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but
+something that somebody knows.
+
+Of course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the existence
+of the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says,
+and I thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove the existence
+of the devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse, and I do agree with him
+that the "revealed word" teaches the existence of a personal devil,
+and that all truly orthodox Christians believe that there is a personal
+devil, and the Rev. Mr. Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he
+proves that without this devil there could be no redemption for the
+evil spirits; so he brings forward the temptation of Christ in the
+wilderness. At the same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what
+the Bible says, he insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme,
+and then he drops into humor and says that if any further arguments are
+needed to prove the existence of the devil, that I furnish them.
+
+How a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can have
+anything like a sense of humor is beyond even my imagination.
+
+Now, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask him
+the same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture on
+"Superstition."
+
+Now, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a being of
+infinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he created has
+been governed by him.
+
+Now, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions, with
+the request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr.
+Kraeling, had the power to make a world, would you make an exact copy of
+this? Would you make a man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing that
+they would be deceived, knowing that they would fall? Knowing that all
+the consequences believed in by orthodox Christians would follow from
+that fall? Would you do it? And would you make your world so as to
+provide for earthquakes and cyclones? Would you create the seeds of
+disease and scatter them in the air and water? Would you so arrange
+matters as to produce cancers? Would you provide for plague and
+pestilence? Would you so make your world that life should feed on life,
+that the quivering flesh should be torn by tooth and beak and claw?
+Would you?
+
+Now, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be honest.
+
+Would you make different races of men? Would you make them of different
+colors, and would you so make them that they would persecute and enslave
+each other? Would you so arrange matters that millions and millions
+should toil through many generations, paid only by the lash on the back?
+Would you have it so that millions and millions of babes would be sold
+from the breasts of mothers? Be honest, would you provide for religious
+persecution? For the invention and use of instruments of torture? Would
+you see to it that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was
+not overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong
+would triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not be
+a shield? Would you make a world where the best would be loaded with
+chains? Where the best would die in the darkness of dungeons? Where the
+best would make scaffolds sacred with their blood?
+
+Would you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud should
+represent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of honest
+credulity?
+
+Would you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war? Would
+you so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens, so that
+woman would be a slave, so that children would be trampled upon as
+though they were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the woods with wild
+beasts? Would you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm your children? Would
+you provide for earthquakes that would swallow them? Would you make them
+ignorant, savage, and fill their minds with all the phantoms of horror?
+Would you?
+
+Now, it will only take you a few moments to answer these questions, and
+if you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the
+orthodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If you say you would not, I
+will admit that there is a little dawn of intelligence in your brain.
+
+At the same time I want it understood with regard to all these
+ministers that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize their
+congregations, so that the congregations may allow the ministers to
+develop, to grow, to become really and truly intelligent. The process is
+slow, but it is sure.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol.
+7 (of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+***** This file should be named 38807-8.txt or 38807-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/8/0/38807/
+
+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.
diff --git a/38807-8.zip b/38807-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a52104
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-8.zip
diff --git a/38807-h.zip b/38807-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d95c678
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-h.zip
diff --git a/38807-h/38807-h.htm b/38807-h/38807-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..928656d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-h/38807-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,13977 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
+
+<!DOCTYPE html
+   PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" >
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <title>
+      The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, by Robert G. Ingersoll
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve">
+    
+    body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify}
+    P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; }
+    H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; }
+    hr  { width: 50%; text-align: center;}
+    .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; }
+    blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .mynote    {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
+    .toc       { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;}
+    .toc2      { margin-left: 20%;}
+    div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; }
+    .figleft   {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;}
+    .figright  {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;}
+    .pagenum   {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal;
+               margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%;
+               text-align: right;}
+    pre     { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;}
+    
+</style>
+  </head>
+  <body>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 7
+(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. 7 (of 12)
+       Dresden Edition--Discussions
+
+Author: Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+Release Date: February 9, 2012 [EBook #38807]
+Last Updated: November 15, 2012
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <a name="title" id="title"></a>
+    </p>
+    <h1>
+      THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
+    </h1>
+    <h2>
+      By Robert G. Ingersoll
+    </h2>
+    <p>
+      <br />
+    </p>
+    <h4>
+      "EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF THOUGHT,<br /> AND
+      THE CROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL."
+    </h4>
+    <h4>
+      <br />
+    </h4>
+    <h3>
+      In Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.
+    </h3>
+    <h3>
+      DISCUSSIONS
+    </h3>
+    <p>
+      <br />
+    </p>
+    <h4>
+      Dresden Edition
+    </h4>
+    <h3>
+      1900
+    </h3>
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto" cellpadding="4" border="3">
+      <tbody>
+        <tr>
+          <td>
+            <big><big><a
+            href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38807/old/orig38807-h/main.htm">This
+            file has been formatted in a very plain format for use with tablet
+            readers. Those wishing to view this eBook in its normal more
+            appealing format for laptops and other computers may click on this
+            line to to view the original HTML file.</a></big></big>
+          </td>
+        </tr>
+      </tbody>
+    </table>
+    <p>
+      <br />
+    </p>
+    <div class="fig" style="width:80%;">
+      <img alt="titlepage (62K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" width="100%" /><br />
+    </div>
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <div class="fig" style="width:80%;">
+      <img alt="portrait (64K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" width="100%" /><br />
+    </div>
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <hr />
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <h2>
+      Contents
+    </h2>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#linkTOC">CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC
+      TELEGRAPH.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p class="toc">
+      <a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.</a>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a><br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <hr />
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <h2>
+      CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.
+    </h2>
+    <blockquote>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.<br /> (1877.)<br /> Answer to San Francisco
+        Clergymen&mdash;Definition of Liberty, Physical<br /> and Mental&mdash;The
+        Right to Compel Belief&mdash;Woman the Equal of Man&mdash;The<br />
+        Ghosts&mdash;Immortality&mdash;Slavery&mdash;Witchcraft&mdash;Aristocracy
+        of the<br /> Air&mdash;Unfairness of Clerical Critics&mdash;Force and
+        Matter&mdash;Doctrine of<br /> Negation&mdash;Confident Deaths of
+        Murderers&mdash;Childhood Scenes returned to<br /> by the Dying&mdash;Death-bed
+        of Voltaire&mdash;Thomas Paine&mdash;The First<br /> Sectarians Were
+        Heretics&mdash;Reply to Rev. Mr. Guard&mdash;Slaughter of<br /> the
+        Canaanites&mdash;Reply to Rev. Samuel Robinson&mdash;Protestant<br />
+        Persecutions&mdash;Toleration&mdash;Infidelity and Progress&mdash;The<br />
+        Occident&mdash;Calvinism&mdash;Religious Editors&mdash;Reply to the Rev.
+        Mr.<br /> Ijams&mdash;Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers?&mdash;Reply
+        to<br /> California <i>Christian Advocate</i>&mdash;Self-Government of
+        French People at<br /> and Since the Revolution&mdash;On the Site of the
+        Bastile&mdash;French<br /> Peasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ&mdash;Was
+        the World created in Six<br /> Days&mdash;Geology&mdash;What is the
+        Astronomy of the Bible?&mdash;The Earth the Centre<br /> of the Universe&mdash;Joshua's
+        Miracle&mdash;Change of Motion into Heat&mdash;Geography<br /> and
+        Astronomy of Cosmas&mdash;Does the Bible teach the Existence of<br />
+        that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?&mdash;Saul and the Woman of<br />
+        Endor&mdash;Familiar Spirits&mdash;Demonology of the New Testament&mdash;Temptation
+        of<br /> Jesus&mdash;Possession by Devils&mdash;Gadarene Swine Story&mdash;Test
+        of Belief&mdash;Bible<br /> Idea of the Rights of Children&mdash;Punishment
+        of the Rebellious<br /> Son&mdash;Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice&mdash;Persecution
+        of Job&mdash;The Gallantry<br /> of God&mdash;Bible Idea of the Rights of
+        Women&mdash;Paul's Instructions to<br /> Wives&mdash;Permission given to
+        Steal Wives&mdash;Does the Bible Sanction<br /> Polygamy and Concubinage?&mdash;Does
+        the Bible Uphold and Justify Political<br /> Tyranny?&mdash;Powers that
+        be Ordained of God&mdash;Religious Liberty of<br /> God&mdash;Sun-Worship
+        punishable with Death&mdash;Unbelievers to be damned&mdash;Does<br /> the
+        Bible describe a God of Mercy?&mdash;Massacre Commanded&mdash;Eternal<br />
+        Punishment Taught in the New Testament&mdash;The Plan of Salvation&mdash;Fall<br />
+        and Atonement Moral Bankruptcy&mdash;Other Religions&mdash;Parsee<br />
+        Sect&mdash;Brahmins&mdash;Confucians&mdash;Heretics and Orthodox.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.<br /> (1879.)<br /> Rev. Robert Collyer&mdash;Inspiration
+        of the Scriptures&mdash;Rev. Dr.<br /> Thomas&mdash;Formation of the Old
+        Testament&mdash;Rev. Dr. Kohler&mdash;Rev. Mr.<br /> Herford&mdash;Prof.
+        Swing&mdash;Rev. Dr. Ryder.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.<br /> (1882.)<br /> Rev. David Walk&mdash;Character
+        of Jesus&mdash;Two or Three Christs Described<br /> in the Gospels&mdash;Christ's
+        Change of Opinions&mdash;Gospels Later than the<br /> Epistles&mdash;Divine
+        Parentage of Christ a Late Belief&mdash;The Man Christ<br /> probably a
+        Historical Character&mdash;Jesus Belittled by his Worshipers&mdash;He<br />
+        never Claimed to be Divine&mdash;Christ's Omissions&mdash;Difference
+        between<br /> Christian and other Modern Civilizations&mdash;Civilization
+        not Promoted<br /> by Religion&mdash;Inventors&mdash;French and American
+        Civilization: How<br /> Produced&mdash;Intemperance and Slavery in
+        Christian Nations&mdash;Advance due to<br /> Inventions and Discoveries&mdash;Missionaries&mdash;Christian
+        Nations Preserved by<br /> Bayonet and Ball&mdash;Dr. T. B. Taylor&mdash;Origin
+        of Life on this Planet&mdash;Sir<br /> William Thomson&mdash;Origin of
+        Things Undiscoverable&mdash;Existence after<br /> Death&mdash;Spiritualists&mdash;If
+        the Dead Return&mdash;Our Calendar&mdash;Christ and<br /> Christmas-The
+        Existence of Pain&mdash;Plato's Theory of Evil&mdash;Will God do<br />
+        Better in Another World than he does in this?&mdash;Consolation&mdash;Life
+        Not a<br /> Probationary Stage&mdash;Rev. D.O'Donaghue&mdash;The Case of
+        Archibald Armstrong<br /> and Jonathan Newgate&mdash;Inequalities of Life&mdash;Can
+        Criminals live a<br /> Contented Life?&mdash;Justice of the Orthodox God
+        Illustrated.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.<br /> (1883.)<br /> Are the Books of Atheistic or
+        Infidel Writers Extensively<br /> Read?&mdash;Increase in the Number of
+        Infidels&mdash;Spread of Scientific<br /> Literature&mdash;Rev. Dr. Eddy&mdash;Rev.
+        Dr. Hawkins&mdash;Rev. Dr. Haynes&mdash;Rev.<br /> Mr. Pullman&mdash;Rev.
+        Mr. Foote&mdash;Rev. Mr. Wells&mdash;Rev. Dr. Van Dyke&mdash;Rev.<br />
+        Carpenter&mdash;Rev. Mr. Reed&mdash;Rev. Dr. McClelland&mdash;Ministers
+        Opposed to<br /> Discussion&mdash;Whipping Children&mdash;Worldliness as
+        a Foe of the Church&mdash;The<br /> Drama&mdash;Human Love&mdash;Fires,
+        Cyclones, and Other Afflictions as Promoters<br /> of Spirituality&mdash;Class
+        Distinctions&mdash;Rich and Poor&mdash;Aristocracies&mdash;The<br />
+        Right to Choose One's Associates&mdash;Churches Social Affairs&mdash;Progress<br />
+        of the Roman Catholic Church&mdash;Substitutes for the Churches&mdash;Henry<br />
+        Ward Beecher&mdash;How far Education is Favored by the Sects&mdash;Rivals
+        of the<br /> Pulpit&mdash;Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago&mdash;French
+        Revolution<br /> produced by the Priests&mdash;Why the Revolution was a
+        Failure&mdash;Infidelity<br /> of One Hundred Years Ago&mdash;Ministers
+        not more Intellectual than a Century<br /> Ago&mdash;Great Preachers of
+        the Past&mdash;New Readings of Old Texts&mdash;Clerical<br /> Answerers
+        of Infidelity&mdash;Rev. Dr. Baker&mdash;Father Fransiola&mdash;Faith
+        and<br /> Reason&mdash;Democracy of Kindness&mdash;Moral Instruction&mdash;Morality
+        Born of Human<br /> Needs&mdash;The Conditions of Happiness&mdash;The
+        Chief End of Man.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.<br /> (1888.)<br /> Discussion between Col.
+        Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. Coudert,<br /> and ex-Gov. Stewart
+        L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club of<br /> New York&mdash;Propositions&mdash;Toleration
+        not a Disclaimer but a Waiver of the<br /> Right to Persecute&mdash;Remarks
+        of Courtlandt Palmer&mdash;No Responsibility for<br /> Thought&mdash;Intellectual
+        Hospitality&mdash;Right of Free Speech&mdash;Origin of the<br /> term
+        "Toleration"&mdash;Slander and False Witness&mdash;Nobody can Control
+        his own<br /> Mind: Anecdote&mdash;Remarks of Mr. Coudert&mdash;Voltaire,
+        Rousseau, Hugo, and<br /> Ingersoll&mdash;General Woodford's Speech&mdash;Reply
+        by Colonel Ingersoll&mdash;A<br /> Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment
+        to Voltaire&mdash;Responsibility for<br /> Thoughts&mdash;The Mexican
+        Unbeliever and his Reception in the Other Country.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        A CHRISTMAS SERMON.<br /> (1891.)<br /> Christianity's Message of Grief&mdash;Christmas
+        a Pagan Festival&mdash;Reply<br /> to Dr. Buckley&mdash;Charges by the
+        Editor of the Christian Advocate&mdash;The<br /> Tidings of Christianity&mdash;In
+        what the Message of Grief Consists&mdash;Fear<br /> and Flame&mdash;An
+        Everlasting Siberia&mdash;Dr. Buckley's Proposal to Boycott the<br />
+        Telegram&mdash;Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. Cana
+        Day<br /> be Blasphemed?&mdash;Hurting Christian feelings&mdash;For
+        Revenue only What is<br /> Blasphemy?&mdash;Balaam's Ass wiser than the
+        Prophet&mdash;The Universalists&mdash;Can<br /> God do Nothing for this
+        World?&mdash;The Universe a Blunder if Christianity<br /> is true&mdash;The
+        Duty of a Newspaper&mdash;Facts Not Sectarian&mdash;The Rev.<br /> Mr.
+        Peters&mdash;What Infidelity Has Done&mdash;Public School System not<br />
+        Christian&mdash;Orthodox Universities&mdash;Bruno on Oxford&mdash;As to
+        Public<br /> Morals&mdash;No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe&mdash;The
+        Atonement<br /> Immoral&mdash;As to Sciences and Art&mdash;Bruno,
+        Humboldt, Darwin&mdash;Scientific<br /> Writers Opposed by the Church&mdash;As
+        to the Liberation of Slaves&mdash;As to<br /> the Reclamation of
+        Inebriates&mdash;Rum and Religion&mdash;The Humanity<br /> of Infidelity&mdash;What
+        Infidelity says to the Dying&mdash;The Battle<br /> Continued&mdash;Morality
+        not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity&mdash;The<br /> Inquisition and
+        Religious Persecution&mdash;Human Nature Derided by<br /> Christianity&mdash;Dr.
+        DaCosta&mdash;"Human Brotherhood" as exemplified by<br /> the History of
+        the Church&mdash;The Church and Science, Art and<br /> Learning&mdash;&mdash;Astronomy's
+        Revenge&mdash;Galileo and Kepler&mdash;Mrs. Browning:<br /> Science
+        Thrust into the Brain of Europe&mdash;Our Numerals&mdash;Christianity
+        and<br /> Literature&mdash;Institution's of Learning&mdash;Stephen Girard&mdash;James
+        Lick&mdash;Our<br /> Chronology&mdash;Historians&mdash;Natural Philosophy&mdash;Philology&mdash;Metaphysical<br />
+        Research&mdash;Intelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian&mdash;Inventions&mdash;John<br />
+        Ericsson&mdash;Emancipators&mdash;Rev. Mr. Ballou&mdash;The Right of Goa
+        to<br /> Punish&mdash;Rev. Dr. Hillier&mdash;Rev. Mr. Haldeman&mdash;George
+        A. Locey&mdash;The "Great<br /> Physician"&mdash;Rev. Mr. Talmage&mdash;Rev.
+        J. Benson Hamilton&mdash;How Voltaire<br /> Died&mdash;The Death-bed of
+        Thomas Paine&mdash;Rev. Mr. Holloway&mdash;Original<br /> Sin&mdash;Rev.
+        Dr. Tyler&mdash;The Good Samaritan a Heathen&mdash;Hospitals and<br />
+        Asylums&mdash;Christian Treatment of the Insane&mdash;Rev. Dr. Buckley&mdash;The<br />
+        North American Review Discussion&mdash;Judge Black, Dr. Field,<br /> Mr.
+        Gladstone&mdash;Circulation of Obscene Literature&mdash;Eulogy of<br />
+        Whiskey&mdash;Eulogy of Tobacco&mdash;Human Stupidity that Defies the
+        Gods&mdash;Rev.<br /> Charles Deems&mdash;Jesus a Believer in a Personal
+        Devil&mdash;The Man Christ.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.<br /> (1892.)<br /> Reply to the <i>Western
+        Watchman</i>&mdash;Henry D'Arcy&mdash;Peter's<br /> Prevarication-Some
+        Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a<br /> Catholic&mdash;Wishes do not
+        Affect the Judgment&mdash;Devout Robbers&mdash;Penitent<br /> Murderers&mdash;Reverential
+        Drunkards&mdash;Luther's Distich&mdash;Judge<br /> Normile&mdash;Self-destruction.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        IS SUICIDE A SIN?<br /> (1894.)<br /> Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in <i>The
+        New York World</i>&mdash;Under what<br /> Circumstances a Man has the
+        Right to take his Own Life&mdash;Medicine and the<br /> Decrees of God&mdash;Case
+        of the Betrayed Girl&mdash;Suicides not Cowards&mdash;Suicide<br /> under
+        Roman Law&mdash;Many Suicides Insane&mdash;Insanity Caused by Religion&mdash;The<br />
+        Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic&mdash;Natural and Sufficient Cause
+        for<br /> Self-destruction&mdash;Christ's Death a Suicide&mdash;Col.
+        Ingersoll's Reply to his<br /> Critics&mdash;Is Suffering the Work of
+        God?&mdash;It is not Man's Duty to<br /> Endure Hopeless Suffering&mdash;When
+        Suicide is Justifiable&mdash;The<br /> Inquisition&mdash;Alleged
+        Cowardice of Suicides&mdash;Propositions<br /> Demonstrated&mdash;Suicide
+        the Foundation of the Christian<br /> Religion&mdash;Redemption and
+        Atonement&mdash;The Clergy on Infidelity<br /> and Suicide&mdash;Morality
+        and Unbelief&mdash;Better injure yourself than<br /> Another&mdash;Misquotation
+        by Opponents&mdash;Cheerful View the Best&mdash;The<br /> Wonder is that
+        Men endure&mdash;Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New<br /> York Journal)&mdash;Causes
+        of Suicide&mdash;Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise<br /> Suicide&mdash;Suicides
+        with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets&mdash;Suicide a Sin<br />
+        (Interview in The New York Herald)&mdash;Comments on Rev. Alerle St.
+        Croix<br /> Wright's Sermon&mdash;Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The
+        York World)&mdash;As to<br /> the Cowardice of Suicide&mdash;Germany and
+        the Prevalence of Suicide&mdash;Killing<br /> of Idiots and Defective
+        Infants&mdash;Virtue, Morality, and Religion.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?<br /> (1891.)<br /> Reply to General Rush Hawkins'
+        Article, "Brutality and Avarice<br /> Triumphant"&mdash;Croakers and
+        Prophets of Evil&mdash;Medical Treatment<br /> for Believers in Universal
+        Evil&mdash;Alleged Fraud in Army<br /> Contracts&mdash;Congressional
+        Extravagance&mdash;Railroad "Wreckers"&mdash;How<br /> Stockholders in
+        Some Roads Lost Their Money&mdash;The Star-Route<br /> Trials&mdash;Timber
+        and Public Lands&mdash;Watering Stock&mdash;The Formation<br /> of Trusts&mdash;Unsafe
+        Hotels: European Game and Singing Birds&mdash;Seal<br /> Fisheries&mdash;Cruelty
+        to Animals&mdash;Our Indians&mdash;Sensible and Manly<br /> Patriotism&mdash;Days
+        of Brutality&mdash;Defence of Slavery by the Websters,<br /> Bentons, and
+        Clays&mdash;Thirty Years' Accomplishment&mdash;Ennobling Influence of<br />
+        War for the Right&mdash;The Lady ana the Brakeman&mdash;American Esteem
+        of Honesty<br /> in Business&mdash;Republics do not Tend to Official
+        Corruption&mdash;This the Best<br /> Country in the World.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC
+        TELEGRAPH.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.<br /> (1878.)<br />
+        Defence of the Lecture on Moses&mdash;How Biblical Miracles are sought
+        to<br /> be Proved&mdash;Some <i>Non Sequiturs</i>&mdash;A Grammatical
+        Criticism&mdash;Christianity<br /> Destructive of Manners&mdash;Cuvier
+        and Agassiz on Mosaic Cosmogony&mdash;Clerical<br /> Advance agents&mdash;Christian
+        Threats and Warnings&mdash;Catholicism the Upas<br /> Tree&mdash;Hebrew
+        Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding Probababilities<br /> &mdash;Contradictions
+        and Mistranslations of the Bible&mdash;Number of Errors in<br /> the
+        Scriptures&mdash;The Sunday Question.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.<br /> (1881.)<br /> Charged with
+        Blasphemy in the State of Delaware&mdash;Can a Conditionless<br /> Deity
+        be Injured?&mdash;Injustice the only Blasphemy&mdash;The Lecture<br /> in
+        Delaware&mdash;Laws of that State&mdash;All Sects in turn Charged with<br />
+        Blasphemy&mdash;Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought<br />
+        to Be&mdash;A Fatal Biblical Passage&mdash;Judge Comegys&mdash;Wilmington<br />
+        Preachers&mdash;States with Laws against Blasphemy&mdash;No Danger of
+        Infidel<br /> Mobs&mdash;No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated&mdash;Comegys
+        a<br /> Resurrection&mdash;Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict&mdash;Advice
+        about the Cutting<br /> out of Heretics' Tongues&mdash;Objections to the
+        Whipping-post&mdash;Mr. Bergh's<br /> Bill&mdash;One Remedy for
+        Wife-beating.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.<br /> (1882.)<br /> Solemnity&mdash;Charged
+        with Being Insincere&mdash;Irreverence&mdash;Old Testament<br /> Better
+        than the New&mdash;"Why Hurt our Feelings?"&mdash;Involuntary Action of<br />
+        the Brain&mdash;Source of our Conceptions of Space&mdash;Good and Bad&mdash;Right
+        and<br /> Wrong&mdash;The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer&mdash;Men
+        Responsible<br /> for their Actions&mdash;The "Gradual" Theory Not
+        Applicable to<br /> the Omniscient&mdash;Prayer Powerless to Alter
+        Results&mdash;Religious<br /> Persecution&mdash;Orthodox Ministers Made
+        Ashamed of their<br /> Creed&mdash;Purgatory&mdash;Infidelity and Baptism
+        Contrasted&mdash;Modern Conception<br /> of the Universe&mdash;The Golden
+        Bridge of Life&mdash;"The Only Salutation"&mdash;The<br /> Test for
+        Admission to Heaven&mdash;"Scurrility."<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.<br /> (1892.)<br /> Dr.
+        Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving<br /> Workers&mdash;Cloakmakers'
+        Strike&mdash;Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension<br /> Society&mdash;The
+        Uncharitableness of Organized Charity&mdash;Defence of the<br />
+        Cloakmakers&mdash;Life of the Underpaid&mdash;On the Assertion that
+        Assistance<br /> encourages Idleness and Crime&mdash;The Man without Pity
+        an Intellectual<br /> Beast&mdash;Tendency of Prosperity to Breed
+        Selfishness&mdash;Thousands Idle<br /> without Fault&mdash;Egotism of
+        Riches&mdash;Van Norden's Idea of Happiness&mdash;The<br /> Worthy Poor.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.<br /> (1898.)<br /> Interview in a Boston
+        Paper&mdash;Why should a Minister call this a "Poor"<br /> World?&mdash;Would
+        an Infinite God make People who Need a Redeemer?&mdash;Gospel<br />
+        Gossip&mdash;Christ's Sayings Repetitions&mdash;The Philosophy of
+        Confucius&mdash;Rev.<br /> Mr. Mills&mdash;The Charge of "Robbery"&mdash;The
+        Divine Plan.<br />
+      </p>
+      <p class="toc">
+        <a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.</a>
+      </p>
+      <p>
+        (1898.)<br /> Interview in the New York Journal&mdash;Rev. Roberts.
+        MacArthur&mdash;A<br /> Personal Devil&mdash;Devils who held
+        Conversations with Christ not simply<br /> personifications of Evil&mdash;The
+        Temptation&mdash;The "Man of Straw"&mdash;Christ's<br /> Mission
+        authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils&mdash;Spain&mdash;God<br />
+        Responsible for the Actions of Man&mdash;Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks&mdash;Rev.
+        Dr. E.<br /> F. Moldehnke&mdash;Patience amidst the Misfortunes of Others&mdash;Yellow
+        Fever<br /> as a Divine Agent&mdash;The Doctrine that All is for the Best&mdash;Rev.
+        Mr.<br /> Hamlin&mdash;Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?&mdash;A
+        Compliment by the<br /> Rev. Mr. Belcher&mdash;Rev. W. C. Buchanan&mdash;No
+        Argument Old until it is<br /> Answered&mdash;Why should God Create
+        sentient Beings to be Damned?&mdash;Rev. J.<br /> W. Campbell&mdash;Rev.
+        Henry Frank&mdash;Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on Christ and the<br /> Devil&mdash;Would
+        he make a World like This?<br />
+      </p>
+    </blockquote>
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br />
+    </p>
+    <hr />
+    <p>
+      <br /> <br /> <a name="link0001" id="link0001">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San
+     Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various
+     clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon
+     him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man,
+     Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts."
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      I.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I offer in
+      evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent but a small part
+      of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that part shall not be
+      defiled or smirched by a single personality. Whatever I say, I shall say
+      because I believe it will tend to make this world grander, man nearer
+      just, the father kinder, the mother more loving, the children more
+      affectionate, and because I believe it will make an additional flower
+      bloom in the pathway of every one who hears me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? What have
+      I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that in the
+      absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his innocent flock. What
+      have I said?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child." In
+      that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical and intellectual
+      liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the right to do right; the right
+      to do anything that did not interfere with the real happiness of others. I
+      defined intellectual liberty to be the right to think right, and the right
+      to think wrong&mdash;provided you did your best to think right.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by which we
+      seek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to think, whether his
+      thought is in reality right or wrong; and he cannot be accountable to any
+      being for thinking wrong. There is upon man, so far as thought is
+      concerned, the obligation to think the best he can, and to honestly
+      express his best thought. Whenever he finds what is right, or what he
+      honestly believes to be the right, he is less than a man if he fears to
+      express his conviction before an assembled world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. "The right of
+      one human being ceases where the right of another commences." My
+      definition of intellectual liberty is, the right to think, whether you
+      think right or wrong, provided you do your best to think right.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality&mdash;the Blessed Trinity of
+      Humanity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience&mdash;the Blessed Trinity
+      of Science.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe in Man, Woman and Child&mdash;the Blessed Trinity of Life and
+      Joy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor by force to
+      compel another to think your way&mdash;that man has no right to compel his
+      fellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism. I have
+      said, and still say, that even an infinite God has and can have no right
+      to compel by force or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept a
+      dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such a power is incapable
+      of being exercised. You may compel a man to say that he has changed his
+      mind. You may force him to say that he agrees with you. In this way,
+      however, you make hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible that a god
+      wishes the worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage of a coward?
+      Does he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is it possible that
+      he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I were a god it
+      seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of one grand, brave
+      man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain, than the blind worship, the
+      ignorant adoration, the trembling homage of a universe of men afraid to
+      reason. And yet I am warned by the orthodox guardians of this great city
+      not to think. I am told that I am in danger of hell; that for me to
+      express my honest convictions is to excite the wrath of God. They inform
+      me that unless I believe in a certain way, meaning their way, I am in
+      danger of everlasting fire.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men with fear.
+      That time has substantially passed away. For a hundred years hell has been
+      gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly dying out, the
+      brimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have been burning lower and
+      lower, and the climate gradually changing. To such an extent has the
+      change already been effected that if I were going there to-night I would
+      take an overcoat and a box of matches.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief. I deny
+      it. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be a
+      crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so. The god who punishes
+      it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As for me, I would a thousand
+      times rather go to perdition and suffer its torments with the brave, grand
+      thinkers of the world, than go to heaven and keep the company of a god who
+      would damn his children for an honest belief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man; that she
+      has every right that man has, and one more&mdash;the right to be
+      protected, because she is the weaker. I have said that marriage should be
+      an absolutely perfect partnership of body and soul; that a man should
+      treat his wife like a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life
+      with perfume and with joy. I have said that a husband had no right to be
+      morose; that he had no right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the
+      joy of life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of light, and
+      fill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of the doors and
+      windows and illumine even the darkness of night. I said that marriage was
+      the holiest, highest, the most sacred institution among men; that it took
+      millions of years for woman to advance from the condition of absolute
+      servitude, from the absolute slavery where the Bible found her and left
+      her, up to the position she occupies at present. I have pleaded for the
+      rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what is more, for the rights
+      of little children. I have said that they could be governed by affection,
+      by love, and that my heart went out to all the children of poverty and of
+      crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets and in the
+      sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear the
+      footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when they hear
+      their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the little children, the
+      flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have said that my
+      heart goes out to them one and all; I have asked fathers and mothers to
+      cease beating their own flesh and blood. I have said to them, When your
+      child does wrong, put your arms around him; let him feel your heart beat
+      against his. It is easier to control your child with a kiss than with a
+      club.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the religious
+      press and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of order,
+      as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I make no complaint. A
+      few years ago they would have burned me at the stake and I should have
+      been compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces through flame and
+      smoke. They cannot do it now or they would. One hundred years ago I would
+      have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights of men. Fifty years
+      ago I would have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife and my children
+      would have been torn from my arms in the name of the most merciful God.
+      Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living in the United States
+      at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not then have been allowed
+      to express my thought; but I can now, and I will. And when I think about
+      the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is illuminated with glory and
+      the air is filled with wings.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I then delivered another lecture entitled "Ghosts," in which I sought to
+      show that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own imagination; in
+      which I sought to show these imps of darkness, these devils, had all been
+      produced by superstition; in which I endeavored to prove that man had
+      groveled in the dust before monsters of his own creation; in which I
+      endeavored to demonstrate that the many had delved in the soil that the
+      few might live in idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens that
+      the few might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to show that
+      man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred, except
+      ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms man had
+      covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have been
+      assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So far as any
+      argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any way make the
+      slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man. It cannot in any
+      way make the slightest difference whether my personal character is good or
+      bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I am concerned, I am
+      willing to stake the whole question upon that issue. That is not, however,
+      the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The question is,
+      whether what I said is true.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain things&mdash;among
+      other things a book known as the Bible. From the ghosts we received that
+      book; and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that book rests the
+      doctrine of the immortality of the human soul. This I deny.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Whether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and cannot be
+      changed by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If am not, no book
+      can render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I should live again than
+      that I do live.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The foundation of
+      that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality, which, like a sea, has
+      ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating with its countless waves of
+      hope and fear against the shores and rocks of fate and time, was not born
+      of any book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child 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. It is the eternal bow&mdash;Hope shining upon the tears
+      of Grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right. If there
+      is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of enslaving a human
+      being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the master as well. When
+      you put a chain upon the limbs of another, you put a fetter also upon your
+      own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slaveholder. The slave can at
+      least be just&mdash;the slaveholder cannot. I had rather be robbed than be
+      a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a thief. I have said, and
+      I do say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and sanctioned the institution
+      of human slavery; and before I get through I will prove it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree, for the
+      doctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred texts, people
+      were hanged and their bodies burned for getting up storms at sea with the
+      intent of drowning royal vermin. Every possible offence was punished under
+      the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high treason.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the ghosts,
+      for the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy;
+      and I will also prove that. And the same book teaches, not political
+      liberty, but political tyranny.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts knew
+      nothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less, if
+      possible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air. I am well
+      aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the truth of my
+      words. I have said these things. No one ever said them in better nature
+      than I have. I have not the slightest malice&mdash;a victor never felt
+      malice. As soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen felt called
+      upon to answer me. I want to say that if there is anything I like in the
+      world it is fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that I have had
+      so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean and hateful things.
+      I have read a great many religious papers and discussions and think that I
+      now know all the infamous words in our language. I know how to account for
+      every noble action by a mean and wretched motive, and that, in my
+      judgment, embraces nearly the entire science of modern theology. The
+      moment I delivered a lecture upon "The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," I
+      was charged with having said that there is nothing back of nature, and
+      that nature with its infinite arms embraces everything; and thereupon I
+      was informed that I believed in nothing but matter and force, that I
+      believed only in earth, that I did not believe in spirit. If by spirit you
+      mean that which thinks, then I am a believer in spirit. If you mean by
+      spirit the something that says "I," the something that reasons, hopes,
+      loves and aspires, then I am a believer in spirit. Whatever spirit there
+      is in the universe must be a natural thing, and not superimposed upon
+      nature. All that I can say is, that whatever is, is natural. And there is
+      as much goodness, in my judgment, as much spirit in this world as in any
+      other; and you are just as near the heart of the universe here as you can
+      be anywhere. One of your clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me,
+      that there is matter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without
+      force? What would keep it together? What would keep the finest possible
+      conceivable atom together unless there was force? Can you imagine such a
+      thing as matter without force? Can you conceive of force without matter?
+      Can you conceive of force floating about attached to nothing? Can you
+      possibly conceive of this? No human being can conceive of force without
+      matter. "You cannot conceive of force being harnessed or hitched to matter
+      as you would hitch horses to a carriage." You cannot. Now, what is spirit?
+      They say spirit is the first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as
+      though spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement.
+      They say it was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without
+      any matter&mdash;what would that spirit do? No force, no matter!&mdash;a
+      spirit living in an infinite vacuum. What would such a spirit turn its
+      particular attention to? This spirit, according to these theologians,
+      created the world, the universe; and if it did, there must have been a
+      time when it commenced to create; and back of that there must have been an
+      eternity spent in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that a spirit
+      existed during an eternity without any force and without any matter? Is it
+      possible that force could exist without matter or spirit? Is it possible
+      that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean something without
+      force? The only answer I can give to all these questions is, I do not
+      know. For my part, I do not know what spirit is, if there is any. I do not
+      know what matter is, neither am I acquainted with the elements of force.
+      If you mean by matter that which I can touch, that which occupies space,
+      then I believe in matter. If you mean by force anything that can overcome
+      weight, that can overcome what we call gravity or inertia; if you mean by
+      force that which moves the molecules of matter, or the movement itself,
+      then I believe in force. If you mean by spirit that which thinks and
+      loves, then I believe in spirit. There is, however, no propriety in
+      wasting any time about the science of metaphysics. I will give you my
+      definition of metaphysics: Two fools get together; each admits what
+      neither can prove, and thereupon both of them say, "hence we infer." That
+      is all there is of metaphysics.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about the
+      treatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of man, all
+      these are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01
+      spirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an eternity before
+      there was any force or any matter. Exactly how spirit could act without
+      force we do not understand. That we must take upon credit. How spirit
+      could create matter without force is a serious question, and we are too
+      reverent to press such an inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied, however,
+      that spirit is entirely independent of force and matter, and any man who
+      denies this must be "a malevolent and infamous wretch."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said as the
+      doctrine of negation. And we are informed by him&mdash;speaking I presume
+      from experience&mdash;that negation is a poor thing to die by. He tells us
+      that the last hours are the grand testing hours. They are the hours when
+      atheists disown their principles and infidels bewail their folly&mdash;"that
+      Voltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their
+      death-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital"&mdash;He also states that
+      "another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify Voltaire, but
+      that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken possession of him, and he
+      cried 'Retire! it is you that have brought me to my present state&mdash;Begone!
+      what a rich glory you have brought me.'" This, my friends, is the same
+      old, old falsehood that has been repeated again and again by the lips of
+      hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these stories a solitary word
+      of truth; and every intelligent man knows all these death-bed accounts to
+      be entirely and utterly false. They are taken, however, by the mass of the
+      church as evidence that all opposition to Christianity, so-called, fills
+      the bed of the dying infidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So
+      far as my experience goes, the bad die in many instances as placidly as
+      the good. I have sometimes thought that a hardened wretch, upon whose
+      memory is engraved the record of nearly every possible crime, dies without
+      a shudder, without a tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering
+      during his last moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in
+      the heat of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every
+      murderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never
+      thought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life. Neither have I
+      imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he suffered death. The
+      fact is, that when man approaches natural death, his powers, his
+      intellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a child. He has less
+      and less sense. And just in proportion as he loses his reasoning powers,
+      he goes back to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes of youth
+      cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his mother. Of this very
+      fact, there is not a more beautiful description than that given by
+      Shakespeare when he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack Falstaff,
+      in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: "A' made a finer end, and went away, an
+      it had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between twelve and one,
+      ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him fumble with the
+      sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his fingers' end, I knew
+      there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and a' babbled
+      of green fields." As the genius of Shakespeare makes Falstaff a child
+      again upon sunny slopes, decked with daisies, so death takes the dying
+      back to the scenes of their childhood, and they are clasped once more to
+      the breasts of mothers. They go back, for the reason that nearly every
+      superstition in the world has been sanctified by some sweet and placid
+      mother. Remember, the superstition has never sanctified the mother, but
+      the mother has sanctified the superstition. The young Mohammedan, who now
+      lies dying upon some field of battle, thinks sweet and tender thoughts of
+      home and mother, and will, as the blood oozes from his veins, repeat some
+      holy verse from the blessed Koran. Every superstition in the world that is
+      now held sacred has been made so by mothers, by fathers, by the
+      recollections of home. I know what it has cost the noble, the brave, the
+      tender, to throw away every superstition, although sanctified by the
+      memory of those they loved. Whoever has thrown away these superstitions
+      has been pursued by his fellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire
+      the church has pursued him as though he had been the vilest criminal. A
+      little over one hundred years ago, Catholicism, the inventor of
+      instruments of torture, red with the innocent blood of millions, felt in
+      its heartless breast the dagger of Voltaire. From that blow the Catholic
+      Church never can recover. Livid with hatred she launched at her assassin
+      the curse of Rome, and ignorant Protestants have echoed that curse. For
+      myself, I like Voltaire, and whenever I think of that name, it is to me as
+      a plume floating above some grand knight&mdash;a knight who rides to a
+      walled city and demands an unconditional surrender. I like him. He was
+      once imprisoned in the Bastile, and while in that frightful fortress&mdash;and
+      I like to tell it&mdash;he changed his name. His name was Francois Marie
+      Arouet. In his gloomy cell he changed this name to Voltaire, and when some
+      sixty years afterward the Bastile was torn down to the very dust,
+      "Voltaire" was the battle cry of the destroyers who did it. I like him
+      because he did more for religious toleration than any other man who ever
+      lived or died. I admire him because he did more to do away with torture in
+      civil proceedings than any other man. I like him because he was always
+      upon the side of justice, upon the side of progress. I like him in spite
+      of his faults, because he had many and splendid virtues. I like him
+      because his doctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country. I
+      like him because he hated tyranny; and when he died he died as serenely as
+      ever mortal died; he spoke to his servant recognizing him as a man. He
+      said to him, calling him by name: "My friend, farewell." These were the
+      last words of Voltaire. And this was the only frightful scene enacted at
+      his bed of death. I like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the
+      intellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at the
+      foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in
+      Christendom.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a thousand
+      dollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death of Voltaire was
+      not as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same absurd story is told
+      of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a patriot&mdash;he was the first man in
+      the world to write these words: "The Free and Independent States of
+      America." He was the first man to convince the American people that they
+      ought to separate themselves from Great Britain. "His pen did as much, to
+      say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of Washington."
+      The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic services repay them
+      with slander and calumny. If there is in this world a crime, ingratitude
+      is a crime. And as for myself, I am not willing to receive anything from
+      any man without making at least an acknowledgment of my obligation. Y et
+      these clergymen, whose very right to stand in their pulpits and preach,
+      was secured to them by such men as Thomas Paine, delight in slandering the
+      reputation of that great man. They tell their hearers that he died in
+      fear,&mdash;that he died in agony, hearing devils rattle chains, and that
+      the infinite God condescended to frighten a dying man. I will give one
+      thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman in San Francisco who will
+      substantiate the truth of the absurd stories concerning the death of
+      Thomas Paine. There is not one word of truth in these accounts; not one
+      word.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what is called
+      a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and Volney and
+      Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying "My God, My God, why hast thou
+      forsaken me?" what would the clergymen of this city then have said?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who have opposed
+      the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment, unbecoming any
+      intelligent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to die? The
+      question is, who is right? The great question is not, who died right, but
+      who lived right? There is infinitely more responsibility in living than in
+      dying. The moment of death is the most unimportant moment of life. Nothing
+      can be done then. You cannot even do a favor for a friend, except to
+      remember him in your will. It is a moment when life ceases to be of value.
+      While living, while you have health and strength, you can augment the
+      happiness of your fellow-men; and the man who has made others happy need
+      not be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they call themselves, these
+      believers who hope for immortality&mdash;thousands of them, will rob their
+      neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless acts of injustice, when,
+      according to their belief, the witnesses of their infamy will live
+      forever; and the men whom they have injured and outraged, will meet them
+      in every glittering star through all the ages yet to be.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the record in the
+      grateful faces of my fellow-men.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who started
+      their churches were heretics.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a heretic. The
+      first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first Christian was denounced
+      as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment they get numerous
+      enough to be in the majority in some locality, begin to call themselves
+      orthodox. Can there be any impudence beyond this?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was the best
+      Baptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always liked him. He was
+      a good man&mdash;Roger Williams. He was the first man, so far as I know,
+      in this country, who publicly said that the soul of man should be free.
+      And it was a wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to say that,
+      could think that any particular form of baptism was necessary to
+      salvation. It does strike me that a man of great brain and thought could
+      not possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being, the question
+      whether he should dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves of
+      fire, should be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized. That
+      seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is a
+      matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance of
+      baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at the judgment seat
+      to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing, should ask a man:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Have you been a good man?" and the man replied:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Tolerably good."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you love your wife and children?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you try and make them happy?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you try and make your neighbors happy?" "Yes, I paid my debts: I gave
+      heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was thanked for it or not."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Suppose the Supreme Being then should say:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Were you ever baptized?" and the man should reply:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "I am sorry to say I never was."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Could a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by the Supreme
+      Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own case was to be
+      called next?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders&mdash;how I
+      ever got into such bad company, I don't know,&mdash;and one of them asked
+      what I thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much about it; did not
+      know much about it; didn't want to say anything, but they insisted upon
+      it. I said, "Well, I'll give you my opinion&mdash;with soap, baptism is a
+      good thing."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon several
+      occasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them
+      down. He said some things about me not entirely pleasant, which I do not
+      wish to repeat. In his reply he takes the ground:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>First</i>. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he swore upon
+      it or by it when he joined the Masons.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Second</i>. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the supposition
+      that he had softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Third.</i> That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the inhabitants
+      of Canaan, according to the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest." He
+      takes the ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the ripping
+      open of women with child by the sword of war, was an act of sublime mercy.
+      He justifies a war of extermination; he applauds every act of cruelty and
+      murder. He says that the Canaanites ought to have been turned from their
+      homes; that men guilty of no crime except fighting for their country, old
+      men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled, prattling children,
+      ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war; that it was an act of
+      sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious persecution into the bodies
+      of all, old and young. This is what the reverend gentleman is pleased to
+      call mercy. If this is mercy let us have injustice. If there is in the
+      heavens such a God I am sorry that man exists. All this, however, is
+      justified upon the ground that God has the right to do as he pleases with
+      the being he has created. This I deny. Such a doctrine is infamously
+      false. Suppose I could take a stone and in one moment change it into a
+      sentient, hoping, loving human being, would I have the right to torture
+      it? Would I have the right to give it pain? No one but a fiend would
+      either exercise or justify such a right. Even if there is a God who
+      created us all he has no such right. Above any God that can exist, in the
+      infinite serenity forever sits the figure of justice; and this God, no
+      matter how great and infinite he may be, is bound to do justice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Fourth.</i> That God chose the Jews and governed them personally for
+      thousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in order that his
+      peculiar people might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters; that
+      he wished to make of the Hebrews a great nation, and that, consequently,
+      he was justified in destroying the original inhabitants of that country.
+      It seems to me that the end hardly justified the means. According to the
+      account, God governed the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded in
+      civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified him the first
+      opportunity they had. Such an administration can hardly be called a
+      success.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Fifth.</i> The reverend gentleman seems to think that the practice of
+      polygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared with the crime of
+      exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the corrupting
+      influence of such pictures he descants at great length, and attacks with
+      all the bitterness of the narrow theologian the masterpieces of art. Allow
+      me to say one word about art. That is one of the most beautiful words in
+      our language&mdash;Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for art to go
+      in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of Raffaelle. I
+      like the productions of those splendid souls that put their ideas of
+      beauty upon the canvas uncovered.
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     "There are brave souls in every land
+     Who worship nature, grand and nude,
+     And who with swift indignant hand
+     Tear off the fig leaves of the prude."
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Sixth</i>. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions slavery, but
+      that it is not an immoral book even if it does.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as the
+      reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of Solomon&mdash;"by a
+      softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really thought my
+      fellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he was going to
+      misery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try and save
+      him. It does seem to me, that instead of having my mouth filled with
+      epithets and invectives; instead of drawing the lips of malice back from
+      the teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would be filled with
+      tears. It seems to me that I would do what little I could to reclaim him.
+      I would talk to him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms of
+      affection about him. I would not speak of him as though he were a wild
+      beast. I would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would think
+      of him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the damned, and
+      my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred&mdash;my eyes with
+      tears, not scorn.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed and withered
+      by the blight and breath of superstition, as cheerfully to defend the most
+      frightful crimes of which we have a record&mdash;a man so hardened and
+      petrified by creed and dogma that he hesitates not to defend even the
+      institution of human slavery&mdash;so lost to all sense of pity that he
+      applauds murder and rapine as though they were acts of the loftiest
+      self-denial.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have said, is the
+      Rev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled "Ghosts
+      against God or Ingersoll against Honesty." I presume he imagines himself
+      to be the defendant in both cases.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon the
+      ground that he had to contribute to the support of a "materialistic
+      demon." To say the least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied. I am
+      willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so much better than did the
+      infidels in the olden time that I am more than satisfied. It is a little
+      thing that I bear.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture. They were
+      stretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron boots; they stood
+      upon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and
+      native land. They were taken from their firesides, from their wives, from
+      their children; they were taken to the public square; they were chained to
+      stakes, and their ashes were scattered by the countless hands of hatred. I
+      am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a
+      "materialistic demon." When I saw that statement I will tell you what I
+      did. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom to think
+      that he had contributed a dollar toward my support, toward the support of
+      a "materialistic demon." I wrote him a letter and I said:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime of having
+      contributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I hereby enclose
+      the amount you paid to attend my lecture." I then gave him a little good
+      advice. I advised him to be charitable, to be kind, and regretted
+      exceedingly that any man could listen to one of my talks for an hour and a
+      half and not go away satisfied that all men had the same right to think.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This man denied having received the money, but it was traced to him
+      through a blot on the envelope.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentleman avers that everything that I said about persecution is
+      applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what he says. The
+      Catholics have probably persecuted more than any other church, simply
+      because that church has had more power, simply because it has been more of
+      a church. It has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the
+      Catholics come nearer believing what they say about their church than
+      other Christians do. Was it a Catholic persecution that drove the Puritan
+      fathers from England? Was it not the storm of Episcopal persecution that
+      filled the sails of the Mayflower? Was it not a Protestant persecution
+      that drove the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be honest. Who went to
+      Scotland and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was it that chained to the
+      stake that splendid girl by the sands of the sea for not saying "God save
+      the king"? She was worthy to have been the mother of C&aelig;sar. She
+      would not say "God save the king," but she would say "God save the king,
+      if it be God's will." Protestants ordered her to say "God save the king,"
+      and no more. She said, "I will not," and they chained her to a stake in
+      the sand and allowed her to be drowned by the rising of the inexorable
+      tide. Who did this? Protestants. Who drove Roger Williams from
+      Massachusetts? Protestants. Who sold white Quaker children into slavery?
+      Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers? Who burned and destroyed
+      men and women and children charged with impossible crimes? Protestants.
+      The Protestants have persecuted exactly to the extent of their power. The
+      Catholics have done the same.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of religious
+      toleration in the New World were the Catholics of Maryland. The next were
+      the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger Williams. The Catholics passed
+      the act of religious toleration, and after the Protestants got into power
+      again in England, and also in the colony of Maryland, they repealed the
+      law of toleration and passed another law declaring the Catholics from
+      under the protection of all law. Afterward, the Catholics again got into
+      power and had the generosity and magnanimity to re-enact the old law. And,
+      so far as I know, it is the only good record upon the subject of religious
+      toleration the Catholics have in this world, and I am always willing to
+      give them credit for it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for the world in
+      the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not know that nearly
+      every man who took a forward step was denounced by the church as a heretic
+      and infidel? Does he not know that the church has in all ages persecuted
+      the astronomers, the geologists, the logicians? Does he not know that even
+      to-day the church slanders and maligns the foremost men? Has he ever heard
+      of Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John W. Draper, one of the
+      leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of Auguste Comte, the great
+      Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of Laplace, of Spinoza? In
+      short, has he ever heard of a man who took a step in advance of his time?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Orthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be orthodoxy and
+      becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual cloaca; it
+      cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity is simply free thought.
+      Every man who really owns his own brain is, in the estimation of the
+      church, an infidel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is a paper published in this city called <i>The Occident</i>. The
+      Editor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the people who have assembled
+      to hear me, in the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible. I
+      cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He alleges that the people who
+      assemble to hear me are the low, the debauched and the infamous. The man
+      who reads that paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a Presbyterian
+      sheet; and would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated Castalio. Castalio
+      was the first minister in the history of Christendom who acknowledged the
+      innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed him like a
+      sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a "dog of Satan;" said that he
+      had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very grave. The editor
+      of this paper is still warming his hands at the fire that burned Servetus.
+      He has in his heart the same fierce hatred of everything that is free. But
+      what right have we to expect anything good of a man who believes in the
+      eternal damnation of infants?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse religion
+      than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was, from cannibalism
+      to civilization, I have never heard of it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I make a distinction between the members and the creed of that church. I
+      know many who are a thousand times better than the creed&mdash;good, warm
+      and splendid friends of mine. I would do anything in the world for them.
+      And I have said to them a hundred times, "You are a thousand times better
+      than your creed." But when you come down to the doctrine of the damnation
+      of infants, it is the deformity of deformities. The editor of this paper
+      is engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of fore-ordination
+      and damnation&mdash;those twin comforts of the Presbyterian creed, and
+      warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in any manner for
+      themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the lowest, the vilest
+      and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men who are longing to commit
+      crime, men who are anxious to throw off all restraint.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional obligation
+      upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a responsibility upon his brain
+      and upon his heart. You, who never want responsibility, give your souls to
+      some church. You, who never want the feeling that you are under obligation
+      to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are willing to feel and
+      meet responsibility; if you feel that you must give an account not only to
+      yourselves but to every human being whom you injure, then you must be
+      free. Where there is no freedom, there can be no responsibility.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so
+      malicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it
+      because they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is it the
+      result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being written upon every
+      orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual inferiority?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This same editor assures his readers that what I say is not worth
+      answering, and yet he devotes column after column of his journal to that
+      very purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no orator; and upon the same
+      page admits that he did not hear me, giving as a reason that he does not
+      think it right to pay money for such a purpose. Recollect, that in a
+      religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criticises a statue or a
+      painting, condemns it, and at the end of the criticism says that he never
+      saw it. He criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at the end
+      says, "I never heard him, and I never saw him."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these gentlemen who
+      thought it necessary to hear what any man said in order to answer him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I must say,
+      so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of treatment, he is a
+      kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several mistakes as to what I
+      really said, but the fault I suppose must have been in the report. I am
+      made to say in the report of his sermon, "There is no sacred place in all
+      the universe." What I did say was, "There is no sacred place in all the
+      universe of thought. There is nothing too holy to be investigated, nothing
+      too divine to be understood. The fields of thought are fenceless, and
+      without a wall." I say this to-night.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only the right to
+      do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I really said was, man has
+      the right to do right, and the right to think right, and the right to
+      think wrong. Thought is a means of ascertaining truth, a mode by which we
+      arrive at conclusions. And if no one has a right to think, unless he
+      thinks right, he would only have the right to think upon self-evident
+      propositions. In all respects, with the exception of these misstatements
+      to which I have called your attention, so far as I can see, Mr. Ijams was
+      perfectly fair, and treated me as though I had the ordinary rights of a
+      human being. I take this occasion to thank him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers and a
+      multitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed themselves with
+      the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I can only reply to those
+      who have made a parade of answering me. Many have said it is not worth
+      answering, and then proceeded to answer. They have said, he has produced
+      no argument, and then have endeavored to refute it. They have said it is
+      simply the old straw that has been thrashed over and over again for years
+      and years. If all I have said is nothing, if it is all idle and foolish,
+      why do they take up the time of their fellow-men replying to me? Why do
+      they fill their religious papers with criticisms, if all I have said and
+      done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr. Guard, of "some little dog
+      barking at a railway train"? Why stop the train, why send for the
+      directors, why hold a consultation and finally say, we must settle with
+      that dog or stop running these cars?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Probably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond cavil the
+      truth of what I have said.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER? II.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      IF this "sacred" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is not
+      inspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as
+      any devil could be.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of
+      them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they
+      begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to
+      inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, <i>shall be</i>
+      of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
+      bondmaids."&mdash;Leviticus xxv.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another, to buy a
+      woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child. This makes the
+      whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal tender for labor
+      performed. This is the kind of slavery established by the most merciful
+      God. The reason given for all this, is, that the persons whom they
+      enslaved were heathen. You may enslave them because they are not orthodox.
+      If you can find anybody who does not believe in me, the God of the Jews,
+      you may steal his wife from his arms, and her babe from the cradle. If you
+      can find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew Jehovah, you may
+      steal her prattling child from her breast. Can any one conceive of
+      anything more infamous? Can any one find in the literature of this world
+      more frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all this is found in
+      that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the 25th of Leviticus&mdash;from
+      the Bible&mdash;from this sacred gift of God&mdash;this "Magna Charta of
+      human freedom."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the
+      seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were
+      married, then his wife shall go out with him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      4. "If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or
+      daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall
+      go out by himself.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and
+      children; I w ill not go out free:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring
+      him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear
+      through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."&mdash;<i>Exodus,
+      xxi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his wife and
+      children. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife and child. This
+      is another of the laws of the most merciful God. This God changes even
+      love into a chain. Children are used by him as manacles and fetters, and
+      wives become the keepers of prisons. Any man who believes that such
+      hideous laws were made by an infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in my
+      judgment, insane or totally depraved.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the doctrine of the
+      New? What message had he who came from heaven's throne for the oppressed
+      of earth? What words of sympathy, what words of cheer, for those who
+      labored and toiled without reward? Let us see:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Servants, be obedient to them that are <i>your</i> masters, according to
+      the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
+      Christ."&mdash;<i>Ephesians, vi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a woman who
+      has been robbed of her child&mdash;to a man tracked by hounds through
+      lonely swamps&mdash;to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding&mdash;to a
+      mother weeping above an empty cradle.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good
+      and gentle, but also to the fro ward."&mdash;<i>I Peter ii., 18</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief,
+      suffering wrongfully."&mdash;<i>I Peter ii., 19</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man work
+      patiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a slave with
+      his wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave escapes from
+      slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying of the bloodhound must be
+      to the ears of this most merciful God. All this is simply infamous. On the
+      throne of this universe there sits no such monster.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh; not
+      with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing
+      God."&mdash;<i>Col. iii., 22</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work every moment
+      that his strength permitted. He really seems to have feared that he might
+      not at all times do the very best he could to promote the interests of the
+      thief who claimed to own him. And speaking to all slaves, in the name of
+      the Father of All, this apostle says: "Obey in all things your masters,
+      not with eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God." He says
+      to them in substance, There is no way you can so well please God as to
+      work honestly for a thief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
+      worthy of all honor, that the name of God and <i>his</i> doctrine be not
+      blasphemed."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Think of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the name and
+      doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own yourself!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them,
+      because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are
+      faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and
+      exhort."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of others.
+      Do not hold in contempt the "faithful and beloved, partakers of the
+      benefit," who turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words <i>even</i>
+      to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according
+      to godliness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      4. "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes
+      of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
+      truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the early
+      abolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights, seeking to give
+      labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that divine garment
+      of the soul, Liberty,&mdash;all this was denounced by the apostle as a
+      simple strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings and
+      perverse disputing, destitute of truth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "But godliness with contentment is great gain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry
+      nothing out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content."&mdash;<i>I
+      Tim., vi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking of his
+      chains. This is the reason he should never try to better his condition. He
+      should be contented simply with the right to work for nothing. If he only
+      had food and raiment, and a thief to work for, he should be contented. He
+      should solace himself with the apostolic reflection, that as he brought
+      nothing into the world, he could carry nothing out, and that when dead he
+      would be as happily situated as his master.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word <i>servant</i>,
+      I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and 21:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under
+      his hand; he shall be surely punished.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:
+      for he <i>is</i> his money."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Yet, notwithstanding these passages the <i>Christian Advocate</i> says,
+      "the Bible is the Magna Charta of our liberty."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the same
+      paper:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of infidelity and
+      atheism, not less offensive to good morals than have been the teachings of
+      infidelity during the last century. France has been cursed with such
+      teachings for a hundred years, and because of it, to-day her citizens are
+      incapable of self-government."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What was the condition of France a century ago? Were they capable of
+      self-government then? For fourteen hundred years the common people of
+      France had suffered. For fourteen hundred years they had been robbed by
+      the altar and by the throne. They had been the prey of priests and nobles.
+      All were exempt from taxation, except the common people. The cup of their
+      suffering was full, and the French people arose in fury and frenzy, and
+      tore the drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air with the dust
+      of thrones.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Surely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced by the
+      teachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at the place where
+      once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison standing as it
+      stood of yore. I could see it attacked by the populace. I could see their
+      stormy faces and hear their cries. And I saw that ancient fortification of
+      tyranny go down forever. And now where once stood the Bastile stands the
+      Column of July. Upon its summit is a magnificent statue of Liberty,
+      holding in one hand a banner, in the other a broken chain, and upon its
+      shining forehead is the star of progress. There it stands where once stood
+      the Bastile. And France is as much superior to what it was when Voltaire
+      was born, as that statue, surmounting the Column of July, is more
+      beautiful than the Bastile that stood there once with its cells of
+      darkness, and its dungeons of horror.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And yet we are now told that the French people have rendered themselves
+      incapable of government, simply because they have listened to the voice of
+      progress. There are magnificent men in France. From that country have come
+      to the human race some of the grandest and holiest messages the ear of man
+      has ever heard. The French people have given to history some of the most
+      touching acts of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the amazed stars.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue San
+      Antoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to remember that
+      the tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in chains, and
+      while liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in the Inquisition of Spain.
+      And yet we are now told by a religious paper, that France is not capable
+      of self-government. I suppose it was capable of self-government under the
+      old r&eacute;gime, at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I
+      suppose it was capable of self-government when women were seen yoked with
+      cattle pulling plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government when all
+      who labored were in a condition of slavery.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In the old times, even among the priests, there were some good, some
+      sincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a sermon preached
+      by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. This old priest, among
+      other things, said that the soul of a beggar was as dear to God as the
+      soul of the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ died as much for
+      a beggar as for a prince. One French peasant, rough with labor, cried out:
+      "I propose three cheers for Jesus Christ." I like such things. I like to
+      hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris has been a kind of volcano, and
+      has made the heavens lurid with its lava of hatred, but it has also
+      contributed more than any other city to the intellectual development of
+      man. France has produced some infamous men, among others John Calvin, but
+      for one Calvin, she has produced a thousand benefactors of the human race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the church,
+      they will be in the highest sense capable of self-government. The moment
+      France succeeds in releasing herself from the coils of Catholicism&mdash;from
+      the shadows of superstition&mdash;from the foolish forms and mummeries of
+      the church&mdash;from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand years&mdash;she
+      will not only be capable of self-government, but will govern herself. Let
+      the priests be usefully employed. We want no overseers of the mind; no
+      slave-drivers for the soul. We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for
+      depriving us of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to frighten
+      our children, and paralyze the intellect of women.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS? III.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that the earth
+      was made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that on
+      the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. Geologists have driven the
+      church from this position, and it is now claimed that the days mentioned
+      in the Bible are periods of time. This is a simple evasion, not in any way
+      supported by the Scriptures. The Bible distinctly and clearly says that
+      the world was created in six days. There is not within its lids a clearer
+      statement. It does not say six periods. It was made according to that book
+      in six days:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      31. "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very
+      good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."&mdash;<i>Genesis
+      i</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      1. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
+      them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
+      rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and sanctified
+      it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
+      and made."&mdash;<i>Genesis ii</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      From the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the word
+      days:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      15. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest,
+      holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall
+      surely be put to death."&mdash;Served him right!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      16. "Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe
+      the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in
+      six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested
+      and was refreshed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      18. "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him
+      upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with
+      the finger of God."&mdash;<i>Exodus xxxi</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up
+      the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of
+      Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley
+      of Ajalon.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      13. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
+      avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of
+      Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; and hasted not to
+      go down about a whole day.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      14. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord
+      hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel."&mdash;<i>Josh.
+      x</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These passages must certainly convey the idea that this world was made in
+      six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were to keep the
+      Sabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh day&mdash;not
+      period. If you say six periods, instead of six days, what becomes of your
+      Sabbath? The only reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath is
+      that God observed it&mdash;that he rested from his work that day and was
+      refreshed. Take this reason away and the sacredness of that day has no
+      foundation in the Scriptures.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE? IV.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was understood by
+      those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. From time to time
+      discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent with the Scriptures. At
+      first, theologians denounced the discoverers of all facts inconsistent
+      with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the universe; that
+      the sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck called the earth. The
+      men who discovered that all this was a mistake were denounced by the
+      ignorant clergy of that day, precisely as the ignorant clergy of our time
+      denounce the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine of the earth's
+      place in the solar system was demonstrated; when persecution could no
+      longer conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church made an
+      effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of science. When
+      the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation became apparent to
+      all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of the Bible. Then it
+      was pretended that the "days" of creation were vast periods of time. When
+      it was shown to be utterly impossible that the sun revolved around the
+      earth, then the account given by Joshua of the sun standing still for the
+      space of a whole day, was changed into a figure of speech. It was said
+      that Joshua merely conformed to the mode of speech common in his day; and
+      that when he said the sun stood still, he merely intended to convey the
+      idea that the earth ceased turning upon its axis. They admitted that
+      stopping the sun could not lengthen the day, and for that reason it must
+      have been the earth that stopped. But you will remember that the moon
+      stood still in the valley of Ajalon&mdash;that the moon stayed until the
+      people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One would naturally suppose that the sun would have given sufficient light
+      to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their enemies without any
+      assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon had not stopped, the
+      relations between the earth and moon would have been changed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched piece of
+      ignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this nineteenth century has
+      for its basis such childish absurdities? According to this account, what
+      was the sun, or rather the earth, stopped for? It was stopped in order
+      that the Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amorites. For the
+      accomplishment of such a purpose the earth was made to pause. Why should
+      an almost infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of destroying
+      a handful of men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain. I strike my
+      hands together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat come from?
+      Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that there can be no
+      destruction of force. It disappears in one form only to reappear in
+      another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one thousand miles an hour,
+      was stopped. The motion of this vast globe would have instantly been
+      changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of the greatest
+      scientists of the present day that to stop the earth would generate as
+      much heat as could be produced by burning a world as large as this of
+      solid coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the paltry purpose of
+      defeating a few poor barbarians. The employment of so much force for the
+      accomplishment of so insignificant an object would be as useless as
+      bringing all the intellect of a great man to bear in answering the
+      arguments of the clergymen of San Francisco.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their grand
+      courses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to
+      destroy an insect to which a single drop of water is "an unbounded world."
+      How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect, not only to endorse such
+      ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those who do not? Can anything be more
+      debasing to the intellect of man than a belief in the astronomy of the
+      Bible? According to the Scriptures, the world was made out of nothing, and
+      the sun, moon, and stars, of the nothing that happened to be left. To the
+      writers of the Bible the firmament was solid, and in it were grooves along
+      which the stars were pushed by angels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed
+      his geography and astronomy. His book was passed upon by the church, and
+      was declared to be the truth concerning the subjects upon which he
+      treated.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his guide,
+      found and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second, that it was a
+      vast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there was a vast body of
+      land, then a strip of water all around it, then a strip of land. He
+      thought that on the outer strip of land people lived before the flood&mdash;that
+      at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark crossed the strip of water and
+      landed on the shore of the country, in the middle of the world, where we
+      now are. This great biblical scholar informed the true believers of his
+      day that in the outer strip of land were mountains, around which the sun
+      and moon revolved; that when the sun was on the side of the mountain next
+      the land occupied by man, it was day, and when on the other side, it was
+      night.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most eminent
+      astronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament was solid, and
+      that the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells us that these angels
+      attended strictly to their business, that each one watched the motions of
+      all the others so that proper distances might always be maintained, and
+      all confusion avoided. All this was believed by the gentlemen who made
+      most of our religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to show that the
+      earth must be flat, was the fact that the Bible stated that when Christ
+      should come the second time, in glory, the whole world should see him.
+      "Now," said Cosmas, "if the world is round, how could the people on the
+      other side see the Lord when he comes?" This settled the question.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men have been for
+      centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long after they had become
+      dust they governed the world. The superstitions they planted, their
+      descendants watered with the best and bravest blood. To maintain their
+      ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed for a thousand
+      years, and the infamous work is still being prosecuted.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all truth. Any
+      new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the light, or rather in
+      the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that test it was false,
+      it was denounced, and the person bringing it forward forced to recant. It
+      would have been a far better course to have discovered every theory found
+      to be in harmony with the Scriptures.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this city, that
+      the Bible is the foundation of all science.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED
+      WITCHCRAFT?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      V.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to give up
+      the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent
+      theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, they were right. To
+      give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great degree at least, the
+      supernatural. To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the mind of
+      man to give up the great ones. The founders of nearly all creeds, and of
+      all religions properly so called, have taught the existence of good and
+      evil spirits. They have peopled the dark with devils and the light with
+      angels. They have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs. The
+      moment these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends, disappear
+      from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted for by natural
+      rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been taken in the
+      direction of what is now known as materialism. While the church believes
+      in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified form. The evil spirits are not
+      as plenty as in former times, and more phenomena are accounted for by
+      natural means. Just to the extent that belief has been lost in spirits,
+      just to that extent the church has lost its power and authority. When men
+      ceased to account for the happening of any event by ascribing it to the
+      direct action of good or evil spirits, and began to reason from known
+      premises, the chains of superstition began to grow weak. Into such
+      disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many Christians not only deny
+      the existence of these evil spirits, but take the ground that no such
+      thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us see:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."&mdash;<i>Exodus xxii., 18</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar
+      spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to
+      him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at Endor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and
+      two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, I pray
+      thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I
+      shall name unto thee.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      9. "And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done,
+      how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards out
+      of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me
+      to die?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      10. "And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth, there
+      shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
+      Bring me up Samuel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice: and the
+      woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      13. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And
+      the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      14. "And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man
+      cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was
+      Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      15. "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?"&mdash;2
+      Samuels xxviii.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual seance. Is it
+      not one of the wonderful things of the world that men and women who
+      believe this account of the witch of Endor, who believe all the miracles
+      and all the ghost stories of the Bible, deny with all their force the
+      truth of modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I would rather
+      believe some one who has heard what he relates, who has seen what he
+      tells, or at least thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather
+      believe somebody I know, whose reputation for truth is good among those
+      who know him. I would rather believe these people than to take the words
+      of those who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and about
+      whom I know nothing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after
+      wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your God."&mdash;<i>Leviticus
+      xix</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6 "And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and
+      after wizards, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him
+      off from among his people."&mdash;<i>Leviticus xx.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      10. "There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination, or
+      an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a
+      necromancer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord."&mdash;<i>Deut.
+      xviii</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have given you a few of the passages found in the Old Testament upon
+      this subject, showing conclusively that the Bible teaches the existence of
+      witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits. In the New Testament
+      there are passages equally strong, showing that the Savior himself was a
+      believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the existence of a
+      personal devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching of the following:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
+      of the devil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
+      an hungered.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God,
+      command that these stones be made bread.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      4. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
+      alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a
+      pinnacle of the temple.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for
+      it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in
+      their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot
+      against a stone.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
+      Lord, thy God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
+      sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      9. "And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
+      fall down and worship me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
+      Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered
+      unto him."&mdash;<i>Matt. iv.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there is nothing
+      within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence of a personal
+      God. If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits, there is
+      nothing in the Bible going to show that good spirits exist either in this
+      world or the next.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      16. "When the even was come they brought unto him many that were possessed
+      with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all
+      that were sick."&mdash;<i>Matt. vii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      1. "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of
+      the Gadarenes.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of
+      the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,
+      not with chains:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      4. "Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the
+      chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces:
+      neither could any man tame him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs,
+      crying and cutting himself with stones.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee,
+      Jesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou
+      torment me not.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      9. "And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name
+      is Legion, for we are many.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that
+      we may enter into them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      13. "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went
+      out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep
+      place into the sea, and they were about two thousand; and were choked in
+      the sea."&mdash;<i>Mark v</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of casting out
+      devils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and followers, and to
+      all who might believe in him throughout all the coming time:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      17. "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they
+      cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      18. "And 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."&mdash;<i>Mark xvi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I would like to see the clergy who have been answering me, tested in this
+      way: Let them drink poison, let them take up serpents, let them cure the
+      sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then believe that they believe.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in the
+      ignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them. "They are
+      tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." These
+      devils have covered the world with blood and tears. They have filled the
+      earth with fear. They have filled the lives of children with darkness and
+      horror. They have peopled the sweet world of imagination with monsters.
+      They have made religion a strange mingling of fear and ferocity. I am
+      doing what I can to reave the heavens of these monsters. For my part, I
+      laugh at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient and modern, great
+      and small.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. VI.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the slavery of man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
+      voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
+      chastened him, will not hearken unto them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
+      out unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of his place.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      20. "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
+      stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a
+      drunkard.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die;
+      so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and
+      fear."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He proceeded
+      to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of age, was not
+      consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a man was willing to
+      offer upon the altar his only son. And such was the slavery of children,
+      that the only son had not the spirit to resist.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Have you ever read the story of Jephthah?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      30 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt
+      without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      31. "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 for a burnt offering.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      32. "So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against
+      them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      33. "And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even
+      twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great
+      slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of
+      Israel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      34."And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter
+      came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only
+      child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      35. "And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and
+      said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one
+      of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I
+      cannot go back....
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      39. "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto
+      her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."&mdash;<i>Judges
+      xi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this? What can we
+      think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God? And
+      what can we think of a God who would accept such a sacrifice? Can such a
+      God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead for the rights of children. I
+      plead for the government of kindness and love. I plead for the republic of
+      home, the democracy of the fireside. I plead for affection. And for this I
+      am pursued by invective. For this I am called a fiend, a devil, a monster,
+      by Christian editors and clergymen, by those who pretend to love their
+      enemies and pray for those that despitefully use them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Allow me to give you another instance of affection related in the
+      Scriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the name of Job.
+      The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to meet Satan, said to
+      him: "Are you acquainted with my servant Job? Have you noticed what an
+      excellent man he is?" And Satan replied to him and said: "Why should he
+      not be an excellent man&mdash;you have given him everything he wants? Take
+      from him what he has and he will curse you." And thereupon the Lord gave
+      Satan the power to destroy the property and children of Job. In a little
+      while these high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed
+      somewhat elated with his success, and called again the attention of Satan
+      to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body and he
+      would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the body of
+      Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this, Job did not sin
+      with his lips.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This book seems to have been written to show the excellence of patience,
+      and to prove that at last God will reward all who will bear the
+      afflictions of heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The sons and
+      daughters of Job had been slain, and then the Lord, in order to reward
+      Job, gave him other children, other sons and other daughters&mdash;not the
+      same ones he had lost; but others. And this, according to the writer, made
+      ample amends. Is that the idea we now have of love? If I have a child, no
+      matter how deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody can make the
+      loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want the one I loved
+      and the one I lost.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE GALLANTRY OF GOD. VII.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no respect for
+      the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It takes something besides
+      epithets and invectives to prove or disprove anything. Let us see what the
+      sacred volume says concerning the mothers and daughters of the human race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has not there
+      an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is less than a man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
+      man, but to be in silence."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to the sacred
+      writer, was:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      13. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
+      transgression.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they
+      continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."&mdash;<i>1 Tim.
+      ii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
+      the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man that man
+      does to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to Christ that Christ
+      does to God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this barbarous
+      idiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any woman look other than
+      with contempt upon such passages? How can any woman believe that this is
+      the will of a most merciful God?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
+      image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the next
+      verse:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This same chivalric gentleman also says:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      9. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."&mdash;<i>1
+      Cor. xi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      22. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      23. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
+      of the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      24. "Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be
+      to their own husbands in everything."&mdash;<i>Eph. v.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Even the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A man could
+      divorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her husband.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in contempt.
+      According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be
+      purified from the crime of having born sons and daughters. To make love
+      and maternity crimes is infamous.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      10. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy
+      God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
+      captive,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      11. "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
+      unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      12. "Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her
+      head, and pare her nails."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxi</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from hell,
+      from a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem
+      or from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism complete and utter.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE? VIII.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      READ the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of Numbers&mdash;an
+      order unfit to be reproduced in print&mdash;an order which I am unwilling
+      to repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of
+      Deuteronomy. Read the-life of Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of Jacob, and
+      then tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and concubinage. All
+      the languages of the world are insufficient to express the filth of
+      polygamy. It makes man a beast&mdash;woman a slave. It destroys the
+      fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild beasts.
+      It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of the Bible&mdash;a
+      doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon. It is by the Bible that
+      Brigham Young justifies the practice of this beastly horror. It takes from
+      language those sweetest words, husband, wife, father mother, child and
+      lover. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals, and leaves the heart
+      a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents of loathsome lust. Yet
+      the book justifying this infamy is the book upon which rests the
+      civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I denounce this
+      frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and the infamous <i>Christian
+      Advocate</i> says that the moral sentiment of this State ought to denounce
+      this Illinois Catiline for his blasphemous utterances and for his base and
+      debasing scurrility.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL TYRANNY? IX.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but the right to
+      govern himself. All political authority is vested in the people
+      themselves, They have the right to select their officers and agents, and
+      these officers and agents are responsible to the people. Political
+      authority does not come from the clouds. Man should not be governed by the
+      aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Republican or Democratic book.
+      Exactly the opposite doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn that
+      the people have no power whatever; that all power and political authority
+      comes from on high, and that all the kings, all the potentates and powers,
+      have been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel kings have been
+      placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of Deity. The Scriptures
+      teach us that the common people have but one duty&mdash;the duty of
+      obedience. Let me read to you some of the political ideas in the great
+      "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
+      power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
+      God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King of Great
+      Britian by divine right, and by divine right was the lawful King of the
+      American Colonies. The leaders in the Revolutionary struggle resisted the
+      power, and according to these passages, resisted the ordinances of God;
+      and for that resistance they are promised the eternal recompense of
+      damnation.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
+      then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt
+      have praise of the same....
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
+      conscience sake.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers,
+      attending continually upon this very thing."&mdash;<i>Romans, xiii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      13. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;
+      whether it be to the king as supreme.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      14. "Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
+      punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      15. "For so is the will of God."&mdash;<i>1 Pet. ii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Had these ideas been carried out, political progress in the world would
+      have been impossible. Upon the necks of the people still would have been
+      the feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this infamous doctrine. Whether
+      higher powers are ordained of God or not, if those higher powers endeavor
+      to destroy the rights of man, I for one shall resist. Whenever and
+      wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn in support of a human right, I am
+      a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to titled wrong and robed
+      injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man. The real rulers are the
+      people, and the rulers so-called are but the servants of the people. They
+      are not ordained of any God. All political power comes from and belongs to
+      man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest the thrones of Europe. For fifteen
+      hundred years these verses have been repeated by brainless kings and
+      heardess priests. For fifteen hundred years each one of these texts has
+      been a bastile in which has been imprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each
+      one of these texts has been an obstruction on the highway of humanity.
+      Each one has been a fortification behind which have crouched the sainted
+      hypocrites and the titled robbers. According to these texts, a robber gets
+      his right to rob from God. And it is the duty of the robbed to submit. The
+      thief gets his right to steal from God. The king gets his right to trample
+      upon human liberty from God. I say, fight the king&mdash;fight the priest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD. X.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world with
+      blood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, Christians are
+      beginning to say that men have a right to differ upon religious questions
+      provided the questions about which they differ are not considered of great
+      importance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance is: "In non-essentials,
+      Liberty; in essentials, Unity."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Christian world have condescended to say that upon all non-essential
+      points we shall have the right to think for ourselves; but upon matters of
+      the least importance, they will think and speak for us. In this they are
+      consistent. They but follow the teachings of the God they worship. They
+      but adhere to the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures. Within
+      that volume there is no such thing as religious toleration. Within that
+      volume there is not one particle of mercy for an unbeliever. For all who
+      think for themselves, for all who are the owners of their own souls, there
+      are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any Christian who to-day exercises
+      the least toleration is to that extent false to his religion. Let us see
+      what the "Magna Charta" of liberty says upon this subject:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      6. "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.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      7. "Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto
+      thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the
+      other end of the earth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      8. "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.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      9. "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.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath
+      sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out
+      of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."&mdash;<i>Deut. xiii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your bosom had
+      said, "I like the religion of India better than the religion of
+      Palestine," it was then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most High&mdash;understand
+      me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High&mdash;said:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand shall be the
+      first upon her to put her to death."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to believe in
+      such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in order to be saved,
+      I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you a few more
+      extracts from the "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      2. "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord
+      thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the
+      sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      3. "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the
+      sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      4. "And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired
+      diligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such
+      abomination is wrought in Israel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      5. "Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have
+      committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman,
+      and shalt stone them with stones till they die."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Under this law if the woman you loved had said: "Let us worship the sun; I
+      am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let us worship the sun;
+      let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the world with
+      light and love, when the dawn stands jocund on the mountain's misty top;
+      it is the sun whose beams illumine and cover the earth with verdure and
+      with beauty; it is the sun that covers the trees with leaves, that carpets
+      the earth with grass and adorns the world with flowers; I adore the sun
+      because in its light I have seen your eyes; it has given to me the face of
+      my babe; it has clothed my life with joy; let us in gratitude fall down
+      and worship the glorious beams of the sun."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your hands:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither shalt
+      thou conceal her.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first upon her to
+      put her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a God who
+      would make such a law or give such a command. This you may say is the
+      doctrine of the Old Testament&mdash;what is the doctrine of the New?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth
+      not shall be damned."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the "tidings
+      of great joy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip upon the
+      backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has been a sword.
+      Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack. Every one has been a
+      fountain of tears. These words have filled the hearts of men with hatred.
+      These words invented all the instruments of torture. These words covered
+      the earth with blood.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired book. If
+      then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws commanding religious
+      intolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this same God took upon
+      himself flesh, and came among the Jews and taught a different religion,
+      and they crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY? XI.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, changeable,
+      unjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is it
+      possible to read the words said to have been spoken by this Deity, without
+      a shudder? Is it possible to contemplate his character without hatred?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour
+      flesh."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxxii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to his weak,
+      his wandering and suffering children?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of
+      thy dogs in the same." <i>Psalms, lxviii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the blood of
+      his children?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      22. "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little
+      and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the
+      field increase upon thee.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      23. "But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy
+      them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      24. "And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt
+      destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand
+      before thee, until thou have destroyed them."&mdash;<i>Deut. vii.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they had been
+      spoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have
+      been surprised. But these things are attributed to a God of infinite
+      mercy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      40. "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and
+      of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none
+      remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of
+      Israel commanded."&mdash;<i>Josh, x.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      14. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of
+      Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the
+      edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to
+      breathe."&mdash;<i>Josh. xi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      19. "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,
+      save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in
+      battle.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      20. "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come
+      against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that
+      they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
+      commanded Moses."&mdash;<i>Josh. xi.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are no words in our language with which to express the indignation I
+      feel when reading these cruel and heartless words.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
+      peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open
+      unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein shall be
+      tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no
+      peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege
+      it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt
+      smite every male thereof with the sword. But the women, <i>and the little
+      ones</i>, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil
+      thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of
+      thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee,
+      which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these
+      people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou
+      shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion. The men who
+      were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their homes, their
+      firesides, for their wives and for their little children. Yet these
+      things, by the clergy of San Francisco, are called acts of sublime mercy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The
+      Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words of
+      vengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite
+      brutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart the sweet flower of
+      pity and trample it in the bloody dust of superstition. Do not, I beseech
+      you, justify the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled babes. Do
+      not let the gaze of the gorgon of superstition turn your hearts to stone.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not with joy and
+      gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect that all the passages
+      in the Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and concubinage, political
+      tyranny, the subjection of woman, the enslavement of children,
+      establishing domestic and political tyranny, and that all the commands to
+      destroy men, women and children, are but interpolations of kings and
+      priests, made for the purpose of subjugating mankind through the
+      instrumentality of fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would not
+      think vastly more of the Bible if all these infamous things were
+      eliminated from it?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Surely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred from the
+      fact that in the same volume are found the frightful passages I have
+      quoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and studied precisely as
+      we read and study any book whatever. The good in it should be preserved
+      and cherished, and that which shocks the human heart should be cast aside
+      forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      While the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with disease,
+      famine, war, pestilence and death, there are no threatenings of punishment
+      beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punishment is a dogma of the New
+      Testament. This doctrine, the most cruel, the most infamous of which the
+      human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at all, in the Bible&mdash;in
+      the New Testament. One cannot imagine what the human heart has suffered by
+      reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal damnation. It is a doctrine so
+      abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so infinitely cruel, that it is
+      impossible for me to respect either the head or heart of any human being
+      who teaches or fears it. This doctrine necessarily subverts all ideas of
+      justice. To inflict infinite punishment for finite crimes, or rather for
+      crimes committed by finite beings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am
+      astonished it ever found lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that
+      we can be happy in heaven while those we loved on earth are suffering
+      infinite torments in eternal fire, defames and calumniates the human
+      heart.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE PLAN OF SALVATION. XII.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the salvation of
+      all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made manifest
+      to the children of men. According to the great scheme of the atonement,
+      the innocent suffers for the guilty in order to satisfy a law. What kind
+      of law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of innocence? Who made
+      this law? If God made it he must have known that the innocent would have
+      to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is to me a medley of
+      contradictions, impossibilities and theological conclusions. We are told
+      that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden death never
+      would have entered the world. We are further informed that had it not been
+      for the devil, Adam and Eve would not have been led astray; and if they
+      had not, as I said before, death never would have touched with its icy
+      hand the human heart. If our first parents had never sinned, and death
+      never had entered the world, you and I never would have existed. The earth
+      would have been filled thousands of generations before you and I were
+      born. At the feast of life, death made seats vacant for us. According to
+      this doctrine, we are indebted to the devil for our existence. Had he not
+      tempted Eve&mdash;no sin. If there had been no sin&mdash;no death. If
+      there had been no death the world would have been filled ages before you
+      and I were born. Therefore, we owe our existence to the devil. We are
+      further informed that as a consequence of original sin the scheme called
+      the atonement became necessary; and that if the Savior had not taken upon
+      himself flesh and come to this atom called the earth, and if he had not
+      been crucified for us, we should all have been cast forever into hell. Had
+      it not been for the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery of Judas
+      Iscariot, Christ would not have been crucified; and if he had not been
+      crucified, all of us would have had our portion in the lake that burneth
+      with eternal fire.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to this great doctrine, according to this vast and most
+      wonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to the devil,
+      our salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of
+      salvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of
+      believing a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,
+      ample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal fire simply
+      because there is not testimony enough to satisfy his mind? Can there be
+      such a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And yet this same Deity says to me, "resist not evil; pray for those that
+      despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will eternally damn mine."
+      It seems to me that even gods should practice what they preach.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its
+      provisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever
+      he is guilty of a wicked action he says, "charge it." This kind of
+      bookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in sin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most creeds
+      are better than the Bible, and most men are better than their God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      OTHER RELIGIONS. XIII.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in all ages
+      endeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and Whither? He has
+      endeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to pluck the secret of his
+      existence from the night. He has questioned the spectres of his own
+      imagination. He has explored the mysterious avenues of dreams. He has
+      peopled the heavens with spirits. He has mistaken his visions for
+      realities. In the twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows for gods.
+      In all ages he has been the slave of misery, the dupe of superstition and
+      the fool of hope. He has suffered and aspired.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Religion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we throw
+      aside the grosser and absurder forms of faith&mdash;practically at first
+      by ceasing to observe them, and lastly, by denying them altogether. Every
+      church necessarily by its constitution endeavors to prevent this natural
+      growth or development. What has happened to other religions must happen to
+      ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing away.
+      Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as noble as ours
+      can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say the least, been as
+      reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Man has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these questions in
+      all the countries of the world, and I respect all such men and women; but
+      let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you that in other
+      countries there is something.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the three stairs
+      that lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said: "Who is there?"
+      "Thy servant, O God!" But the gates would not open. For seven years he did
+      every act of kindness; again he came, and the voice said: "Who is there?"
+      And he replied: "Thy slave, O God!" Yet the gates were shut. Yet seven
+      other years of kindness, and the man again knocked; and the voice cried
+      and said: "Who is there?" "Thyself, O God!" And the gates wide open flew.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful descriptions
+      of perdition, wrote these words: "Two angels flying out from the blissful
+      city of God&mdash;the angel of love and the angel of pity&mdash;hovered
+      over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of hell. One smile of
+      love illumined the darkness and one tear of pity extinguished all the
+      fires." Has orthodoxy produced anything as generously beautiful as this?
+      Let me read you this: Sectarians, hear this: Believers in eternal
+      damnation, hear this: Clergy of America who expect to have your happiness
+      in heaven increased by seeing me burning in hell, hear this:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is the prayer of the Brahmins&mdash;a prayer that has trembled from
+      human lips toward heaven for more than four thousand years:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation. Never will I
+      enter into final bliss alone. But forever and everywhere will I labor and
+      strive for the final redemption of every creature throughout all worlds,
+      and until all are redeemed. Never will I wrongly leave this world to sin,
+      sorrow and struggle, but will remain and work and suffer where I am."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Has the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the infinite
+      charity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all the shining
+      worlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine that a large
+      majority are going to eternal ruin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Compare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it with the
+      imprecation of Christ: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
+      for the devil and his angels;" with the ideas of Jeremy Taylor, with the
+      creeds of Christendom, with all the prayers of all the saints, and in no
+      church except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain
+      from it."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Since the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human conduct
+      given superior to this?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Are the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius? He was
+      asked if there was any single word comprising the duties of man. He
+      replied: "Reciprocity." Upon being asked what he thought of the doctrine
+      of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: "That is not my doctrine.
+      If you return benefits for injuries what do you propose for benefits? My
+      doctrine is; For benefits return benefits; for injuries return justice
+      without any admixture of revenge."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I cannot put
+      a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an injury.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it doing, I ask
+      you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth
+      century? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this except from the honesty of
+      my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a consolation to us now? Is it even a
+      consolation when those we love die? The dead are so near and the promises
+      are so far away. It is covered with the rubbish of the past. I ask you, is
+      it all that is demanded by the brain and heart of the nineteenth century?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We want something better; we want something grander; we want something
+      that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want to advance&mdash;that
+      is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a heretic&mdash;you
+      cannot do it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and bloodshed.
+      They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon the human brain.
+      They have all, however, been perfectly natural productions, and under
+      similar circumstances would all be reproduced. Only by intellectual
+      development are the old superstitions outgrown. As only the few
+      intellectually advance, the majority is left on the side of superstition,
+      and remains there until the advanced ideas of the few thinkers become
+      general; and by that time there are other thinkers still in advance.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully proceeds
+      from age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the heretics
+      denounce their denouncers as the disciples of superstition and ignorance.
+      Christ was a heretic. Herod was orthodox. Socrates was a blasphemer.
+      Anytus worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while the sellers of
+      indulgences were the best of Catholics. Roger Williams was a heretic,
+      while the Puritans who drove him from Massachusetts were all orthodox.
+      Every step in advance in the religious history of the world has been taken
+      by heretics. No superstition has been destroyed except by a heretic. No
+      creed has been bettered except by a heretic. Heretic is the name that the
+      orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing pioneer. It is shouted by the
+      dwellers in swamps to the people upon the hills. It is the opinion that
+      midnight entertains of the dawn. It is what the rotting says of the
+      growing. Heretic is the name that a stench gives to a perfume.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      With this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from the lips of
+      the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud&mdash;heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is an
+      epitaph&mdash;heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a mist&mdash;heresy
+      the star shining forever above the child of truth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe that Want
+      will forever extend its withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for
+      charity. I do not believe that the children will forever be governed by
+      cruelty and brute force. I do not believe that poverty will dwell with man
+      forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever cover the earth, or
+      that the shadow of the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I do not
+      believe that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that malice and
+      superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe the time will come when there will be charity in every heart,
+      when there will be love in every family, and when law and liberty and
+      justice, like the atmosphere, will surround this world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated ourselves
+      before the ignorance of the past.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the brightening
+      future. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not throw away our idea of
+      justice for the sake of any book or of any religion whatever. Let us live
+      according to our highest and noblest and purest ideal.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      By this time we should know that the real Bible has not been written.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or apostles,
+      or evangelists, or of Christs.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great book.
+      It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes no appeal
+      to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for
+      unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of
+      demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of
+      being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not
+      pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges
+      the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for
+      himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the
+      surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies to its perfection.
+      The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and
+      plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and cloud; with its every
+      leaf and bud and flower, confirms its every word, and the solemn stars,
+      shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Ladies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this evening; you
+      cannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual hospitality of this great
+      city by the Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you&mdash;I thank
+      you again and again, a thousand times.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0002" id="link0002">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Chicago Times, 1879.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      To the Editor:&mdash;
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      NOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received with
+      scorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval. Only a few weeks ago, I
+      stated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was mistaken; that the
+      "flood" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of Babel existed only in
+      credulity; that God did not create the universe from nothing, that he did
+      not start the first woman with a rib; that he never upheld slavery; that
+      he was not a polygamist; that he did not kill people for making hair-oil;
+      that he did not order his generals to kill the dimpled babes; that he did
+      not allow the roses of love and the violets of modesty to be trodden under
+      the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew language was written without
+      vowels; that the Bible was composed of many books, written by unknown men;
+      that all translations differed from each other; and that this book had
+      filled the world with agony and crime.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned clergymen
+      in Chicago would substantially agree with me&mdash;in public. I have read
+      the replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi Kohler, Rev.
+      Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr. Ryder, and will now ask them a few
+      questions, answering them in their own words.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      First. Rev. Robert Collyer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Bible? Answer. "It is a
+      splendid book. It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the meanest
+      bigots. Through this book men give their hearts for good to God, or for
+      evil to the devil. The best argument for the intrinsic greatness of the
+      book is that it can touch such wide extremes, and seem to maintain us in
+      the most unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most tender mercy; that it
+      can inspire purity like that of the great saints, and afford arguments in
+      favor of polygamy. The Bible is the text book of ironclad Calvinism and
+      sunny Universalism. It makes the Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy. It
+      inspired the Union soldier to live and grandly die for the right, and
+      Stonewall Jackson to live nobly, and die grandly for the wrong."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a book with as
+      many passages in favor of wrong as right, is inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I look upon the Old Testament as a rotting tree. When it
+      falls it will fertilize a bank of violets."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe that God upheld slavery and polygamy? Do
+      you believe that he ordered the killing of babes and the violation of
+      maidens?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "There is threefold inspiration in the Bible, the first,
+      peerless and perfect, the word of God to man; <i>the second, simply and
+      purely human, and then below this again, there is an inspiration born of
+      an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as anything well can be</i>.
+      A threefold inspiration, of heaven first, then of the earth, and then of
+      hell, all in the same book, all sometimes in the same chapter, and then,
+      besides, a great many things that need no inspiration."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Then after all you do not pretend that the Scriptures are
+      really inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves as the
+      church makes for them. They leave me free to say this is false, or this is
+      true. The truth even within the Bible, dies and lives, makes on this side
+      and loses on that."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you say to the last verse in the Bible, where a
+      curse is threatened to any man who takes from or adds to the book?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I have but one answer to this question, and it is: Let who
+      will have written this, I cannot for an instant believe that it was
+      written by a divine inspiration. Such dogmas and threats as these are not
+      of God, but of man, and not of any man of a free spirit and heart eager
+      for the truth, but a narrow man who would cripple and confine the human
+      soul in its quest after the whole truth of God, and back those who have
+      done the shameful things in the name of the most high."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you not regard such talk as "slang"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      (Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the writer of Revelation
+      was narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his discourse as "slang,"
+      but I think that Unitarian ministers can do so with the greatest
+      propriety.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the stories of the Bible, about Jael,
+      and the sun standing still, and the walls falling at the blowing of horns?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they will, but
+      they are not the word of God. So I say again, it was not the God and
+      Father of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that nail crashing
+      through the king's temple after she had given him that bowl of milk and
+      bid him sleep in safety, but a very mean devil of hatred and revenge, that
+      I should hardly expect to find in a squaw on the plains. It was not the
+      ram's horns and the shouting before which the walls fell flat. If they
+      went down at all, it was through good solid pounding. And not for an
+      instant did the steady sun stand still or let his planet stand still while
+      barbarian fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he keeps now. They
+      might believe it who made the record. I do not. And since the whole
+      Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather in this
+      church. A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way. Newton might
+      believe it as a Christian, and disbelieve it as a philosopher. We stand
+      then with the philosopher against the Christian, for we must believe what
+      is true to us in the last test, and these things are not true."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Second. Rev. Dr. Thomas.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Old Testament?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "My opinion is that it is not one book, but many&mdash;thirty-nine
+      books bound up in one. The date and authorship of most of these books are
+      wholly unknown. The Hebrews wrote without vowels, and without dividing the
+      letters into syllables, words, or sentences. The books were gathered up by
+      Ezra. At that time only two of the Jewish tribes remained. All progress
+      has ceased. In gathering up the sacred book, copyists exercised great
+      liberty in making changes and additions."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "There maybe the inspiration of art, of poetry, or oratory;
+      of patriotism&mdash;and there are such inspirations. There are moments
+      when great truths and principles come to men. They seek the man, and not
+      the man them."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "But still I know of no way to convince anyone of spirit,
+      and inspiration, and God, only as his reason may take hold of these
+      things."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you think the Old Testament true?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "The story of Eden may be an allegory. The history of the
+      children of Israel may have mistakes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Must inspiration claim infallibility? Answer. "It is a
+      mistake to say that if you believe one part of the Bible you must believe
+      all. Some of the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others not; or there
+      may be degrees of inspiration."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers to kill
+      the children and the married women, and save for themselves, the maidens,
+      as recorded in <i>Numbers xxxi, 2</i>,
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Do you believe that God upheld slavery?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Do you believe that God upheld polygamy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "The Bible may be wrong in some statements. God and right
+      cannot be wrong. We must not exalt the Bible above God. It may be that we
+      have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby given not a little
+      occasion for such men as Mr. Ingersoll to appear at the other extreme,
+      denying too much."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What then shall be done?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "We must take a middle ground. It is not necessary to
+      believe that the bears devoured the forty-two children, nor that Jonah was
+      swallowed by the whale."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Third. Rev. Dr. Kohler.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your opinion about the Old Testament?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I will not make futile attempts of artificially
+      interpreting the letter of the Bible so as to make it reflect the
+      philosophical, moral and scientific views of our time. The Bible is a
+      sacred record of humanity's childhood."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Are you an orthodox Christian?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned backward to a ruined
+      temple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming like Lot's wife, a pillar of
+      salt."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you really believe the Old Testament was inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men like
+      Voltaire and Thomas Paine, whose bold denial and cutting wit were so
+      instrumental in bringing about this glorious era of freedom, so congenial
+      and blissful, particularly to the long-abused Jewish race."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "Of course there is a destructive axe needed to strike down
+      the old building in order to make room for the grander new. The divine
+      origin claimed by the Hebrews for their national literature, was claimed
+      by all nations for their old records and laws as preserved by the
+      priesthood. As Moses, the Hebrew law-giver, is represented as having
+      received the law from God on the holy mountain, so is Zoroaster the
+      Persian, Manu the Hindoo, Minos the Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and Numa
+      the Roman."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe all the stories in the Bible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "All that can and must be said against them is that they
+      have been too long retained around the arms and limbs of grown-up manhood,
+      to check the spiritual progress of religion; that by Jewish ritualism and
+      Christian dogmatism they became fetters unto the soul, turning the light
+      of heaven into a misty haze to blind the eye, and even into a hell-fire of
+      fanaticism to consume souls."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is the Bible inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "True, the Bible is not free from errors, nor is any work
+      of man and time. It abounds in childish views and offensive matter. I
+      trust that it will in a time not far off be presented for common use in
+      families, schools, synagogues and churches, in a refined shape, cleansed
+      from all dross and chaff, and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer
+      delights to dwell."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is the Bible true?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The question is not, is
+      the Bible inspired, but is it true?' That sounds very plausible, but you
+      know as applied to <i>any ancient book</i> it is simply nonsense."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you think the stories in the Bible exaggerated?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I dare say the numbers are immensely exaggerated."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you think that God upheld polygamy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "The truth of which simply is, that four thousand years ago
+      polygamy existed among the Jews, as everywhere else on earth then, and
+      even their prophets did not come to the idea of its being wrong. <i>But
+      what is there to be indignant</i> about in that?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. And so you really wonder why any man should be indignant
+      at the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that beastliness called
+      polygamy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "What is there to be indignant about in that?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fifth. Prof. Swing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your idea of the Bible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "I think it is a poem."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. And what is your idea of the sacred Scriptures?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "Like other nations, the Hebrews had their patriotic,
+      descriptive, didactic and lyrical poems in the same varieties as other
+      nations; but with them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form of
+      their poetry, it always possesses the characteristic of religion."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. I suppose you fully appreciate the religious
+      characteristics of the Song of Solomon.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      No answer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Does the Bible uphold polygamy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> "The law of Moses did not forbid it, but contained many
+      provisions against its worst abuses, and such as were intended to restrict
+      it within narrow limits."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. So you think God corrected some of the worst abuses of
+      polygamy, but preserved the institution itself?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I might question many others, but have concluded not to consider those as
+      members of my Bible Class who deal in calumnies and epithets. From the
+      so-called "replies" of such ministers, it appears that while Christianity
+      changes the heart, it does not improve the manners, and that one can get
+      into heaven in the next world without having been a gentleman in this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling satisfaction I
+      have experienced in reading the admissions of the clergy of Chicago.
+      Surely, the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won, when ministers
+      admit that the Bible is filled with ignorant and cruel mistakes; that each
+      man has the right to think for himself, and that it is not necessary to
+      believe the Scriptures in order to be saved. From the bottom of my heart I
+      congratulate my pupils on the advance they have made, and hope soon to
+      meet them on the serene heights of perfect freedom.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Washington, D. C., May 7, 1879.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0003" id="link0003">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      THE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. David Walk,
+      Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D. O'Donaghue, of
+      Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in
+      the Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?&mdash;Rev. David Walk.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> In all probability, there was a man by the name of Jesus
+      Christ, who was, in his day and generation, a reformer&mdash;a man who was
+      infinitely shocked at the religion of Jehovah&mdash;who became almost
+      insane with pity as he contemplated the sufferings of the weak, the poor,
+      and the ignorant at the hands of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and
+      bloodthirsty church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted the
+      downfall of the temple. In all probability, he hated, at last, every
+      pillar and stone in it, and despised even the "Holy of Holies." This man,
+      of course, like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion he held
+      in his youth. He changed his views from time to time&mdash;fanned the
+      spark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon extended
+      and widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and better man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In some
+      portions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he
+      says that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because it is God's holy
+      city, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond that expression. So,
+      too, when it is recorded that he drove the money changers from the temple.
+      This, had it happened, would have been the act simply of one who had
+      respect for this temple and not for the religion taught in it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in the
+      religion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he wished to
+      reform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he devoted
+      his life to its destruction. This view shows that he "increased in stature
+      and grew in knowledge."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This view is also supported by the fact that, at first, according to the
+      account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel was not for the
+      Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more patriotism than philosophy.
+      In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gentiles by the persecution
+      he endured at home. He found, as every Freethinker now finds, that there
+      are many saints not in churches and many devils not out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in the Gospels,
+      depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make a Christ
+      to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth; and since the
+      Gospels were finished, millions of men have been adding to and changing
+      the character of Christ.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is that the
+      Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take it for granted
+      that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he quotes none
+      of them. There is also this remarkable fact: Paul quotes none of the
+      miracles of the New Testament. He says not one word about the multitude
+      being fed miraculously, not one word about the resurrection of Lazarus,
+      nor of the widow's son. He had never heard of the lame, the halt, and the
+      blind that had been cured; or if he had, he did not think these incidents
+      of enough importance to be embalmed in an epistle.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the four
+      Gospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four Gospels were not
+      written until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more certain than
+      that the early Christians knew nothing of what we call the Gospels of
+      Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these things have been growths. At
+      first it was believed that Christ was a direct descendant from David. At
+      that time the disciples of Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was
+      expected through the blood of David.&mdash;For that reason, the genealogy
+      of Joseph, a descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after,
+      that the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the son of
+      the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given, believed
+      that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they give the
+      genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related to David? In other
+      words, why should the son of God attempt to get glory out of the fact that
+      he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king? There is only one
+      answer to this. The Jews expected the Messiah through David, and in order
+      to prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the genealogy of Joseph.
+      Afterward, the idea became popularized that Christ was the son of God, and
+      then were interpolated the words "as was supposed" in the genealogy of
+      Christ. It was a long time before the disciples became great enough to
+      include the world in their scheme, and before they thought it proper to
+      tell the "glad tidings of great joy" beyond the limits of Judea.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether he lived
+      in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is worth its example,
+      its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and heroism. It is of no
+      earthly importance whether he changed water into wine or not. All his
+      miracles are simply dust and darkness compared with what he actually said
+      and actually did. We should be kind to each other whether Lazarus was
+      raised or not. We should be just and forgiving whether Christ lived or
+      not. All the miracles in the world are of no use to virtue, morality, or
+      justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to ignorance, to fear and folly.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They are worth
+      the truth that is in them and no more.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The words of Paul are often quoted, that "all scripture is given by
+      inspiration of God." Of course that could not have applied to anything
+      written after that time. It could have applied only to the Scriptures then
+      written and then known. It is perfectly clear that the four Gospels were
+      not at that time written, and therefore this statement of Paul's does not
+      apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply to anything written after
+      that statement was written. Neither does it apply to that statement. If it
+      applied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not the New.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christ has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of the
+      miraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human, he will
+      have gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think of him as
+      I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus, of Bruno. I place him
+      with the great, the generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for the
+      man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I think he was in many
+      things mistaken. His reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect. He
+      seemed to believe that his father in heaven would protect him. He thought
+      that if God clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he provided for
+      the sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just and loving man. In
+      this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death, overwhelmed, he cried
+      out: "Why hast thou forsaken me?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever claimed to be
+      inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he was
+      an honest man. These claims were all put in his mouth by others&mdash;by
+      mistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers, by zealous and credulous
+      followers, and sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This has
+      happened to all the great men of the world. All historical characters are,
+      in part, deformed or reformed by fiction. There was a man by the name of
+      George Washington, but no such George Washington ever existed as we find
+      portrayed in history. The historical C&aelig;sar never lived. The
+      historical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism
+      to rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to
+      find the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the Olympian
+      gods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far greater than
+      Christ the god.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said nothing as
+      to the obligation man is under to his country, nothing as to the rights of
+      the people as against the wish and will of kings, nothing against the
+      frightful system of human slavery&mdash;almost universal in his time. What
+      he did not say is altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is
+      marvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing
+      about education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing
+      about art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer a reward
+      to those who would desert their wives and families. Of course, I do not
+      believe that he said the words that were attributed to him, in which a
+      reward is offered to any man who will desert his kindred. But if we take
+      the account given in the four Gospels as the true account, then Christ did
+      offer a reward to a father who would desert his children. It has always
+      been contended that he was a perfect example of mankind, and yet he never
+      married. As a result of what he did not teach in connection with what he
+      did teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm in polygamy. They
+      belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of the next. They
+      consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while he would exchange
+      his chains for wings. They comforted the captive by saying that in a few
+      days he would leave his dungeon for the bowers of Paradise. His followers
+      believed that he had said that "Whosoever believeth not shall be damned."
+      This passage was the cross upon which intellectual liberty was crucified.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how to cure
+      disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free; if he had
+      crowned the people with their rightful power; if he had placed the home
+      above the church; if he had broken all the mental chains; if he had
+      flooded all the caves and dens of fear with light, and filled the future
+      with a common joy, he would in truth have been the Savior of this world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How do you account for the difference between the
+      Christian and other modern civilizations?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I account for the difference between men by the difference
+      in their ancestry and surroundings&mdash;the difference in soil, climate,
+      food, and employment. There would be no civilization in England were it
+      not for the Gulf Stream. There would have been very little here had it not
+      been for the discovery of Columbus. And even now on this continent there
+      would be but little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask: How
+      do you account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was the
+      greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the Egyptian
+      religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time when the
+      civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that prove that Vishnu
+      was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual world for centuries. Does
+      that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of heaven and earth?
+      The same may be said of Rome. There was a time when Rome governed the
+      world, and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth of the Roman
+      mythology. As a matter of fact, Rome was far better than any Christian
+      nation ever was to the end of the seventeenth century. A thousand years of
+      Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest of Rome. There were no
+      poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no philosophers as great as
+      Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors like Marcus Aurelius, no
+      women like the mothers of Rome.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but it has
+      never been increased by any form of superstition. When America was
+      discovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it would have, for
+      instance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake Michigan put the other
+      side of it. The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of commerce
+      became deserted. The prow of the world turned westward, and, as a result,
+      France, England, and all countries bordering on the Atlantic became
+      prosperous. The world has really been civilized by discoverers&mdash;by
+      thinkers. The man who invented powder, and by that means released hundreds
+      of thousands of men from the occupations of war, did more for mankind than
+      religion. The inventor of paper&mdash;and he was not a Christian&mdash;did
+      more than all the early fathers for mankind. The inventors of plows, of
+      sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the inventors of wagons, coaches,
+      locomotives; the inventors of skiffs, sail-vessels, steamships; the men
+      who have made looms&mdash;in short, the inventors of all useful things&mdash;they
+      are the civilizers taken in connection with the great thinkers, the poets,
+      the musicians, the actors, the painters, the sculptors. The men who have
+      invented the useful, and the men who have made the useful beautiful, are
+      the real civilizers of mankind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The priests, in all ages, have been hindrances&mdash;stumbling-blocks.
+      They have prevented man from using his reason. They have told ghost
+      stories to courage until courage became fear. They have done all in their
+      power to keep men from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a
+      state of childhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good
+      and wise. They have always known that their reputation for wisdom depended
+      upon the ignorance of the people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I account for the civilization of France by such men as Voltaire. He did
+      good by assisting to destroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the
+      same way. He did harm in building another church. I account, in part, for
+      the civilization of England by the fact that she had interests greater
+      than the church could control; and by the further fact that her greatest
+      men cared nothing for the church. I account in part for the civilization
+      of America by the fact that our fathers were wise enough, and jealous of
+      each other enough, to absolutely divorce church and state. They regarded
+      the church as a dangerous mistress&mdash;one not fit to govern a
+      president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson and Paine
+      were at that time prominent in the councils of the people. There is this
+      peculiarity in our country&mdash;the only men who can be trusted with
+      human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels hereafter. Liberty is
+      safe so long as the sinners have an opportunity to be heard.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in the
+      world. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country was visited
+      by Christians, and they are now used only in those ports where Christians
+      are allowed to enter. It has often been claimed that there is but one way
+      to make a man temperate, and that is by making him a Christian; and this
+      is claimed in face of the fact that Christian nations are the most
+      intemperate in the world. For nearly thirteen centuries the followers of
+      Mohammed have been absolute teetotalers&mdash;not one drunkard under the
+      flag of the star and crescent. Wherever, in Turkey, a man is seen under
+      the influence of liquor, they call him a Christian. You must also remember
+      that almost every Christian nation has held slaves. Only a few years ago
+      England was engaged in the slave trade. A little while before that our
+      Puritan ancestors sold white Quaker children in the Barbadoes, and traded
+      them for rum, sugar, and negro slaves. Even now the latest champion of
+      Christianity upholds slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether perfect.
+      When I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the many
+      who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the depravity of the great
+      cities; of the starvation in the manufacturing centers of Great Britain,
+      and, in fact, of all Europe; when I see women working like beasts of
+      burden, and little children deprived, not simply of education, but of air,
+      light and food, there is a suspicion in my mind that Christian
+      civilization is not a complete and overwhelming success.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we have made, by
+      the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For the future I rely
+      upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the intellect. I rely upon
+      labor; upon human interests in this world; upon the love of wife and
+      children and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but upon good men and
+      women. I do not rely upon superstition, but upon knowledge; not upon
+      miracles, but upon facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living; and when
+      we become absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the superstitions
+      of the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are pleased
+      to call "the heathen." Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We exchange
+      ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort to force a religion upon the
+      people always ends in war. Commerce, founded upon mutual advantage, makes
+      peace. An honest merchant is better than a missionary.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Spain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization, and yet, for
+      hundreds of years, that government was simply an organized crime. When one
+      pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the invasion of the New World,
+      the persecution in the Netherlands, the expulsion of the Jews, and the
+      Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of Europe preserve
+      themselves from each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a standing
+      army of six hundred thousand men, France a half million, and all their
+      neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized. They are in
+      the enjoyment of Christian governments&mdash;have their hundreds of a
+      thousands of ministers, and the land covered with cathedrals and churches&mdash;and
+      yet every nation is nearly beggared by keeping armies in the field.
+      Christian kings have no confidence in the promises of each other. What
+      they call peace is the little time necessarily spent in reloading their
+      guns. England has hundreds of ships of war to protect her commerce from
+      other Christians, and to force China to open her ports to the opium trade.
+      Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in one of his dispatches
+      to the English government, used substantially the following language:
+      "England regards the opium question simply as one of trade, but to China,
+      it has a moral aspect." Think of Christian England carrying death and
+      desolation to hundreds of thousands in the name of trade. Then think of
+      heathen China protesting in the name of morality. At the same time England
+      has the impudence to send missionaries to China.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the public peace
+      in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so alienated nations,
+      nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as what has been
+      known as religion. The idea that all men must worship the same God,
+      believe the same dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked with bloody
+      hands the flower of pity from the human heart.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies. It is
+      not a result of "inspiration." It is the child of invention, of discovery,
+      of applied knowledge&mdash;that is to say, of science. When man becomes
+      great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights; when thought
+      is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful things; when
+      religion means the discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then, and
+      not until then, will the world be civilized.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Since Laplace and other most distinguished astronomers
+      hold to the theory that the earth was originally in a gaseous state, and
+      then a molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable or animal life,
+      could not exist, how do you account for the origin of life on this planet
+      without a "Creator"?&mdash;Dr. T. B. Taylor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Whether or not "the earth was originally in a gaseous state
+      and afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of vegetable and animal
+      life could not exist," I do not know. My belief is that the earth as it
+      is, and as it was, taken in connection with the influence of the sun, and
+      of other planets, produced whatever has existed or does exist on the
+      earth. I do not see why gas would not need a "creator" as much as a
+      vegetable. Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for some
+      one to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now portions
+      of the world in which there is not one particle of vegetable life. It may
+      be that on the wide waste fields of the Arctic zone there are places where
+      no vegetable life exists, and there may be many thousand miles where no
+      animal life can be found. But if the poles of the earth could be changed,
+      and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a different relative position to
+      the sun, the snows would melt, the hills would appear, and in a little
+      while even the rocks would be clothed with vegetation. After a time
+      vegetation would produce more soil, and in a few thousand years forests
+      would be filled with beasts and birds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account for the
+      origin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have come from some
+      meteoric stone falling from some other planet having in it the germs of
+      life. What would you think of a farmer who would prepare his land and wait
+      to have it planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you think of a Deity
+      who would make a world like this, and allow it to whirl thousands and
+      millions of years, barren as a gravestone, waiting for some vagrant comet
+      to sow the seeds of life?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of the
+      vegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that crystallization is
+      the first step toward what we call life, and yet I believe life is back of
+      that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a gaseous state, it was
+      filled with life. These are subjects about which we know but little. How
+      do you account for chemistry? How do you account for the fact that just so
+      many particles of one kind seek the society of just so many particles of
+      another, and when they meet they instantly form a glad and lasting union?
+      How do you know but atoms have love and hatred? How do you know that the
+      vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that crystallization itself is not
+      an expression of delight? How do you know that a vine bursting into flower
+      does not feel a thrill? We find sex in the meanest weeds&mdash;how can you
+      say they have no loves?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The difficulty is
+      not thus solved. You leave your creator as much in need of a creator as
+      anything your creator is supposed to have created. The bottom of your
+      stairs rests on nothing, and the top of your stairs leans upon nothing.
+      You have reached no solution.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The word "God" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as we can,
+      and we say the rest of the way is "God." We look as far as we can, and
+      beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we know but blindness,
+      we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal segment of a circle, and we
+      say the rest is "God."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Man must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one knows the
+      origin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and the
+      whither are questions that no man can answer. In the presence of these
+      questions all intellects are upon a level. The barbarian knows exactly the
+      same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher. Only those who think
+      that they have had some supernatural information pretend to answer these
+      questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the unfathomable, is the
+      realm wholly occupied by the "inspired."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We are satisfied that all organized things must have had a beginning, but
+      we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be. Forms change, but
+      substance remains eternally the same. A beginning of substance is
+      unthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of anything commencing to
+      exist <i>without</i> a cause as <i>with</i> a cause. There must be
+      something for cause to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing&mdash;were
+      such a thing possible&mdash;would produce nothing. There can be no
+      relation between cause and nothing. We can understand how things can be
+      arranged, joined or separated&mdash;and how relations can be changed or
+      destroyed, but we cannot conceive of creation&mdash;of nothing being
+      changed into something, nor of something being made&mdash;except from
+      preexisting materials.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in the
+      affirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of man after
+      death&mdash;which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the phenomena
+      of the nineteenth century&mdash;what further evidence should thoughtful
+      people require in order to settle the question, "Does death end all?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I admit that in all ages men have believed in spooks and
+      ghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves nothing. Men have for
+      thousands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped the absurd. Our
+      ancestors have worshiped snakes and birds and beasts. I do not admit that
+      any ghost ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever performed except
+      in imagination; and what you are pleased to call the "phenomena of the
+      nineteenth century," I fear are on an exact equality with the phenomena of
+      the Dark Ages.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows the origin
+      of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any more than
+      one knows why or how his heart beats. People, I imagine, have always had
+      dreams. In dreams they often met persons whom they knew to be dead, and it
+      may be that much of the philosophy of the present was born of dreams. I
+      cannot admit that anything supernatural ever has happened or ever will
+      happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you call the "phenomena of the
+      nineteenth century," if by such "phenomena" you mean the reappearance of
+      the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future state, because I do not
+      know. Neither do I aver that there is one, because I do not know. Upon
+      this question I am simply honest. I find that people who believe in
+      immortality&mdash;or at least those who say they do&mdash;are just as
+      afraid of death as anybody else. I find that the most devout Christian
+      weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who says that death ends all.
+      You see the promises are so far away, and the dead are so near. Still, I
+      do not say that man is not immortal; but I do say that there is nothing in
+      the Bible to show that he is. The Old Testament has not a word upon the
+      subject&mdash;except to show us how we lost immortality. According to that
+      book, man was driven from the Garden of Eden, lest he should put forth his
+      hand and eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. So the
+      fact is, the Old Testament shows us how we lost immortality. In the New
+      Testament we are told to seek for immortality, and it is also stated that
+      "God alone hath immortality."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists: The
+      Spiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the miracles of the
+      New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the story about the witch
+      of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at the Spiritualists for believing
+      that the same kind of things happen now. As a matter of fact, the
+      Spiritualists have the best of it, because their witnesses are now living,
+      whereas the Christians take simply the word of the dead&mdash;of men they
+      never saw and of men about whom they know nothing. The Spiritualist, at
+      least, takes the testimony of men and women that he can cross-examine. It
+      would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make common cause. Then the
+      Christians could prove their miracles by the Spiritualists, and the
+      Spiritualists could prove their "phenomena" by the Christians.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe that thoughtful people require some additional testimony in
+      order to settle the question, "Does death end all?" If the dead return to
+      this world they should bring us information of value.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are thousands of questions that studious historians and savants are
+      endeavoring to settle&mdash;questions of history, of philosophy, of law,
+      of art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able to shed a flood
+      of light. All the questions of the past ought to be settled. Some modern
+      ghosts ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs, and give us an
+      outline of the history of Egypt. They ought to be able to read the
+      arrow-headed writing and all the records of the past. The hieroglyphics of
+      all ancient peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts and facts that have
+      been imprisoned for so many thousand years should be released and once
+      again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought to be able to give
+      us the history of buried cities. They should clothe with life the dust of
+      all the past. If they could only bring us valuable information; if they
+      could only tell us about some steamer in distress so that succor could be
+      sent; if they could only do something useful, the world would cheerfully
+      accept their theories and admit their "facts." I think that thoughtful
+      people have the right to demand such evidence. I would like to have the
+      spirits give us the history of all the books of the New Testament and tell
+      us who first told of the miracles. If they could give us the history of
+      any religion, or nation, or anything, I should have far more confidence in
+      the "phenomena of the nineteenth century."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is, they are
+      liberal. They give to others the rights they claim for themselves. They do
+      not pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain. They do not
+      slander and persecute even those who deny their "phenomena." But I cannot
+      admit that they have furnished conclusive evidence that death does not end
+      all. Beyond the horizon of this life we have not seen. From the mysterious
+      beyond no messenger has come to me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future a single
+      star. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How, when, where, and by whom was our present calendar
+      originated,&mdash;that is "Anno Domini,"&mdash;and what event in the
+      history of the nations does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of
+      Jesus of Nazareth?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I have already said, in answer to a question by another
+      gentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date
+      from somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about his having been
+      born on Christmas, because in reading other religions, I find that that
+      time has been celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of it is
+      this:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      About the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After that the days
+      begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for many centuries in most
+      nations they had a festival in commemoration of that event. The
+      Christians, I presume, adopted this day, and made the birth of Christ fit
+      it. Three months afterward&mdash;the 21st of March&mdash;the days and
+      nights again become equal, and the day then begins to lengthen. For
+      centuries the nations living in the temperate zones have held festivals to
+      commemorate the coming of spring&mdash;the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud
+      and flower. This is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians
+      adopted that in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a
+      matter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend
+      to show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth or
+      resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly the other
+      way.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      While we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to say that we
+      get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas of
+      algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from the same source. So from
+      the Arabs we receive chemistry, and our first true notions of geography.
+      They gave us also paper and cotton.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Owing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in the exact
+      time of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to the
+      fact that it was a long time before any near approach was made to the
+      actual time, all calendars after awhile became too inaccurate for general
+      use, and they were from time to time changed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Right here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the monuments and
+      festivals in the world are not sufficient to establish an impossible
+      event. No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of living evidence,
+      can substantiate a miracle. The monument only proves the <i>belief</i> of
+      the builders.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and
+      festivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated. Turkey is
+      filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in such festivals.
+      We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such celebration does not even tend
+      to prove that God, by his special providence, protected Washington from
+      the arrows of an Indian. The Hebrews celebrate what is called the
+      Passover, but this celebration does not even tend to prove that the angel
+      of the Lord put blood on the door-posts in Egypt. The Mohammedans
+      celebrate to-day the flight of Mohammed, but that does not tend to prove
+      that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a monument.
+      Monuments simply prove that people endeavor to substantiate truths and
+      falsehoods by the same means.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest for the
+      present, how do you account for the hell here&mdash;namely, the existence
+      of pain? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this
+      present time in misery. If for these there is no life to come, their
+      existence is a mistake; but if there is a life to come, it may be that the
+      sequel to the acts of the play to come will justify the pain and misery of
+      this present time?&mdash;Rev. Myron W. Reed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> There are four principal theories:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>First</i>&mdash;That there is behind the universe a being of infinite
+      power and wisdom, kindness, and justice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Second</i>&mdash;That the universe has existed from eternity, and that
+      it is the only eternal existence, and that behind it is no creator.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Third</i>&mdash;That there is a God who made the universe, but who is
+      not all-powerful and who is, under the circumstances, doing the best he
+      can.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Fourth</i>&mdash;That there is an all-powerful God who made the
+      universe, and that there is also a nearly all-powerful devil, and this
+      devil ravels about as fast as this God knits.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      By the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to account
+      for the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a malevolent being
+      with power enough, and with cunning enough, to frequently circumvent God,
+      the problem of evil becomes solved so far as this world is concerned. But
+      why this being was evil is still unsolved; why the devil is malevolent is
+      still a mystery. Consequently you will have to go back of this world, on
+      that theory, to account for the origin of evil. If this devil always
+      existed, then, of course, the universe at one time was inhabited only by
+      this God and this devil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that God does
+      not see to it that justice is always done.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from eternity,
+      and is without a creator, then we must account for the existence of evil
+      and good, not by personalities behind the universe, but by the nature of
+      things.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all, it seems to
+      me that he should have made a world in which innocence should be a
+      sufficient shield. He should have made a world where the just man should
+      have nothing to fear.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled with
+      wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must protect ourselves
+      from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our conflict with these
+      obstacles, with each other, and with what may be called the forces of
+      nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like begets like;
+      that man gives his constitution, at least in part, to his children; that
+      weakness and strength are in some degree both hereditary. This is a fact
+      in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for this fact&mdash;filled as
+      it is with pain and joy. But it seems to me that an infinite God should so
+      have arranged matters that the bad would not pass&mdash;that it would die
+      with its possessor&mdash;that the good should survive, and that the man
+      should give to his son, not the result of his vices, but the fruit of his
+      virtues.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another
+      world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to prevail here, why
+      will he not allow the same thing in the world to come? If there is any
+      being with power to prevent it, why is crime permitted? If a man standing
+      upon the railway should ascertain that a bridge had been carried off by a
+      flood, and if he also knew that the train was coming filled with men,
+      women, and children; with husbands going to their wives, and wives
+      rejoining their families; if he made no effort to stop that train; if he
+      simply sat down by the roadside to witness the catastrophe, and so
+      remained until the train dashed off the precipice, and its load of life
+      became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be denounced by every good man
+      as the most monstrous of human beings. And yet this is exactly what the
+      supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees the train rushing to the gulf.
+      He gives no notice. He sees the ship rushing for the hidden rock. He makes
+      no sign. And he so constructed the world that assassins lurk in the air&mdash;hide
+      even in the sunshine&mdash;and when we imagine that we are breathing the
+      breath of life, we are taking into ourselves the seeds of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are two facts inconsistent in my mind&mdash;a martyr and a God.
+      Injustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of happiness
+      hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from them the fear of
+      eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for me to explain the
+      facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit the existence of an infinite
+      Being. I find in this world that physical and mental evils afflict the
+      good. It seems to me that I have the same reason to expect the bad to be
+      rewarded hereafter. I have no right to suppose that infinite wisdom will
+      ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence will increase in
+      kindness, or that the justice of the eternal can change. If, then, this
+      eternal being allows the good to suffer pain here, what right have we to
+      say that he will not allow them to suffer forever?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Some people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for the
+      production of self-denying men and women&mdash;that is, for the production
+      of character. The statistics show that a large majority die under five
+      years of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster who killed the most of
+      his pupils the first day? If this doctrine is true, and if manhood cannot
+      be produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are infinitely
+      unfortunate.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still, all pain,
+      all misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there is an infinitely
+      wise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that happens
+      must be for the best. That philosophy of special providence, going to the
+      extreme, is infinitely better than most of the Christian creeds. There
+      seems to be no half-way house between special providence and atheism. You
+      know some of the Buddhists say that when a man commits murder, that is the
+      best thing he could have done, and that to be murdered was the best thing
+      that could have happened to the killed. They insist that every step taken
+      is the necessary step and the best step; that crimes are as necessary as
+      virtues, and that the fruit of crime and virtue is finally the same.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by the
+      facts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease are
+      hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn truth rises the
+      religion of the body. Every man should refuse to increase the misery of
+      this world. And it may be that the time will come when man will be great
+      enough and grand enough utterly to refrain from the propagation of disease
+      and deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers and mothers. We
+      do know that the misery in this world can be lessened; consequently I
+      believe in the religion of this world. And whether there is a heaven or
+      hell here, or hereafter, every good man has enough to do to make this
+      world a little better than it is. Millions of lives are wasted in the vain
+      effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny of man. This world
+      has been neglected. We have been taught that life should be merely a
+      preparation for death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the
+      accomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead of
+      faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by
+      ignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. State with what words you can comfort those who have, by
+      their own fault, or by the fault of others, found this life not worth
+      living?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> If there is no life beyond this, and so believing I come to
+      the bedside of the dying&mdash;of one whose life has been a failure&mdash;a
+      "life not worth living," I could at least say to such an one, "Your
+      failure ends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is nothing for you&mdash;neither
+      pain nor misery, neither grief nor joy." But if I were a good orthodox
+      Christen, then I would have to say to this man, "Your life has been a
+      failure; you have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended
+      eternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you will be a
+      failure forever."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Admitting that there is another world, and that the man's life had been a
+      failure in this, then I should say to him, "If you live again, you will
+      have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be no time, no date, no
+      matter how many millions and billions of ages may have passed away, at
+      which you will not have the opportunity of doing right."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Under no circumstances could I consistently say to this man: "Although
+      your life has been a failure; although you have made hundreds and
+      thousands of others suffer; although you have deceived and betrayed the
+      woman who loved you; although you have murdered your benefactor; still, if
+      you will now repent and believe a something that is unreasonable or
+      reasonable to your mind, you will, at the moment of death, be transferred
+      to a world of eternal joy." This I could not say. I would tell him, "If
+      you die a bad man here, you will commence the life to come with the same
+      character you leave this. Character cannot be made by another for you. You
+      must be the architect of your own." There is to me unspeakably more
+      comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than that it is to be
+      perpetuated forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died without
+      believing in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away
+      her tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the mother whose brave
+      boy fell in defence of his country, she knowing and you knowing, that the
+      boy was not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible, and had no
+      faith in the blood of the atonement? What words of comfort have you for
+      such fathers and for such mothers?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea that this
+      life is a probationary state&mdash;that the few moments spent here decide
+      the fate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived more merciless,
+      more unjust. I am doing all I can to destroy that doctrine. I want, if
+      possible, to get the shadow of hell from the human heart.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Why has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of infinite wisdom
+      and kindness, why does he make failures? What excuse has infinite wisdom
+      for peopling the world with savages? Why should one feel grateful to God
+      for having made him with a poor, weak and diseased brain; for having
+      allowed him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of insanity?
+      Why should one thank God, who lived and died a slave?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute truth? Is it
+      not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to convey comfort through
+      falsehood? People must reap not only what they sow, but what others have
+      sown. The people of the whole world are united in spite of themselves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Next to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is to enjoy
+      an immortality of delight&mdash;next to that, is to assure him that a
+      place of eternal punishment does not exist.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and splendid
+      sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made no exception in
+      favor of man. To the greatest, to the most successful, there comes a time
+      when the fevered lips of life long for the cool, delicious kiss of death&mdash;when,
+      tired of the dust and glare of day, they hear with joy the rustling
+      garments of the night.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends. Their views in
+      regard to the question of a future life, and the existence of a God, were
+      in perfect accord. They said:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "'We know so little about these matters that we are not justified in
+      giving them any serious consideration. Our motto and rule of life shall be
+      for each one to make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy every
+      pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself to be influenced at all by
+      thoughts of a future life.'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a time when
+      no human eye saw him&mdash;and he had no belief in a God&mdash;Jonathan
+      stole every dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him penniless. He had
+      no fear, no remorse; no one saw him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed
+      life immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old age
+      he went the way of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were against
+      him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent, dissatisfied with
+      mankind and with himself, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and
+      depressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest in painless suicide."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What are we to think of the rule of life laid down by
+      these men? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is there no
+      remedy to correct such irregularities?&mdash;Rev. D. O'Donaghue.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain strange ideas as
+      to right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan
+      Newgate concluded to make themselves as comfortable as they could and
+      enjoy every pleasure within their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue
+      states that one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to
+      steal what little money Mr. Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman
+      think that Mr. Newgate made or could make himself comfortable in that way?
+      He tells us that Mr. Newgate "had no remorse,"&mdash;that he "became rich
+      and enjoyed life immensely,"&mdash;that he "lived in contentment and
+      pleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all flesh."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal without
+      fear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the
+      fruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and happy life, that
+      one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow and delightful old age?
+      Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.
+      O'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without remorse, to
+      enjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And why did he allow
+      Mr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in penury and discontent,
+      until at last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in suicide? Does the
+      Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say that if there is no future life it is wise
+      to steal in this? If the grave is the eternal home, would the Rev. Mr.
+      O'Donaghue advise people to commit crimes in order that they may enjoy
+      this life? Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God or not, truth
+      is better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or hell, honesty is
+      always the best policy. There is no world, and can be none, where vice can
+      sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of joy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more fortunate than Mr.
+      Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had rather be
+      of such a disposition that I would be driven to suicide by misfortune than
+      to live in contentment upon the misfortunes of others. The reverend
+      gentleman, however, should have made his question complete&mdash;he should
+      have gone the entire distance. He should have added that Mr. Newgate,
+      after having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly converted, joined the
+      church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the very day that his victim
+      committed suicide.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a fact.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful, and
+      trustful. She belonged to no church&mdash;knew nothing about a future
+      world&mdash;basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled
+      with gentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her cheeks. She
+      believed in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved
+      everything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered her. He was tried;
+      convicted; a motion for a new trial overruled and a pardon refused. In his
+      cell, in the shadow of death, he was converted&mdash;he became a Catholic.
+      With the white lips of fear he confessed to a priest. He received the
+      sacrament.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the realms of
+      bliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs
+      of hell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while her
+      murderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is the justice
+      of the orthodox God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Allow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: "Is there no
+      remedy to correct such irregularities?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the Christian
+      system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart and brain. Of
+      all religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous, and absurd. The
+      preachers of this doctrine are the enemies of human happiness; they are
+      the assassins of natural joy. Every father, every mother, every good man,
+      every loving woman, should hold this doctrine in abhorrence; they should
+      refuse to pay men for preaching it; they should not build churches in
+      which this infamy is taught; they should teach their little children that
+      it is a lie; they should take this horror from childhood's heart&mdash;a
+      horror that makes the cradle as terrible as the coffin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0004" id="link0004">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Brooklyn Union, 1883.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost
+      unanimously have declared that the church is suffering very little from
+      the skepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific
+      writers, whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel, is not
+      great; and that the books of such writers are not read as much as some
+      people think they are. What is your opinion with regard to that subject?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by
+      his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for the
+      ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. By comparing
+      long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that has been
+      made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite orthodox would
+      have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy. Only a few years ago
+      men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would have
+      been considered as the most infamous of monsters.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The scientific
+      men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat in hand they
+      begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked the
+      forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that time every
+      scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was authority in
+      geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of the world. Now
+      everything has changed, and everybody knows it except the clergy. Now
+      religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is finding out new
+      meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in the language of the
+      common people; that he was not teaching any science; that he allowed his
+      children not only to remain in error, but kept them there. It is now
+      admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question of natural fact;
+      it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way. All, except the
+      Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be regarded as
+      authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute of fact. The
+      most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men
+      of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in contempt. Millions
+      of people are reading the opinions of men who combat and deny the
+      foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher than all the
+      apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought than all the
+      priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel twenty-five years
+      ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I would be the only
+      infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn leaves; they are
+      everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and employments, the orthodox
+      creeds are despised. They are not simply disbelieved; they are execrated.
+      They are regarded, not with indifference, but with passionate hatred.
+      Thousands and hundreds of thousands of mechanics in this country abhor
+      orthodox Christianity. Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable
+      contempt the doctrine of eternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is
+      regarded as absurd by millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt,
+      vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises
+      ministers not to answer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives
+      this wonderful reason: That the hearers will get more doubts from the
+      answer than from reading the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins
+      admits that he cannot defend Christianity from infidel attacks without
+      creating more infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot
+      answer the theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only
+      minister who feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his
+      congregation is concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He
+      declares that the young people in his church don't know enough to have
+      intelligent doubts, and that the old people are substantially in the same
+      condition. Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that
+      other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity
+      should never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been
+      successfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the
+      impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells
+      tells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not be
+      spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling of
+      security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great majority
+      of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current infidel
+      theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it would be
+      dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position of the
+      infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help of God,
+      successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree. Dr.
+      Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is all
+      smoke.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks that
+      the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his
+      brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that
+      infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
+      his general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his brethren.
+      His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never had a discussion.
+      The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the catechism;
+      that there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the brute force;
+      thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to use the rod;
+      that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the rod is a divine
+      institution; that fathers ought to have it for their children; that
+      mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the religion of universal love.
+      The man who cannot raise children without whipping them ought not to have
+      them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl is unfit to have
+      the control of a human being. The father who keeps a rod in his house
+      keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There is nothing reformatory in
+      punishment; nothing reformatory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence,
+      is the only reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an abandonment of
+      love and reason, and puts father and child upon a savage equality; the
+      savageness in the heart of the father prompting the use of the rod or
+      club, produces a like savageness in the victim; The old idea that a
+      child's spirit must be broken is infamous. All this is passing away,
+      however, with orthodox Christianity. That children are treated better than
+      formerly shows conclusively the increase of what is called infidelity.
+      Infidelity has always been a protest against tyranny in the state, against
+      intolerance in the church, against barbarism in the family. It has always
+      been an appeal for light, for justice, for universal kindness and
+      tenderness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness
+      is the greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is on the increase?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I see that all the ministers you have interviewed regard
+      worldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is worldliness? I
+      suppose worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs of this
+      world; getting enjoyment out of this life; gratifying the senses, giving
+      the ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food;
+      cultivating the imagination; playing games of chance; adorning the person;
+      developing the body; enriching the mind; investigating the facts by which
+      we are surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking; working;
+      inventing; buying; selling; hoping&mdash;all this, I suppose, is
+      worldliness. These "worldly" people have cleared the forests, plowed the
+      land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and have produced
+      all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the preachers denounce
+      them. Were it not for "worldly" people how would the preachers get along?
+      Who would build the churches? Who would fill the contribution boxes and
+      plates, and who (most serious of all questions) would pay the salaries? It
+      is the habit of the ministers to belittle men who support them&mdash;to
+      slander the spirit by which they live. "It is as though the mouth should
+      tear the hand that feeds it." The nobility of the Old World hold the
+      honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so contemptible themselves that
+      they are willing to live upon his labor. And so the minister pretending to
+      be spiritual&mdash;pretending to be a spiritual guide&mdash;looks with
+      contempt upon the men who make it possible for him to live. It may be said
+      by "worldliness" they only mean enjoyment&mdash;that is, hearing music,
+      going to the theater and the opera, taking a Sunday excursion to the
+      silvery margin of the sea. Of course, ministers look upon theaters as
+      rival attractions, and most of their hatred is born of business views.
+      They think people ought to be driven to church by having all other places
+      closed. In my judgment the theater has done good, while the church has
+      done harm. The drama never has insisted upon burning anybody. Persecution
+      is not born of the stage. On the contrary, upon the stage have forever
+      been found impersonations of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and
+      justice, and these impersonations have always been applauded, and have
+      been represented that they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites
+      have been worshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and
+      execration. Shakespeare has done far more for the world than the Bible.
+      The ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldliness.
+      Nothing can be more absurd than this talk of spirituality. As though
+      readers of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were
+      engaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher
+      than human love? A man is in love with a girl, and he has determined to
+      work for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is
+      there anything more spiritual than that&mdash;anything higher? They marry.
+      He clears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of
+      this hovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few simple
+      things of beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers call
+      "worldliness." Is there anything more spiritual? In a little while, in
+      this cabin, in this home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle's rock,
+      while softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything
+      more spiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender than to see
+      husband and wife bending, with clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon
+      the dimpled miracle of love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you
+      love; spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind&mdash;for he
+      who improves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the
+      plowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of "Health &amp;
+      Heresy" rather than the old partnership of "Disease &amp; Divinity," doing
+      business at the old sign of the "Skull &amp; Crossbones." Some of the
+      ministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells us the
+      cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and cyclones, and
+      things of that character for the purpose of making people spiritual; of
+      calling their attention to the fact that everything in this world is of a
+      transitory nature. The clergy have always had great faith in famine, in
+      affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is a thousand times more
+      apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for a banquet. They know that
+      prosperity has the same effect on the average Christian that thick soup
+      has, according to Bumble, on the English pauper: "It makes 'em impudent."
+      The devil made a mistake in not doubling Job's property instead of leaving
+      him a pauper. In prosperity the ministers think that we forget death and
+      are too happy. In the arms of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is
+      for the moment forgotten. According to the ministers, God kills our
+      children in order that we may not forget him. They imagine that the man
+      who goes into Dakota, cultivates the soil and rears him a little home, is
+      getting too "worldly." And so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and
+      the limbs of wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers
+      in Brooklyn say this is done because we are getting too "worldly." They
+      think we should be more "spiritual;" that is to say, willing to live upon
+      the labor of others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime, "It is
+      more blessed to give than to receive." If this is so, why not give the
+      money back? "Spiritual" people are those who eat oatmeal and prunes, have
+      great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's "Task" and Pollok's
+      "Course of Time," laugh at the jokes in <i>Harper's Monthly</i>, wear
+      clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has elevated the
+      world "beggarly elements."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit
+      that the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the
+      establishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and
+      fashionable churches.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was
+      at hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the
+      presence of such a belief what are known as class distinctions could not
+      easily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond of
+      union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they lack
+      wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome. He took
+      in part the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the older
+      parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the traveler
+      gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As they become
+      educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is the same in the
+      church. The church no longer believes the creed, no longer acts as though
+      the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the sermon as a means of
+      grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister to a man just above the
+      falls; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as a lighthouse, he would not
+      allow his coachman to remain outside. If he really believed that the
+      coachman had an immortal soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to
+      everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make the calling and election
+      of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact the rich man now cares but
+      little for servants. They are not included in the scheme of salvation,
+      except as a kind of job lot. The church has become a club. It is a social
+      affair, and the rich do not care to associate in the week days with the
+      poor they may happen to meet at church. As they expect to be in heaven
+      together forever, they can afford to be separated here. There will
+      certainly be time enough there to get acquainted. Another thing is the
+      magnificence of the churches. The church depends absolutely upon the rich.
+      Poor people feel out of place in such magnificent buildings. They drop
+      into the nearest seat; like poor relations, they sit on the extreme edge
+      of the chair. At the table of Christ they are below the salt.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they feel
+      ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the
+      millionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the
+      contribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the church. It
+      costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary,
+      fashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too many
+      jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be superiority.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of
+      churches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not the rich there
+      predominate and the poor be just as much out of place?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I think the effect would be precisely the same, no matter
+      what the society is, what object it has, if composed of rich and poor.
+      Class distinctions, to a greater or less extent, will creep in&mdash;in
+      fact, they do not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement,
+      and they are born of the different conditions of the members.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For
+      instance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs. Others obtain
+      it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according to the
+      law of affinity, or general intelligence, on intellectual grounds, for
+      instance.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power, but there
+      are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of character, of
+      end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest mechanic for holding
+      a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any one blame respectable
+      poverty for declining to associate with arrogant wealth. The right to make
+      the distinction is with all classes, and with the individuals of all
+      classes. It is impossible to have any society for any purpose&mdash;that
+      is, where they meet together&mdash;without certain embarrassments being
+      produced by these distinctions. Nowt for instance, suppose there should be
+      a society simply of intelligent and cultured people. There, wealth, to a
+      great degree, would be disregarded. But, after all, the distinction that
+      intelligence draws between talent and genius is as marked and cruel as was
+      ever drawn between poverty and wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some
+      object is deemed of such vast importance that, for the moment, all minor
+      distinctions are forgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the
+      ignorant and intelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political
+      parties, in time of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion
+      has been founded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of the poor,
+      distinctions are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave
+      liberty to the slave during the Civil war, and clad him in the uniform of
+      the nation; we wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were
+      perfectly willing to forget the distinction of color. Common peril
+      produces pure democracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor
+      young man coming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk
+      about the old fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations
+      of the trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;
+      shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed; let him
+      have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and coaches;
+      then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for more police. He
+      will then say: "We want protection; the rabble must be put down." We have
+      an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country an aristocracy of
+      literature&mdash;men and women who imagine themselves writers and who hold
+      in contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces in the most elegant
+      diction&mdash;people who look upon a mistake in grammar as far worse than
+      a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy of muscle. The
+      only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness. Intellect, without
+      heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel as wealth without a sense of justice;
+      as cruel as muscle without mercy. So that, after all, the real aristocracy
+      must be that of goodness where the intellect is directed by the heart.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as
+      cruel as the aristocracy of wealth&mdash;what do you mean by that?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to say, the
+      aristocracy of education&mdash;of simple brain&mdash;expressed in
+      innumerable ways&mdash;in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And
+      I meant to say that that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple
+      arrogant wealth. After all, why should a man be proud of something given
+      him by nature&mdash;something that he did not earn, did not produce&mdash;something
+      that he could not help? Is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth
+      which you have accumulated than of brain which nature gave you? And, to
+      carry this idea clearly out, why should we be proud of anything? Is there
+      any proper occasion on which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows
+      for you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And
+      why should a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition
+      or of good acts?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of
+      course, you must recognize the right of every one to select his own
+      companions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the
+      companionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace and
+      unintelligent persons?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> All men should have the same rights, and one right that
+      every man should have is to associate with congenial people. There are
+      thousands of good men whose society I do not covet. They may be stupid, or
+      they may be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested, and may
+      be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care nothing. In
+      either case they are not congenial. They have the right to select
+      congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus made, they
+      are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the good of all
+      concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and are consistent
+      with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these distinctions in the
+      church more than we do in the club is that the church talks one way and
+      acts another; because the church insists that a certain line of conduct is
+      essential to salvation, and that every human being is in danger of eternal
+      pain. If the creed were true, then, in the presence of such an infinite
+      verity, all earthly distinctions should instantly vanish. Every Christian
+      should exert himself for the salvation of the soul of a beggar with the
+      same degree of earnestness that he would show to save a king. The
+      accidents of wealth, education, social position, should be esteemed as
+      naught, and the richest should gladly work side by side with the poorest.
+      The churches will never reach the poor as long as they sell pews; as long
+      as the rich members wear their best clothes on Sunday. As long as the
+      fashions of the drawing-room are taken to the table of the last supper,
+      the poor will remain in the highways and hedges. Present fashion is more
+      powerful than faith. So long as the ministers shut up their churches, and
+      allow the poor to go to hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil
+      without a competitor for three months in the year, the churches will not
+      materially impede the march of human progress. People often, unconsciously
+      and without any malice, say something or do something that throws an
+      unexpected light upon a question. The other day, in one of the New York
+      comic papers, there was a picture representing the foremost preachers of
+      the country at the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they
+      could enjoy each others society. These ministers are supposed to be the
+      apostles of the religion of kindness. They tell us to love even our
+      enemies, and yet the idea that they could associate happily together is
+      regarded as a joke! After all, churches are like other institutions, they
+      have to be managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather
+      than upon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up
+      the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their hold.
+      The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to be a fire, and they
+      offered to insure; and as long as the fire was expected the premiums were
+      paid and the policies were issued. Then came the Universalist Church,
+      saying that there would be no fire, and yet asking the people to insure.
+      For such a church there is no basis. It undoubtedly did good by its
+      influence upon other churches. So with the Unitarian. That church has no
+      basis for organization; no reason, because no hell is threatened, and
+      heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the churches have lost their
+      belief in eternal fire, they have lost their influence, and the reason
+      they have lost their belief is on account of the diffusion of knowledge.
+      That doctrine is becoming absurd and infamous. Intelligent people are
+      ashamed to broach it. Intelligent people can no longer believe it. It is
+      regarded with horror, and the churches must finally abandon it, and when
+      they do, that is the end of the church militant.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic
+      Church, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in
+      any particular, in regard to future punishment?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another
+      battle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations have
+      not been converted since then. The time has passed to preach with sword
+      and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no more victories. That
+      church increases in this country mostly from immigration. Catholicism does
+      not belong to the New World. It is at war with the idea of our Government,
+      antagonistic to true republicanism, and is in every sense anti-American.
+      The Catholic Church does not control its members. That church prevents no
+      crime. It is not in favor of education. It is not the friend of liberty.
+      In Europe it is now used as a political power, but here it dare not assert
+      itself. There are thousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably
+      believe the creed of the church. That church has lost the power to
+      anathematize. It can no longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces&mdash;upon
+      persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You have stated your objections to the churches, what
+      would you have to take their place?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> There was a time when men had to meet together for the
+      purpose of being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds
+      and hundreds of years most people depended for their information on what
+      they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of
+      course, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not
+      only all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he was a
+      gentleman; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was
+      necessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no
+      way of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily press
+      gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you the thoughts
+      of the greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can command the
+      principal sources of information. There is no necessity for going to the
+      church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister write what he
+      wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying, people will read
+      it. It is hardly fair to get them in a church in the name of duty and
+      there inflict upon them a sermon that under no circumstances they would
+      read. Of course, there will always be meetings, occasions when people come
+      together to exchange ideas, to hear what a man has to say upon some
+      questions, but the idea of going fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody
+      on the same subject is absurd.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that
+      statement?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not
+      orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his
+      creed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes
+      the ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, consequently, no one
+      could be an infidel. Every one believes in kindness, at least
+      theoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes to the
+      conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of intellectual
+      convictions upon certain subjects. The more sermons like that are
+      preached, probably the better. What I intended was the eternal repetition
+      of the old story: That God made the world and a man, and then allowed the
+      devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme of salvation, of
+      vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned everybody except Noah
+      and his family, and afterward, when he failed to civilize the Jewish
+      people, came in person and suffered death, and announced the doctrine that
+      all who believed on him would be saved, and those who did not, eternally
+      lost. Now, this story, with occasional references to the patriarchs and
+      the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful
+      joys of Paradise, is the average sermon, and this story is told again,
+      again, and again, by the same men, listened to by the same people without
+      any effect except to tire the speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers
+      would take their texts from Shakespeare; if they would read every Sunday a
+      selection from some of the great plays, the result would be infinitely
+      better. They would all learn something; the mind would be enlarged, and
+      the sermon would appear short. Nothing has shown more clearly the
+      intellectual barrenness of the pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately
+      delivered. The dignified dullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses
+      has never been excelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the
+      ministry were given no new weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock
+      of a century ago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than
+      their weapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments
+      by keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring
+      the facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor of
+      education; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a
+      Protestant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The
+      Catholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a
+      Catholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
+      belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a
+      doubt; a doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are
+      warned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow
+      whatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes no
+      difference, and they are expected to get their revenge by treating their
+      flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of the
+      churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing, because
+      they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden aunts.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with
+      trade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence. But when you
+      get at the real opinions of people, a vast majority have outgrown the
+      doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good
+      for women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep
+      order. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of independence.
+      They are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they
+      are beginning everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a
+      probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad;
+      that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous; that it
+      must have been written by men. And the people at large are beginning to
+      find that the ministers have kept back the facts; have not told the
+      history of the Bible; have not given to their congregations the latest
+      advices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
+      Christianity has outlived its usefulness. The church has a great deal to
+      contend with. The scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at
+      Genesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of
+      the motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws of
+      Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is something
+      besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival of the pulpit.
+      Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers take
+      hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at work all
+      the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so universal that
+      the preacher is following his example. The flock has ceased to be afraid
+      of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In a little while all the
+      libraries will be open&mdash;all the museums. There will be music in the
+      public parks; the opera, the theater. And what will churches do then? The
+      cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty pews, unless the church is
+      wise enough to meet the intellectual demands of the present.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You speak as if the influences working against
+      Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you think
+      that Christianity is any worse off now than it was during the French
+      Revolution, when the priests were banished from the country and reason was
+      worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume, Bolingbroke, and
+      others made their attacks upon it?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> You must remember that the French Revolution was produced
+      by Catholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to infinite extremes;
+      that it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand
+      those times, provided you know the history of the Catholic Church. The
+      seeds of the French Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The people
+      had suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and the French
+      Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs no longer. It
+      was something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted from
+      intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were carried
+      away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to tear down
+      palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of all the
+      centuries. Catholicism has never recovered&mdash;it never will. The dagger
+      of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism has
+      staggered from that day to this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire there were
+      twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In the French
+      Revolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated reason. There was
+      destruction without the genius of construction. They had to use materials
+      that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The French Revolution was a failure because the French people were a
+      failure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism had made
+      them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him. Probably there
+      are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have read the works of
+      Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little while ago, a minister
+      told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one hundred dollars to repeat
+      a paragraph, or to give the title, even, of one of Voltaire's volumes.
+      Most ministers think he was an atheist. The trouble with the infidels in
+      England a hundred years ago was that they did not go far enough. It may be
+      that they could not have gone further and been allowed to live. Most of
+      them took the ground that there was an infinite, all-wise, beneficent God,
+      creator of the universe, and that this all-wise, beneficent God certainly
+      was too good to be the author of the Bible. They, however, insisted that
+      this good God was the author of nature, and the theologians completely
+      turned the tables by showing that this god of nature was in the pestilence
+      and plague business, manufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and
+      cities, and was, of necessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my
+      judgment, the Deists were all successfully answered. The god of nature is
+      certainly as bad as the God of the Old Testament. It is only when we
+      discard the idea of a deity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature,
+      that we are able ever to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that
+      I am neither a favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I
+      do not believe in the existence of any personal god. I regard the universe
+      as the one fact, as the one existence&mdash;that is, as the absolute
+      thing. I am a part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply
+      say that I do not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither
+      do I say that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not
+      know, and the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that
+      subject give me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on
+      the subject, because I know that they know that they do not know. The
+      infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, comparatively speaking, of
+      geology; nothing of astronomy; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin;
+      nothing of evolution; nothing, comparatively speaking, of other religions;
+      nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other words, the infidels
+      of a hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox Christianity to be
+      false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The infidels of to-day
+      have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred years ago it was a
+      guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and fulfillment. Everything in
+      nature is working against superstition to-day. Superstition is like a
+      thorn in the flesh, and everything, from dust to stars, is working
+      together to destroy the false. The smallest pebble answers the greatest
+      parson. One blade of grass, rightly understood, destroys the orthodox
+      creed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You say that the pews will be empty in the future unless
+      the church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the
+      ministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than those
+      of a hundred years ago, and are not the "liberal" views in regard to the
+      inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the fall of
+      man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in many
+      churches, an indication that the church is meeting the demands of many
+      people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in
+      Christianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> As to the first part of this question, I do not think the
+      ministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were a hundred years
+      ago; that is, I do not think they have greater brain capacity, but I think
+      on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The amelioration
+      of orthodox Christianity is not by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by
+      the brain in the pews. Another thing: One hundred years ago the church had
+      intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened a career. Not so now.
+      There are too many avenues to distinction and wealth&mdash;too much
+      worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit. Martyrs had rather
+      be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day are not naturally
+      adapted to other professions promising eminence. There are some great
+      exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers nearest infidels.
+      Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher is a great man&mdash;not
+      the most consistent man in the world&mdash;but he is certainly a man of
+      mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get rid of the idea that
+      Plymouth Church is necessary to him&mdash;after that time he would not
+      utter an orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might mention some
+      others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable for intelligence. The
+      intelligent men of the world do not believe in orthodox Christianity. It
+      is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The conservative ministers are
+      the stupid ones. The conservative professors are those upon whose ideas
+      will be found the centuries' moss, old red sandstone theories,
+      pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the second part of the question: The
+      views of the church are changing, the clergy of Brooklyn to the contrary,
+      notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind of boa-constrictor; anything
+      it can not dodge it will swallow. The church is bound to have something
+      for sale that somebody wants to buy. According to the pew demand will be
+      the pulpit supply. In old times the pulpit dictated to the pews. Things
+      have changed. Theology is now run on business principles. The gentleman
+      who pays for the theories insists on having them suit him. Ministers are
+      intellectual gardeners, and they must supply the market with such
+      religious vegetables as the congregations desire. Thousands have given up
+      belief in the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the
+      atonement idea and original sin. Millions believe now, that this is not a
+      state of probation; that a man, provided he is well off and has given
+      liberally to the church, or whose wife has been a regular attendant, will,
+      in the next world, have another chance; that he will be permitted to file
+      a motion for a new trial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it used
+      to be supposed; that, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the
+      nights are cool; and that, after all, there is not so much to fear from
+      the future. They regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and
+      they give them the old ideas on the same principle that they give them
+      their old clothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees,
+      buttons off, somewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for paupers.
+      There is a great trade of this kind going on now&mdash;selling old
+      theological clothes to the colored people in the South. All I have said
+      applies to all churches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does
+      not change its ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the
+      spirit that clothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and
+      throb of life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the
+      spirit that emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has
+      turned in another direction. Of course, the churches are all going to
+      endeavor to meet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for
+      old texts. They will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They
+      will find that "flat" meant "a little rounding;" that "six days" meant
+      "six long times;" that the word "flood" should have been translated
+      "dampness," "dew," or "threatened rain;" that Daniel in the lion's den was
+      an historical myth; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with this
+      world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to harmonize
+      with the facts of modern science. They will not change the words of the
+      creed; they will simply give "new meanings and the highest criticism
+      to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other words, the churches
+      will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that which can
+      be sold. Already the old goods are being "marked down." If, however, the
+      church should fail, why then it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its
+      existence. It apparently does no good; it devours without producing; it
+      eats without planting, and is a perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of
+      value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens without
+      knowledge and promises without power. In my judgment, the quicker it goes
+      the better for all mankind. But if it does not go in name, it must go in
+      fact, because it must change; and, therefore, it is only a question of
+      time when it ceases to divert from useful channels the blood and muscle of
+      the world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons delivered
+      lately the theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping
+      out of discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years
+      preached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosticism, and
+      infidelity, so much so as to lead to their being reprimanded by some of
+      their more conservative brethren?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Of course there are hundreds of thousands of ministers
+      perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so
+      much harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them to
+      stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most part,
+      are like this: Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of Genesis is
+      on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement is true,
+      because in the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And we know, too,
+      all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because Voltaire was
+      nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are the usual
+      arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself. And, in my view,
+      they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer a man's argument,
+      the next best thing is to attack his character. "You have no case," said
+      an attorney to the plaintiff. "No matter," said the plaintiff, "I want you
+      to give the defendant the devil."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's statement
+      that he generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives
+      them to young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are
+      said to speak of the Bible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such
+      immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away the
+      mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that accounts
+      for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would not
+      misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly indebted
+      to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and take this
+      occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all the converts
+      to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think it honest in
+      young men to play a game like that on the doctor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of
+      Christianity and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher
+      preached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the
+      present time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral, social,
+      and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke criticism on
+      the part of the secular newspaper press?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to
+      preach about things happening in this world; in other words, that the
+      preachers themselves are beginning to be touched with worldliness. They
+      find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons dealing
+      in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are losing interest
+      in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more interest in gentlemen who have
+      the cheerful habit of living. They also find that their readers do not
+      wish to be reminded perpetually of death and coffins; and worms and dust
+      and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs and hearses, biers, and cheerful
+      subjects of that character. That they prefer to hear the minister speak
+      about a topic in which they have a present interest, and about which
+      something cheerful can be said. In fact, it is a relief to hear about
+      politics, a little about art, something about stocks or the crops, and
+      most ministers find it necessary to advertise that they are going to speak
+      on something that has happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and
+      that, for the time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in
+      the furnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably honest.
+      Maybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are
+      endeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church members think
+      that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not criticising their
+      motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the character or reputation
+      of ministers, but simply giving my ideas, avoiding anything personal. I do
+      not pretend to be very good, nor very bad&mdash;-just fair to middling.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You say that Christians will not read for fear that they
+      will unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in the
+      interview I had with him: "If you do not allow man to reason you crush his
+      manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credibility of his faith,
+      and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth, and so
+      satisfies his wants."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father
+      Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not
+      think that reason should be guided by faith; I think that faith should be
+      guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith
+      would be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be based
+      on what has not happened, but upon what has; not upon something we know
+      nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are acquainted.
+      The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we reason, we
+      must have something as a basis, something secular, something that we think
+      we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by analogy, and we say
+      thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may happen. We do not say
+      thus and so <i>may</i> happen, therefore something else <i>has</i>
+      happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from the
+      unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you do not allow a man to
+      reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must govern
+      reason. Who makes the faith? The church. And the church tells the man that
+      he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he may afterward
+      reason, taking the faith as a fact. This makes him an intellectual slave,
+      and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right to examine his own
+      chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their prisoners by insisting
+      that there is nothing beyond the walls.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. You criticise the church for not encouring the poor to
+      mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose his
+      own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-confessing
+      Christians in real life, and will not there always be some greater,
+      richer, wiser, than the rest?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do not blame the church because there are these
+      distinctions based on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the
+      church for is pretending to do away with these distinctions. These
+      distinctions in men are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood,
+      in education, and they are differences that will eternally exist&mdash;that
+      is, as long as the human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some
+      unfortunate, some generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish
+      to do away with is the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich
+      and poor. I want the democracy of kindness&mdash;what you might call the
+      republicanism of justice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep
+      from robbing him. I can give him his rights without enjoying his company,
+      and he can give me my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not
+      poverty have rights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold
+      dishonest wealth in contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to
+      the same church or not? We cannot judge men by their wealth, or by the
+      position they hold in society. I like every kind man; I hate every cruel
+      one. I like the generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or
+      cultivated. I like men that love their families, that are kind to their
+      wives, gentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires
+      or mendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is the
+      fairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel, or
+      bursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
+      man because he is rich; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infidelity
+      is greatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and creates more notice
+      than conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of
+      the accepted line of thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced,
+      was a wonder. At that time the church had great power; it could retaliate;
+      it could destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when too many men
+      objected to being burned. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in
+      novelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been
+      turned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless
+      influences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion.
+      Other religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was
+      found but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our own
+      religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great
+      comment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have
+      already about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question,
+      because they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear
+      their own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the
+      spirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage of the
+      world is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox minister
+      who believes the Thirty-nine articles with all his might, is regarded
+      to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic
+      battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those of life&mdash;not
+      quite.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and
+      what kind of instruction would you give?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is
+      Christianity? I do not include in the word "Christianity" the average
+      morality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion;
+      that is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in
+      the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and
+      resurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ, and
+      eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity its
+      miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and the
+      inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I
+      understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I suppose
+      Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness. I do not
+      believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my friends.
+      Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep the viper of
+      revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in self-defence.
+      Christianity&mdash;that is, the miraculous part&mdash;must be abandoned.
+      As to morality&mdash;morality is born, is born of the instinct of
+      self-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word "conscience" never
+      would have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime.
+      Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to
+      being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of
+      human want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired work.
+      The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of the
+      product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to do
+      it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was
+      put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible other
+      things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of the Bible
+      were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a mixture of
+      good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without miracle. I
+      see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is not a virtue.
+      The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder is not the mother of
+      wisdom. I believe children should be taught to investigate and to reason
+      for themselves, and that there are facts enough to furnish a foundation
+      for all human virtue. We will take two families; in the one, the father
+      and mother are both Christians, and they teach their children their creed;
+      teach them that they are naturally totally depraved; that they can only
+      hope for happiness in a future life by pleading the virtues of another,
+      and that a certain belief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his
+      children forever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another
+      family; the father and mother teach their children that they should be
+      kind to each other because kindness produces happiness; that they should
+      be gentle; that they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy.
+      And suppose this father and mother say to their children: "If you are
+      happy it must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must
+      suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer
+      for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you
+      plant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant." And suppose these
+      parents also say: "You must find out the conditions of happiness. You must
+      investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You must
+      ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act in
+      accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and
+      peace." In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my
+      judgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the other.
+      The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this world, but not in
+      the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the dividends will be
+      large in another world. They tell the people that they must serve God on
+      credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my doctrine. My doctrine
+      is that a thing is right because it pays, in the highest sense. That is
+      the reason it is right. The reason a thing is wrong is because it is the
+      mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here and now. It means health; it
+      means intelligence, contentment, success. Vice means exactly the opposite.
+      Most of us have more passion than judgment, carry more sail than ballast,
+      and by the tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are wrecked and
+      lost. We cannot be saved by faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We
+      must be saved by knowledge, by intelligence&mdash;the only lever capable
+      of raising mankind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says
+      "that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is
+      your idea of the chief end of man?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should
+      be held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal
+      reward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy
+      here? Why not go to heaven now&mdash;that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the
+      sunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad enough;
+      so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent deity;
+      but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do I believe
+      that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the Infinite be
+      glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no superiors.
+      How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve what we call
+      glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average Presbyterian? What
+      good will it do him to know that his course has been approved of by the
+      Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even, for the religious
+      weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges? I do not see how we can
+      help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite Being, certainly nothing we
+      can do can in any way affect him. We can affect each other, and therefore
+      man should be careful not to sin against man. For that reason I have said
+      a hundred times, injustice is the only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I
+      want to associate there with the ones who have loved me here. I might not
+      like the angels and the angels might not like me. I want to find old
+      friends. I do not care to associate with the Infinite; there could be no
+      freedom in such society. I suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am
+      somewhat touched with worldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to
+      be honest enough to say about the Infinite "I know nothing of eternal joy,
+      I have no conception about another world, I know nothing." At the same
+      time, I am not attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a
+      man can hope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I
+      could to drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to
+      put out the fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0005" id="link0005">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon.
+     Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the
+     Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan
+     Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as
+     submitted in advance, were the following propositions:
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      Colonel Ingersoll's Opening.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to differ with
+      me. I want to convince you that you are under no compulsion to accept my
+      creed; that you are, so far as I am concerned, absolutely free to follow
+      the torch of your reason according to your conscience; and I believe that
+      you are civilized to that degree that you will extend to me the right that
+      you claim for yourselves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      First. Thought is a necessary natural product&mdash;the result of what is
+      called impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain,
+      not forgetting the Fact of heredity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Second. No human being is accountable to any being-human or divine&mdash;for
+      his thoughts.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each other,
+      and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all
+      subjects.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fifth. For one man to say to another, "I tolerate you," is an assumption
+      of authority&mdash;not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to
+      persecute.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his
+      ideas, that the rest of the world have to express their thoughts to him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing Mr.
+      Ingersoll, among other things said:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that of the
+      great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august saying, 'There shall be no
+      slavery of the mind.'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the tomb of Victor Hugo.
+      It was placed in a recess in the crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite it was
+      the tomb of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another recess, was the
+      memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked at these three
+      monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been born in France, and had he
+      passed in his long life account, the acclaim of the liberal culture of
+      France would have enlarged that trio into a quartette.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in print,
+      notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black formerly Attorney-General of the
+      United States: lately in the pages of The North American Review with the
+      Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and last but not least the Right Hon. William E
+      Gladstone, England's greatest citizen, has taken up the cudgel against him
+      in behalf of his view of Orthodoxy To-night, I believe-for the first time,
+      the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial discussion. I have now
+      the honor to introduce this distinguished orator."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being thinks as he must;
+      and the first proposition really is, whether man has the right to think.
+      It will bear but little discussion, for the reason that no man can control
+      his thought. If you think you can, what are you going to think to-morrow?
+      What are you going to think next year? If you can absolutely control your
+      thought, can you stop thinking?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The question is, Has the will any power over the thought? What is thought?
+      It is the result of nature&mdash;of the outer world&mdash;first upon the
+      senses&mdash;those impressions left upon the brain as pictures of things
+      in the outward world, and these pictures are transformed into, or produce,
+      thought; and as long as the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will be
+      produced. Whoever looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears any
+      sound&mdash;or any symphony&mdash;no matter what&mdash;thinks. Whoever
+      looks upon the sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the face of a
+      fellow-man, thinks, and the result of that look is an absolute necessity.
+      The thought produced will depend upon your brain, upon your experience,
+      upon the history of your life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one he loved the best had
+      been devoured by its hungry waves, will have certain thoughts; and he who
+      sees it for the first time, will have different thoughts. In other words,
+      no two brains are alike; no two lives have been or are or ever will be the
+      same. Consequently, nature cannot produce the same effect upon any two
+      brains, or upon any two hearts.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is that we are different.
+      If we were all the same, we would die dumb. No thought would be expressed
+      after we found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We differ&mdash;our
+      thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce that we call conversation.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Back of language is thought. Back of language is the desire to express our
+      thought to another. This desire not only gave us language&mdash;this
+      desire has given us the libraries of the world. And not only the
+      libraries; this desire to express thought, to show to others the splendid
+      children of the brain, has written every book, formed every language,
+      painted every picture, and chiseled every statue&mdash;this desire to
+      express our thought to others, to reap the harvest of the brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If, then, thought is a necessity, "it follows as the night the day" that
+      there is, there can be, no responsibility for thought to any being, human
+      or divine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes upon it, and the
+      sensitive plate receives a picture. Is it in fault, is it responsible, for
+      the picture? So with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture is
+      imprinted there. The plate may not be perfectly level&mdash;it may be too
+      concave, or too convex, and the picture may be a deformity; so with the
+      brain. But the man does not make his own brain, and the consequence is, if
+      the picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We take then these two steps: first, thought is a necessity; and second,
+      the thought depends upon the brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with careless hands the
+      seeds of thought. Some brains are poor and barren fields, producing weeds
+      and thorns, and some are like the tropic world where grow the palm and
+      pine&mdash;children of the sun and soil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of Shakespeare? All that your
+      brain is able to hold. It depends upon your brain. If you are great&mdash;if
+      you have been cultivated&mdash;if the wings of your imagination have been
+      spread&mdash;if you have had great, free, and splendid thoughts&mdash;'r
+      you have stood upon the edge of things&mdash;if you have had the courage
+      to meet all that can come&mdash;you get an immensity from Shakespeare. If
+      you have lived nobly&mdash;if you have loved with every drop of your blood
+      and every fibre of your being&mdash;if you have suffered&mdash;if you have
+      enjoyed&mdash;then you get an immensity from Shakespeare. But if you have
+      lived a poor, little, mean, wasted, barren, weedy life&mdash;you get very
+      little from that immortal man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So it is from every source in nature&mdash;what you get depends upon what
+      you are.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity, there can be no
+      responsibility for thought. And why has man ever believed that his
+      fellow-man was responsible for his thought?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Everything that is, everything that has been, has been naturally produced.
+      Man has acted as, under the same circumstances, we would have acted;
+      because when you say "under the circumstances," it is the same as to say
+      that you would do exactly as they have done.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There has always been in men the instinct of self-preservation. There was
+      a time when men believed, and honestly believed, that there was above them
+      a God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient for my
+      illustration to say, one. Man believed that there was in the sky above him
+      a God who attended to the affairs of men. He believed that that God,
+      sitting upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He believed
+      also, that that God held the community responsible for the sins of
+      individuals. He honestly believed it. When the flood came, or when the
+      earthquake devoured, he really believed that some God was filled with
+      anger&mdash;with holy indignation&mdash;at his children. He believed it,
+      and so he looked about among his neighbors to see who was in fault, and if
+      there was any man who had failed to bring his sacrifice to the altar, had
+      failed to kneel, it may be to the priest, failed to be present in the
+      temple, or had given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe or of
+      that nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God, they seized
+      the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance and of
+      their fear.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They believed when the lightning leaped from the cloud and left its
+      blackened mark upon the man, that he had done something&mdash;that he had
+      excited the wrath of the gods.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And while man so believed, while he believed that it was necessary, in
+      order to defend himself, to kill his neighbor&mdash;he acted simply
+      according to the dictates of his nature.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What I claim is that we have nov-advanced far enough not only to think,
+      but to know, that the conduct of man has nothing to do with the phenomena
+      of nature. We are now advanced far enough to absolutely know that no man
+      can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough to cause an earthquake. I
+      think we have got to that point that we absolutely know that no man can be
+      wicked enough to entice one of the bolts from heaven&mdash;that no man can
+      be cruel enough to cause a drought&mdash;and that you could not have
+      infidels enough on the earth to cause another flood. I think we have
+      advanced far enough not only to say that, but to absolutely know it&mdash;I
+      mean people who have thought, and in whose minds there is something like
+      reasoning.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is just as apt to hit a
+      good man as a bad man. We know it. We know that the earthquake is just as
+      liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as well as
+      I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt to outride the storm
+      as one crowded with missionaries. You know it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I believe, as much as I
+      believe that I live, that the reason a thing is right is because it tends
+      to the happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as I be-believe that I
+      live, that on the average the good man is not only the happier man, but
+      that no man is happy who is not good.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If then we have gotten over that frightful, that awful superstition&mdash;we
+      are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts of each other.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as saying, that there
+      is no God. All I intend to say is, that so far as we can see, no man is
+      punished, no nation is punished by lightning, or famine, or storm.
+      Everything happens to the one as to the other.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, let us admit that there is an infinite God. That has nothing to do
+      with the sinlessness of thought&mdash;nothing to do with the fact that no
+      man is accountable to any being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And
+      let me tell you why.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men who sin against
+      him. You can trust him, if you believe in him. He has the power. He has a
+      heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that the
+      earthquake will not swallow you, or the lightning strike you, simply
+      because you tell your thoughts, if one of your neighbors differs with you,
+      and acts improperly or thinks or speaks improperly of your God, leave him
+      with your God&mdash;he can attend to him a thousand times better than you
+      can, He has the time. He lives from eternity to eternity. More than that,
+      he has the means. So that, whether there be this Being or not, you have no
+      right to interfere with your neighbor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next proposition is, that I have the same right to express my thought
+      to the whole world, that the whole world has to express its thought to me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy, where the
+      majority rule; it is not a republic. It is a country with one inhabitant.
+      This brain is the world in which my mind lives, and my mind is the
+      sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances the rest
+      of the world as one drop of water balances the sea. Each soul is crowned.
+      Each soul wears the purple and the tiara; and only those are good citizens
+      of the intellectual world who give to every other human being every right
+      that they claim for themselves, and only those are traitors in the great
+      realm of thought who abandon reason and appeal to force.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you must abuse your
+      neighbors to keep on good terms with God, then the question of religion is
+      exactly like every question&mdash;I mean of thought, of mind&mdash;I have
+      nothing to say now about action.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is there authority in the world of art? Can a legislature pass a law that
+      a certain picture is beautiful, and can it pass a law putting in the
+      penitentiary any impudent artistic wretch who says that to him it is not
+      beautiful? Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all the same;
+      we are not touched by the same sounds&mdash;the same beautiful memories*
+      do not arise. Suppose you have an authority in music? You may make men, it
+      may be, by offering them office or by threatening them with punishment,
+      swear that they all like that tune&mdash;but you never will know till the
+      day of your death whether they do or not. The moment you introduce a
+      despotism in the world of thought, you succeed in making hypocrites&mdash;and
+      you get in such a position that you never know what your neighbor thinks.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force. No one can be
+      compelled to pray. No matter how you tie him down, or crush him down on
+      his face or on his knees, it is above the power of the human race to put
+      in that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do it. Neither can
+      you compel anybody to worship a God. Worship rises from the heart like
+      perfume from a flower. It cannot obey; it cannot do that which some one
+      else commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its own nature.
+      And do you think any God would be satisfied with compulsory worship? Would
+      he like to see long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on their terrified knees
+      repeating words without a soul&mdash;giving him what you might call the
+      shucks of sound? Will any God be satisfied with that? And so I say, we
+      must be as free in one department of thought as another.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, I take the next step, and that is, that the rights of all are
+      absolutely equal.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have the same right to give you my opinion that you have to give me
+      yours. I have no right to compel you to hear, if you do not want to. I
+      have no right to compel you to speak if you do not want to. If you do not
+      wish to know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this liberty of
+      expression, is of more value than any other thing beneath the stars. Of
+      more value than any religion, of more value than any government, of more
+      value than all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws
+      that he has passed, is this liberty&mdash;the absolute liberty of the
+      human mind. Take away that word from language, and all other words become
+      meaningless sounds, and there is then no reason for a man being and living
+      upon the earth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality&mdash;that is
+      all. You come to me with a new idea. I invite you into the house. Let us
+      see what you have. Let us talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I
+      will bid it a polite "good day." If I do like it, I will say: "Sit down;
+      stay with me, and become a part of the intellectual wealth of my world."
+      That is all.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And how any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the
+      right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man who
+      speaks&mdash;who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can
+      liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond the
+      liberty to speak against liberty&mdash;the real believer in free speech
+      allowing others to speak against the right to speak? Is there any
+      limitation beyond that?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has admitted that he
+      violated his own doctrine. No man can open his mouth against the freedom
+      of speech without denying every argument he may put forward. Why? He is
+      exercising the right that he denies. How did he get it? Suppose there is
+      one man on an island. You will all admit now that he would have the right
+      to do his own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right to
+      express his thought. Now, will somebody tell me how many men would have to
+      emigrate to that island before the original settler would lose his right
+      to think and his right to express himself?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If there be an infinite Being&mdash;and it is a question that I know
+      nothing about&mdash;you would be perfectly astonished to know how little I
+      do know on that subject, and yet I know as much as the aggregated world
+      knows, and as little as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy
+      wings the summer air&mdash;if there be such a Being, I have the same right
+      to think that he has simply because it is a necessity of my nature&mdash;because
+      I cannot help it. And the Infinite would be just as responsible to the
+      smallest intelligence living in the infinite spaces&mdash;he would be just
+      as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can be to him,
+      provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity of his nature.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another phrase to which I object&mdash;"toleration." "The limits
+      of toleration." Why say "toleration"? I will tell you why. When the
+      thinkers were in the minority&mdash;when the philosophers were vagabonds&mdash;when
+      the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires&mdash;when the majority
+      were ignorantly orthodox&mdash;when they hated the heretic as a last
+      year's leaf hates a this year's bud&mdash;in that delightful time these
+      poor people in the minority had to say to ignorant power, to conscientious
+      rascality, to cruelty born of universal love: "Don't kill us; don't be so
+      arrogantly meek as to burn us; tolerate us." At that time the minority was
+      too small to talk about rights, and the great big ignorant majority when
+      tired of shedding blood, said: "Well, we will tolerate you; we can afford
+      to wait; you will not live long, and when the Being of infinite compassion
+      gets hold of you we will glut our revenge through an eternity of joy; we
+      will ask you every now and then, 'What is your opinion now?'"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness would have his
+      revenge, they "tolerated" these thinkers, and that word finally took the
+      place almost of liberty. But I do not like it. When you say "I tolerate,"
+      you do not say you have no right to punish, no right to persecute. It is
+      only a disclaimer for a few moments and for a few years, but you retain
+      the right. I deny it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And let me say here to-night&mdash;it is your experience, it is mine&mdash;that
+      the bigger a man is the more charitable he is; you know it. The more brain
+      he has, the more excuses he finds for all the world; you know it. And if
+      there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander than any man; he
+      must have a thousand times more charity than the human heart can hold, and
+      is it possible that he is going to hold his ignorant children responsible
+      for the impressions made by nature upon their brain? Let us have some
+      sense.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another side to this question, and that is with regard to the
+      freedom of thought and expression in matters pertaining to this world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor. He has no right to
+      utter slander. He has no right to bear false witness. He has no right to
+      be actuated by any motive except for the general good&mdash;but the things
+      he does here to his neighbor&mdash;these are easily defined and easily
+      punished. All that I object to is setting up a standard of authority in
+      the world of art, the world of beauty, the world of poetry, the world of
+      worship, the world of religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is what
+      I object to; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every human
+      being that has benefited this world would have been destroyed. If the
+      people who believe that a certain belief is necessary to insure salvation
+      had had control of this world, we would have been as ignorant to-night as
+      wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in spite of them. There
+      has not been a book of any value printed since the invention of that art&mdash;and
+      when I say "of value," I mean that contained new and splendid truths&mdash;that
+      was not anathematized by the gentlemen who believed that man is
+      responsible for his thought. Every step has been taken in spite of that
+      doctrine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of mind. And I have no
+      fear about any other world&mdash;not the slightest. When I get there, I
+      will give my honest opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought
+      there; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least my
+      self-respect.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it. I cannot help it.
+      I read a story&mdash;no matter whether in the original Hebrew, or whether
+      it has been translated. I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter whether
+      it is written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner&mdash;I have my
+      idea about its truth. And I insist that each man has the right to judge
+      that for himself, and for that reason, as I have already said, I am
+      defending your right to differ with me&mdash;that is all. And if you do
+      differ with me, all that it proves is that I do not agree with you. There
+      is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars&mdash;there is no being&mdash;that
+      can force my soul upon its knees, unless the reason is given. I will be no
+      slave. I do not care how big my master is, I am just as small, if a slave,
+      as though the master were small. It is not the greatness of the master
+      that can honor the slave. In other words, I am going to act according to
+      my right, as I understand it, without interfering with any other human
+      being. And now, if you think&mdash;any of you, that you can control your
+      thought, I want you to try it. There is not one here who can by any
+      possibility think, only as he must.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You remember the story of the Methodist minister who insisted that he
+      could control his thoughts. A man said to him, "Nobody can control his own
+      mind." "Oh, yes, he can," the preacher replied. "My dear sir," said the
+      man, "you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without thinking of something
+      else." "Oh, yes, I can." "Well, if you will do it, I will give you that
+      horse, the best riding horse in this county." "Well, who is to judge?"
+      said the preacher. "I will take your own word for it, and if you say the
+      Lord's Prayer through without thinking of anything else, I will give you
+      that horse." So the minister shut his eyes and began: "Our Father which
+      art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done,"&mdash;"I
+      suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel more interest in
+      the freedom of thought and speech than in all other questions, knowing, as
+      I do, that it is the condition of great and splendid progress for the
+      race; remembering, as I do, that the opposite idea has covered the cheek
+      of the world with tears; remembering, and knowing, as I do, that the
+      enemies of free thought and free speech have covered this world with
+      blood. These men have filled the heavens with an infinite monster; they
+      have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have made the
+      present, when they have had the power, a perdition. These men, these
+      doctrines, have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. These men, these
+      doctrines, have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day. These men,
+      these doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced and killed every
+      philosopher they could lay their bloody, cruel, ignorant hands upon.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought, everywhere, in
+      every department, domain, and realm of the human mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President</i>: It is not only "the sense
+      of the church" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is any sense at all;
+      and I am only wondering how a reasonably intelligent being&mdash;meaning
+      myself&mdash;could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr. Kernan, have
+      undertaken to speak to-night.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is a new experience. I have never sung in any of Verdi's operas&mdash;I
+      have never listened to one through&mdash;but I think I would prefer to try
+      all three of these performances rather than go on with this duty which, in
+      a vain moment of deluded vanity, I heedlessly undertook.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the master of a ship who
+      thinks that he can safely guide his bark. (I am not alluding to the
+      traditional bark of St. Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always
+      be, but the ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a
+      guide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which we generally take
+      for granted, and which are as necessary to our safety as the air which we
+      breathe, or the sunshine that we enjoy, have been quietly, pleasantly, and
+      smilingly thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just preceded me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Carlyle once said&mdash;and the thought came to me as the gentleman was
+      speaking&mdash;"A Comic History of England!"&mdash;for some wretch had
+      just written such a book&mdash;(talk of free thought and free speech when
+      men do such things!)&mdash;"A Comic History of England!" The next thing we
+      shall hear of will be "A Comic History of the Bible!" I think we have
+      heard the first chapter of that comic history to-night; and the only
+      comfort that I have&mdash;and possibly some other antiquated and
+      superannuated persons of either sex, if such there be within my hearing&mdash;is
+      that such things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the order
+      of blasphemy, have been uttered with such charming bonhomie, and received
+      with such enthusiastic admiration, that I have wondered whether we are in
+      a Christian audience of the nineteenth century, or in a possible
+      Ingersollian audience of the twenty-third.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and desultory remarks,
+      which are the only ones that I can make now and with which I may claim
+      your polite attention&mdash;let me say a word about the comparison with
+      which your worthy President opened these proceedings.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are two or three things upon which I am a little sensitive: One,
+      aspersions upon the land of my birth&mdash;the city of New York; the next,
+      the land of my fathers; and the next, the bark that I was just speaking
+      of.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to exhibit in the
+      best possible style the new actor upon his stage, said that he had seen
+      Victor Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques Rousseau's, and
+      that he thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll. If
+      that had been merely the expression of a natural desire to see him
+      speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the interests of the Christian
+      community have thought, but not said, "Amen!" (Here you will at once
+      observe the distinction I make between free thought and free speech!)
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and particularly the eloquent
+      rhetorician who preceded me, will think, that in anything I may say I
+      intend any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent in
+      freedom of speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as this rises
+      entirely above and beyond the plane of personalities.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I suppose that your President intended to compare Colonel Ingersoll to
+      Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau. I have no retainer from either of those
+      gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave you, I wish to defend their
+      memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I do not think&mdash;with
+      all respect to the eloquent and learned gentleman&mdash;that he is
+      entitled to a place in that niche. Voltaire did many wrong things. He did
+      them for many reasons, and chiefly because he was human. But Voltaire did
+      a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble tragedies, which charmed
+      and delighted his audiences, and dignified the stage, throughout his work
+      was some effort to ameliorate the condition of the human race. He fought
+      against torture; he fought against persecution; he fought against bigotry;
+      he clamored and wrote against littleness and fanaticism in every way, and
+      he was not ashamed when he entered upon his domains at Fernay, to erect a
+      church to the God of whom the most our friend can say is, "I do not know
+      whether he exists or not."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman, and in our day would
+      probably have been locked up in an asylum and treated by intelligent
+      doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a religious education,
+      and if there be in his works or sayings anything to parallel what we have
+      heard tonight&mdash;whether a parody on divine revelation, or a parody
+      upon the prayer of prayers&mdash;I have not seen it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with prose and poetry
+      that have made him the Shakespeare of the nineteenth century&mdash;poems
+      as deeply imbued with a devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as
+      the writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left the traces of his
+      beneficent action all over the literature of his day, of his country, and
+      of his race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All these men, then, have built up something. Will anyone, the most ardent
+      admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell me what he has built up?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman says that freedom of
+      thought is a grand thing. Unfortunately, freedom of thought exists. What
+      one of us would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts, if he only
+      could? What persecution have any of us suffered to compare with the
+      involuntary recurrence of these demons that enter our brain&mdash;that
+      bring back past events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even with
+      our blood&mdash;and make us slaves of a power unseen but uncontrollable
+      and uncontrolled? Is it not unworthy of so eloquent and intelligent a man
+      to preach before you here to-night that thought must always be free?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When in the history of the world has thought ever been fettered? If there
+      be a page in history upon which such an absurdity is written, I have
+      failed to find it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most cruel and arbitrary ruler
+      can no more penetrate into your bosom and mine and extract the inner
+      workings of our brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun
+      from its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is unseen, unhandled and
+      untouched, and no despot has yet been able to reach it, except when the
+      thoughts burst into words. And therefore, may we not consider now, and
+      say, that liberty of word is what he wants, and not liberty of thought,
+      which no one has ever gainsaid, or disputed?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Liberty of speech!&mdash;and the gentleman generously tells us, "Why, I
+      only ask for myself what I would cheerfully extend to you. I wish you to
+      be free; and you can even entertain those old delusions which your mothers
+      taught, and look with envious admiration upon me while I scale the giddy
+      heights of Olympus, gather the honey and approach the stars and tell you
+      how pure the air is in those upper regions which you are unable to reach."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thanks for his kindness! But I think that it is one thing for us to extend
+      to him that liberty that he asks for&mdash;the liberty to destroy&mdash;and
+      another thing for him to give us the liberty which we claim&mdash;the
+      liberty to conserve.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Oh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so pleasant! It marks the
+      footsteps all through our life. The baby begins by destroying his bib; the
+      older child by destroying his horse, and when the man is grown up and he
+      joins the regiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a chance he
+      will destroy human life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This building cost many thousand days' work. It was planned by more or
+      less skillful architects (ignorant of ventilation, but well-meaning). Men
+      lavished their thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance, upon
+      this building. It took months and possibly years to build it and to adorn
+      it and to beautify it. And yet, as it stands complete tonight with all of
+      you here in the vigor of your life and in the enjoyment of such
+      entertainment as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen men
+      who with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all of us to instant
+      destruction.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The dynamite man may say to me, "I give you full liberty to build and
+      occupy and insure, if you will give me liberty to blow up." Is that a fair
+      bargain? Am I bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it? Liberty
+      of speech! Tell me where liberty of speech has ever existed. There have
+      been free societies, England was a free country. France has struggled
+      through crisis after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We think we have
+      liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would undertake to say
+      that our society could live with liberty of speech? We have gone through
+      many crises in our short history, and we know that thought is nothing
+      before the law, but the word is an act&mdash;as guilty at times as the act
+      of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes that disgrace
+      humanity and require the police.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A word is an act&mdash;an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go
+      unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker
+      than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously?
+      Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona&mdash;is it Iago, or
+      Othello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the
+      scaffold&mdash;who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He
+      poisoned the ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the
+      murderer&mdash;but Iago went scot free. That was a word.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Oh," says the counsel, "but that does not apply to individuals; be tender
+      and charitable to individuals." Tender and charitable to men if they
+      endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate and respect!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my house, my castle, and
+      debauch my children from the faith that they have been taught? Are you
+      tender and charitable to them and to me when you teach them that I have
+      instructed them in falsehood, that their mother has rocked them in
+      blasphemy, and that they are now among the fools and the witlings of the
+      world because they believe in my precepts? Is that the charity that you
+      speak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such as that, should ever
+      invade my home or yours!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We all understand, and the learned gentleman will admit, that his
+      discourse is but an eloquent apology for blasphemy. And when I say this, I
+      beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice of
+      strong words to give point to a pointless argument, or to offend a
+      courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he would, with
+      characteristic candor, say, "Yes, that is what I claim&mdash;the liberty
+      to blaspheme; the world has outgrown these things; and I claim to-day, as
+      I claimed a few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of New
+      Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your tongue is free to revile
+      and insult man's maker." New Jersey was behind in the race for progress,
+      and did not accept his argument. His unfortunate client was convicted and
+      had to pay the fine which the press&mdash;which is seldom mistaken&mdash;says
+      came from the pocket of his generous counsel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The argument was a strong one; the argument was brilliant, and was able;
+      and I say now, with all my predilections for the church of my fathers, and
+      for your church (because it is not a question of our differences, but it
+      is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the roots, not what
+      branches may bear richer fruit or deserve to be lopped off)&mdash;I say,
+      why has every Christian State passed these statutes against blasphemy?
+      Turning into ridicule sacred things&mdash;firing off the Lord's Prayer as
+      you would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem&mdash;that is what I mean
+      by blasphemy. If there is any other or better definition, give it me, and
+      I will use it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now understand. All these States of ours care not one fig what our
+      religion is. Behave yourselves properly, obey the laws, do not require the
+      intervention of the police, and the majesty of your conscience will be as
+      exalted as the sun. But the wisest men and the best men&mdash;possibly not
+      so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without offence to him&mdash;other
+      names that shine brightly in the galaxy of our best men, have insisted and
+      maintained that the Christian faith was the ligament that kept our modern
+      society together, and our laws have said, and the laws of most of our
+      States say, to this day, "Think what you like, but do not, like Samson,
+      pull the pillars down upon us all."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that I should
+      say it now. My exordium has been very long, but it was no longer than the
+      dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech we never had. Did we
+      have it before the war? Many of us here remember that if you crossed an
+      imaginary line and went among some of the noblest and best men that ever
+      adorned this continent, one word against slavery meant death. And if you
+      say that that was the influence of slavery, I will carry you to Boston,
+      that city which numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to the
+      acre as any city on the globe&mdash;was it different there?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he got there, was
+      seized and turned back; and when a few good and brave men, in defence of
+      free speech, undertook to defend the slave and to try and give him
+      liberty, they were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city. You may
+      say, "That proves there was no liberty of speech." No; it proves this:
+      that wherever, and wheresoever, and whenever, liberty of speech is
+      incompatible with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall
+      back and give way, in order that the State may be preserved.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      First, above everything, above all things, the safety of the people is the
+      supreme law. And if rhetoricians, anxious to tear down, anxious to pluck
+      the faith from the young ones who are unable to defend it, come forward
+      with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces clothed in second-hand
+      purple and tinsel, and try to tear down the temple, then it is time, I
+      shall not say for good men&mdash;for I know so few they make a small
+      battalion&mdash;but for good women, to come to the rescue.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen&gt;: At this late hour, I could not
+      attempt&mdash;even if I would&mdash;the eloquence of my friend Colonel
+      Ingersoll; nor the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend
+      Mr. Coudert. But there are some things so serious about this subject that
+      we discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if, without preface, and
+      without rhetoric, I get at once to what from my Protestant standpoint
+      seems the fatal logical error of Mr. Inger-soll's position.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement&mdash;and that I may not, for I
+      could not, do him injustice, nor myself injustice, in the quotation, I
+      will give it as he stated it&mdash;he starts with this statement: that
+      thought is a necessary natural product, the result of what we call
+      impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Do you think that is thought? Now stop&mdash;turn right into your own
+      minds&mdash;is that thought? Does not will power take hold? Does not
+      reason take hold? Does not memory take hold, and is not thought the action
+      of the brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed by
+      manifold and varying influences?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human being is accountable
+      to any being, human or divine, for his thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He starts with the assumption that thought is the inevitable impression
+      burnt upon the mind at once, and then jumps to the conclusion that there
+      is no responsibility. Now, is not that a fair logical analysis of what he
+      has said?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then my mind, out of that
+      impression, works good or evil. The glass of brandy, being presented to my
+      physical sense, inspires thirst&mdash;inspires the thought of thirst&mdash;inspires
+      the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for the result of the
+      mind given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise to the dignity of
+      self-control?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every thing of sense leaves its impression upon the mind. If there be no
+      responsibility anywhere, then is this world blind chance. If there be no
+      responsibility anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he be
+      guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve no censure if I be
+      carrying you back into the path of superstition. Why, admit for a moment
+      that a man has no control over his thought, and you destroy absolutely the
+      power of regenerating the world, the power of improving the world. The
+      world swings one way, or it swings the other. If it be true that in all
+      these ages we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that is
+      true simply and alone because the mind of man through reason, through
+      memory, through a thousand inspirations and desires and hopes, has ever
+      tended toward better results and higher achievements.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I recognize that I am
+      accountable to myself; I recognize that whether I rise or fall, that
+      whether my life goes upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And
+      so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in spite of
+      all eloquence, each woman, each man within this audience is responsible&mdash;first
+      of all to herself and himself&mdash;whether when bad thoughts, when
+      passion, when murder, when evil come into the heart or brain he harbors
+      them there or he casts them out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am responsible further&mdash;I am responsible to my neighbor. I know
+      that I am my neighbor's keeper, I know that as I touch your life, as you
+      touch mine, I am responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my
+      influence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am dragging you down;
+      you are either helping me up or you are dragging me down&mdash;and you
+      know it. Sophistry cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us
+      from it. You know that if you look back through the record of your life,
+      there are lives that you have helped and lives that you have hurt. You
+      know that there are lives on the downward plane that went down because in
+      an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with blessing, lives that
+      have gone up because you have reached out to them a helping hand. That
+      responsibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an accountability
+      that you and I cannot avoid or evade.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe one thing further: that because there is a creation there is a
+      Creator. I believe that because there is force, there is a Projector of
+      force; because there is matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe
+      these things. I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not; it may
+      be that he is right, that I am wrong; but if there be a Power that sent me
+      into this world, so far as that Power has given me wrong direction, or
+      permitted wrong direction, that Power will judge me justly. So far as I
+      disregard the light that I have, whatever it may be&mdash;whether it br
+      light of reason, light of conscience, light of history&mdash;so far as I
+      do that which my judgment tells me is wrong, I am responsible and I am
+      accountable.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply this: It would
+      vary from the theory as taught by the mother church&mdash;it certainly
+      swings far away from the theory as suggested by my friend; I understand
+      the Protestant theory to be this: That every man is responsible to
+      himself, to his neighbor, and to his God, for his thought. Not for the
+      first impression&mdash;but for that impression, for that direction and
+      result which he intelligently gives to the first impression or deduces
+      from it. I understand that the Protestant idea is this: that man may think&mdash;we
+      know he will think&mdash;for himself; but that he is responsible for it.
+      That a man may speak his thought, so long as he does not hurt his
+      neighbor. He must use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the
+      well-being of any other one&mdash;so that when using this liberty, when
+      exercising this freedom, he is accountable at the last to his God. And so
+      Protestantism sends me into the world with this terrible and solemn
+      responsibility.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the bar of his
+      conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man, but it holds him in the
+      inevitable grip of absolute responsibility for every light word idly
+      spoken.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      God grant that he may use that power so that he can face that
+      responsibility at the last!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and stand by his church
+      according to his own conviction.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It stands for this; the absolute liberty of each individual man to think,
+      to write, to speak, to act, according to the best light within him;
+      limited as to his fellows, by the condition that he shall not use that
+      liberty so as to injure them; limited in the other direction, by those
+      tremendous laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in spite of
+      all logic.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a wrong, that
+      wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If I
+      would try to escape what you call judgment, what you call penalty, I
+      cannot escape the working of the inevitable-law that follows a cause by
+      effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law&mdash;not the creation of some
+      dark monster flashing through the skies&mdash;but, as I believe, the
+      beneficent creation which puts into the spiritual life the same control of
+      law that guides the material life, which wisely makes me responsible, that
+      in the solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my brother up
+      and never to drag my brother down.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground boldly that
+      expression is not free&mdash;that no man has the right to express his real
+      thoughts&mdash;and I suppose that he acted in accordance with that idea.
+      How are you to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he said, or
+      not? How is it possible for us to ascertain whether he is simply the
+      mouthpiece of some other? Whether he is a free man, or whether he says
+      that which he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He tells you that I am about to take away the religion of your mothers. I
+      have heard that said a great many times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has the
+      religion of his mother, and judging from the argument he made, his mother
+      knew at least as much about these questions as her son. I believe that
+      every good father and good mother wants to see the son and the daughter
+      climb higher upon the great and splendid mount of thought than they
+      reached.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You never can honor your father by going around swearing to his mistakes.
+      You never can honor your mother by saying that ignorance is blessed
+      because she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents by finding
+      out more than they did.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another thing that I was a little astonished at&mdash;that Mr.
+      Coudert, knowing that he would be in eternal felicity with his harp in his
+      hand, seeing me in the world of the damned, could yet grow envious here
+      to-night at my imaginary monument.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And he tells you&mdash;this Catholic&mdash;that Voltaire was an
+      exceedingly good Christian compared with me. Do you know I am glad that I
+      have compelled a Catholic&mdash;one who does not believe he has the right
+      to express his honest thoughts&mdash;to pay a compliment to Voltaire
+      simply because he thought it was at my expense?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and when I hear that
+      name pronounced, I think of a plume floating over a mailed knight&mdash;I
+      think of a man that rode to the beleaguered City of Catholicism and
+      demanded a surrender&mdash;I think of a great man who thrust the dagger of
+      assassination into your Mother Church, and from that wound she never will
+      recover.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One word more. This gentleman says that children are destructive&mdash;that
+      the first thing they do is to destroy their bibs. The gentleman, I should
+      think from his talk, has preserved his!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy? Let us be honest with each
+      other. Whoever lives upon the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.
+      Whoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. Whoever denies to
+      others the rights that he claims for himself is a blasphemer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Who is a worshiper? One who makes a happy home&mdash;one who fills the
+      lives of wife and children with sunlight&mdash;one who has a heart where
+      the flowers of kindness burst into blossom and fill the air with perfume&mdash;the
+      man who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted, and holds her
+      thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately and loves her as truly
+      and as rapturously as when she was a bride&mdash;he is a worshiper&mdash;that
+      is worship.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why we should not have free
+      speech, that only a few years ago some of the best men in the world, if
+      you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you down. What an
+      argument was that! They were not good men. They were the whippers of women
+      and the stealers of babes&mdash;robbers of the trundlebed&mdash;assassins
+      of human liberty. They knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the
+      example of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So much for debauching his family by telling them that his precepts are
+      false. If he has taught them as he has taught us to-night, he has
+      debauched their minds. I would be honest at the cradle. I would not tell a
+      child anything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be absolutely
+      honest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But he says that thought is absolutely free&mdash;nobody can control
+      thought. Let me tell him: Superstition is the jailer of the mind. You can
+      so stuff a child with superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile
+      and its poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind, and
+      superstition is the assassin of liberty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So when anybody goes into his family and tells these great and shining
+      truths, instead of debauching his children they will kill the snakes that
+      crawl in their cradles. Let us be honest and free.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a Protestant. The Catholic
+      Church says: "Don't think; pay your fare; this is a through ticket, and we
+      will look out for your baggage." The Protestant Church says: "Read that
+      Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves; but if you do not come to a
+      right conclusion you will be eternally damned." Any sensible man will say,
+      "Then I won't read it&mdash;I'll believe it without reading it." And that
+      is the only way you can be sure you will believe it; don't read it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our thoughts. Why?
+      Could you help thinking as you did on this subject? No, Could you help
+      believing the Bible? I suppose not. Could you help believing that story of
+      Jonah? Certainly not&mdash;it looks reasonable in Brooklyn.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I stated that thought was the result of the impressions of nature upon the
+      mind through the medium of the senses. He says you cannot have thought
+      without memory. How did you get the first one?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course I intended to be understood&mdash;and the language is clear&mdash;that
+      there could be no thought except through the impressions made upon the
+      brain by nature through the avenues called the senses. Take away the
+      senses, how would you think then? If you thought at all, I think you would
+      agree with Mr. Coudert.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, I admit&mdash;so we need never have a contradiction about it&mdash;I
+      admit that every human being is responsible to the person he injures. If
+      he injures any man, woman, or child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that
+      crawls, he is responsible to that animal, to that being&mdash;in other
+      words, he is responsible to any being that he has injured.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one. I will tell you
+      why. You cannot help him, and you cannot hurt him. If there be an infinite
+      Being, he is conditionless&mdash;he does not want anything&mdash;he has
+      it. You cannot help anybody that does not want something&mdash;you cannot
+      help him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a conditioned being and you
+      change his condition so as to inflict a harm. But if God be conditionless,
+      you cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do not trouble yourselves
+      about the Infinite. All our duties lie within reach&mdash;all our duties
+      are right here; and my religion is simply this:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>First</i>. Give to every other human being every right that you claim
+      for yourself.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Second</i>. If you tell your thought at all, tell your honest thought.
+      Do not be a parrot&mdash;do not be an instrumentality for an organization.
+      Tell your own thought, honor bright, what you think.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My next idea is, that the only possible good in the universe is happiness.
+      The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be
+      happy is to try and make somebody else so.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My good friend General Woodford&mdash;and he is a good man telling the
+      best he knows&mdash;says that I will be accountable at the bar up yonder.
+      I am ready to settle that account now, and expect to be, every moment of
+      my life&mdash;and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I do not
+      believe that a solitary being can rise and say that I ever injured him or
+      her.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story, how we will settle
+      if we do get there.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his
+      country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told him
+      that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or twelve
+      feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when that man
+      got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body. But he denied
+      it. He was one of those men who would not believe further than his vision
+      extended.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose
+      and he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was blown
+      so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said, "My Lord;
+      I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no other
+      country, and here it is!" So he did his best&mdash;paddled with what
+      little strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat.
+      Sure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high. The
+      poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the tall
+      man as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied your
+      existence&mdash;I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such
+      country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going to
+      kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my misery.
+      Do it now!"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till he
+      asked, "What are you going to do with me, because over in that other
+      country I denied your existence?" "What am I going to do with you?" said
+      the supposed God. "Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I am
+      going to treat you well."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0006" id="link0006">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A CHRISTMAS SERMON.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel
+     Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December
+     19,1891.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      I.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE good part of Christmas is not always Christian&mdash;it is generally
+      Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of
+      eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips.
+      It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It taught some good things&mdash;the beauty of love and kindness in man.
+      But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has
+      given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the
+      soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled
+      the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
+      penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not
+      satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In answer to this "Christmas Sermon" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor of
+      the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist Church,
+      wrote an article, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening Telegram
+      for publishing such a "sermon."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This attack was headed "Lies That Are Mountainous." The Telegram promptly
+      accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do his utmost.
+      On the very same day it published an answer from Colonel Ingersoll that
+      echoed throughout America.'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the
+      old festival called Christmas.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of
+      Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly
+      to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they
+      celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was
+      natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of
+      the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans
+      the best it has.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy.
+      We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like
+      the English.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming
+      Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We
+      take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days&mdash;the
+      more the better.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget&mdash;a good day to throw
+      away prejudices and hatreds&mdash;a good day to fill your heart and your
+      house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      R. G Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      II.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for kindness,
+      charity and love.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The gentle editor of the <i>Christian Advocate</i> charges me with having
+      written three "gigantic falsehoods," and he points them out as follows: <i>First</i>&mdash;"Christianity
+      did not come with tidings of great joy? but with a message of eternal
+      grief."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Second</i>&mdash;"It [Christianity] has filled the future with fear and
+      flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be
+      the home of nearly all the sons of men."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Third</i>&mdash;"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity] has
+      deprived God of the pardoning power."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, let us take up these "gigantic falsehoods" in their order and see
+      whether they are in accord with the New Testament or not&mdash;whether
+      they are supported by the creed of the Methodist Church.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but
+      with a message of eternal grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the tidings that
+      the human race was totally depraved, and that all men were in a lost
+      condition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe the new
+      religion, would be tormented in eternal fire.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These were not "tidings of great joy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was to be
+      wrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would go to the
+      bottom, would they talk about "tidings of great joy"? It is to be presumed
+      that Christ knew what his mission was, and what he came for. He says:
+      "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send
+      peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
+      father, and the daughter against her mother." In my judgment, these are
+      not "tidings of great joy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, as to the message of eternal grief:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
+      cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous
+      [meaning the Methodists] into life eternal."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "He that believeth not shall be damned."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
+      abideth on him."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but
+      rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Knowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that during
+      the last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has died in the
+      faith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it can
+      truthfully be said that Christianity came with a message of eternal grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, as to the second "gigantic falsehood," to the effect that
+      Christianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the
+      keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all
+      the sons of men.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some other
+      world, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah killed
+      one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was glutted when the
+      victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future to sleep and oblivion.
+      But in the New Testament we are told that the punishment in another world
+      is everlasting, and that "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever
+      and ever."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future with fear
+      and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox churches have
+      constructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are to be
+      imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this prison God is the keeper.
+      The doors are opened only to receive.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As I have
+      often said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the justice of
+      endless pain, is suffering from at least two diseases&mdash;petrifaction
+      of the heart and putrefaction of the brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of the
+      pardoning power.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life is a
+      period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation after
+      death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then
+      God will never release a soul from hell&mdash;the pardoning power will
+      never be exercised.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing that
+      billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers,
+      brothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal
+      dungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Yet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New Testament,
+      of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those who would desert
+      brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring "tidings of great
+      joy," but that it came with a "message of eternal grief"&mdash;that it did
+      "fill the future with fear and flame," that it did make God "the keeper of
+      an eternal penitentiary," that the penitentiary "was destined to be the
+      home of nearly all the sons of men," and that "it deprived God of the
+      pardoning power."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible, others of war&mdash;some
+      filled with mercy, and others cruel as the fangs of a wild beast.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison&mdash;an
+      everlasting Siberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony and
+      shame.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What do I think of what the Doctor says about the <i>Telegram</i> for
+      having published my Christmas sermon?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The editor of the <i>Christian Advocate</i> has no idea of what
+      intellectual liberty means. He ought to know that a man should not be
+      insulted because another man disagrees with him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons, and what
+      right has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley? The same right
+      that I have to disagree with them both.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist papers or
+      books. But I do tell them to investigate for themselves&mdash;to stand by
+      what they believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all things, to
+      preserve their mental manhood. The good Doctor wants the <i>Telegram</i>
+      destroyed&mdash;wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of
+      punishing the <i>Telegram</i>&mdash;because it published something with
+      which the reverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree
+      with the Doctor.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The doctor of
+      theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost its lightning&mdash;it
+      is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it and amusing those who
+      hear.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Telegram</i> has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest sense, a
+      newspaper&mdash;wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to its friends,
+      fair with its enemies, and true to the public.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say that I am
+      incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this
+      proves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental manners. The
+      cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained by an
+      ignorant or a malicious personality.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so I say&mdash;More
+      light!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      III.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      THE Rev. James M. King&mdash;who seems to have taken this occasion to
+      become known&mdash;finds fault because "blasphemous utterances concerning
+      Christmas" were published in the <i>Telegram</i>, and were allowed "to
+      greet the eyes of innocent children and pure women."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,
+      holier than another&mdash;that is to say, two equal spaces of time are
+      substantially alike. We call a day "good" or "bad" according to what
+      happens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with
+      noble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and
+      misery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of
+      December, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned, with
+      good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe that Christ
+      was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all his friends
+      unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called "clean families" be
+      violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to whether Christmas
+      is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor of the triumph of the
+      sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian families so weak
+      intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other side? Or is their
+      case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows it? Why do all these
+      ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise a question as to the
+      truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability of the impossible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A minister says to me that I am going to hell&mdash;that I am bound to be
+      punished forever and ever&mdash;and thereupon I say to him: "There is no
+      hell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to
+      suffer agony forever;" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me
+      this question: "Why do you hurt my feelings?" It does not occur to him
+      that I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal
+      grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ with
+      him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the memory of
+      Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his divine origin,
+      and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other than a good and
+      heroic man. And there are thousands of people who admire the character of
+      Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever existed&mdash;who admire the
+      character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or Per-dita, not believing that
+      any of the characters mentioned actually lived.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any
+      really good man or good woman&mdash;that is, no human being hates a man
+      known to be good&mdash;a woman known to be pure and good. No human being
+      hates a lovable character.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to
+      understand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad
+      motive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a
+      man is a Christian or a Mohammedan "for revenue only." I do not say that a
+      man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches with
+      the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his reasons&mdash;with
+      his motives I have nothing to do.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity "for revenue only."
+      Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox religion
+      that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can hardly
+      believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far. I regret
+      exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his remark. I am
+      indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for any human being
+      to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his fellow-men. Still,
+      it gives me great hope for the future to read, even in this ignorant
+      present, that there is one man, and that man myself, who advocates human
+      liberty&mdash;the absolute enfranchisement of the soul&mdash;and does it
+      "for revenue"&mdash;because this charge is such a splendid compliment to
+      my fellow-men.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the <i>Telegram</i>
+      and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is in harmony
+      with the intelligence of the age.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My opinion is that the <i>Telegram</i> will receive the praise of
+      enlightened and generous people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Personally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,
+      and I would much rather meet on the desert&mdash;were I about to perish
+      for want of water&mdash;a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a
+      Christian who would not; because, after all is said and done, we are
+      compelled to judge people by their actions.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,
+      inhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes
+      place there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,
+      masked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we can
+      possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the actions
+      of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the character, of
+      the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good or bad, not by
+      his theories, but by his actions.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Under no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched in
+      becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well
+      enough to inquire: What is blasphemy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain
+      the pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A man
+      who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He who runs
+      with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a blasphemer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there is
+      one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In the presence
+      of this statue the good man worships&mdash;the bad man blasphemes&mdash;that
+      is to say, he is not true to the ideal.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So, too,
+      a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is a blasphemer.
+      If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old
+      Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as bad, he is a blasphemer.
+      If he really believes that the character of Jehovah, as portrayed in the
+      Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it good, he is a blasphemer and a
+      coward.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed by the numerically strong
+      and intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who, finding
+      no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do not
+      say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests had not
+      been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to God.
+      Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not use, and
+      it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests "for revenue only,"
+      but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that the
+      sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without
+      revenue.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel has a
+      right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost
+      cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have
+      ever objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as the
+      Christmas Sermon are "revolting to a vast majority of the people who give
+      character to the community in which we live." I suppose that a very large
+      majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly satisfied
+      that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not disagree
+      with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me. And I also
+      imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are perfectly
+      willing to hear the other side.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that
+      have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense or
+      the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth
+      preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate
+      of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words
+      published by, the <i>Telegram</i>. The most that can possibly be said
+      against them, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that
+      they were true&mdash;that they cannot be answered except by abuse.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood
+      of intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print. The
+      church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most of this time
+      it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many centuries it
+      controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had within its gift
+      wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world is concerned, of
+      heaven and hell&mdash;that is to say, of prosperity and misfortune. It
+      pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the scaffold with the
+      best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet for many centuries.
+      Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons. Millions of reputations
+      have been blasted by its slanders. It has made millions of widows and
+      orphans, and it has not only ruled this world, but it has pretended to
+      hold the keys of eternity, and under this pretence it has sentenced
+      countless millions to eternal flames.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous assumptions.
+      It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many years gradually
+      losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now to the people. The
+      partnership between altar and throne has in many countries been dissolved.
+      The adulterous marriage of church and state has ceased to exist. Men are
+      beginning to express their honest thoughts. In the arena where speech is
+      free, superstition is driven to the wall. Man relies more and more on the
+      facts in nature, and the real priest is the interpreter of nature. The
+      pulpit is losing its power. In a little while religion will take its place
+      with astrology, with the black art, and its ministers will take rank with
+      magicians and sleight-of-hand performers.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but little
+      to say.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press&mdash;that
+      he, like Lucretia Mott, believes in "truth for authority, and not
+      authority for truth." At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am
+      not a scientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there
+      is any fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be
+      pointed out. I admit also, that I am a "sentimentalist"&mdash;that is,
+      that I am governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment&mdash;that my mind
+      is so that cruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and
+      admiration. I admit that I am so much of "a sentimentalist" that I have no
+      love for the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for
+      me to believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless
+      billions of men, women and children.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have "stabbed to
+      the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies," and I hope to stab many,
+      many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the heart there will
+      be no foundation left for what I called "orthodox" Christianity&mdash;but
+      goodness will survive, justice will live, and the flower of mercy will
+      shed its perfume forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a
+      minister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a
+      divine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion: "If
+      God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not see why
+      he could not utilize the Colonel." It is natural for a man to justify
+      himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however, will
+      remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and that
+      the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that the
+      spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet. It was
+      the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I suggest to the
+      Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he will find:&mdash;
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>First</i>, that the ass <i>first</i> saw the angel of the Lord; <i>second</i>,
+      that the prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; <i>third</i>,
+      that the prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent
+      ass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and
+      demonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In
+      addition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the
+      prophet&mdash;in other words, had to work a miracle&mdash;in order to make
+      the prophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his
+      cruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever
+      the ass saw him&mdash;the angel&mdash;showing that the spiritual
+      discernment of the ass in those days was far superior to that of the
+      prophet.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.
+      Dixon is not quite polite.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he
+      who seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the justice
+      of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the foundation
+      of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument fails passion
+      comes to the rescue.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each other.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The course pursued by the <i>Telegram</i> is worthy of all praise. It has
+      not only been just to both sides, but it has been&mdash;as is its custom&mdash;true
+      to the public.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      INGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS. IV.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>To the Editor of the Evening Telegram</i> :
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      SOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the columns of
+      the <i>Telegram</i> have wandered from the questions under discussion. It
+      may be well enough to state what is really in dispute.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I was called to account for having stated that Christianity did not bring
+      "tidings of great joy," but a message of eternal grief&mdash;that it
+      filled the future with fear and flame&mdash;made God the keeper of an
+      eternal penitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be
+      imprisoned forever, and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God
+      of the pardoning power.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These statements were called "mountainous lies" by the Rev. Dr. Buckley,
+      and because the <i>Telegram</i> had published the "Christmas Sermon"
+      containing these statements, he insisted that such a paper should not be
+      allowed in the families of Christians or of Jews&mdash;in other words,
+      that the <i>Telegram</i> should be punished, and that good people should
+      refuse to allow that sheet to come into their homes.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if the
+      orthodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the bearer of a
+      message of eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race are to
+      become eternal convicts, and God has deprived himself of the pardoning
+      power. According to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost can
+      ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of
+      Christianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that
+      doctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with "tidings of
+      great joy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Personally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I have no
+      quarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the human race. I
+      find fault with no one for filling the future with joy&mdash;for dreaming
+      splendid dreams and for uttering splendid prophecies. I do not object to
+      Christianity because it promises heaven to a few, but because it threatens
+      the many with perdition.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that degree
+      that he died that they might be saved, abandons his children the moment
+      they are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might do something for
+      a soul after it has reached the other world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done for a
+      majority of souls in this world?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Think of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in poverty and
+      crime. Think of the millions who are only partially developed in this
+      world. Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of passion. Think
+      of the temptations innumerable. Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of the
+      arrogance of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak&mdash;and
+      can we then say that an infinite God has done, in this world, all that
+      could be done for the salvation of his children? Is it not barely possible
+      that something may be done in another world? Is there nothing left for God
+      to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it leaves this
+      world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence of eternal
+      pain?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did not come
+      with "tidings of great joy," but that its message was and is one of
+      eternal grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast blunder&mdash;an
+      infinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that every pulse of life should
+      cease&mdash;better that all the gods should fall palsied from their
+      thrones, than that the creed of Christendom should be true.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another question and that involves the freedom of the press.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Telegram</i> has acted with the utmost fairness and with the
+      highest courage. After all, the American people admire the man who takes
+      his stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality of
+      progress, the press must be free. Only the free can carry a torch. Liberty
+      sheds light.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position, and he
+      must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and ignorant children.
+      He must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, suppress the truth&mdash;neither
+      must he be dictated to by any church or any society of believers or
+      unbelievers. The <i>Telegram</i>, by its course, has given a certificate
+      of its manliness, and the public, by its course, has certified that it
+      appreciates true courage.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and that the
+      sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember that there are no
+      such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany, or Catholic
+      chemistry. The sciences are secular. .
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues&mdash;and yet, in
+      some things, I agree with him. He is certainly right when he says that
+      "Mr. Buckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-American,"
+      but I am not certain that he is right when he says that it is
+      un-Christian.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with kind words
+      and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always been rather
+      relentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has never forgiven. There
+      is in the history of Christendom no instance where the church has extended
+      the hand of friendship to a man who denied the truth of its creed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is in the church no spirit&mdash;no climate&mdash;of compromise. In
+      the nature of things there can be none, because the church claims that it
+      is absolutely right&mdash;that there is only one road leading to heaven.
+      It demands unconditional surrender. It will not bear contradiction. It
+      claims to have the absolute truth. For these reasons it cannot
+      consistently compromise, any more than a mathematician could change the
+      multiplication table to meet the view of some one who should deny that
+      five times five are twenty-five.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church does not give its opinion&mdash;it claims to know&mdash;it
+      demands belief. Honesty, industry, generosity count for nothing in the
+      absence of belief. It has taught and still teaches that no man can reach
+      heaven simply through good and honest deeds. It believes and teaches that
+      the man who relies upon himself will be eternally punished&mdash;and why
+      should the church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat
+      impatiently to damn?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Peters asks&mdash;and probably honestly thinks that the
+      questions are pertinent to the issues involved&mdash;"What has infidelity
+      done for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it founded?
+      What has it done for the elevation of public morals?" And he inquires what
+      science or art has been originated by infidelity. He asks how many slaves
+      it has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed, how many fallen
+      women it has restored, and what it did for the relief of the wounded and
+      dying soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it ever assisted to
+      higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Although these questions have nothing whatever to do with the matters
+      under discussion, still it may be well enough to answer them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been built by
+      Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted that hospitals
+      and asylums have been built in countries not Christian; that there were
+      such institutions in China thousands of years before Christ was born, and
+      that many centuries before the establishment of any orthodox church there
+      were asylums on the banks of the Nile&mdash;asylums for the old, the poor,
+      the infirm&mdash;asylums for the blind and for the insane, and that the
+      Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity with kindness
+      and affection. The same is true of India and probably of most ancient
+      nations.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There has always been more or less humanity in man&mdash;more or less
+      goodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have always loved
+      their children. There must always have been more good than evil, otherwise
+      the human race would have perished. The best things in the Christian
+      religion came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered the sublimest of
+      truths, and all ages have been redeemed by honesty, heroism, and love.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But let me answer these questions in their order.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>First</i>&mdash;As to the schools.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always been in
+      favor of education&mdash;that is to say, of education enough to make a
+      Catholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have
+      always been in favor of enough education to make a Protestant out of a
+      Catholic. Many schools and many colleges have been established for the
+      spread of what is called the Gospel and for the education of the clergy.
+      Presbyterians have founded schools for the benefit of their creed. The
+      Methodists have established colleges for the purpose of making Methodists.
+      The same is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of fact, these
+      schools have in many important directions hindered rather than helped the
+      cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to investigate for
+      themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were told that thought is
+      dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with creeds&mdash;with the ideas
+      of others. Their credulity was applauded and their curiosity condemned. If
+      all the people had been educated in these sectarian schools, all the
+      people would have been far more ignorant than they are. These schools have
+      been, and most of them still are, the enemies of higher education, and
+      just to the extent that they are under the control of theologians they are
+      hindrances, and just to the extent that they have become secularized they
+      have been and are a benefit.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Our public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I admit that
+      it never could have been established without the assistance of Christians&mdash;neither
+      could it have been supported without the assistance of others. But such is
+      the value placed upon education that people of nearly all denominations,
+      and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all opinions, for the most part
+      agree that the children of a nation should be educated by the nation. Some
+      religious people are opposed to these schools because they are not
+      religious&mdash;because they do not teach some creed&mdash;but a large
+      majority of the people stand by the public schools as they are. These
+      schools are growing better and better, simply because they are growing
+      less and less theological, more and more secular.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Infidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that only that
+      should be taught in schools which somebody knows or has good reason to
+      believe.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who have the
+      least confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that stand highest
+      in the estimation of the most intelligent are those that have drifted
+      farthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought has always been and ever
+      must be the friend of education. Without free thought there can be no such
+      thing&mdash;in the highest sense&mdash;as a school. Unless the mind is
+      free, there are no teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and
+      splendid sense.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church has been and still is the enemy of education, because it has
+      been in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological schools have
+      been what might be called the deformatories of the human mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In this
+      university he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua
+      stopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts the truth of
+      the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and yet believes that
+      water was turned into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory of
+      cause and effect, and at the same time he thoroughly believes in the
+      miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes. Can such an institution,
+      with any propriety, be called a seat of learning? Can we not say of such a
+      university what Bruno said of Oxford: "Learning is dead and Oxford is its
+      widow."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Year after year the religious colleges are improving&mdash;simply because
+      they are becoming more and more secular, less and less theological.
+      Whether infidelity has founded universities or not, it can truthfully be
+      said that the spirit of investigation, the spirit of free thought, the
+      attitude of mental independence, contended for by those who are called
+      infidels, have made schools useful instead of hurtful.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Can it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice against
+      education? Can there be found in the literature of free thought one line
+      against the enlightenment of the human race? Has free thought ever
+      endeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not always appealed to the
+      senses&mdash;to demonstration? It has not said, "He that hath ears to
+      hear, let him hear," but it has said, "He that hath brains to think, let
+      him think."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every direction, to
+      the end that man may know the conditions of happiness&mdash;and every
+      school should be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by anything
+      except a perceived fact. He should not be the slave of a creed, engaged in
+      the business of enslaving others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So much for schools.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Second&mdash;As to public morals.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every church
+      unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I do not mean by
+      this that any church consciously advocates immorality. I most cheerfully
+      admit that thousands and thousands of ministers are endeavoring to do good&mdash;that
+      they are pure, self-denying men, trying to make this world better. But
+      there is a frightful defect in their philosophy. They say to the bank
+      cashier: You must not steal, you must not take a dollar&mdash;larceny is
+      wrong, it is contrary to all law, human and divine&mdash;but if you do
+      steal every cent in the bank, God will as gladly, quickly forgive you in
+      Canada as he will in the United States. On the other hand, what is called
+      infidelity says: There is no being in the universe who rewards, and there
+      is no being who punishes&mdash;every act has its consequences. If the act
+      is good, the consequences are good; if the act is bad, the consequences
+      are bad; and these consequences must be borne by the actor. It says to
+      every human being: You must reap what you sow. There is no reward, there
+      is no punishment, but there are consequences, and these consequences are
+      the invisible and implacable police of nature. They cannot be avoided.
+      They cannot be bribed. No power can awe them, and there is not gold enough
+      in the world to make them pause. Even a God cannot induce them to release
+      for one instant their victim.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If all men
+      knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of their own actions&mdash;if
+      they absolutely knew that they could not injure another without injuring
+      themselves, the world, in my judgment, would be far better than it is.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Free thought has attacked the morality of what is called the atonement.
+      The innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the innocent does
+      suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the guilty.
+      The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in some way, causes the
+      innocent to suffer. This being the very essence of wrong, how can the
+      suffering of innocence justify the guilty? If there be a world of joy, he
+      who is worthy to enter that world must be willing to carry his own burdens
+      in this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So much for morality.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Third&mdash;As to sciences and art.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any science. I
+      do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New Testament. There
+      is not one word, so far as I remember, about education&mdash;nothing about
+      any science, nothing about art. The writers of the New Testament seem to
+      have thought that the world was about coming to an end. This world was to
+      be sacrificed absolutely to the next. The affairs of this life were not
+      worth speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at once for the
+      other life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not interfere
+      with orthodox theology. To the extent that they were supposed to interfere
+      with theology they have been obstructed and denounced. Astronomy was found
+      to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the astronomers were
+      imprisoned and despised. Geology contradicted the Mosaic account, and the
+      geologists were denounced and persecuted. Every step taken in astronomy
+      was taken in spite of the church, and every fact in geology had to fight
+      its way. The same is true as to the science of medicine. The church wished
+      to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and prayer, and with the bones of
+      the saints. The church wished man to rely entirely upon God&mdash;that is
+      to say, upon the church&mdash;and not upon himself. The physician
+      interfered with the power and prosperity of the priest, and those who
+      appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking faith in God. This state
+      of things existed even in the Old Testament times. A king failed to send
+      for the prophets, but sent for a physician, and then comes this piece of
+      grim humor: "And Asa slept with his fathers."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The great names in science are not those of recognized saints.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Bruno&mdash;one of the greatest and bravest of men&mdash;greatest of all
+      martyrs&mdash;perished at the stake, because he insisted on the existence
+      of other worlds and taught the astronomy of Galileo.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Humboldt&mdash;in some respects the wisest man known to the scientific
+      world&mdash;denied the existence of the supernatural and "the truths of
+      revealed religion," and yet he revolutionized the thought of his day and
+      left a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Darwin&mdash;greatest of scientists&mdash;so great that our time will
+      probably be known as "Darwin's Century"&mdash;had not the slightest
+      confidence in any possible phase of the so-called supernatural. This great
+      man left the creed of Christendom without a foundation. He brought as
+      witnesses against the inspiration of the Scriptures such a multitude of
+      facts, such an overwhelming amount of testimony, that it seems impossible
+      to me that any unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain a
+      believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the
+      schools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded. He
+      revolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The writers who have done most for science have been the most bitterly
+      opposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries of
+      the world that cannot be found on the "Index Expurgatorius." Kant and
+      Fichte and Spinoza were far above and beyond the orthodox-world. Voltaire
+      did more for freedom than any other man, and yet the church denounced him
+      with a fury amounting to insanity&mdash;called him an atheist, although he
+      believed not only in God, but in special providence. He was opposed to the
+      church&mdash;that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that reason he
+      was despised.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of Draper, of
+      Haeckel, of B&uuml;chner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and
+      hundreds and thousands of others who have filled the scientific world with
+      light and the heart of man with love and kindness?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that Christianity is
+      indebted to Greece and Rome for its highest conceptions, and it may be
+      well to add that for many centuries Christianity did the best it could to
+      destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and Rome. A few were buried, and
+      in that way were saved from Christian fury.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few fragments
+      were rescued, and these became the seeds of modern literature. A few
+      statues were preserved, and they are to-day models for all the world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course it will be admitted that there is much art in Christian lands,
+      because, in spite of the creeds, Christians, so-called, have turned their
+      attention to this world. They have beautified their homes, they have
+      endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and fine linen. They have been
+      forced from banquets or from luxury by the difficulty of camels going
+      through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of carrying water to the
+      rich man. They have cultivated this world, and the arts have lived. Did
+      they obey the precepts that they find in their sacred writings there would
+      be no art, they would "take no thought for the morrow," they would
+      "consider the lilies of the field."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fourth&mdash;As to the liberation of slaves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he spoke of
+      slavery. The Bible upholds human slavery&mdash;white slavery. The Bible
+      was quoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The man who went to
+      Africa to steal women and children took the Bible with him. He planted
+      himself firmly on the Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     "He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,
+     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      So when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the planters defended
+      their action by reading the Bible. When a poor woman was sold, her
+      children torn from her breast, the auction block on which she stood was
+      the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her quoted the Scriptures; the man who
+      bought her repeated the quotations, and the ministers from the pulpit said
+      to the weeping woman, as her child was carried away: "Servants, be
+      obedient unto your masters."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Freethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas Paine did
+      more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood upon the western
+      world. The first article he ever wrote in this country was one against the
+      institution of slavery. Freethinkers have also been in favor of free
+      bodies. Freethinkers have always said "free hands," and the infidels, the
+      wide world over, have been friends of freedom.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fifth&mdash;As to the reclamation of inebriates.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Much has been said, and for many years, on the subject of temperance&mdash;much
+      has been uttered by priests and laymen&mdash;and yet there seems to be a
+      subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland is extremely orthodox,
+      yet it is not extremely temperate. England is nothing if not religious,
+      and London is, par excellence, the Christian city of the world, and yet it
+      is the most intemperate. The Mohammedans&mdash;followers of a false
+      prophet&mdash;do not drink.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sixth&mdash;As to the humanity of infidelity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Can it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying only
+      because they were orthodox?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the creed of
+      forgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more than one hundred
+      and fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true that where the church
+      has cared for one orphan it has created hundreds? Can Christianity afford
+      to speak of war?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each other. In
+      Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation&mdash;all that can be
+      borrowed by pledging the prosperity of the future&mdash;the labor of those
+      yet unborn&mdash;is used for the purpose of keeping Christians in the
+      field, to the end that they may destroy other Christians, or at least
+      prevent other Christians from destroying them. Europe is covered with
+      churches and fortifications, with temples and with forts&mdash;hundreds of
+      thousands of priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and countless
+      bayonets&mdash;and that whole country is oppressed and impoverished for
+      the purpose of carrying on war. The people have become deformed by labor,
+      and yet Christianity boasts of peace.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Seventh&mdash;"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying when the
+      dying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and that he, unless
+      he has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict? Will it cheer him to
+      know that, even if he is to be saved, countless millions are to be lost?
+      Is it possible for the Christian religion to put a smile upon the face of
+      death?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      On the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying: What
+      happens to you will happen to all. If there be another world of joy, it is
+      for all. If there is another life, every human being will have the eternal
+      opportunity of doing right&mdash;the eternal opportunity to live, to
+      reform, to enjoy. There is no monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who
+      delights in the agony of his children. These frightful things are savage
+      dreams.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Infidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of pity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Infidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every grave.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under discussion.
+      Let us not wander away.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Jan'y 9, 1891.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE. V.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The industrious people of the world&mdash;those who have anything&mdash;are,
+      as a rule, opposed to larceny; a very large majority of people object to
+      being murdered, and so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large
+      majority of people believe in what they call, or what they understand to
+      be, justice&mdash;at least as between others. There is no very great
+      difference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not
+      moral.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks all
+      morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything that
+      tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind; but he attacks Buddhism.
+      So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack kindness,
+      charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been added to the
+      virtues. He does not attack the flower, but what he believes to be the
+      parasite.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues common to
+      all religions, they should not give Christianity credit for all the good
+      that has been done. There were millions of virtuous men and women,
+      millions of heroic and self-denying souls before Christianity was known.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or charity
+      ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these virtues to persecute
+      his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief. If Christianity has
+      persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the virtues it has
+      inculcated. If this reason&mdash;this cause&mdash;is inherent in that
+      something else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then
+      Christianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of
+      course back of Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may
+      be responsible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is there anything in Christianity that will account for such persecutions&mdash;for
+      the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by the church that belief was
+      necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same time that the fate
+      of man was eternal punishment; that the state of man was that of
+      depravity, and that there was but one way by which he could be saved, and
+      that was through belief&mdash;through faith. As long as this was honestly
+      believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels to preach a
+      doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves which, in
+      their judgment, would result in the damnation of souls.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great
+      bodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the life of
+      a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how much more
+      would he have the right to take the life of one who was about to
+      assassinate the soul of his son!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt that God
+      would hold the community responsible if the community allowed a blasphemer
+      to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed the freethinker, or
+      rather the free talker, in self-defence.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of self-defence;
+      that is to say, the defence of the soul. If the founder of Christianity
+      had plainly said: "It is not necessary to believe in order to be saved; it
+      is only necessary to do, and he who really loves his fellow-men, who is
+      kind, honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest"&mdash;if he had
+      only said that, there would probably have been but little persecution.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If he had added to this: "You must not persecute in my name. The religion
+      I teach is the Religion of Love&mdash;not the Religion of Force and
+      Hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not stretch them
+      upon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them
+      alive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour molten lead into their
+      ears. You must treat all with absolute kindness. If you cannot convert
+      your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument, that is the end. You must
+      never resort to force, and, whether he believes as you do or not, treat
+      him always with kindness"&mdash;his followers then would not have murdered
+      their fellows in his name.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be carried
+      on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death through
+      torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what he must
+      have known, if he were God, would happen.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless. Not
+      only so&mdash;it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and the
+      useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless
+      remains.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, falling back on the old assertion, "By its fruits we may know
+      Christianity," then I think we are justified in saying that, as
+      Christianity consists of a mixture of morality and <i>something else</i>,
+      and as morality never has persecuted a human being, and as Christianity
+      has persecuted millions, the cause of the persecution must be the <i>something
+      else</i> that was added to morality.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that "Christianity
+      has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of human nature." On
+      the other hand, Christianity has taught that the whole human race is by
+      nature depraved, and that if God should act in accordance with his sense
+      of justice, all the sons of men would be doomed to eternal pain. Human
+      nature has been derided, has been held up to contempt and scorn, all our
+      desires and passions denounced as wicked and filthy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the value of
+      freedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free thought; and what
+      is freedom worth if the mind is to be enslaved?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their efforts to
+      be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for exercising their
+      freedom as against the church.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not true that the church "has taught and established the fact of
+      human brotherhood." This has been the result of a civilization to which
+      Christianity itself has been hostile.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Can we prove that "the church established human brotherhood" by banishing
+      the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the tortures of the
+      Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland; by the burning of
+      Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution of the Irish; by whipping and
+      hanging Quakers in New England; by the slave trade; and by the hundreds of
+      wars waged in the name of Christ?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and most
+      cruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded upon a Bible
+      that upholds the institution of slavery has taught and established the
+      fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination to conceive.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither do I think it true that "we are indebted to Christianity for the
+      advancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and learning."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some learning,
+      and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion of the
+      absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have had what
+      might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have been somewhat
+      broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities, contradictions,
+      and impossibilities. The church was not the friend of science or learning
+      when it burned Vanini for writing his "Dialogues Concerning Nature." What
+      shall we say of the "Index Expurgatorius"? For hundreds of years all books
+      of any particular value were placed on the "Index," and good Catholics
+      forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of science and learning?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of science seems
+      absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the enemy of astronomy,
+      and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy took her
+      revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens bears a
+      Christian name.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Can it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of any
+      true philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object is
+      to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result that the
+      human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the result reached by
+      the mind must be abandoned.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever anything
+      was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church immediately
+      denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been changed, and
+      ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science does not agree
+      with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians
+      destroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could lay
+      their violent hands; and nothing has been produced by the Christian world
+      equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved. There have been
+      many artists who were Christians; but they were not artists because they
+      were Christians; because there have been many Christians who were not
+      artists. It cannot be said that art is born of any creed. The mode of
+      expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain degree, by the
+      belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and feeling.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian, but
+      in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so was his creed.
+      Consequently, they could not by any possibility have assisted him. Kepler
+      did not discover or announce what are known as the "Three Laws" because he
+      was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of his creed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and clung to a
+      fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has
+      done so certainly without the assistance of his creed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each other to
+      please God; when they were ready to destroy a man with sword and flame for
+      teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in Spain were teaching
+      geography to their children with brass globes. So, too, they had
+      observatories and knew something of the orbits of the stars.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They did not find out these things because they were Mohammedans, or on
+      account of their belief in the impossible. They were far beyond the
+      Christians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically said by Mrs.
+      Browning, that "Science was thrust into the brain of Europe on the point
+      of a Moorish lance."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      From the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the higher
+      branches practical. We also got from them the art of making cotton paper,
+      which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence. We learned from
+      them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness possible in Christendom.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So from among people of different religions we have learned many useful
+      things; but they did not discover them on account of their religion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true because the
+      Greeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor of
+      monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men, was born and lived in a
+      monarchy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of a vast
+      number of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects, but
+      of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for many
+      centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by Christianity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result of
+      countless causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way
+      of hindrance.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does the Doctor think that the material progress of the world was caused
+      by this passage: "Take no thought for the morrow"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on this
+      inspired declaration: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
+      a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible has
+      produced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever seen.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature been
+      produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many generations,
+      take the ground that the Bible was the only important book, and that books
+      differing from the Bible should be destroyed?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christianity&mdash;Catholic and Protestant&mdash;could have had its
+      way, the works of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin,
+      Haeckel, Spencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gibbon, Buckle
+      and B&uuml;chner would not have been published. In short, the philosophy
+      that enlightens and the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my judgment, the
+      poetic&mdash;the dramatic; that is to say, the literature of fiction in
+      its widest sense. Certainly if the church could have had control, the
+      plays of Shakespeare never would have been written; the literature of the
+      stage could not have existed; most works of fiction, and nearly all
+      poetry, would have perished in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to say
+      that "the Bible has produced the richest and most varied literature the
+      world has ever seen."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thousands of theological books have been written on thousands of questions
+      of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on subjects not
+      worth discussing&mdash;not worth thinking about&mdash;and that will, in a
+      few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone of
+      them!"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Stephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best charity,
+      the noblest ever founded in this or any other land; and under the roof
+      built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans have been
+      reared, clothed, fed and educated, not only in books, but in avocations,
+      and become happy and useful citizens. Under his will there has been
+      distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more than $500,000; and this
+      distribution goes on year after year.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One of the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity of
+      James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two cases simply to show
+      that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried away by
+      his zeal.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that "we are indebted to Christianity
+      for our chronology."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to Christianity this world has been peopled about six thousand
+      years. Christian chronology gives the age of the first man, and then gives
+      the line from father to son down to the flood, and from the flood down to
+      the coming of Christ, showing that men have been upon the earth only about
+      six thousand years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and I do not
+      believe that there is an intelligent, well-educated Christian in the
+      world, having examined the subject, who will say that the Christian
+      chronology is correct.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that "we are indebted to
+      Christianity for the continuation of history." The best modern historians
+      of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon, Buckle and
+      Draper.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither can I admit that "we are indebted to Christianity for natural
+      philosophy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been Christians,
+      or, rather, that some Christians have been natural philosophers to the
+      extent that their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Humboldt and
+      Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more
+      for natural philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Whoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural
+      philosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to interfere
+      with nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind, each
+      inconsistent with the other. To the extent that he believes in the
+      supernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with the natural, and to that
+      extent fails to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include the caprice
+      of the Infinite. It is founded on the absolute integrity and invariability
+      of nature.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that "we are
+      indebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language and
+      that other languages had been derived from that; and for hundreds and
+      hundreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested simply because
+      they started with that absurd assumption and believed in the Tower of
+      Babel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christianity cannot now take the credit for "metaphysical research." It
+      has always been the enemy of metaphysical research. It never has said to
+      any human being, "Think!" It has always said, "Hear!" It does not ask
+      anybody to investigate. It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely true,
+      and, instead of asking investigation, it threatens every investigator with
+      eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroying what has been called
+      Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one. This is his
+      argument: Christian countries are the most intelligent; therefore they owe
+      that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next step is taken.
+      Christianity, being the best, having produced these results, must have
+      been of divine origin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the first
+      nation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have used the
+      same arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the religion of
+      Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: "Egypt is the most
+      intelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all nations; it has
+      been made so by its religion; its religion is, therefore, divine"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same argument.
+      Certainly this argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have
+      been repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the
+      religion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true, or
+      that Jupiter was in fact a god.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been
+      institutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been
+      observatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature, the
+      world would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Countries depend on something besides their religion for progress. Nations
+      with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly poor
+      religion; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth or
+      happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and barren.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat, no
+      corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual
+      mendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has the arrogance to
+      pretend that it supports the giver.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: "Every discovery in
+      science, invention and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels
+      have contributed their share, but never one of them has reached the
+      grandeur of originality."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered with one
+      name&mdash;John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics I ever met.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original. Darwin was
+      certainly regarded as such.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some
+      doubts about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of the
+      abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were Christians.
+      But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The Quakers, I admit,
+      were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the Christians of New England
+      persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from town to town, lacerated their
+      naked backs, and maimed their bodied, not only, but took their lives.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Peters asks: "What name is there among the world's emancipators after
+      which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'" Well, let me give him a few&mdash;Voltaire,
+      Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Peters asks: "Why is it that in Christian countries you find the
+      greatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the greatest freedom
+      of thought, speech, and action?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more
+      infidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty in
+      France than in Spain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is far more infidelity in England than there was a century ago, and
+      there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There is far more
+      infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years ago, and a
+      hundred infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago; and there is
+      far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech and action,
+      than ever before.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest extent. Now
+      there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand times less
+      religion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Orthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to have
+      wandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that when one denies
+      the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man, but when
+      he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes a Christian,
+      that he is a very faithful, good and loving son.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that Nature
+      has, or that the State has. I do not think he understands what I have
+      said. The State ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The State
+      may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first, for its own
+      protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If no one
+      could do the State any injury, certainly the State would have no right to
+      punish under the plea of protection; and if no human being could by any
+      possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reformation could not be
+      given.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him. Therefore he
+      need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn anybody for his
+      protection.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two grounds&mdash;that
+      is, the protection of society and the reformation of the punished&mdash;how
+      can eternal punishment be justified? In the first place, God does not
+      punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the punishment is
+      to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished. What excuse then
+      is left?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we say
+      "consequences," and that every good man has the right to reap the good
+      consequences of good actions, and that every bad man must bear the
+      consequences of bad actions, then you must say to the good: If you stop
+      doing good you will lose the harvest. You must say to the bad: If you stop
+      doing bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it be a fact in
+      Nature that all must reap what they sow, there is neither mercy nor
+      cruelty in this fact, and I hold no God responsible for it. The trouble
+      with the Christian creed is that God is described as the one who gives
+      rewards and the one who inflicts eternal pain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have known
+      when he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned. What right had
+      he to create men, knowing that they were to be damned?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So much for Mr. Ballou.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He takes the
+      ground, in the first place, that "infidelity, Christianity, science, and
+      experience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty, in the
+      inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap." He
+      then takes the ground that, "if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we must
+      not sow the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the cause;
+      the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this, and this
+      only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Very good; but that is not the point. The real thing under discussion is
+      this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man fails to live a good
+      life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in another world,
+      if there be one? Can he cease to do evil in the eternal penitentiary? and
+      if he does, can he be pardoned&mdash;can he be released?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If the
+      consequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences are
+      bad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain acts tend
+      to unhappiness and others to happiness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live in harmony
+      with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we have an opportunity
+      of reforming in another world? If not, then the few years that we live
+      here determine whether we shall be angels or devils forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do
+      good, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems to me that
+      they may reform.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest in his
+      children, simply because they leave this world and go where he is. Is it
+      possible that an infinite God does all for his children here, in this poor
+      ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and that if he fails to
+      reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make them eternal
+      convicts?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that "an
+      infinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up under
+      conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their concentrated
+      agony and not break his heart."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an infinite God,
+      without mercy. I do not admit that there is an infinite Being anywhere
+      responsible for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors of
+      this life. I cannot believe that there is in the universe a Being with
+      power to prevent these things. I hold no God responsible. I attribute
+      neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps nor rejoices. I
+      cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has been, was created
+      by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent God. But it is far better
+      that we should all go down "with souls unsatisfied" to the dreamless
+      grave, to the tongueless silence of the voiceless dust, than that
+      countless millions of human souls should suffer forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal
+      revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small
+      compass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is: "If
+      a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a physician
+      can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies, ought there to be
+      any escape?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the patient was
+      obdurate and suffered the penalty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The application he makes is this:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the Great
+      Physician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain, and a life of
+      eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not tidings of
+      great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it not unreasonable on the part of
+      Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak out and throw the blame on God?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an infinite
+      God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he gave us free
+      will it does not change the result, because he knew how we would use the
+      free will.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take the
+      remedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create them? There
+      would have been much less misery in the world had he left them dust.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change dust into a
+      sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the heir of endless
+      agony?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to take the
+      medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would refuse to take it,
+      the cases might be parallel.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who never heard
+      of the medicine or of the "Great Physician."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly think he
+      could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is the
+      following paragraph:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Who" (speaking of Jesus) "has such an eye to our need; such a lip to kiss
+      away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the fire; <i>such a foot
+      to trample our enemies</i>; such a heart to embrace all our necessities?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What does the reverend gentleman mean by "<i>such a foot to trample our
+      enemies</i>"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the history
+      of the church. In the name of its founder it has "trampled on its
+      enemies," and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of the
+      world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this discussion with
+      a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states that "Infidelity is
+      the creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or sorrow comes he"
+      (meaning the infidel) "does not paw nor mock nor cry 'Ha! ha!' He sneaks
+      and cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and whines and howls."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems to think
+      that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being brave, or
+      demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Thousands of people have died for false religions and in honor of false
+      gods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the religion, but it did
+      prove the sincerity of their convictions.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the scaffold the
+      utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage exhibited by dying
+      murderers has never been appealed to in justification of murder.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies endured by
+      Thomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that he wished his
+      work had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil ever had any
+      agency in any work he had in the writing of that book (meaning "The Age of
+      Reason,") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus to have mercy upon
+      him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its falsity has been
+      demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and yet ministers of the
+      Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close his
+      letters with the words, "Crush the wretch!" (meaning Christ). This is not
+      so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This gentleman also says that "Voltaire was the prey of anguish and dread,
+      alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he complained that he
+      was abandoned by God; that when he died his friends fled from the room,
+      declaring the sight too terrible to be endured."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read the life of
+      Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost serenity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me tell you how Voltaire died.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the comforts
+      of life. He was a man of wealth&mdash;of genius. Among the literary men of
+      the world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of
+      success. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery. He
+      stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They began to
+      fear that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to make a
+      terrible example of Voltaire.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Toward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire was
+      dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of
+      superstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the Cur&eacute; of St.
+      Sulpice and the Abb&eacute; Gautier, and brought them into his uncle's
+      sick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my thanks.'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The abb&eacute; spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to patience.
+      The Cur&eacute; of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced
+      himself, and asked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the
+      divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands
+      against the cur&eacute;'s coif shoving him back, and cried, turning
+      abruptly to the other side:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "'Let me die in peace!'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The cur&eacute; seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif
+      dishonored by the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him a
+      little brushing and went out with the Abb&eacute; Gautier.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "He expired," says Wagniere, "on the 30th of May, 1788, at about a quarter
+      past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his <i>valet-de-chambre</i>,
+      who was watching by him, pressed it and said: 'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am
+      gone!'
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "These were his last words."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      From this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful&mdash;from
+      these words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch&mdash;all the
+      frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and
+      made. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed
+      all the shameless calumnies about the death of this great and wonderful
+      man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at the
+      foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in
+      Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin of
+      superstition. Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the darkness
+      of myth and miracle; through the midnight of Christianity; through the
+      blackness of bigotry; past cathedral and dungeon; past rack and stake;
+      past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the sacred torch
+      of Reason.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the
+      publication of his "Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason", every
+      falsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to the
+      world. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another
+      infidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the
+      public streets.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not
+      respected. Under the Constitution that he had first suggested, his life
+      was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three millions of
+      his fellow-citizens, and they were willing to deny it unto him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But he
+      maintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind, and
+      never for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died almost alone.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for his
+      death-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains, and
+      these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even of the
+      present day.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some ministers were
+      impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he ordered
+      from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness of
+      arrogance, called that they might enjoy the agonies of the dying friend of
+      man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments of expiring life
+      fanned into flame by the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse
+      them both.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold
+      hand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled
+      ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that
+      Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that subject."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as serenely
+      as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession of his mind,
+      and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the doctrines of his life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover of the
+      great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the
+      splendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the American
+      Revolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, "The Crisis" was the first
+      star that glittered in the wide horizon of despair.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these
+      words: "The United States of America."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining what
+      infidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though he
+      would like to be present.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will die in
+      peace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades to night.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course when I said that "Christianity did not bring tidings of great
+      joy, but a message of eternal grief," I meant orthodox Christianity; and
+      when I said that "Christianity fills the future with fire and flame, and
+      made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in which most of the
+      children of men were to be imprisoned forever," I was giving what I
+      understood to be the Evangelical belief on that subject.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal punishment, then for
+      one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what little I have done toward
+      that end has not been done in vain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says: "Let
+      the world wait but for a few years at the most, when Death's icy fingers
+      feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his like who
+      have gone before him have done, he will sing another strain."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the writing of such
+      a sentence?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The reverend gentleman "loves his enemies," and yet he is filled with glee
+      when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's icy fingers feel
+      for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him no harm.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the prophet
+      Isaiah, commencing: "The vile person will speak villainy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is this passage applicable only to me?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the "Christmas Sermon." For
+      his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the "Christmas Sermon"
+      contains:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of probation,
+      that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all who have heard the
+      Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to be eternally lost, then I
+      say that Christianity did not "bring tidings of great joy," but a Message
+      of Eternal Grief. And if the orthodox churches are still preaching the
+      doctrine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be far better if every
+      church crumbled into dust than that such preaching and such teaching
+      should be continued.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted
+      and their congregations enlightened.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside hell; but if
+      they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they ought publicly to
+      change their creeds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit, also, that the average minister advises his congregation to be
+      honest and to treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these
+      ministers fail to follow their own advice when they make what they call
+      "replies" to me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course there are many good things about the church. To the extent that
+      it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes charity, it is
+      good. To the extent that it causes men and women to lead moral lives it is
+      good. But to the extent that it fills the future with fear it is bad. To
+      the extent that it convinces any human being that there is any God who not
+      only can, but will, inflict eternal torments on his own children, it is
+      bad.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching does pollute
+      the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does furrow the cheeks of the
+      best and tenderest with tears..Such teaching does rob old age of all its
+      joy, and covers every cradle with a curse!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God. He says:
+      "God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto
+      the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human mind could
+      suggest for the weal of the race."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose
+      of seeing what the world would do, <i>knowing all the time exactly what
+      would be done</i>.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then all people
+      became tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what is
+      known as "Original Sin."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse and worse.
+      It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve them, but he
+      patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years without having
+      established any church, without having given them a Bible, and then he
+      drowned all but eight persons.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of Original Sin was
+      also in their blood.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have killed the
+      remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out of his garden, and
+      furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presbyterian Confession of
+      Faith.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness are
+      the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues were in
+      the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will be convinced by
+      the words of Christ himself. He will probably remember the story of the
+      Good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that it is exactly in point.
+      The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He was not one of "the chosen
+      people." He was a poor, "miserable heathen," who knew nothing about the
+      Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never heard of the "scheme of
+      salvation." And yet, according to Christ, he was far more charitable than
+      the Levites&mdash;the priests of Jehovah, the highest of "the chosen
+      people." Is it not perfectly plain from this story that charity was in the
+      world before Christianity was established?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though the
+      Christians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler will
+      read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of "Mental
+      Diseases," he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane with the
+      utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its throne by the
+      voice of music; that the temples were resorted to by crowds of the insane;
+      and that "whatever gifts of nature or productions of art were calculated
+      to impress the imagination were there united. Games and recreations were
+      instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens surrounded these holy
+      retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes transported patients to breathe
+      the pure breezes of the Nile."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So in ancient Greece it is said that "from the hands of the priest the
+      cure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medicine, with
+      the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for the cure
+      of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples exhibits a
+      profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The early morning
+      was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and music. Then came
+      conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate diet.
+      Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine; then
+      reading, music and conversation concluded the day."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So "Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders. He
+      recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as possible."
+      It is also stated that "the philosophy and arts of Greece spread to Rome,
+      and the first special treatise on insanity is that of Celsus, which
+      distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper treatment."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and ignorance of
+      the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud
+      worse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again consigned to the
+      miracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else totally neglected.
+      Idiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The
+      frantic and furious were chained in lonesome dungeons and exhibited for
+      money, like wild beasts. The monomaniacs became, according to
+      circumstance, the objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They were
+      regarded as possessed with demons and subjected either to priestly
+      exorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel
+      treatment of the insane continued with little or no alleviation down to
+      the end of the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me quote a description of these Christian asylums.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan cities of
+      Europe, but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome,
+      confined in jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons or made
+      the butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public asylums the
+      inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained to floors or
+      walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like wild beasts.
+      They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of their keepers."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I call particular attention to the following paragraph: "Such was the
+      state of the insane generally throughout Europe at the commencement of
+      this century. Such it continued to be in England so late as 1815 and in
+      Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of parliamentary commissions
+      in those years respectively."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Not only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance of the
+      Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the
+      Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700 years, and in
+      addition to this they treated their lunatics with great kindness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent debtors, and the
+      Thesium was a refuge for slaves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Again, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of
+      Christianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for
+      people, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy is
+      that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always been
+      engaged in maligning human nature&mdash;in attacking the human heart&mdash;in
+      efforts to destroy all natural passions.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Perfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated in India
+      and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the Christian era. Every
+      virtue was lauded and every vice denounced. All the good that Christianity
+      has in it came from the human heart. Everything in that system of religion
+      came from this world; and in it you will find not only the goodness of
+      man, but the imperfections of man&mdash;not only the love of man, but the
+      malice of man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected or
+      abused the insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly supposed
+      that the insane were filled with devils.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand it, is
+      a doctor of theology&mdash;and I should think such theology stood in need
+      of a doctor&mdash;and the <i>Telegram</i>, I have nothing to say. There is
+      only one side to that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore
+      criticised what is known as the "Christmas Sermon," I have answered him,
+      leaving but very little to which I care to reply in his last article.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of reasons&mdash;instead
+      of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John Howard, and Michael
+      Faraday are not arguments. They are only names; and, instead of giving the
+      names, Dr. Buckley should give the reasons advanced by those whose names
+      he pronounces.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Jonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology was
+      infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible for him
+      to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of the "Real
+      Presence."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Milton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of
+      brigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular battles; but
+      Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of his
+      poetical and absurd vagaries.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend to prove
+      the existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions and
+      millions of the most devoted men could not, by their devotion,
+      substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that ought
+      not to be passed over in silence.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The first is to the effect that I was invited to write an article for the
+      <i>North American Review</i>, Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that
+      Judge Black was improperly treated.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did write one;
+      but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is also true that
+      Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his reply appeared in the
+      same number of the <i>Review.</i>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Buckley alleges that the <i>North American Review</i> gave me an
+      opportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an opportunity
+      to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in fact. Mr. Metcalf,
+      who at that time was manager of the <i>Review</i>, is still living and
+      will tell the facts. Personally I had nothing to do with it, one way or
+      the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as formidable, and was not
+      only willing that he should be heard again, but anxious that he should.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So much for that.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them to say
+      whether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor, by
+      his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my respect and
+      love.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Most ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a blasphemer.
+      This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips. They cannot imagine
+      that another man loves liberty as much and with as sincere devotion as
+      they love God. They cannot imagine that another prizes liberty above all
+      gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine that any mind is so that it
+      places Justice above all persons, a mind that cannot conceive even of a
+      God who is not bound to do justice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah and
+      Jupiter as substantially the same, with this exception&mdash;that he
+      thinks far more of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human
+      feelings.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who states his
+      honest thoughts in proper language, his object being, not to torture the
+      feelings of others, but simply to give his thought&mdash;to find and
+      establish the truth.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be without
+      foundation. Speaking of myself, he said: "In him the laws to prevent the
+      circulation of obscene publications through the mails have found their
+      most vigorous opponent."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are
+      that an effort was made to classify obscene literature with what the pious
+      call "blasphemous and immoral works." A petition was forwarded to Congress
+      to amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could not be thrown
+      from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be made, the law
+      should be repealed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly should have
+      done so had it been presented to me. The petition was absolutely proper.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while it bore my
+      name it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes of this answer I
+      am perfectly willing that the signature should be regarded as genuine, as
+      there is nothing in the petition that should not have been granted.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League&mdash;but not a
+      member of that society was in favor of the circulation of obscene
+      literature; but they did think that the privacy of the mails had been
+      violated, and that it was of the utmost importance to maintain the
+      inviolability of the postal service.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of obscene
+      literature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it
+      through the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to that
+      effect that were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others were
+      passed, and I resigned from the League on that account.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or indirectly, or
+      could have been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications
+      through the mails; and I will pay a premium of $1,000 a word for each and
+      every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene publications
+      through the mails.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I might use much stronger language. I might follow the example of Dr.
+      Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy all
+      unprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to read
+      that even now, and I believe the readers of the <i>Telegram</i> would like
+      to read it once more; so here it is:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the
+      skeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is the
+      mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine and the
+      shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields; the breath of June;
+      the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth of summer and
+      autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned light. Drink it and you
+      will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the 'Harvest Home,'
+      mingled with the laughter of children. Drink it and you will feel within
+      your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks of many perfect
+      days. For forty years this liquid joy has been within the happy staves of
+      oak, longing to touch the lips of men."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very accurate,
+      made some mistakes in his version.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have sunk in
+      this direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco, and
+      here it is:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed
+      island of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.
+      Above their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene,
+      and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were
+      kind, innocent, gentle and loving.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and of this
+      climate the sacred leaves were born&mdash;the leaves that breed in the
+      mind of him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they grew.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the vows of
+      peace. They have given consolation to the world. They are the companions
+      of the lonely&mdash;the friends of the imprisoned, of the exile, of
+      workers in mines, of fellers of forests, of sailors on the desolate seas.
+      They are the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds of
+      those who build with thought and dream the temples of the soul.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of pain&mdash;drive
+      fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the mind and fill the heart
+      with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof some potent gracious
+      spell imprisoned lies, that, when released by fire, doth softly steal
+      within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the captured sentinels
+      of care and grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke, like
+      incense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile of the sea."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are some people so constituted that there is no room in the heaven
+      of their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread their
+      wings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest. Such men would
+      hold Shakespeare responsible for what Falstaff said about "sack," and for
+      Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: "In the presence of
+      human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense of humor.
+      He preached a sermon on "The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes." He insisted
+      that they were caused by the wickedness of man, and that the only way to
+      cure them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in danger of
+      falling into the pit of Absurdity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers, contributes
+      his part to the discussion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He took a text from John, as follows: "He that committeth sin is of the
+      devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son
+      of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed
+      sin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is not a
+      metaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand with words. He
+      stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth, but
+      a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a physical body,
+      and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the
+      beginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the
+      beginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the Creator
+      of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of the devil.
+      According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies, and Dr.
+      Deems' God is the father of the devil&mdash;that is to say, the
+      grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost "blasphemous."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Doctor also tells us "that Jesus believed as much in the personality
+      of the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be
+      true, that Christ believed in a personal devil&mdash;a devil with whom he
+      had conversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and
+      endeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed in
+      thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene.
+      He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or, rather, made a
+      bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might go into a drove
+      or herd of swine, if they would leave the man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that some
+      devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the
+      integrity of the New Testament.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New
+      Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,
+      shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the authority
+      of God's law."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial
+      intellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd and
+      persevering?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the devil has an "imperial intellect," why does he attempt the
+      impossible?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the
+      devil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and
+      mend.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems to be
+      exceedingly polite. Speaking of the "Arch Enemy of God"&mdash;of that
+      "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the church"&mdash;the
+      Doctor says:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "The devil may be conceded to be sincere."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It has been said:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "An honest God is the noblest work of man," and it may now be added: A
+      sincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the Doctor
+      says that he "cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver lectures" (like
+      myself, I suppose), "edit a newspaper" (like the editor of the <i>Telegram</i>),
+      "or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his servants to do these
+      things for him."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting (I
+      quote from the <i>Telegram's</i> report):
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of the Bible&mdash;<i>not
+      the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures</i>&mdash;is operating to
+      overcome all these works."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have said about
+      Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I give it here:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have
+      infinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has
+      died for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that
+      great and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my admiration and my
+      tears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. He was
+      regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites, who
+      have, in all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and manhood out
+      of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have been his friend,
+      and should he come again he will not find a better friend than I will be.
+      That is for the man. For the theological creation I have a different
+      feeling."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither have I
+      mentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to
+      thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have manfully advocated the
+      right of free speech, and who have upheld the <i>Telegram</i> in the
+      course it has taken.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel quite
+      grateful to those who have failed to say unkind words. Epithets are not
+      arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice
+      illogical.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist that
+      orthodox Christianity did not come with "tidings of great joy," but with a
+      message of eternal grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      New York, February 5, 1892.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0007" id="link0007">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis
+     Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you read an article in the <i>Western Watchman</i>,
+      entitled "Suicide of Judge Normile"? If so, what is your opinion of it?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I have read the article, and I think the spirit in which it
+      is written is in exact accord with the creed, with the belief, that
+      prompted it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but of Henry
+      D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had been shocked,
+      but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no right "to feel special
+      concern in the life or death of either," for the reason, "that both had
+      ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as infidels and scoffers."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on the
+      direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the <i>Watchman</i> is to be
+      believed, Catholics have no right to have special concern for the fate of
+      such people, even after their death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the lost&mdash;that
+      it was trying in every way to convert the infidels and save the scoffers&mdash;that
+      it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the fold than for the one
+      that had strayed. We have been told that God so loved infidels and
+      scoffers, that he came to this poor world and gave his life that they
+      might be saved. But now we are told by the <i>Western Watchman</i> that
+      the church, said to have been founded by Christ, has no right to feel any
+      special concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Possibly the <i>Watchman</i> only refers to the infidels and scoffers who
+      were once Catholics.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a Christian; that
+      is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from grace and not only denied
+      his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that he did not know him;
+      that he never had made his acquaintance. And yet, this same Peter was
+      taken back and became the rock on which the Catholic Church is supposed to
+      rest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Are the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ, when they
+      publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of one who left the
+      church and who died in his sins?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Watchman</i>, in order to show that it was simply doing its duty,
+      and was not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as follows: "A warm
+      personal friendship existed between D'Arcy and Normile and the managers of
+      this paper." What would the <i>Watchman</i> have said if these men had
+      been the personal enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm personal
+      friends, once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers of the <i>Watchman</i>,
+      "warm personal friends" of the dead, had no right to feel any special
+      concern about these friends in the flames of perdition. One would think
+      that pity had changed to piety.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another wonderful statement is that "both of these men determined to go to
+      hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there was
+      a heaven."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Admitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good place, and
+      that hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be, unpleasant, why
+      should any sane man unalterably determine to go to hell? It is hard to
+      think of any reason, unless he was afraid of meeting those Catholics in
+      heaven who had been his "warm personal friends" in this world. The truth
+      is that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or any other country. The
+      truth is that Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that
+      the Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that
+      it is the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that they
+      were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their "warm
+      personal friends."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile "studied" to
+      convince themselves "that there was no God, that they went back to
+      Paganism and lived among the ancients," and "that they soon revelled in
+      the grossness of Paganism." If they went back to Paganism, they certainly
+      found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and earth with deities. The
+      Catholics have only three, while the Pagans had hundreds. And yet there
+      were some very good Pagans. By associating with Socrates and Plato one
+      would not necessarily become a groveling wretch. Zeno was not altogether
+      abominable. He would compare favorably, at least, with the average pope.
+      Aristotle was not entirely despicable, although wrong, it may be, in many
+      things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He perceived the beauty
+      of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and joy. He did not teach
+      his disciples to revel in grossness, although his maligners have made this
+      charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he uttered some very sublime and
+      generous sentiments. Among other things, he said this: "When we say that
+      we should love Romans, but not foreigners, we destroy the bond of
+      universal brotherhood and drive from our hearts charity and justice."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Suppose a Pagan had written about "two warm personal friends" of his, who
+      had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said this: "Although
+      our two warm personal friends have both died by their own hands, and
+      although both have gone to the lowest hell, and are now suffering
+      inconceivable agonies, we have no right to feel any special concern about
+      them or about their sufferings; and, to speak frankly, we care nothing for
+      their agonies, nothing for their tears, and we mention them only to keep
+      other Pagans from joining that blasphemous and ignorant church. Both of
+      our friends were raised as Pagans, both were educated in our holy
+      religion, and both had read the works of our greatest and wisest authors,
+      and yet they fell into apostasy, and studied day and night, in season and
+      out of season, to convince themselves that a young carpenter of Palestine
+      was in fact, Jupiter, whom we call Stator, the creator, the sustainer and
+      governor of all."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is probable that the editor of the <i>Watchman</i> was perfectly
+      conscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a sense of religious
+      duty could induce any man to attack the character of a "warm personal
+      friend," and to say that although the friend was in hell, he felt no
+      special concern as to his fate.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Watchman</i> seems to think that it is hardly probable or possible
+      that a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of every religion
+      feel substantially in this way. It is probable that the Mohammedan is of
+      the opinion that no sane believer in the religion of Islam could possibly
+      become a Catholic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I do not know.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history of his
+      church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword, of
+      philosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the "Bride of
+      God," and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may reasonably come
+      to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the best possible church
+      in this, the best possible of all worlds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history of
+      superstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The
+      truth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no matter
+      whether they are for or against the Catholic creed. All intelligent people
+      are intellectually hospitable. Every man who knows something of the
+      operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that his wish has not, to
+      his knowledge, influenced his judgment. He may admit that his wish has
+      influenced his speech, but he must certainly know that it has not affected
+      his judgment.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of solitaire and
+      really believe that he has won the game. No matter what the appearance of
+      the cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost or won. So, men may
+      say that their judgment is a certain way, and they may so affirm in
+      accordance with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the declaration can
+      affect the real judgment. So, a man must know whether he believes a
+      certain creed or not, or, at least, what the real state of his mind is.
+      When a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural, in the
+      miraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for
+      granted that he is telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me
+      that the man could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he
+      does not know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does
+      not believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the
+      Scriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly believe
+      every word he says.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women who
+      believe what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,
+      undoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us give to others the liberty which we claim for ourselves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Watchman</i> seems to think that unbelief, especially when coupled
+      with what they call "the sins of the flesh," is the lowest possible depth,
+      and tells us that "robbers may be devout," "murderers penitent," and
+      "drunkards reverential."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In some of these statements the <i>Watchman</i> is probably correct. There
+      have been "devout robbers." There have been gentlemen of the highway,
+      agents of the road, who carried sacred images, who bowed, at holy shrines
+      for the purpose of securing success. For many centuries the devout
+      Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand and Isabella were great
+      robbers. A great many popes have indulged in this theological pastime, not
+      to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the <i>Watchman</i> is right. There is
+      nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with devotion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless impelled by
+      a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent. David, with dying
+      breath, advised his son to murder the old friends of his father. He
+      certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without
+      remorse, and Calvin burned his "warm personal friend" to gain the applause
+      of God. Philip the Second was a murderer, not penitent, because he deemed
+      it his duty. The same may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of thousands of
+      others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly virtuous, and
+      yet I like him better than I do those who planned and carried into bloody
+      execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Undoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California cut the
+      throat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at the same time
+      that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for her prayers. He was
+      tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He made a motion for a new trial.
+      This was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the executive refused to
+      interfere. Then he became penitent and experienced religion. On the
+      scaffold he remarked that he was going to heaven; that his only regret was
+      that he would not meet the woman he had murdered, as she was not a
+      Christian when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      An old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer the last
+      sacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must forgive all his
+      enemies. "I have no enemies," said the dying man, "I killed the last one
+      three weeks ago." Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and I might
+      add, honest and generous.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Some good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a hospitable
+      glass, and there have been priests who used the blood of the grape for
+      other than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good Catholic in his day,
+      a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the world this couplet:
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     "Who loves not woman, wine and song,
+     Will live a fool his whole life long."
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      The <i>Watchman</i>, in effect, says that a devout robber is better than
+      an infidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a freethinker, in the
+      sight of God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another curious thing in this article is that after sending both men to
+      hell, the <i>Watchman</i> says: "As to their moral habits we know
+      nothing."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It may then be taken for granted, if these "warm personal friends" knew
+      nothing against the dead, that their lives were, at least, what the church
+      calls moral. We know, if we know anything, that there is no necessary
+      connection between what is called religion and morality. Certainly there
+      were millions of moral people, those who loved mercy and dealt honestly,
+      before the Catholic Church existed. The virtues were well known, and
+      practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning brain of an
+      Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the <i>Auto da f&eacute;</i>
+      delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of people died for the
+      right, before the wrong organized the infallible church.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to say harsh
+      and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of death with the thorns
+      of hatred? Suppose the editor of the <i>Watchman</i> had died, and Judge
+      Normile had been the survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have attacked
+      the unreplying dead?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Henry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and I was
+      his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my admiration and
+      respect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly intelligent man, well
+      informed on many subjects, of varied reading, possessed of a clear and
+      logical mind, a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things in
+      literature and art, and the noble things in life. He gave his opinions
+      freely, but without the least arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing that
+      others should enjoy the privilege of differing with him. He was, so far as
+      I could perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others, free and
+      manly in his bearing, "of most excellent fancy," and a most charming and
+      agreeable companion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According, however, to the <i>Watchman</i>, such a man is far below a
+      "devout robber" or a "penitent murderer." Is it possible that an assassin
+      like Ravillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire; and that all
+      the Catholic robbers and murderers who retain their faith, give greater
+      delight to God than the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have filled
+      the world with intellectual light?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Possibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the <i>Watchman</i> is
+      in error, and possibly there may be for the erring, even in another world,
+      some asylum besides hell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Judge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid of the
+      future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own hand. Can
+      anything be more pitiful&mdash;more terrible? How can a man in the flowing
+      tide and noon of life destroy himself? What storms there must have been
+      within the brain; what tempests must have raved and wrecked; what
+      lightnings blinded and revealed; what hurrying clouds obscured and hid the
+      stars; what monstrous shapes emerged from gloom; what darkness fell upon
+      the day; what visions filled the night; how the light failed; how paths
+      were lost; how highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one thought&mdash;the
+      thought of death&mdash;swift, compassionate and endless&mdash;became the
+      insane monarch of the mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Standing by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it is far
+      better to pity than to revile&mdash;to kiss the clay than curse the man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The editor of the <i>Watchman</i> has done himself injustice. He has not
+      injured the dead, but the living.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am an infidel&mdash;an unbeliever&mdash;and yet I hope that all the
+      children of men may find peace and joy. No matter how they leave this
+      world, from altar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with
+      crime, I hope that good may come to all.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      R. G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0008" id="link0008">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      IS SUICIDE A SIN?
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      Col. Ingersoll's First Letter.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it is,
+      then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow, more
+      failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In
+      civilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many
+      fail. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the country
+      a man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help, but in the
+      city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In the roar of the
+      streets, his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only friend. Death
+      promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so the poor wretch
+      lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and falls asleep.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and
+      suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts
+      and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want;
+      support it by beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to
+      whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why
+      should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones dead,
+      friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the future
+      have for him?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life is
+      of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others, why
+      should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden to
+      those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that God made us
+      and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our duty to remain until
+      he called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What pleasure can it
+      give God to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the quivering flesh
+      slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is this a festival
+      for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A little morphine
+      would give him sleep&mdash;the agony would be forgotten and he would pass
+      unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine and why
+      should doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of God? No one,
+      except a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition. Why
+      should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning building,
+      from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet through his brain
+      or a dagger in his heart? Would it give God pleasure to see him burn? When
+      did the man lose the right of self-defence?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and ruin
+      his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should he
+      live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others, with
+      grief and pain, with agony and tears?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still his
+      heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the ache
+      of toil. The dead have no masters.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against
+      her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that
+      will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes of
+      dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds
+      broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying
+      from horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door
+      of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide&mdash;cases
+      in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man
+      honestly decides that death is best&mdash;best for him and others&mdash;and
+      acts upon the decision, why should he be blamed?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may have
+      lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some men fight
+      duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two fires&mdash;the
+      chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take the chance of
+      death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their belief, between
+      two fires&mdash;the flames of the fagot that could burn but for a few
+      moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they chose the
+      flames of the fagot.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and
+      pangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot afford to call the
+      suicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or that
+      Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was not a
+      craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who felt that
+      they had reached the end&mdash;-that the journey was done, the voyage was
+      over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man who commits
+      suicide, who "does the thing that ends all other deeds, that shackles
+      accident and bolts up change" is not lacking in physical courage.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,
+      in hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the
+      stains of dishonor; they would not live in filth and want, in poverty and
+      hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can be
+      accounted for only by the fear of death or "of something after."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He knew
+      that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that "at the bottom of every
+      river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger, Liberty
+      sat and smiled." He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed himself
+      to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said: "There is this blessing,
+      that while life has but one entrance, it has exits innumerable, and as I
+      choose the house in which I live, the ship in which I will sail, so will I
+      choose the time and manner of my death."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman law
+      persons found guilty of certain offences were not only destroyed, but
+      their blood was polluted and their children became outcasts. If, however,
+      they died before conviction their children were saved. Many committed
+      suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards. Although
+      guilty of great crimes they had enough of honor, of manhood, left to save
+      their innocent children. This was not cowardice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their
+      property. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose proportion,
+      they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of frenzy, kill
+      themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart&mdash;the light
+      fading from their lives&mdash;seek the refuge of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways&mdash;who mangle
+      their throats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs,
+      take poisons that torture like the rack&mdash;such persons must be insane.
+      But those who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and
+      against, and who decide that death is best&mdash;the only good&mdash;and
+      then resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full
+      possession of their minds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Life is not the same to all&mdash;to some a blessing, to some a curse, to
+      some not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some with
+      the keenest joy and some with indifference.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number of
+      suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the
+      hand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural
+      death. A belief in eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such
+      believers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the
+      future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have less
+      hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox religion
+      has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to murder their
+      children and many thousands to destroy themselves and others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill
+      themselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is
+      forgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the
+      twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is
+      cruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful
+      suicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so persecuted
+      and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of death, why
+      should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man seeking death,
+      knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take extra pains and
+      precautions to make death certain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and enforced
+      by ignorance and cruelty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and
+      narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death,
+      why should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take gods,
+      heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my estimate of
+      life is based upon what I know of life here in this world. People should
+      not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for other worlds or the
+      hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our sufferings and our
+      duties are here.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law as to
+      divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent suicide.
+      Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and its
+      penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every
+      suicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient
+      cause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each
+      other. There is no space between&mdash;no room for chance. Given a certain
+      heart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary result.
+      If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must by
+      education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value of the
+      average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart&mdash;do away with
+      false pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help our
+      fellows without degrading them. We must make industry&mdash;useful work of
+      all kinds&mdash;honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our
+      charity&mdash;a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned
+      to really reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done,
+      but we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the
+      sick. Why should they despise the mentally weak&mdash;the diseased in
+      brain?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances&mdash;of
+      conditions&mdash;and we do as we must.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This great truth should fill the heart with pity for the failures of our
+      race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide; that in
+      olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove a stake through
+      his body, and then took his property from his children and gave it to the
+      State.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox religion
+      rests upon suicide&mdash;that man was redeemed by suicide, and that
+      without suicide the whole world would have been lost.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the Jews
+      without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed them to
+      take his life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death
+      with knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not say
+      that he committed suicide?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed the Jews to
+      kill him, then he consented to his own death&mdash;refused, though
+      perfectly able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in fact, a
+      suicide.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there
+      shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and women
+      will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To the hopelessly imprisoned&mdash;to the dishonored and despised&mdash;to
+      those who have failed, who have no future, no hope&mdash;to the abandoned,
+      the brokenhearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and
+      women&mdash;how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome deliverer.
+      Death is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed long&mdash;when
+      we are weary&mdash;when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk, for the
+      cool kisses of the night&mdash;when the senses are dull&mdash;when the
+      pulse is faint and low&mdash;when the mists gather on the mirror of memory&mdash;when
+      the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly perceived&mdash;when the
+      future has but empty hands&mdash;death is as welcome as a strain of music.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal
+      happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by no
+      dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and
+      forever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in spite
+      of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and stagger and
+      crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is that so few
+      of the miserable are brave enough to die&mdash;that so many are terrified
+      by the "something after death"&mdash;by the spectres and phantoms of
+      superstition.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic
+      snows&mdash;how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea&mdash;how
+      they linger in famine&mdash;how they fight disaster and despair! On the
+      crumbling edge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full
+      of hope and courage.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are
+      disheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and give
+      the earth their blood.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or
+      blame&mdash;we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming and
+      loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous impulses. His
+      heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and so sensitive that
+      he blamed himself for having done what at the time he thought was wise and
+      best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be merciful in our
+      judgments.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the malignant,
+      the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the ignorant, actuated
+      by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances and conditions&mdash;sometimes
+      in the calm of judgment, sometimes in passion's storm and stress,
+      sometimes in whirl and tempest of insanity&mdash;raise their hands against
+      themselves and desperately put out the light of life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane they
+      should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be reasoned
+      with, calmed and assisted.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      R. G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      IN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that
+      "under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and the
+      writers of letters. These people contend that the right of
+      self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the
+      gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that
+      it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience.
+      Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes&mdash;worse than the
+      murder of another.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The first question, then, is:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Has a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer&mdash;his agony is intense&mdash;his
+      suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken. Is
+      this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the cancer
+      so that it might feed on the quiverering flesh of this victim?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no
+      use to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use to
+      his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is
+      rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to
+      sleep.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Has he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to
+      take refuge in sleep?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure in the
+      sufferings of men&mdash;that he gloats over the agonies of his children.
+      If there be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power, lessen the
+      evils of life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer&mdash;a burden to
+      himself and others, useless in every way&mdash;has the right to end his
+      pain and pass through happy sleep to dreamless rest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But those who have answered me would say to this man: "It is your duty to
+      be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift of
+      God. You hold it in trust and you have no right to end it. The cancer is
+      the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it with food."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Take another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the rest of
+      the passengers have escaped&mdash;gone in the lifeboats&mdash;and he is
+      left alone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He
+      cannot swim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the ship
+      he burns. In any event he can live but a few moments.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Those who have answered me, those who insist that under no circumstances a
+      man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,
+      "Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly Father
+      that you be clothed in flame&mdash;that you slowly roast&mdash;that your
+      eyes be scorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life
+      is not your own, only the agony is yours."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to
+      burning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right of
+      choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing yourself to be
+      burned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier
+      death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us suppose another case:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is about to be
+      tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pine into
+      his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make the
+      preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is about to
+      suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of poison. He
+      knows that he can take it and in one moment pass beyond their power,
+      leaving to them only the dead body.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it, until
+      the savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good
+      God? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is it the duty of this man to
+      allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to
+      defend himself? Is it the will of God that he die by torture? What would
+      any man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room for
+      discussion?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped the
+      tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another world be
+      tortured forever by an infinite savage?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Suppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition
+      flourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends, many
+      frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of pain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Those who loved God, who had been "born twice," would take a fellow-man
+      who had been convicted of "heresy," lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,
+      secure his arms and legs with chains, fasten him to the earth so that he
+      could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his stomach,
+      place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his body. Then
+      these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking food and
+      liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within his hand a
+      dagger, would it excite the wrath of the "good God," if with one quick
+      stroke he found the protection of death?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To this question there can be but one answer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have
+      the right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was
+      under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the ship and
+      perish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by
+      savages; to drop the dagger and endure the "mercies" of the church.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their
+      lives, then I was right when I said that "under many circumstances a man
+      has a right to kill himself."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Second</i>.&mdash;I denied that persons who killed themselves were
+      physical cowards. They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their
+      misfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the
+      dagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps
+      from some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not and
+      cannot be a physical coward.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and
+      when that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die, no
+      matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist. The
+      suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears. He seeks the very thing
+      that cowardice endeavors to escape.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a
+      coward, but a reasonable man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He is to bear
+      the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just as
+      certainly there is no physical cowardice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer a
+      coward?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is the
+      man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages or
+      "Christians" a coward?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Third</i>.&mdash;I also took the position that some suicides were sane;
+      that they acted on their best judgment, and that they were in full
+      possession of their minds. Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the
+      right to take his life, and, if, under such circumstances, he does take
+      his life, then it cannot be said that he was insane.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Most of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground that
+      suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it is the
+      greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must have been
+      sane. So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal admit that he
+      was sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapable of committing a
+      crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who have passionately
+      asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion admitted that
+      those who killed themselves were sane.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      They agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that "some who have
+      committed suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to be
+      true: <i>First</i>, that under some circumstances a man has the right to
+      take his life; <i>second</i>, that the man who commits suicide is not a
+      physical coward, and, <i>third</i>, that some who have committed suicide
+      were at the time sane and in full possession of their minds.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Fourth</i>.&mdash;I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is
+      the foundation of the Christian religion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to protect himself
+      without injuring his assailants&mdash;that having that power it was his
+      duty to use it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own death
+      and was guilty of suicide.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the redemption of
+      man, that he made an atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas
+      about redemption and atonement are born of a belief in the "fall of man,"
+      on account of the sins of our first "parents," and of the declaration that
+      "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." The
+      foundation has crumbled. No intelligent person now believes in the "fall
+      of man"&mdash;that our first parents were perfect, and that their
+      descendants grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Intelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of history,
+      man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage, whose language
+      consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and delight; that he
+      devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but not all the virtues of
+      the beasts; that the journey from the den to the home, the palace, has
+      been long and painful, through many centuries of suffering, of cruelty and
+      war; through many ages of discovery, invention, self-sacrifice and
+      thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Redemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest. The
+      idea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain of
+      sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and
+      scribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put him to death that he
+      might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from the
+      consequences of his own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and natural
+      brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be found.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times because it
+      was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a religion of kindness, of
+      good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and ceremony, and if,
+      rather than to deny what he believed to be right and true, he suffered
+      death, then he was a noble man&mdash;a benefactor of his race. But if he
+      were God there was no need of this. The Jews did not wish to kill God. If
+      he had only made himself known all knees would have touched the ground. If
+      he were God it required no heroism to die. He knew that what we call death
+      is but the opening of the gates of eternal life. If he were God there was
+      no self-sacrifice. He had no need to suffer pain. He could have changed
+      the crucifixion to a joy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Even the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from
+      these conclusions&mdash;from these arguments&mdash;and so, instead of
+      attacking the arguments, they attack the man who makes them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Fifth</i>.&mdash;I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt
+      to commit suicide a crime.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately
+      longs for death should be pitied, instead of punished&mdash;helped rather
+      than imprisoned.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman
+      without home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with
+      tear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night
+      leaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of death. She
+      is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the authorities,
+      indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb and locked in a
+      felon's cell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages would
+      enforce.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Sixth</i>.&mdash;In this discussion a curious thing has happened. For
+      several centuries the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very
+      good thing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the
+      hour of death. They have in spite of the truth, declared that all the
+      great unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,
+      surrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair. Think of the thousands
+      and thousands of clergymen who have described the last agonies of
+      Voltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from
+      play to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep
+      as serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks, reaches
+      the sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the
+      noblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a star that meets
+      the morning.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer could
+      meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could smilingly ask
+      the people who had gathered to see him killed to meet him in heaven.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the creed
+      of the church in power could not die in peace. God would see to it that
+      his last moments should be filled with the insanity of fear&mdash;that
+      with his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for
+      pardon.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering me,
+      declare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death&mdash;that
+      to avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience, they gladly and
+      cheerfully put out the light of life. It is now said that infidels believe
+      that death is the end&mdash;that it is a dreamless sleep&mdash;that it is
+      without pain&mdash;that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for
+      gods, or heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing
+      for the day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they
+      carelessly throw it down.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having
+      forced the clergy to contradict themselves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Seventh</i>.&mdash;The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+      unbeliever, has no standard of morality&mdash;that he can have no real
+      conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+      impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+      far above himself.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+      believes in some Being superior to himself?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances. What
+      is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will increase
+      the sum of human happiness&mdash;or lessen it the least. Happiness in its
+      highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases or preserves
+      or creates happiness is moral&mdash;that which decreases it, or puts it in
+      peril, is immoral.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not hard for an atheist&mdash;for an unbeliever&mdash;to keep his
+      hands out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase
+      his well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence&mdash;so
+      far as what he considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is swayed
+      by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance&mdash;but when he is really
+      intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for him.
+      If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for him is
+      good for others&mdash;for all the world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the supernatural is
+      necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who has
+      the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give the
+      same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of all
+      morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+      experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+      origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the
+      supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural heavens
+      or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed by the
+      threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not governed by
+      the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are obedient cowards,
+      controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards&mdash;by alms.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Right and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just as criminal
+      before as after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Eighth</i>.&mdash;The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+      unbeliever, has no standard of morality&mdash;that he can have no real
+      conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+      impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+      far above himself.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+      believes in some Being superior to himself?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances. What
+      is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will increase
+      the sum of human happiness&mdash;or lessen it the least. Happiness in its
+      highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases or preserves
+      or creates happiness is moral&mdash;that which decreases it, or puts it in
+      peril, is immoral.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not hard for an atheist&mdash;for an unbeliever&mdash;to keep his
+      hands out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase
+      his well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence&mdash;so
+      far as what he Considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is swayed
+      by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance&mdash;but when he is really
+      intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for him.
+      If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for him is
+      food for others&mdash;for all the world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is
+      necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who has
+      the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give the
+      same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of all
+      morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+      experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+      origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the
+      supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural heavens
+      or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed by the
+      threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not governed by
+      the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are obedient cowards,
+      controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards&mdash;by alms.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Murder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten
+      Commandments.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Eighth</i>.&mdash;Many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of
+      letters who have answered me, have said that suicide is the worst of
+      crimes&mdash;that a man had better murder somebody else than himself. One
+      clergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in an
+      act of sin, and therefore he had better kill another person. Probably he
+      would commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To say that
+      it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd. The man
+      about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for him to kill
+      another man, who wishes to live?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      To my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than
+      another. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw away your own
+      money than steal the money of another&mdash;better kill yourself if you
+      wish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the
+      greatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is wonderful how
+      much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men. Wonderful
+      the amount of their information about other worlds and how limited their
+      knowledge is of this.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor deny. I am
+      honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid enough to admit that
+      the question is beyond the limitations of my mind. Yet I think I know as
+      much on that subject as any human being knows or ever knew, and that is&mdash;nothing.
+      I do not say that there is not another world, another life; neither do I
+      say that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems to me that every
+      sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is an infinitely good
+      God and another world, then the infinitely good God will be just as good
+      to us in that world as he is in this. If this infinitely good God loves
+      his children in this world, he will love them in another. If he loves a
+      man when he is alive, he will not hate him the instant he is dead.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God, he knew
+      exactly what we would do&mdash;the temptations that we could and could not
+      withstand&mdash;knew exactly the effect that everything would have upon
+      us, knew under what circumstances we would take our lives&mdash;and
+      produced such circumstances himself. It is perfectly apparent that there
+      are many people incapable by nature of bearing the burdens of life,
+      incapable of preserving their mental poise in stress and strain of
+      disaster, disease and loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want,
+      are driven to despair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes
+      like a flash of lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so
+      strong, so vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all
+      obligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains except a fierce and
+      wild desire to die. Thousands and thousands become moody, melancholy,
+      brood upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until reason abdicates
+      and frenzy takes possession of the soul. If there be an infinitely wise
+      and powerful God, all this was known to him from the beginning, and he so
+      created things, established relations, put in operation causes and
+      effects, that all that has happened was the necessary result of his own
+      acts.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Ninth</i>.&mdash;Nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have
+      been exceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I
+      never uttered. They have declared that I have advised people who were in
+      trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men who
+      have lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not good in
+      health, to kill themselves at once, without taking into consideration any
+      duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or society.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      No man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he is
+      able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if he can possibly
+      be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those he loves, as long
+      as he can stand between wife and misery, between child and want, as long
+      as he can be of any use, it is his duty to remain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things, in
+      bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against adversity,
+      in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having confidence in
+      to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints and shards, and in
+      changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things to good. I believe in
+      the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and good nature.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the world&mdash;of
+      all that live. My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the
+      phantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no fear.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality of
+      the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope&mdash;hope for all of the
+      children of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor
+      the immortality of the soul. For many years I have said that the idea of
+      immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with
+      its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks
+      of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any
+      religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and
+      flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love
+      kisses the lips of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      After all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People do not kill
+      themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All wish to be happy, to
+      enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for friends, and as
+      long as life gives joy, the idea of self-destruction never enters the
+      human mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,
+      the robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point, the
+      ministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal pain;
+      these are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless down
+      to death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to die. Of
+      this there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that
+      any god takes any interest in the affairs of men&mdash;that any sides with
+      the right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the
+      oppressed. Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has
+      allowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and murdered
+      by his enemies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of prayers have
+      been uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague, pestilence and
+      famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to overwhelm?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Tenth</i>.&mdash;Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that so many
+      men, so many women endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that
+      so many, in spite of "age, ache and penury," guard with trembling hands
+      the spark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last;
+      that the helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that
+      the exiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live
+      on; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the
+      future has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short
+      journey. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon, the
+      twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what he
+      cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of madness, or
+      in the calm of thought and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the serenity
+      of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing of any
+      realm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of life.
+      Let us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the suffering, the
+      despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by grief and shame, by
+      misery and want, by chance and fate until their only friend is death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      SUICIDE A SIN.
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you think that what you have written about suicide has
+      caused people to take their lives?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No, I do not. People do not kill themselves because of the
+      ideas of others. They are the victims of misfortune.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you consider the chief cause of suicide?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> There are many causes. Some individuals are crossed in
+      love, others are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still others are
+      diseased in body and frequently in mind. There are a thousand and one
+      causes that lead up to the final act.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you consider that nationality plays a part in these
+      tragedies?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No, it is a question of individuals. There are those whose
+      sorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace of
+      death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you, then, advise suicide?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No, I have never done so, but I have said, and still say,
+      that there are circumstances under which it is justifiable for a person to
+      take his life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think of the law which prohibits
+      self-destruction?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a man was
+      tried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I think he
+      pleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible crime of the
+      poor wretch, sentenced him to the penitentiary for two years. This was an
+      outrage; infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our civilization.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the frequency
+      of suicides?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> By no means. After this, persons in New York who have made
+      up their minds to commit suicide will see to it that they succeed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have your opinions been in any way modified since your
+      first announcement of them?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No one can
+      answer my articles on suicide, because no one can satisfactorily refute
+      them. Every man of sense knows that a person being devoured by a cancer
+      has the right to take morphine, and pass from agony to dreamless sleep.
+      So, too, there are circumstances under which a man has the right to end
+      his pain of mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you seen in the papers that many who have killed
+      themselves have had on their persons some article of yours on suicide?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that I do not
+      think these persons were led to kill themselves by reading the articles.
+      Many people who have killed themselves were found to have Bibles or tracts
+      in their pockets.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How do you account for the presence of the latter?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> The reason of this is that the theologians know nothing.
+      The pious imagine that their God has placed us here for some wise and
+      inscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us when he wants us. All
+      this is idiotic. When a man is of no use to himself or to others, when his
+      days and nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should he remain to
+      endure them longer?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      SUICIDE A SIN.
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he had read
+      the Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an interview had with
+      the reverend gentleman.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same views
+      still. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion among the
+      orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected when anything
+      sensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common sense
+      with his theology, and, of course this has displeased the truly orthodox.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of supernatural
+      religion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. The orthodox
+      ministers take the ground that an infinite Being created man, put him on
+      the earth and determined his days. They say that God desires every person
+      to live until he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that we are all on
+      guard and must remain so until relieved by a higher power&mdash;the
+      superior officer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It proves that
+      God kills every person who dies as we say, "according to nature." It
+      proves that we ought to say, "according to God." It proves that God sends
+      the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence, for the purpose of killing
+      people. It proves that all diseases and all accidents are his messengers,
+      and that all who do not kill themselves, die by the act, and in accordance
+      with the will of God. It also shows that when a man is murdered, it is in
+      harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When God created the man who
+      was murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and when he made the man
+      who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he would do. So that the
+      murder was the act of God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Can it be said that God intended that thousands should die of famine and
+      that he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain? Can we say that he
+      intended that thousands of innocent men should die in dungeons and on
+      scaffolds?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that a man, "slowly being devoured by a cancer," whose days
+      and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to himself and a burden
+      to others, is carrying out the will of God? Does God enjoy his agony? Is
+      God thrilled by the music of his moans&mdash;the melody of his shrieks?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      This frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every human
+      being a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous but it is
+      idiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the universe.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our minds, and
+      have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of the world's
+      history, then we know&mdash;if we know anything&mdash;that man has taken
+      his chances, precisely the same as other animals. He has been destroyed by
+      heat and cold, by flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless
+      diseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his
+      strength, his foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He
+      has defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has he
+      been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever happened in
+      nature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure the human race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Consequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is not in any
+      way affected by a supposed obligation to the Infinite.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All theological considerations must be thrown aside because we see and
+      know that the laws of life are the same for all living things&mdash;that
+      when the conditions are favorable, the living multiply and life lengthens,
+      and when the conditions are unfavorable, the living decrease and life
+      shortens. We have no evidence of any interference of any power superior to
+      nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and
+      obligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here in
+      this world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to any
+      phantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a man under
+      certain circumstances has the right to end his life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If he can be of no use to others&mdash;if he is of no use to himself&mdash;if
+      he is a burden to others&mdash;a curse to himself&mdash;why should he
+      remain? By ending his life he ends his sufferings and adds to the
+      well-being of others. He lessens misery and increases happiness. Under
+      such circumstances undoubtedly a man has the right to stop the pulse of
+      pain and woo the sleep that has no dream.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not think that the discussion of this question is of much importance,
+      but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and a sensible
+      position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister, but like a man.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised. I feel
+      then that there is a little light in the East, possibly the dawn of a
+      better day.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave and
+      philosophic words.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to avoid
+      death, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has this right,
+      then the theologians must admit that God, in making his decrees, took into
+      consideration the result of such actions. Now, if God knew that while most
+      men would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his decrees were so made
+      that they would harmonize with the acts of those who would avoid death,
+      can we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take into consideration
+      the acts of those who would seek death? Let us remember that all actions,
+      good, bad and indifferent, are the necessary children of conditions&mdash;that
+      there is no chance in the natural world in which we live.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and that all
+      have the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be charitable.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret, frenzied
+      with fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life, let us have pity&mdash;Let
+      us be generous.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      SUICIDE AND SANITY.
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * New York Press, 1897. An Interview.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first question,
+      to which Colonel Ingersoll replied:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No. At the same time I believe that a great majority of
+      suicides are insane. There are circumstances under which suicide is
+      natural, sensible and right. When a man is of no use to himself, when he
+      can be of no use to others, when his life is filled with agony, when the
+      future has no promise of relief, then I think he has the right to cast the
+      burden of life away and seek the repose of death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with suicide.
+      Of nearly all things death is the most feared. And the man who voluntarily
+      enters the realm of death cannot properly be called a coward. Many men who
+      kill themselves forget the duties they owe to others&mdash;forget their
+      wives and children. Such men are heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are
+      not cowards.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. When is the suicide of the sane justifiable?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> To escape death by torture; to avoid being devoured by a
+      cancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love; when you can be of no
+      use to others or to yourself; when life is unbearable; when in all the
+      horizon of the future there is no star of hope.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you believe that any suicides have been caused or
+      encouraged by your declaration three years ago that suicide sometimes was
+      justifiable?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated, invented,
+      suicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever
+      taken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts, you cannot induce a
+      man to kill himself. The man who takes his own life does not go to others
+      to find reasons or excuses.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. On the whole is the world made better or worse by
+      suicides?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Better by some and poorer by others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most educated of
+      civilized nations, leads the world in suicides?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do not know that Germany is the most educated; neither do
+      I know that suicide is more frequent there than in all other countries. I
+      know that the struggle for life is severe in Germany, that the laws are
+      unjust, that the government is oppressive, that the people are
+      sentimental, that they brood over their troubles and easily become
+      hopeless.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not killing of
+      born idiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth equally so?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> There is no relation between the questions&mdash;between
+      suicides and killing idiots. Suicide may, under certain circumstances, be
+      right and killing idiots may be wrong; killing idiots may be right and
+      suicide may be wrong. When we look about us, when we read interviews with
+      preachers about Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Should suicide be forbidden by law?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No. A law that provides for the punishment of those who
+      attempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are willing to meet death
+      are not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law would be to make the
+      person who had concluded to kill himself a little more careful to succeed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your belief about virtue, morality and religion?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I believe that all actions that tend to the well-being of
+      sentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe that real religion
+      consists in doing good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in the
+      uniformity of nature; that matter will forever attract matter in
+      proportion to mass and distance; that, under the same circumstances,
+      falling bodies will attain the same speed, increasing in exact proportion
+      to distance; that light will always, under the same circumstances, be
+      reflected at the same angle; that it will always travel with the same
+      velocity; that air will forever be lighter than water, and gold heavier
+      than iron; that all substances will be true to their natures; that a
+      certain degree of heat will always expand the metals and change water into
+      steam; that a certain degree of cold will cause the metals to shrink and
+      change water into ice; that all atoms will forever be in motion; that like
+      causes will forever produce like effects, that force will be overcome only
+      by force; that no atom of matter will ever be created or destroyed; that
+      the energy in the universe will forever remain the same, nothing lost,
+      nothing gained; that all that has been possible has happened, and that all
+      that will be possible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all
+      thoughts, dreams, fancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of
+      all successes and all failures, are in nature; that there is in the
+      universe no power superior to nature; that man is under no obligation to
+      the imaginary gods; that all his obligations and duties are to be
+      discharged and done in this world; that right and wrong do not depend on
+      the will of an infinite Being, but on the consequences of actions, and
+      that these consequences necessarily flow from the nature of things. I
+      believe that the universe is natural.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0009" id="link0009">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and
+     Avarice Triumphant," published in the North American Review,
+     June, 1891.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      THERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy individual and
+      national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They mistake
+      the afternoon of their own lives for the evening of the world. To them
+      everything has changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and women have
+      ceased to be beautiful. They are dyspeptic, and it gives them the greatest
+      pleasure to say that the art of cooking has been lost.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. They
+      lifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step in advance.
+      As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and goodness and
+      self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. They doubted the
+      morality of well-dressed people&mdash;considered it impossible that the
+      prosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on the limbs of a dead tree,
+      they hooted the obsequies of spring, believing it would come no more.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and slander the
+      land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of Cassandra mission,
+      and they really seem to enjoy their work. They honestly believe that every
+      kind of crime is on the increase, that the courts are all corrupt, that
+      the legislators are bribed, that the witnesses are suborned, that all
+      holders of office are dishonest; and they feel like a modern Marius
+      sitting amid the ruins of all the virtues.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are wrong.
+      They do not want arguments, because they will not heed them. They need
+      medicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a physician.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      General Hawkins is probably right when he says that some fraudulent shoes,
+      some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels were sold to the
+      Government during the war; but we must remember that there were millions
+      and millions of as good shoes as art and honesty could make, millions of
+      the best muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most magnificent
+      ships ever built, sold to the Government during the same period. We must
+      not mistake an eddy for the main stream. We must also remember another
+      thing: there were millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the
+      shoes, to use the muskets, and to man the ships.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land subsidies
+      voted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured by bribery is
+      preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is not the
+      slightest evidence tending to show that the general policy of hastening
+      the construction of railways through the Territories of the United States
+      was corruptly adopted&mdash;not the slightest. At the same time, it may be
+      that some members of Congress were induced by personal considerations to
+      vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the policy was wise, and
+      through the granting of the subsidies thousands of miles of railways were
+      built, and these railways have given to civilization vast territories
+      which otherwise would have remained substantially useless to the world.
+      Where at that time was a wilderness, now are some of the most thriving
+      cities in the United States&mdash;a great, an industrious, and a happy
+      population. The results have justified the action of Congress.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is also true that some railroads have been "wrecked" in the United
+      States, but most of these wrecks have been the result of competition. It
+      is the same with corporations as with individuals&mdash;the powerful
+      combine against the weak. In the world of commerce and business is the
+      great law of the survival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary
+      institutions. They have but little regard for the rights of one another.
+      Some fortunes have been made by the criminal "wrecking" of roads, but even
+      in the business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the
+      companies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard, other
+      things being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Many railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to develop the
+      country through which they passed. While they waited for immigration,
+      interest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took place; then
+      reorganization. By that time the country had been populated; towns were
+      springing up along the line; increased business was the result. On the new
+      bonds and the new stock the company paid interest and dividends. Then the
+      ones who first invested and lost their money felt that they had been
+      defrauded.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of crimes&mdash;easy to
+      indict the entire nation, and at the same time impossible to substantiate
+      one of the charges. Everyone who knows the history of the Star-Route
+      trials knows that nothing was established against the defendants, knows
+      that every effort was made by the Government to convict them, and also
+      knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men, never suspected of being
+      improperly influenced, after having heard the entire case, pronounced the
+      defendants not guilty. After this, of course, any one can say, who knows
+      nothing of the evidence and who cares nothing for the facts, that the
+      defendants were all guilty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It may also be true that some settlers in the far West have taken timber
+      from the public lands, and it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws and
+      regulations were such that where a settler was entitled to take up a
+      certain amount of land he had to take it all in one place; he could not
+      take a certain number of acres on the plains and a certain number of acres
+      in the timber. The consequence was that when he settled upon the land&mdash;the
+      land that he could cultivate&mdash;he took the timber that he needed from
+      the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I suppose it
+      may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass and possibly
+      drank the Government's water.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been "watered" in
+      this country. And what is the crime or practice known as watering stock?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth, we will
+      say, $3,000,000&mdash;able to pay interest on that sum at the rate of six
+      per cent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued has nothing to
+      do with the value of the thing represented by the stock. If there was one
+      share of stock representing this railroad, it would be worth three million
+      dollars, whether it said on its face it was one dollar or one hundred
+      dollars. If there were three million shares of stock issued on this
+      property, they would be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter whether it
+      said on this stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a thousand
+      dollars, the share would be worth one dollar&mdash;no more, no less. If
+      any one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value of the
+      thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if a pie is
+      worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each piece is worth
+      twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do not
+      increase the value of the pie.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find its
+      relation to the thing represented by all the stock.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The reason is
+      perfectly clear. Corporations are like individuals&mdash;they combine.
+      Unfortunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out
+      against the abuses of trusts. It is natural for corporations to defend
+      themselves&mdash;natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a
+      profitable pool; and when strong corporations combine, little corporations
+      suffer. It is with corporations as with fishes&mdash;the large eat the
+      little; and it may be that this will prove a public benefit in the end.
+      When the large corporations have taken possession of the little ones, it
+      may be that the Government will take possession of them&mdash;the
+      Government being the largest corporation of them all.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but certainly no
+      one imagines that the people of this country build houses for the purpose
+      of having them burned, or that they erect hotels having in view the
+      broiling of guests. Men act as they must; that is to say, according to
+      wants and necessities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper than in
+      an old one, money is scarcer, interest higher, and consequently people
+      build cheaply and take the risks of fire. They do not do this on account
+      of the Constitution of the United States, or the action of political
+      parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free. In the
+      hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of fire as of
+      famine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be greatly
+      regretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The people of
+      America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and building
+      houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the aesthetic side of their
+      natures. Nature has been somewhat ruthless with us. The storms of winter
+      breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer, have tended, it
+      may be, to harden somewhat the sensibilities; in consequence of which they
+      have allowed their horses and cattle to bear the rigors of the same
+      climate.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in the
+      interest of the present, by those who care nothing for the future. All
+      these things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against; but we must
+      not hint, provided we are lovers of the Republic, that such things are
+      caused by free institutions.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      General Hawkins asserts that "Christianity has neither preached nor
+      practiced humanity towards animals," while at the same time "Sunday school
+      children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a terrible thing it is
+      to break the Sabbath;" that "museum trustees tremble with pious horror at
+      the suggestion of opening the doors leading to the collections on that
+      day," and that no protests have come "from lawmakers or the Christian
+      clergy." Few people will suspect me of going out of my way to take care of
+      Christianity or of the clergy. At the same time, I can afford to state the
+      truth. While there is not much in the Bible with regard to practicing
+      humanity toward animals, there is at least this: "The merciful man is
+      merciful to his beast." Of course, I am not alluding now to the example
+      set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle of the Egyptians with
+      hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of their owners.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much like other
+      people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against cruelty to
+      animals, but enough have protested against it to secure the enactment of
+      laws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry Bergh, who did as much
+      good as any man who has lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded in
+      his efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds and
+      thousands of professing Christians&mdash;probably millions. Let us be
+      honest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction between
+      offences and virtues, to regard the little as the important&mdash;that is
+      to say, to invert the pyramid.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true that the
+      fringe of civilization has been composed of many low and cruel men. It is
+      true that the red man has been demoralized by the vices of the white. It
+      is a frightful fact that, when a superior race meets an inferior, the
+      inferior imitates only the vices of the superior, and the superior those
+      of the inferior. They exchange faults and failings. This is one of the
+      most terrible facts in the history of the human race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians. There is,
+      however, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when we lived along
+      the Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors that they could ever go
+      beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with the Indians drove them back but
+      a few miles. In a little while, through immigration, the white race passed
+      the line, and another treaty was made, forcing the Indians still further
+      west; yet the tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while again the
+      line was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was made, pushing the
+      Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the Illinois, across the
+      Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at every step some treaty
+      made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of the white men who made it
+      to foretell the growth of the Republic.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" made a great mistake
+      when he selected the last thirty years of our national life as the period
+      within which the Americans have made a change of the national motto
+      appropriate, and asserted that now there should be in place of the old
+      motto the words, "Plundering Made Easy."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Most men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one should be
+      blind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his country. He
+      should call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing his
+      country into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease and the defects be
+      corrected. He should do what he can to make his country great, prosperous,
+      just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate the faults of your
+      country for the purpose of calling attention to your own virtues, or to
+      earn the praise of a nation that hates your own. This is what might be
+      called wallowing in the gutter of reform.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have passed
+      from virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact,
+      the most glorious years in the life of this or of any other nation.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national institution. It
+      was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave Law
+      was in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in nearly all of the
+      Northern States it was a crime to give food, shelter, or raiment to a man
+      or woman seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal, hospitality a
+      misdemeanor, and charity a crime. Men and women were sold like beasts.
+      Mothers were robbed of their babes while they stood under our flag. All
+      the sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the bloody feet of
+      brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery fixed in law and
+      creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of honest men were
+      imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by Northern lovers
+      of the "Union."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto could properly
+      have been, "Plundering Made Easy." Those were the days of brutality, and
+      the brutality was practiced to the end that we might make money out of the
+      unpaid labor of others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the then
+      condition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North and South, was
+      responsible. There were many years of compromise, and thousands of
+      statesmen, so-called, through conventions and platforms, did what they
+      could to preserve slavery and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted
+      politics, demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and poisoned our
+      literature. The Websters, Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary expedients
+      for principles, and really thought that the progress of the world could be
+      stopped by the resolutions of a packed political convention. Yet these
+      men, mistaken as they really were, worked and wrought unconsciously in the
+      cause of human freedom. They believed that the preservation of the Union
+      was the one important thing, and that it could not be preserved unless
+      slavery was protected&mdash;unless the North would be faithful to the
+      bargain as written in the Constitution. For the purpose of keeping the
+      nation true to the Union and false to itself, these men exerted every
+      faculty and all their strength. They exhausted their genius in showing
+      that slavery was not, after all, very bad, and that disunion was the most
+      terrible calamity that could by any possibility befall the nation, and
+      that the Union, even at the price of slavery, was the greatest possible
+      blessing. They did not suspect that slavery would finally strike the blow
+      for disunion. But when the time came and the South unsheathed the sword,
+      the teachings of these men as to the infinite value of the Union gave to
+      our flag millions of brave defenders.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty years of
+      "Brutality and Avarice."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain one people
+      for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's protest against
+      disunion. The Constitution of the United States is now the charter of
+      human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with the idea that all men are
+      entitled to liberty have been repealed. The black man knows that the
+      Constitution is his shield, that the laws protect him, that our flag is
+      his, and the black mother feels that her babe belongs to her. Where the
+      slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse. The dealer in human
+      flesh is now a teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a child, he
+      develops and illumines the mind of a pupil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their thoughts.
+      Lips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the history of our
+      world has so much been done for education.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The amount of business done in a country on credit is the measure of
+      confidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it may truthfully be
+      said that, where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an exceedingly
+      large per cent. of the people are regarded as honest. In our country a
+      very large per cent. of contracts are faithfully fulfilled. Probably there
+      is no nation in the world where so much business is done on credit as in
+      the United States. The fact that the credit of the Republic is second to
+      that of no other nation on the globe would seem to be at least an
+      indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" seems to be of the
+      opinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who fight for
+      the right are not degraded&mdash;they are ennobled. When men face death
+      and march to the mouths of the guns for a principle, they grow great; and
+      if they come out of the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur;
+      they become better men, better citizens, and they love more intensely than
+      ever the great cause for the success of which they put their lives in
+      pawn.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great victory
+      the sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the greatest principles
+      involved in the Revolution were almost forgotten.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      During the Civil war the North grew great and the South was educated.
+      Never before in the history of mankind was there such a period of moral
+      exaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest light on the
+      pages of our history became famous then. Against the few who were actuated
+      by base and unworthy motives let us set the great army that fought for the
+      Republic, the millions who bared their breasts to the storm, the hundreds
+      and hundreds of thousands who did their duty honestly, nobly, and went
+      back to their wives and children with no thought except to preserve the
+      liberties of themselves and their fellow-men.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course there were some men who did not do their duty&mdash;some men
+      false to themselves and to their country. No one expects to find
+      sixty-five millions of saints in America. A few years ago a lady
+      complained to the president of a Western railroad that a brakeman had
+      spoken to her with great rudeness. The president expressed his regret at
+      the incident, and said among other things: "Madam, you have no idea how
+      difficult it is for us to get gentlemen to fill all those places."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is hardly to be expected that the American people should excel all
+      others in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have been very busy
+      taking possession of the Republic. It is hard to overestimate the courage,
+      the industry, the self-denial it has required to fell the forests, to
+      subdue the fields, to construct the roads, and to build the countless
+      homes. What has been done is a certificate of the honesty and industry of
+      our people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is not true that "one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals
+      seem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: 'Successful wrong is
+      right.'" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are
+      rich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how they
+      use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the golden
+      calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much of the gold
+      of the calf&mdash;and this distinction is seen by the calves themselves.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than
+      here. There are millions of business men&mdash;merchants, bankers, and men
+      engaged in all trades and professions&mdash;to whom reputation is as dear
+      as life.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is one thing in the article "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" that
+      seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the statement,
+      or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the shortcomings of
+      the American people can be accounted for by the fact that our Government
+      is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a French official complained
+      to a friend that he was compelled to employ twenty clerks to do the work
+      done by four under the empire, and on being asked the reason answered: "It
+      is the Republic." He was told that, as he was the head of the bureau, he
+      could prevent the abuse, to which he replied: "I know I have the power;
+      but I have been in this position for more than thirty years, and am now
+      too old to learn another occupation, and I <i>must</i> make places for the
+      friends of the deputies." And then it is added by General Hawkins: "<i>And
+      so it is here</i>."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the
+      Indians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the law,
+      or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from the
+      consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading of the
+      history of the world will show that nations under the control of kings and
+      emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the bad we do by
+      the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should not be made
+      responsible for our vices.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization of men?
+      Is a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men? In
+      order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor? Is
+      human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great
+      Republic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to
+      abdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the
+      rights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing
+      to become a serf, a servant or a slave?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that "high character is impracticable" in this Republic? Is
+      this the experience of the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"?
+      Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays no dividends"? Is it not a
+      fact that America is to-day the best market in the world for books, for
+      music, and for art?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping
+      slanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best country,
+      in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the average, better
+      clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They are fuller of
+      life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of the forces of nature,
+      than any other of the children of men. Here the burdens of government are
+      lightest, the responsibilities of the individual greatest, and here, in my
+      judgment, are to be worked out the most important problems of social
+      science.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than you
+      will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has
+      crowned; we stand erect.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national
+      failing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great calamities
+      open the hearts and hands of all.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Here you will find democracy in the family&mdash;republicanism by the
+      fireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the
+      government. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines
+      himself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into the
+      family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and wives
+      are beginning to be equals.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.
+      By this standard America stands first among nations.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country&mdash;an
+      amplitude&mdash;that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our
+      faults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      No American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an
+      enemy of the great Republic.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Robert G. Ingersoll.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0010" id="link0010">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your
+      lectures by the <i>Cincinnati Gazette</i> and the <i>Catholic Telegraph</i>?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I have read portions of the articles.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think of them?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a
+      distinct subject of thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the
+      <i>Gazette</i> against your lecture on Moses?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance
+      prevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one could reasonably
+      expect; that God at that time did not have the advantage of telescope,
+      microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a few mistakes need not
+      excite our special wonder. He also shows that, although God was in favor
+      of slavery he introduced some reforms; but whether the reforms were
+      intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the slave is not stated. The
+      article has nothing to do with my position. I am perfectly willing to
+      admit that there is a land called Egypt; that the Jews were once slaves;
+      that they got away and started a little country of their own. All this may
+      be true without proving that they were miraculously fed in the wilderness,
+      or that water ran up hill, or that God went into partnership with hornets
+      or snakes. There may have been a man by the name of Moses without proving
+      that sticks were turned into snakes.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of his
+      remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought a stone
+      from the mountain. He requested the children to pass in line before him so
+      that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone. After they had all
+      seen it he said: "You will as you grow up meet people who will deny that
+      there ever was a flood, or that God saved Noah and the animals in the ark,
+      and then you can tell them that you know better, because you saw a stone
+      from the very mountain where the ark rested."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is precisely the kind of argument used in the <i>Gazette</i>. The
+      article was written by some one who does not quite believe in the
+      inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of
+      hell, would probably say so.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca, such
+      a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made known his will to
+      Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the <i>Gazette</i> would
+      answer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore God
+      must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general as
+      Washington, but I do not admit that God kept him from being shot. I admit
+      that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not admit
+      that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses, but I do
+      not admit that God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I admit that
+      there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit that he carried
+      his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the river, and put
+      his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit that the article
+      appeared in the <i>Gazette</i>, but I do not admit that it amounted to
+      anything whatever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Did you notice what the <i>Catholic Telegraph</i> said
+      about your lecture being ungrammatical?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the <i>Catholic Telegraph</i>
+      occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as brilliant as
+      Ingersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After making this
+      statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault
+      with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes the following sentence:
+      "It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive
+      language." After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman says
+      on the subject of grammar.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more
+      remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one
+      exception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except
+      in an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the usual
+      amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile, ignorant and
+      malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a gentleman who worships
+      a God who will damn dimpled babes to an eternity of fire, simply because
+      they were not baptized.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history
+      and the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the
+      Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and
+      has been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in
+      science. What do you think of that statement?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is
+      substantially like the gentleman's theology, depending simply upon
+      persistent assertion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil
+      animals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed
+      that God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then
+      produced other forms. Agassiz was the last scientist of any standing who
+      ventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists
+      regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look
+      upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the same
+      relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this opinion.
+      The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley, Tyndall and
+      Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others in the United
+      States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened orthodox
+      gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a rule, both are
+      exceedingly small.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that
+      God went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no such
+      passage in the Bible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the
+      twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before thee,
+      which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from
+      before thee."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your
+      ideas are generally received with favor?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers
+      as there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the
+      majority.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make
+      strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going to
+      hear you?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes; in many places ministers have advised their
+      congregations to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous
+      man. The result has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever
+      failed to publicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance
+      agents.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters,
+      threatening me with the wrath of God, and calling my attention to the
+      uncertainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These letters are
+      nearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say, full
+      of hatred and impertinence.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Don't you think it remarkable that the <i>Telegraph</i>,
+      a Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from
+      such an orthodox sheet as the <i>Gazette</i>?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All
+      superstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few years all
+      the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of liberalism. When
+      that is done the days of superstition, of arrogance, of theology, will be
+      numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic quoting scientific men in
+      favor of Moses, when the same men would have taken great pleasure in
+      swearing that the Catholic Church was the worst possible organization.
+      That church should forever hold its peace. Wherever it has had authority
+      it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced Italy to a hand organ, Spain to
+      a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to contempt. Catholicism is the upas
+      tree in whose shade the intellect of man has withered. The recollection of
+      the massacre of St. Bartholomew should make a priest silent, and the
+      recollection of the same massacre should make a Protestant careful.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces
+      Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor Emmanuel. I could
+      not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think of the point that no one is able to
+      judge of these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do not think it is necessary to understand Hebrew to
+      decide as to the probability of springs gushing out of dead bones, or of
+      the dead getting out of their graves, or of the probability of ravens
+      keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I hardly think it is necessary
+      even to be a Greek scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils
+      actually left a person and took refuge in the bodies of swine. Besides, if
+      the Bible is not properly translated, the circulation ought to stop until
+      the corrections are made. I am not accountable if God made a revelation to
+      me in a language that he knew I never would understand. If he wishes to
+      convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do it in English
+      before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible owing to
+      mistranslations?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to
+      help out the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it
+      been correctly translated. Nearly all of the <i>mistakes</i>, as Mr.
+      Weller would say, have been made for the purposes of harmony.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How many errors do you suppose there are?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Well, I do not know. It has been reported that the American
+      Bible Society appointed a committee to hunt for errors, and the said
+      committee returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand. And
+      thereupon the leading men said, to correct so many errors will destroy the
+      confidence of the common people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.
+      Thereupon it was decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other day
+      that a very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that they knew
+      they were publishing a book full of errors.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> My first objection is, it is not true.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Second.&mdash;It is not inspired.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Third.&mdash;It upholds human slavery.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fourth.&mdash;It sanctions concubinage.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Fifth.&mdash;It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as
+      the utter destruction of old men and little children.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Sixth.&mdash;After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it commands the
+      generals to divide the girls among the soldiers and priests. Beyond this,
+      infamy has never gone. If any God made this order I am opposed to him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Seventh.&mdash;It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems to, from
+      the following:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of
+      all that he hath, both of <i>man</i> and <i>beast</i>, and of the field of
+      his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most
+      holy unto the Lord."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be redeemed; but
+      shall surely be put to death." (Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus, 28th
+      and 29th verses.)
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Eighth.&mdash;Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and unjust.
+      Think of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of killing a man for
+      picking up sticks on Sunday!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Ninth.&mdash;It upholds polygamy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Tenth.&mdash;It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of
+      any science whatever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Eleventh.&mdash;It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches a man to
+      kill his own wife if she differs with him on religion; that is to say, if
+      he is orthodox. There is no book in the world in which can be found so
+      much that is thoroughly despicable and infamous. Of course there are some
+      good passages, some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old
+      Testament, few and far between.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Twelfth.&mdash;It treats woman like a beast, and man like a slave. It
+      fills heaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and grief.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Do you think any book inspired?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if it had
+      been the intention of this God to give to man an inspired book, he should
+      have waited until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare as the
+      instrument. Then there never would have been any doubt as to the
+      inspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more goodness, more
+      intelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of this world.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think as a freethinker of the Sunday question
+      in Cincinnati?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I think that it is a good thing to have a day of
+      recreation, a day of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and
+      theology. I am in favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness on
+      Sunday. I am opposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy will take
+      half the pains to make the people intelligent that they do to make them
+      superstitious, the world will soon have advanced so far that it can enjoy
+      itself without excess. The ministers want Sunday for themselves. They want
+      everybody to come to church because they can go no where else. It is like
+      the story of a man coming home at three o'clock in the morning, who, upon
+      being asked by his wife how he could come at such a time of night,
+      replied, "The fact is, every other place is shut up." The orthodox clergy
+      know that their churches will remain empty if any other place remains
+      open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches, orthodox clergy,
+      because I have great respect for Unitarians and Universalists.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0011" id="link0011">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have been
+      indicted in the State of Delaware for the crime of blasphemy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is
+      the Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at
+      Wilmington to the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in
+      which he almost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against
+      me, for what he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a
+      matter of fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God,
+      provided always that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by
+      the orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is
+      conditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take from a
+      man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and he
+      suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is because
+      he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless, he cannot in any
+      way be affected by what anybody else may do; and, consequently, a sin
+      against God is as impossible as a sin against the principle of the lever
+      or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for
+      the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves.
+      Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind which hypocrisy has crouched for
+      thousands of years. Injustice is the only blasphemy that can be committed,
+      and justice is the only true worship. Man can sin against man, but not
+      against God. But even if man could sin against God, it has always struck
+      me that an infinite being would be entirely able to take care of himself
+      without the assistance of a Chief Justice. Men have always been violating
+      the rights of men, under the plea of defending the rights of God, and
+      nothing, for ages, was so perfectly delightful to the average Christian as
+      to gratify his revenge, and get God in his debt at the same time. Chief
+      Justice Comegys has taken this occasion to lay up for himself what he
+      calls treasures in heaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely
+      on a certified copy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs
+      help satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little
+      ahead.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That lecture,
+      however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; and, to tell you
+      the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what a Yankee would call the
+      heft of the offence. It is really hard for me to tell whether I have
+      blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I have no personal
+      feeling whatever against the Judge. In fact he has done me a favor. He has
+      called the attention of the civilized world to certain barbarian laws that
+      disfigure and disgrace the statute books of most of the States. These laws
+      were passed when our honest ancestors were burning witches, trading Quaker
+      children to the Barbadoes for rum and molasses, branding people upon the
+      forehead, boring their tongues with hot irons, putting one another in the
+      pillory, and, generally, in the name of God, making their neighbors as
+      uncomfortable as possible. We have outgrown these laws without repealing
+      them. They are, as a matter of fact, in most communities actually dead;
+      but in some of the States, like Delaware, I suppose they could be
+      enforced, though there might be trouble in selecting twelve men, even in
+      Delaware, without getting one man broad enough, sensible enough, and
+      honest enough, to do justice. I hardly think it would be possible in any
+      State to select a jury in the ordinary way that would convict any person
+      charged with what is commonly known as blasphemy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of being
+      blasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as
+      blasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists; the Baptists, the
+      Presbyterians, and the Catholics all united in denouncing the Quakers, and
+      they all together denounced the Unitarians&mdash;called them blasphemers
+      because they did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ&mdash;the
+      Unitarians only insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary,
+      that one infinite being could do all the business, and that the other two
+      were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Then all the churches united to call the Universalists blasphemers. I can
+      remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with a thousand times more
+      horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this strange thing about the
+      history of theology&mdash;nobody has ever been charged with blasphemy who
+      thought God bad. For instance, it never would have excited any theological
+      hatred if a man had insisted that God would finally damn everybody. Nearly
+      all heresy has consisted in making God better than the majority in the
+      churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never will forgive the
+      Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn anybody eternally.
+      Now, all these sects have charged each other with blasphemy, without
+      anyone of them knowing really what blasphemy is. I suppose they have
+      occasionally been honest, because they have mostly been ignorant. It is
+      said that Torquemada used to shed tears over the agonies of his victims
+      and that he recommended slow burning, not because he wished to inflict
+      pain, but because he really desired to give the gentleman or lady he was
+      burning a chance to repent of his or her sins, and make his or her peace
+      with God previous to becoming a cinder.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious persecution
+      is the idea that some certain belief is necessary to salvation. If
+      orthodox Christians are right in this idea, then persecution of all
+      heretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right to defend my body
+      from attack, surely I should have a like right to defend my soul. Under
+      our laws I could kill any man who was endeavoring, for example, to take
+      the life of my child. How much more would I be justified in killing any
+      wretch who was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a doctrine
+      which, if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of that child's
+      soul?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is true, no
+      infidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be hunted from the
+      wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They should not be allowed to
+      speak, they should not be allowed to poison the minds of women and
+      children; in other words, they should not be allowed to empty heaven and
+      fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this country is because the
+      Christians of this country do not believe their doctrine. The passage from
+      the Bible, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every
+      creature," coupled with the assurance that, "Whosoever believeth and is
+      baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall be damned," is the
+      foundation of most religious persecution. Every word in that passage has
+      been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain and dungeon. That one passage
+      has probably caused more agony among men, women and children, than all the
+      passages of all other books that were ever printed. Now, this passage was
+      not in the book of Mark when originally written, but was put there many
+      years after the gentleman who evolved the book of Mark from his inner
+      consciousness, had passed away. It was put there by the church&mdash;that
+      is to say, by hypocrisy and priestly craft, to bind the consciences of men
+      and force them to come under ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that
+      passage has been received and believed, and been made binding by law in
+      most countries ever since.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What would you think of a law compelling a man to admire Shakespeare, or
+      calling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not a statute necessary to
+      uphold the reputation of Raphael or of Michael Angelo? Is it possible that
+      God cannot write a book good enough and great enough and grand enough not
+      to excite the laughter of his children? Is it possible that he is
+      compelled to have his literary reputation supported by the State of
+      Delaware?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is another very strange thing about this business. Admitting that
+      the Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his work than are the
+      sun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for disbelieving this
+      Bible we are to be damned forever, we ought to be equally damned for a
+      mistake in geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man to go to
+      heaven who swears that the earth is flat, and damning a fellow who thinks
+      it is round, but who-has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to me to be
+      perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this view of it, it is just as
+      necessary to be right on the subject of the equator as on the doctrine of
+      infant baptism.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge Comegys? Is
+      he a personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him? Have you any idea
+      what reason he had for attacking you?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside of the
+      political reason I have intimated, I do not know why he attacked me. I
+      once delivered a lecture entitled "What must we do to be Saved?" in the
+      city of Wilmington, and in that lecture I proceeded to show, or at least
+      tried to show, that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about
+      Christianity, as it is understood in Delaware; and I also endeavored to
+      show that all men have an equal right to think, and that a man is only
+      under obligations to be honest with himself, and with all men, and that he
+      is not accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed with&mdash;otherwise
+      it might be Judge Comegys himself would be damned&mdash;but that he is
+      only accountable for the use he makes of what little mind he has received.
+      I held that the safest thing for every man was to be absolutely honest,
+      and to express his honest thought. After the delivery of this lecture
+      various ministers in Wilmington began replying, and after the preaching of
+      twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which, considered as a reply, was a
+      success, I presume it occurred to these ministers that the shortest and
+      easiest way would be to have me indicted and imprisoned.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and time-honored way. I
+      believe it is, as it always has been, easier to kill two infidels than to
+      answer one; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that is now
+      slowly rising over the intellectual world, it must be done by brute force,
+      and by brute force alone. And it must be done pretty soon, or they will
+      not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they have a majority of the
+      civilized world on their side to-day. No heretic ever would have been
+      burned if he could have been answered. No theologian ever called for the
+      help of the law until his logic gave out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get his right
+      to be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to decide which creed is
+      the correct one? How did he dare to pit his little brain against the word
+      of God? He may say that his father was a Presbyterian. But what was his
+      grandfather? If he will only go back far enough he will, in all
+      probability, find that his ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go
+      back a little farther still, that they were barbarians; that at one time
+      they were naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right had
+      they to change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the same
+      kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented any
+      change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and they would
+      have said: "Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon his body
+      shall be held guilty of blasphemy;" and all the ancestors of this Judge,
+      and of these ministers, would have said, Amen!
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He must have
+      been a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might have changed his
+      religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is incapable of any
+      improvement in a religious point of view? Does he think that the
+      Presbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now, but that they will
+      forever be the best that God can make? Is there to be no advancement? Has
+      there been no advancement? Are the pillory and the whipping-post to be
+      used to prevent an excess of thought in the county of New Castle? Has the
+      county ever been troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms of
+      any such disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge, and my
+      principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his race. He
+      will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no other Chief
+      Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his illustrious
+      example. The next Judge will say: "So far as I am concerned, the Lord may
+      attend to his own business, and deal with infidels as he may see proper."
+      Thus great good has been accomplished by this Judge, which shows, as Burns
+      puts it, "that a pot can be boiled, even if the devil tries to prevent
+      it."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. How will this action of Delaware, in your opinion, affect
+      the other States?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Probably a few other States needed an example exactly of
+      this kind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say: "Delaware is
+      perfectly ridiculous," and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New Jersey
+      might have done the same thing. Maryland will exclaim: "Did you ever see
+      such a fool!" And yet I was threatened in that State. The average American
+      citizen, taking into consideration the fact that we are blest, or cursed,
+      with about one hundred thousand preachers, and that these preachers preach
+      on the average one hundred thousand sermons a week&mdash;some of which are
+      heard clear through&mdash;will unquestionably hold that a man who happens
+      to differ with all these parsons, ought to have and shall have the
+      privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one hundred thousand
+      clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who happens to disagree
+      with them, without calling on the army or navy to do it, especially when
+      it is taken into consideration that an infinite God is already on their
+      side. Under these circumstances, the average American will say: "Let him
+      talk, and let the hundred thousand preachers answer him to their hearts'
+      content." So that in my judgment the result of the action of Delaware will
+      be: First, to liberalize all other States, and second, finally to
+      liberalize Delaware itself. In many of the States they have the same
+      idiotic kind of laws as those found in Delaware&mdash;with the exception
+      of those blessed institutions for the spread of the Gospel, known as the
+      pillory and the whipping-post. There is a law in Maine by which a man can
+      be put into the penitentiary for denying the providence of God, and the
+      day of judgment. There are similar laws in most of the New England States.
+      One can be imprisoned in Maryland for a like offence.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain religious
+      belief; and so in several other of the Southern States. In half the States
+      of this Union, if my wife and children should be murdered before my eyes,
+      I would not be allowed in a court of justice to tell who the murderer was.
+      You see that, for hundreds of years, Christianity has endeavored to put
+      the brand of infamy on every intellectual brow.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. I see that one objection to your lectures urged by Judge
+      Comegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach of the peace&mdash;to
+      riot and bloodshed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people who love
+      their enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that those disciples
+      who, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be smitten also, will get
+      up a riot. He seems to imagine that good Christians feel called upon to
+      violate the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's reputation. If
+      Christianity produces people who cannot hear their doctrines discussed
+      without raising mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is stopped being
+      preached the better.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a Christian for
+      His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob for such a purpose.
+      Christians can teach and preach their views to their hearts' content. They
+      can send all unbelievers to an eternal hell, if it gives them the least
+      pleasure, and they may bang their Bibles as long as their fists last, but
+      no infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop them, or put them
+      down by brute force, or even by an appeal to the law, and I would advise
+      Judge Comegys, if he wishes to compliment Christianity, to change his
+      language and say that he feared a breach of the peace might be committed
+      by the infidels&mdash;not by the Christians. He may possibly have thought
+      that it was my intention to attack his State. But I can assure him, that
+      if ever I start a warfare of that kind, I shall take some State of my
+      size. There is no glory to be won in wringing the neck of a "Blue Hen!"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. I should judge, Colonel, that you are prejudiced against
+      the State of Delaware?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many splendid
+      people in Delaware, and since I have known more of their surroundings, my
+      admiration for them has increased. They are, on the whole, a very good
+      people in that State. I heard a story the other day: An old fellow in
+      Delaware has been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering peaches
+      there in their season&mdash;a kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just
+      as the season closed, he was leaning sadly against a tree, "Boys!" said
+      he, "I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years from now." The boys
+      asked, "What for?" The old fellow replied: "Just to see how damned little
+      they'd get the baskets by that time." And it occurred to me that people
+      who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be as quiet as
+      possible on the subject of blasphemy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+    </p>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' compliments to you
+      before the Delaware grand jury?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies upon the
+      law passed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to me as though he
+      had died about the date of the law, had risen from the dead, and had gone
+      right on where he had left off. I presume he is a good man, but compared
+      with other men, is something like his State when compared with other
+      States.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge Comegys as
+      unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in exact
+      accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip-ping-post, and the
+      suppression of free speech are the natural fruit of the Old and New
+      Testament.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, without
+      the protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the protection of
+      law, and all church property would be taxed like other property. The
+      Sabbath would be no longer a day devoted to superstition. Everyone could
+      express his honest thought upon every possible subject. Everyone,
+      notwithstanding his belief, could testify in a court of justice. In other
+      words, honesty would be on an equality with hypocrisy. Science would stand
+      on a level, so far as the law is concerned, with superstition. Whenever
+      this happens the end of orthodox Christianity will be near.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness. I
+      mean no natural virtue, because all the natural virtues existed and had
+      been practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions before Christ was
+      born. There certainly were some good men even in the days of Christ in
+      Jerusalem, before his death.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a good man
+      dying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By
+      Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the next world a few
+      will be forever happy, while the many will be eternally miserable.
+      Christianity, as I have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and
+      sustained by law. It was founded by the sword that is to say, by physical
+      force,&mdash;and must be preserved by like means.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to testify.
+      In the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were living, he could
+      not be a witness, although he had more brains than the State of Delaware
+      has ever produced, or is likely to produce as long as the laws of 1740
+      remain in force. Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could be fined
+      and imprisoned in the State of Delaware, and, in fact, in many States of
+      this Union.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Christianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of infamy on the
+      brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter "C," standing for
+      "convict" every brain that is great enough to discover the frauds. I have
+      no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good and sincere Christian. I believe
+      that he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the Jewish Jehovah. I
+      believe that every word he said was in exact accord with the spirit of
+      orthodox Christianity. Against this man personally I have nothing to say.
+      I know nothing of his character except as I gather it from this charge,
+      and after reading the charge I am forced simply to say, Judge Comegys is a
+      Christian.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,
+      notwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge. Although
+      the Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of blessed memory;
+      although he had quoted to them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became a
+      Judge simply because of his hatred of the English colonists, simply
+      because he despised liberty in the new world; notwithstanding the fact
+      that I could have been punished with insult, with imprisonment, and with
+      stripes, and with every form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a
+      few years ago I could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through
+      the tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance even
+      in the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one
+      lecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely refused to indict
+      me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply by making
+      a report in which they declared that my lecture had "no parallel in the
+      habits of respectable vagabondism" that I was "an arch-blasphemer and
+      reviler of God and religion," and recommended that should I ever attempt
+      to lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware blasphemy is a crime
+      punishable by fine and imprisonment. I have no doubt that every member of
+      the grand jury signing this report was entirely honest; that he acted in
+      exact accord with what he understood to be the demand of the Christian
+      religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report is exceedingly mild
+      and gentle.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have now in the house, letters that passed between certain bishops in
+      the fifteenth century, in which they discussed the propriety of cutting
+      out the tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some of the bishops
+      were in favor of and some against it. One argument for cutting out their
+      tongues which seemed to have settled the question was, that unless the
+      tongues of heretics were cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen who
+      were burning them, by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would commend
+      these letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand jury.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against Judge Comegys
+      or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would, raised in Delaware, in
+      the shadow of the whipping-post and the pillory. We must remember that
+      Delaware was a slave State; that the Bible became extremely dear to the
+      people because it upheld that peculiar institution. We must remember that
+      the Bible was the block on which mother and child stood for sale when they
+      were separated by the Christians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as
+      the title-pages to slavery, and as the book of all books that gave the
+      right to masters to whip mothers and to sell children.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping and
+      standing in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain crimes and
+      sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from the penitentiary
+      are furnished by the State with a dark jacket plainly marked on the back
+      with a large Roman "C," the letter to be of a light color. This they are
+      to wear for six months after being discharged, and if they are found at
+      any time without the dark jacket and the illuminated "C" they are to be
+      punished with twenty lashes upon the bare back. The object, I presume, of
+      this law, is to drive from the State all the discharged convicts for the
+      benefit of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland&mdash;that is to say,
+      other Christian communities. A cruel people make cruel laws.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a punishment which
+      cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who administers the
+      punishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded as the person who
+      receives it. I am opposed to any kind of punishment that cannot be
+      administered by a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment
+      everywhere. It should be taken from the asylums and penitentiaries, and
+      any man who would apply the lash to the naked back of another is beneath
+      the contempt of honest people.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced in the New
+      York Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a punishment for
+      wife-beating?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr. Bergh's
+      bill. He will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters, who, under the
+      same circumstances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they are not
+      wife-beaters when they commence the business of beating others, they soon
+      will be. I think that wife-beating in great cities could be stopped by
+      putting all the wife-beaters at work at some government employment, the
+      value of the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The trouble
+      now is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely poor, so that
+      the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last crust out of her
+      own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging for the prison here, you
+      will in the first place prevent thousands of wives from informing, and in
+      many cases, where the wife would inform, she would afterward be murdered
+      by the flogged brute. This brute would naturally resort to the same means
+      to reform his wife that the State had resorted to for the purpose of
+      reforming him. Flogging would beget flogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great
+      kindness of heart. When he reads that a wife has been beaten, he says the
+      husband deserves to be beaten himself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be the
+      executioner, I imagine you could not prove by the back of the man that the
+      punishment had been inflicted.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the Catholic
+      Church. We should also do away with the idea that a marriage is a
+      sacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered happy by seeing a
+      husband and wife live together, although the husband gets most of his
+      earthly enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman should live with a man
+      a moment after he has struck her. Just as the idea of liberty enlarges,
+      confidence in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will diminish.
+      Delaware occupies toward freethinkers precisely the same position that a
+      wife-beater does toward the wife. Delaware knows that there are no reasons
+      sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently these reasons are
+      supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post. The whipping-post is
+      considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory is a kind of moral
+      suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a kind of holy and serene
+      delight. I am opposed to the religion of brute force, but all these
+      frightful things have grown principally out of a belief in eternal
+      punishment and out of the further idea that a certain belief is necessary
+      to avoid eternal pain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn every body
+      forever simply for being intellectually honest, surely he ought to allow
+      the good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentleman for two months.
+      Of course there are thousands and thousands of good people in Delaware,
+      people who have been in other States, people who have listened to
+      Republican speeches, people who have read the works of scientists, who
+      hold the laws of 1740 in utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge Comegys
+      and who have a kind of sympathy for the grand jury.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six or seven
+      hundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884 will stand
+      redeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged from the statute
+      book. Delaware has not had the best of opportunities. You must remember
+      that it is next to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle in the path of
+      progress. It is just beyond Maryland, which is another obstacle. I heard
+      the other day that God originally made oysters with legs, and afterward
+      took them off, knowing that the people of Delaware would starve to death
+      before they would run to catch anything. Judge Comegys is the last judge
+      who will make such a charge in the United States. He has immortalized
+      himself as the last mile-stone on that road. He is the last of his race.
+      No more can be born. Outside of this he probably was a very clever man,
+      and it may be, he does not believe a word he utters. The probability is
+      that he has underestimated the intelligence of the people of Delaware. I
+      am afraid to think that he is entirely honest, for fear that I may
+      underestimate him intellectually, and overestimate him morally. Nothing
+      could tempt me to do this man injustice, though I could hardly add to the
+      injury he has done himself. He has called attention to laws that ought to
+      be repealed, and to lectures that ought to be repeated. I feel in my heart
+      that he has done me a great service, second only to that for which I am
+      indebted to the grand jury. Had the Judge known me personally he probably
+      would have said nothing. Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in
+      his State and sentenced to two months of solitary confinement, the Judge
+      having become acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist
+      on spending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months he
+      would, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy, providing
+      he had honor enough to express his honest thought. After all, it is all a
+      question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot convince myself there is
+      any God who will ever damn a man for having been honest. This gives me a
+      certain hope for the Judge and the grand jury.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must have been
+      in heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and remarked
+      to the angels in the language of the late Adjt. Gen. Thomas: "The eyes of
+      all Delaware are upon you."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0012" id="link0012">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday
+     afternoon, when he answered the question "What Must We Do to
+     Be Saved?" But before doing so he replied to the recent
+     criticisms of city clergymen on his "Talmagian Theology"&mdash;
+     Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Ladies and Gentlemen</i>:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      WHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their duty to reply
+      for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that I am
+      blasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always been considered by
+      theologians as a crime. Ministers have always said you will have no
+      respect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solemnity is a condition
+      precedent to believing anything without evidence. And if you can only get
+      a man solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe anything.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I may say by
+      way of preface that I have always held him in the highest esteem. He
+      struggles, according to his statement, with the problem of my sincerity,
+      and he about half concludes that I am not sincere. There is a little of
+      the minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always account for a difference
+      of opinion by attacking the motive. Now, to him, it makes no difference
+      whether I am sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my argument be
+      answered? Suppose you could prove that the maker of the multiplication
+      table held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times ten would be a
+      hundred still.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the argument&mdash;not
+      the slightest. But this gentleman begins to suspect that I am doing what I
+      do for the sake of applause. What a commentary on the Christian religion,
+      that, after they have been preaching it for sixteen or eighteen hundred
+      years, a man attacks it for the sake of popularity&mdash;a man attacks it
+      for the purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to speak upon this
+      subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my fellow-citizens
+      differed with me; and I was denounced as though I had been a wild beast.
+      But I have lived to see the majority of the men and women of intellect in
+      the United States on my side; I have lived to see the church deny her
+      creed; I have lived to see ministers apologize in public for what they
+      preached; and a great and glorious work is going on until, in a little
+      while, you will not find one of them, unless it is some old petrifaction
+      of the red-stone period, who will admit that he ever believed in the
+      Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of Eternal Agony. The
+      religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the intellect of
+      America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go to hear infidelity
+      it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the orthodox Christianity
+      of the day. That is the reason. They are beginning to hold it in contempt.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I attacked certain
+      doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain. I hold it
+      in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in this universe
+      who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who denies to any
+      human being the right of reformation, then that God is not good, that God
+      is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I despise that
+      doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that horror from the
+      cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that horror from the
+      hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers, and sisters. It is
+      a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of life and all the
+      hopes of mankind. I despise it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I admit
+      here to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how
+      old it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men were inspired or
+      not. I have no reverence for what I believe to be false, and in
+      determining what is false I go by my reason. And whenever another man
+      gives me an argument I examine it. If it is good I follow it. If it is bad
+      I throw it away. I have no reverence for any book that upholds human
+      slavery. I despise such a book. I have no reverence for any book that
+      upholds or palliates the infamous institution of polygamy. I have no
+      reverence for any book that tells a husband to kill his wife if she
+      differs with him upon the subject of religion. I have no reverence for any
+      book that defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have no reverence
+      for a God that orders his legions to slay the old and helpless, and to
+      whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers and babes. I have no
+      reverence for such a book; neither have I any reverence for the author of
+      that book. No matter whether he be God or man, I have no reverence. I have
+      no reverence for the miracles of the Bible. I have no reverence for the
+      story that God allowed bears to tear children in pieces. I have no
+      reverence for the miraculous, but I have reverence for the truth, for
+      justice, for charity, for humanity, for intellectual liberty, and for
+      human progress.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I have never
+      met any minister that I thought had brain enough to think for himself and
+      for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence for barbarism, no matter how
+      ancient it may be, and no reverence for the savagery of the Old Testament;
+      no reverence for the malice of the New. And let me tell you here to-night
+      that the Old Testament is a thousand times better than the New. The Old
+      Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the grave. God was satisfied when
+      his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for the New Testament&mdash;it was
+      reserved for universal benevolence&mdash;to rend the veil between time and
+      eternity and fix the horrified gaze of man upon the abyss of hell. The New
+      Testament is just as much worse than the Old, as hell is worse than sleep.
+      And yet it is the fashion to say that the Old Testament is bad and that
+      the New Testament is good. I have no reverence for any book that teaches a
+      doctrine contrary to my reason; no reverence for any book that teaches a
+      doctrine contrary to my heart; and, no matter how old it is, no matter how
+      many have believed it, no matter how many have died on account of it, no
+      matter how many live for it, I have no reverence for that book, and I am
+      glad of it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things with
+      infinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy, or religious
+      persecution, but that I should "mildly suggest"&mdash;mildly,&mdash;should
+      not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to church the ministers tell me I
+      am going to hell. When I meet one I tell him, "There is no hell," and he
+      says: "What do you want to hurt our feelings for?" He wishes me mildly to
+      suggest that the sun and moon did not stop, that may be the bears only
+      frightened the children, and that, after all, Lot's wife was only scared.
+      Why, there was a minister in this city of Chicago who imagined that his
+      congregation were progressive, and, in his pulpit, he said that he did not
+      believe the story of Lot's wife&mdash;said that he did not think that any
+      sensible man would believe that a woman was changed into salt; and they
+      tried him, and the congregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And
+      finally he went before that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and
+      owned up to the chloride of sodium, and said: "I not only take the Bible
+      <i>cum grano salis</i>, but with a whole barrelful."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      My doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so; no need of
+      going away around the bush and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly,
+      peradventure. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well as the
+      bad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one word against
+      honesty, one word against liberty, one word against charity, one word
+      against any institution that is good. I attack the bad, not the good, and
+      I would like to have some minister point out in some lecture or speech
+      that I have delivered, one word against the good, against the highest
+      happiness of the human race.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor of
+      liberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in favor of
+      progress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one word in favor of
+      the bad, and I never expect to.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in spite of us.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Doesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You see,
+      you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell&mdash;these are the avenues by
+      which Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought, and
+      you cannot by any possibility help thinking.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Neither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are made
+      independently of your will. "But," says this reverend doctor, "Whence
+      comes this conception of space?" I can tell him. There is such a thing as
+      matter. We conceive that matter occupies room&mdash;space&mdash;and, in
+      our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes naturally&mdash;not
+      supernaturally.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God for us to
+      conceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something. We
+      can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say space. "But,"
+      says this gentleman, "Where do we get the idea of good and bad?" I can
+      tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to enjoy and
+      the capacity to suffer&mdash;every man. Whenever a man enjoys himself he
+      calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad. The animals that
+      are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the hurtful, he calls bad.
+      The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls good; those that are of no
+      use except to choke the growth of the good ones, he calls bad. When the
+      sun shines, when everything in nature is out that ministers to him, he
+      says "this is good;" when the storm comes and blows down his hut, when the
+      frost comes and lays down his crop, he says "this is bad." And all
+      phenomena that affect men well he calls good; all that affect him ill he
+      calls bad.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect in
+      nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That is
+      the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man could
+      not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and the
+      words right and wrong never could have passed human lips. There are no
+      supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience&mdash;some of them
+      from our forefathers, many from experience. A man works&mdash;food does
+      not come of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in
+      the sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a
+      revelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it
+      than the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen, we
+      never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten Commandments
+      been given from Mount Sinai.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and let
+      a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and the
+      hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you would
+      see whether he would need a direct revelation from God in order to make up
+      his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of right and
+      wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think for a moment
+      he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite of us. I heard
+      a story of a man who said, "No man can think of one thing a minute, he
+      will think of something else." Well, there was a little Methodist
+      preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute&mdash;that he could
+      say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing. "Well," said the
+      man, "I'll tell you what I will do. There is the best road-horse in the
+      country. I will give you that horse if you will just say the Lord's
+      Prayer, and not think of another thing." And the little fellow shut up his
+      eyes: "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom
+      come, Thy will be done&mdash;I suppose you will throw in the saddle and
+      bridle?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some fact
+      in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of thought&mdash;that
+      every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown, and that some are
+      very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very rich. That is my
+      opinion.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Again he asks: "If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any one
+      blamed for thinking as he does?" It is not a question of blame, it is a
+      question of who is right&mdash;a question of who is wrong. Admit that
+      every one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought
+      is right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.
+      Admit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that
+      does not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss
+      is just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it
+      prove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it
+      prove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold men
+      responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their
+      actions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this&mdash;the
+      right to do anything that does not interfere with another&mdash;in other
+      words, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this&mdash;the right to
+      think right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to
+      think right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I
+      believe in that theory.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct
+      interference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is right. It is a
+      theory of evolution.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came
+      from the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in
+      science. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed, the
+      shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the spreading
+      and the growing; and that is as true in every other department of the
+      world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not account for
+      the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely inspired, and it
+      will not do to say God gradually grows. If he is infinite now, he knows as
+      much as he ever will. If he has been always infinite, he knew as much at
+      the time he wrote the Bible as he knows to-day; and, consequently,
+      whatever he said then must be as true now as it was then. You see they mix
+      up now a little bit of philosophy with religion&mdash;a little bit of
+      science with the shreds and patches of the supernatural.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Hear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in
+      the world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.
+      All the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said all
+      the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried it
+      last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world upon
+      its knees implored God to save one life, and the man died. The man died!
+      Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it was in
+      answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say now? What
+      is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: "There is prayer and
+      there is rain." Good. "Can he that is himself or any one else say there is
+      no possible relation between one and the other?" I do. Let us put it
+      another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any one say there
+      is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr. Thomas know that he
+      is not indebted to me for this year's crops? And yet this gentleman really
+      throws out the idea that there is some possible relation between prayer
+      and rain, between rain and health; and he tells us that he would have died
+      twenty-five years ago had it not been for prayer. I doubt it. Prayer is
+      not a medicine. Life depends upon certain facts&mdash;not upon prayer. All
+      the prayer in the world cannot take the place of the circulation of the
+      blood. All the prayer in the world is no substitute for digestion. All the
+      prayer in the world cannot take the place of food; and whenever a man
+      lives by prayer you will find that he eats considerable besides. It will
+      not do. Again: This reverend Doctor says: "Shall we say that all the love
+      of the unseen world"&mdash;how does he know there is any love in the
+      unseen world? "and the love of God"&mdash;how does he know there is any
+      love in God? "heed not the cries and tears of earth?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious
+      persecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons,
+      of those who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled prayer with the
+      clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving this
+      God, simply for worshiping this God. And what did God do? Nothing. The
+      chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in the
+      dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God do?
+      Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were piled
+      around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did God do?
+      Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and thousands
+      of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands to God and
+      implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and what did God
+      do?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the
+      naked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children were sold from the
+      arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden beneath the
+      brutal foot of creed; and what did God do? Nothing. Human beings, his
+      children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and what did God do?
+      Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the shipwrecked go down in
+      the billows; and what does God do? Nothing. There come plague and
+      pestilence and famine. What does God do? Thousands and thousands perish.
+      Little children die upon the withered breasts of mothers; and what does
+      God do? Nothing.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever
+      touched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history of the
+      world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and imprisonment, and
+      death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and best. Have they ever
+      touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of help ever been reached
+      from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he to
+      tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much brain
+      to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt&mdash;and a doubt is
+      born of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church to
+      be unorthodox. They have passed on his case and they have found him
+      unconstitutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here is
+      what he says: "Christianity"&mdash;orthodox Christianity I suppose he
+      means&mdash;"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and
+      punishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles of
+      the government of God are the same there as here; that character, and not
+      profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and Dickens, and all
+      others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their just
+      rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the time, be
+      it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what
+      Christianity teaches."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity. It
+      never has taught it. Christianity&mdash;orthodox Christianity&mdash;teaches
+      that when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity for
+      reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the eternal
+      line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion in this
+      life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That is Christianity. They
+      say: "Now is the accepted time." If you put it off until you die, that is
+      too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world is that there is no
+      opportunity for reformation in another world. The doctrine of orthodox
+      Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ here in
+      this life, and it will not do to believe on him in the next world. You
+      must believe on him here and that if you fail here, God in his infinite
+      wisdom will never give you another chance. That is orthodox Christianity;
+      and according to orthodox Christianity, the greatest, the best and the
+      sublimest of the world are now in hell. And why is it that they say it is
+      not orthodox Christianity? I have made them ashamed of their doctrine.
+      When I called to their attention the fact that such men as Darwin, such
+      men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow, Laplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt,
+      were in hell, it struck them all at once that the company in heaven would
+      not be very interesting with such men left out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And now they begin to say: "We think the Lord will give those men another
+      chance." I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine
+      expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have
+      made them ashamed of their doctrine&mdash;and that is glory enough. They
+      will let me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine
+      that God will treat us as we treat others&mdash;I admit that is taught by
+      Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I
+      want that understood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and
+      that he was driven out of the church because he thought God too good to
+      damn men forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the
+      Catholic Church is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church
+      upon that question. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory&mdash;that
+      is, a place where a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new
+      trial.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell your
+      congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine
+      inspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people
+      whether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever upheld
+      polygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor of
+      religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether
+      you honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the bad
+      one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think and there
+      will not be as much difference between you and myself as you imagine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the
+      rescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he is
+      a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a choice as to the manner
+      in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman regards modern
+      infidelity as "pitifully shallow" as to its intellectual conceptions and
+      as to its philosophical views of the universe and of the problems
+      regarding man's place in it and of his destiny. "Pitifully shallow!"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception is
+      that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern
+      conception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms
+      all matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has
+      been, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe. And
+      this is called "pitiful."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      What is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the
+      universe is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who made
+      it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world. And they
+      even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in which he
+      signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in a garden
+      and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of infinite wisdom
+      made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he would have to drown
+      them. That Being peopled a planet like this with men, women and children,
+      knowing that he would have to consign most of them to eternal fire. That
+      is a pitiful conception of the universe. That is an infamous conception of
+      the universe. Give me rather the conception of Spinoza, the conception of
+      Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall and of every other man who has
+      thought. I love to think of the whole universe together as one eternal
+      fact. I love to think that everything is alive; that crystallization is
+      itself a step toward joy. I love to think that when a bud bursts into
+      blossom it feels a thrill. I love to have the universe full of feeling and
+      full of joy, and not full of simple dead, inert matter, managed by an old
+      bachelor for all eternity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose to banish
+      such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our relations to the
+      present and to the possible future from human thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do not
+      make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know anything
+      about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y or do not
+      know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of heaven. Wait
+      until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble then. This is
+      what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of life from gloom
+      emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it. Life is a shadowy
+      strange and winding road on which we travel for a few short steps, just a
+      little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love, to the low and quiet
+      wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where the only salutation is
+      "Good-Night!" Whether there is a good morning I do not know, but I am
+      willing to wait.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Let us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for
+      the future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who
+      happen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of Humboldt
+      and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare their
+      splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist creed. This
+      gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he tells me that,
+      "No one has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and Darwin are
+      castaways!" Why not? They were not Christians. They did not believe in the
+      Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the inspiration of the
+      Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they are castaways. But he
+      says: "No one has the right to say that orthodoxy condemns to perdition
+      any man who has struggled toward the right, and who has tried to bless the
+      earth he is raised on." That is what I say, but that is not what orthodoxy
+      says. Orthodoxy says that the best man in the world, if he fails to
+      believe in the existence of God, or in the divinity of Christ, will be
+      eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there an orthodox minister in this
+      town now who will stand up and say that an honest atheist can be saved? He
+      will not. Let any preacher say it, and he will be tried for heresy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment, and
+      they cross-examine him, and they say to him:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you believe the Bible?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "No."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you belong to the church?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "No."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Did you take care of your wife and children?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Pay your debts?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Love your country?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Love the whole world?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Yes."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Never made anybody unhappy?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged let
+      them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but," said he, "I
+      did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity of Jesus
+      Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the existence of
+      God. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine." Now, I want to
+      know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with that man?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He is sent to hell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is their doctrine.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Then the next fellow comes. He says:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Where did you come from?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      And he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and he says:
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "I came from the gallows. I was just hung."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "What were you hung for?"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left. The day I
+      was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is Christianity. And they say to him: "Come in! Let the band play!"
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      That is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is hanged&mdash;there is a
+      minister there, and the minister tells him he is all right. All he has to
+      do is just to believe on the Lord.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am scurrilous.
+      Scurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he is not scurrilous,
+      calls infidels, "donkeys, serpents, buzzards." That is simply to show that
+      he is not scurrilous.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks independently of
+      the will; and I propose to prove by him that it does. He is the last man
+      in the world to controvert that doctrine&mdash;the last man. In spite of
+      himself his mind absorbed the sermon of another man, and he repeated it as
+      his own. I am satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind acted
+      independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence in
+      favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely
+      obliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously offered.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and renders him
+      unfit for the discharge of the highest duties pertaining to life, and that
+      we show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor to overthrow Calvinism.
+      What is Calvinism? It is the doctrine that an infinite God made millions
+      of people, knowing that they would be damned. I have answered that a
+      thousand times. I answer it again. No God has a right to make a mistake,
+      and then damn the mistake. No God has a right to make a failure, and a man
+      who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous success. No God has a
+      right to make an investment that will not finally pay a dividend.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life and all
+      mine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all going wrong,
+      that immorality was stalking through the land, that crime was about to
+      engulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their prophecies, the world has
+      steadily grown better, and there is more justice, more charity, more
+      kindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the world to-day than ever
+      before. And there is more infidelity in the world to-day than ever before.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0013" id="link0013">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the
+     issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts
+     transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the
+     starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had
+     struck because they could not live on reduced wages.
+     Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing
+     starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up
+     the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle
+     for higher wages
+
+     While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of
+     destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a
+     fund "for the extension of the church." The extension
+     committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with
+     such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city.
+     The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter
+     twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging
+     between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning
+     Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money
+     contributed for the extension of the church would find its
+     way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.
+
+     Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the
+     matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other
+     things that demanded his immediate attention.
+
+     Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension
+     Committee, was seen at his office in the North American
+     Bank, of which institution he is President.
+
+     He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their
+     trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the
+     charitable to extend to them direct aid.
+
+     Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor
+     and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the
+     church.
+
+     "The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the
+     giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their
+     idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save
+     men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.
+
+     "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own
+     resources. If the poor felt that they could get material
+     help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or
+     woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my
+     typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she
+     gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the
+     lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where
+     people are poor, it's their own fault.
+
+     "After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of
+     material things&mdash;it is the soul that makes life worth
+     living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see
+     this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have
+     been working all day, singing hymns and following the leader
+     in prayer."
+
+     Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who
+     need material help?" was asked.
+
+     "No, sir; I do not," said Mr. Van Norden. "If a man or woman
+     wants money, they should work for It."
+
+     "But is employment always to be had?"
+
+     "I think it is by Americans. You'll find that most of the
+     people out of work are those who are not adapted to the
+     conditions of this country.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      Colonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such philosophy.&mdash;New
+      York Morning Advertiser, March 10,1892.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you read the article in the Morning Advertiser
+      entitled "Workers Starving"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I have read it, and was greatly surprised at the answers
+      made to the reporter of the Advertiser.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think of the remarks of the Rev. John Hall
+      and by Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the "Church Extension
+      Committee"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have answered under some
+      irritation, or that the reporter did not happen to take down all he said.
+      It hardly seems probable that Dr. Hall should have said that he had no
+      time to discuss the matter of aiding the needy poor, giving as a reason
+      that there were so many other things that demanded his immediate
+      attention. The church is always insisting that it is, above all things, a
+      charitable institution; that it collects and distributes many millions
+      every year for the relief of the needy, and it is always quoting: "Sell
+      that thou hast and give to the poor." It is hard to imagine anything of
+      more importance than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppressed. Of
+      course, I know that the church itself produces nothing, and that it lives
+      on contributions; but its claim is that it receives from those who are
+      able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent need.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I have sometimes thought, that the most uncharitable thing in the world is
+      an organized charity. It seems to have the peculiarities of a corporation,
+      and becomes as soulless as its kindred. To use a very old phrase, it
+      generally acts like "a beggar on horseback."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Probably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for the poor, and I imagine
+      that he must have been irritated or annoyed when he made the answer
+      attributed to him in the <i>Advertiser</i>. The good Samaritan may have
+      been in a hurry, but he said nothing about it. The Levites that passed by
+      on the other side seemed to have had other business. Understand me, I am
+      saying nothing against Dr. Hall, but it does seem to me that there are few
+      other matters more important than assisting our needy fellow-men.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you think of Mr. Warner Van Norden's sentiments
+      as expressed to the reporter?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> In the first place, I think he is entirely mistaken. I do
+      not think the cloakmakers brought their trouble upon themselves. The wages
+      they receive were and are insufficient to support reasonable human beings.
+      They work for almost nothing, and it is hard for me to understand why they
+      live at all, when life is so expensive and death so cheap. All they can
+      possibly do is to earn enough one day to buy food to enable them to work
+      the next. Life with them is a perpetual struggle. They live on the edge of
+      death. Under their feet they must feel the side of the grave crumbling,
+      and thus they go through, day by day, month by month, year by year. They
+      are, I presume, sustained by a hope that is never realized.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of helping the poor and needy
+      of the city, save in the way employed by the church, and that the
+      experience of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms to the poor
+      only encourages them in their idleness and their crimes.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground that when Christ said: "Sell
+      that thou hast and give to the poor," he intended to encourage idleness
+      and crime?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it possible that when it was said, "It is better to give than to
+      receive," the real meaning was, It is better to encourage idleness and
+      crime than to receive assistance?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      For instance, a man falls into the water. Why should one standing on the
+      shore attempt to rescue him? Could he not properly say: "If all who fall
+      into the water are rescued, it will only encourage people to fall into the
+      water; it will make sailors careless, and persons who stand on wharves,
+      will care very little whether they fall in or not. Therefore, in order to
+      make people careful who have not fallen into the water, let those in the
+      water drown." In other words, why should anybody be assisted, if
+      assistance encourages carelessness, or idleness, or negligence?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of place in this world,
+      kindness is a mistake, and hospitality springs from a lack of philosophy.
+      In other words, all should take the consequences of their acts, not only,
+      but the consequences of the acts of others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still insist that men should
+      be charitable on their own account. A man without pity, no matter how
+      intelligent he may be, is at best only an intellectual beast, and if by
+      withholding all assistance we could finally people the world with those
+      who are actually self-supporting, we would have a population without
+      sympathy, without charity&mdash;that is to say, without goodness. In my
+      judgment, it would be far better that none should exist.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty of the church is to save
+      men's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally. I think that
+      conditions have a vast deal to do with morality and goodness. If you wish
+      to change the conduct of your fellow-men, the first thing to do is to
+      change their conditions, their surroundings; in other words, to help them
+      to help themselves&mdash;help them to get away from bad influences, away
+      from the darkness of ignorance, away from the temptations of poverty and
+      want, not only into the light intellectually, but into the climate of
+      prosperity. It is useless to give a hungry man a religious tract, and it
+      is almost useless to preach morality to those who are so situated that the
+      necessity of the present, the hunger of the moment, overrides every other
+      consideration. There is a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a good
+      deal of persuasion in necessity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Prosperity is apt to make men selfish. They imagine that because they have
+      succeeded, others and all others, might or may succeed. If any man will go
+      over his own life honestly, he will find that he has not always succeeded
+      because he was good, or that he has always failed because he was bad. He
+      will find that many things happened with which he had nothing to do, for
+      his benefit, and that, after all is said and done, he cannot account for
+      all of his successes by his absolute goodness. So, if a man will think of
+      all the bad things he has done&mdash;of all the bad things he wanted to do&mdash;of
+      all the bad things he would have done had he had the chance, and had he
+      known that detection was impossible, he will find but little foundation
+      for egotism.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. What do you say to this language of Mr. Van Norden. "It
+      is best to teach people to rely upon their own resources. If the poor felt
+      that they could get material help they would want it always, and in this
+      day, if a man and woman cannot get along, it is their own fault"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> All I can say is that I do not agree with him. Often there
+      are many more men in a certain trade than there is work for such men.
+      Often great factories shut down, leaving many thousands out of employment.
+      You may say that it was the fault of these men that they learned that
+      trade; that they might have known it would be overcrowded; so you may say
+      it was the fault of the capitalist to start a factory in that particular
+      line, because he should have known that it was to be overdone.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      As no man can look very far into the future, the truth is it was nobody's
+      fault, and without fault thousands and thousands are thrown out of
+      employment. Competition is so sharp, wages are so small, that to be out of
+      employment for a few weeks means want. You cannot say that this is the
+      fault of the man who wants bread. He certainly did not wish to go hungry;
+      neither did he deliberately plan a failure. He did the best he could.
+      There are plenty of bankers who fail in business, not because they wish to
+      fail; so there are plenty of professional men who cannot make a living,
+      yet it may not be their fault; and there are others who get rich, and it
+      may not be by reason of their virtues.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Without doubt, there are many people in the city of New York who cannot
+      make a living. Competition is too sharp; life is too complex; consequently
+      the percentage of failures is large. In savage life there are few
+      failures, but in civilized life there are many. There are many thousands
+      out of work and out of food in Berlin to-day. It can hardly be said to be
+      their fault. So there are many thousands in London, and every other great
+      city of the world. You cannot account for all this want by saying that the
+      people who want are entirely to blame.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      A man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough to think that his wealth
+      was the result of his own unaided efforts; and he is sometimes heartless
+      enough to say that others should get rich by following his example.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter who gets two dollars a day,
+      and that she dresses better than the lords and ladies did of olden times.
+      He must refer to the times of the Garden of Eden. Out of two dollars a day
+      one must live, and there is very little left for gorgeous robes. I hardly
+      think a lady is to be envied because she receives two dollars a day, and
+      the probability is that the manner in which she dresses on that sum&mdash;having
+      first deducted the expenses of living&mdash;is not calculated to excite
+      envy.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to be concentrated into this line:
+      "Where people are poor it is their own fault." Of course this is the death
+      of all charity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      We are then informed by this gentleman that "happiness does not lie in the
+      enjoyment of material things&mdash;that it is the soul that makes life
+      worth living."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it the soul without pity that makes life worth living? Is it the soul
+      in which the blossom of charity has never shed its perfume that makes life
+      so desirable? Is it the soul, having all material things, wrapped in the
+      robes of prosperity, and that says to all the poor: It is your own fault;
+      die of hunger if you must&mdash;that makes life worth living?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It may be asked whether it is worth while for such a soul to live.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I do not wish to visit his
+      working girls' club, or to "hear girls who have been working all day
+      singing hymns and following the leader in prayer." Why should a soul
+      without pity pray? Why should any one ask God to be merciful to the poor
+      if he is not merciful himself? For my own part, I would rather see poor
+      people eat than to hear them pray. I would rather see them clothed
+      comfortably than to see them shivering, and at the same time hear them
+      sing hymns.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It does not seem possible that any man can say that there are no worthy
+      poor in this city who need material help. Neither does it seem possible
+      that any man can say to one who is starving that if he wants money he must
+      work for it. There are hundreds and thousands in this city willing to work
+      who can find no employment. There are good and pure women standing between
+      their children and starvation, living in rooms worse than cells in
+      penitentiaries&mdash;giving their own lives to their children&mdash;hundreds
+      and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross of every suffering, worthy of
+      the reverence and love of mankind. So there are men wandering about these
+      streets in search of work, willing to do anything to feed the ones they
+      love.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Mr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I do not believe that he
+      expresses his real sentiments. But, after all, why should we expect
+      charity in a church that believes in the dogma of eternal pain? Why cannot
+      the rich be happy here in their palaces, while the poor suffer and starve
+      in huts, when these same rich expect to enjoy heaven forever, with all the
+      unbelievers in hell? Why should the agony of time interfere with their
+      happiness, when the agonies of eternity will not and cannot affect their
+      joy? But I have nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr. Van Norden&mdash;only
+      against their ideas.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0014" id="link0014">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * Boston, 1898.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some attention to the
+      lecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a
+      report of it, and what have you to say?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. Mr. Mills.
+      I do not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr. Plumb
+      says, I suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with his religion
+      and some science with his superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to have
+      successfully avoided both. His manners do not appear to me to be of the
+      best. Why should he call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply
+      because he does not happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to say
+      that this "poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven, a
+      majestic being&mdash;unique&mdash;peculiar&mdash;who "trod the sea and
+      hushed the storm and raised the dead"? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world
+      a "poor" world? According to his creed, it was created by infinite wisdom,
+      infinite goodness and infinite power. How dare he call the work of such a
+      being "poor"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Is it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work of the
+      Infinite and say to God that he made a "poor" world? If I believed this
+      world had been made by an infinitely wise and good Being, I should
+      certainly insist that this is not a poor world, but, on the contrary, a
+      perfect world. I would insist that everything that happens is for the
+      best. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I would insist that the
+      fault we thought we saw, lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and
+      benevolent Creator.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor mechanic
+      and a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious
+      preachers, takes several things for granted; things that have not been
+      established by evidence, and things which in their nature cannot be
+      established.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty Redeemer from
+      Heaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven is? Does he know that
+      any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure that an infinite God would be
+      foolish enough to make people who needed a redeemer?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He also says that this Being "trod the sea, hushed the storm and raised
+      the dead." Is there any evidence that this Being trod the sea? Any more
+      evidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the ocean? Any evidence
+      that he hushed the storm any more than there is that the storm comes from
+      the cave of &#65533;?olus? Is there any evidence that he raised the dead?
+      How would it be possible to prove that the dead were raised? How could we
+      prove such a thing if it happened now? Who would believe the evidence? As
+      a matter of fact, the witnesses themselves would not believe and could not
+      believe until raising of the dead became so general as to be regarded as
+      natural.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the only
+      evidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the
+      storm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows anything, that these
+      stories were not written until Christ himself had been dead for at least
+      four generations. He knows also that these accounts were written at a time
+      when the belief in miracles was almost universal, and when everything that
+      actually happened was regarded of no particular importance, and only the
+      things that did not happen were carefully written out with all the
+      details.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm "spake as never man
+      spake." Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who denounced human slavery
+      many years before Christ was born? Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the
+      greatest of the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha? Has he read the
+      dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna? If he has, he knows that every great
+      and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he lived.
+      Did he ever read Lao-tsze? If he did&mdash;and this man lived many
+      centuries before the coming of our Lord&mdash;he knows that Lao-tsze said
+      "we should render benefits for injuries. We should love our enemies, and
+      we should not resist evil." So it will hardly do now to say that Christ
+      spake as never man spake, because he repeated the very things that other
+      men had said.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly groping
+      Socrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius? Only a
+      little while ago a book was published by Mr. For-long showing the origin
+      of the principal religion and the creeds that have been taught. In this
+      book you will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you
+      will also find a few pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and
+      after you have read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you
+      will find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,
+      while the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of stone or
+      piles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply a
+      sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by feeling, but he had
+      intelligence&mdash;a great brain in which burned the torch of reason. Read
+      Confucius, and you will think that he must have known the sciences of
+      to-day; that is to say, the conclusions that have been reached by modern
+      thinkers. It could have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he
+      spake as never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him you
+      will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the intelligence
+      contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct theology.
+      Whether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I do know that I am
+      not trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring to destroy it. I have
+      no more confidence in theology than I have in astrology or in the black
+      art. Theology is a science that exists wholly independent of facts, and
+      that reaches conclusions without the assistance of evidence. It also
+      scorns experience and does what little it can to do away with thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I make a very great distinction between theology and real religion. I can
+      conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now, here we are, men and women
+      in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain senses. There are
+      things that we can ascertain, and by developing our brain we can avoid
+      mistakes, keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles out of our
+      hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we should use all
+      our senses, gathering information from every possible quarter, and this
+      information should be only used for the purpose of ascertaining the facts,
+      for finding out the conditions of well-being, to the end that we may add
+      to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in mental
+      hospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I say reason, I
+      mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the flame small and
+      flickering, but, after all, it is the only light I have, and never with my
+      consent shall any preacher blow it out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men of their
+      greatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why do you call
+      Christ good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do you put him above
+      mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because he was just? Why do you
+      put him before justice? Suppose it should turn out that no such person as
+      Christ ever lived. What harm would that do justice or mercy? Wouldn't the
+      tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't justice, holding aloft her
+      scales, from which she blows even the dust of prejudice, be as noble, as
+      admirable as now? Is it not better to love, justice and mercy than to love
+      a name, and when you put a name above justice, above mercy, are you sure
+      that you are benefiting your fellow-men?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my argument instead
+      of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness instead of telling the
+      consequences that would follow from my action? We have nothing to do with
+      the consequences. I said that to believe without evidence, or in spite of
+      evidence, was superstition. If that definition is correct, Dr. Plumb is a
+      superstitious man, because he believes at least without evidence. What
+      evidence has he that Christ was God? In the nature of things, how could he
+      have evidence? The only evidence he pretends to have is the dream of
+      Joseph, and he does not know that Joseph ever dreamed the dream, because
+      Joseph did not write an account of his dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only
+      hearsay for the dream, and the dream is the foundation of his creed.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me with being
+      a burglar&mdash;a coarse, blasphemous burglar&mdash;who wishes to rob
+      somebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesitate to tell a
+      Mohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He would tell a Mormon in Utah
+      that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham Young was no better.
+      In other words, if in Turkey, he would be a coarse and blasphemous
+      burglar, and he would follow the same profession in Utah. So probably he
+      would tell the Chinese that Confucius was an ignorant wretch and that
+      their religion was idiotic, and the Chinese priest would denounce Dr.
+      Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr. Plumb would be
+      perfectly astonished that a priest could be so low, so impudent and
+      malicious.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a little
+      and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in all
+      probability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb, and
+      yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a little
+      superstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his many virtues,
+      there may be a little righteous malice.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I suppose he
+      has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So I believe him to
+      be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am concerned, I have no
+      objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he can to get all the churches to
+      act together. He may never succeed, but I am not responsible for that.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes to be the
+      gospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an infinitely good God
+      made a poor world; that he made man and woman and put them in the Garden
+      of Eden, and that this same God before that time had manufactured a devil,
+      and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew that he would corrupt
+      the man and woman that he had determined to make; that he could have
+      defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he allowed his Satanic
+      Majesty to succeed; that at the time he allowed him to succeed, he knew
+      that in consequence of his success that he (God) in about fifteen or
+      sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole world with the
+      exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for seed. At the
+      time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were totally depraved, that
+      they were saturated with the sin of Adam and Eve, and that their children
+      would be their natural heirs. He also knew at the time he allowed the
+      devil to succeed, that he (God), some four thousand years afterward, would
+      be compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe, to learn the carpenter's
+      trade, and to go about the country for three years preaching to the people
+      and discussing with the rabbis of his chosen people, and he also knew that
+      these chosen people&mdash;these people who had been governed and educated
+      by him, to whom he had sent a multitude of prophets, would at that time be
+      so savage that they would crucify him, although he would be at that time
+      the only sinless being who had ever stood upon the earth. This he knew
+      would be the effect of his government, of his education of his chosen
+      people. He also knew at the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in
+      consequence of that success a vast majority of the human race would become
+      eternal convicts in the prison of hell.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      All this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is infinitely
+      wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What would this God have
+      done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or goodness?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of savagery,
+      there is none more perfectly absurd than Christianity.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <a name="link0015" id="link0015">
+      <!--  H2 anchor --> </a>
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 4em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+    <h2>
+      A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.
+    </h2>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+     * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.
+</pre>
+    <p>
+      <i>Question</i>. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, the
+      interest manifested in the letters to the <i>Journal</i> which have
+      followed your lecture of Sunday, and what do you think of them?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      <i>Answer.</i> I have read the letters and reports that have been
+      published in the <i>Journal</i>. Some of them seem to be very sincere,
+      some not quite honest, and some a little of both.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many Christians do
+      not believe in a personal devil, but are still Christians. He states that
+      they hold that the references in the New Testament to the devil are simply
+      to personifications of evil, and do not apply to any personal existence.
+      He says that he could give the names of a number of pastors who hold such
+      views. He does not state what his view is. Consequently, I do not know
+      whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The statement that the references in the New Testament to a devil are
+      simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any personal
+      existence, seems to me utterly absurd.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as good and
+      satisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the angels referred to
+      in the New Testament simply personifications of good, and are there no
+      such personal existences? If devils are only personifications of evil, how
+      is it that these personifications of evil could hold arguments with Jesus
+      Christ? How could they talk back? How could they publicly acknowledge the
+      divinity of Christ? As a matter of fact, the best evidences of Christ's
+      divinity in the New Testament are the declarations of devils. These devils
+      were supposed to be acquainted with supernatural things, and consequently
+      knew a God when they saw one, whereas the average Jew, not having been a
+      citizen of the celestial world, was unable to recognize a deity when he
+      met him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls them, were of
+      various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others could talk, and Christ
+      said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they were very difficult to expel
+      from the bodies of men; that it required fasting and prayer to get them
+      out. Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did not exist? That they
+      were only "personifications of evil"?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted by the
+      devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and that this
+      personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to induce
+      him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come from?
+      Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not have been.
+      Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it existed it came
+      from the inside of Christ, so that, according to MacArthur, Christ was the
+      creator of his own devil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur's
+      opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some
+      time he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or
+      whether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New
+      Testament can be explained away by calling the devils "personifications of
+      evil." Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a "personification
+      of evil" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and whether
+      Christ expelled seven "personifications of evil" from Mary Magdalene, and
+      how did they come to count these "personifications of evil"? If the
+      devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil," then, of course,
+      they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may be different
+      manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet Mary Magdalene
+      had seven.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously
+      beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take it
+      for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in their
+      creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word of God; that
+      they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in salvation by faith,
+      in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I take it for granted that
+      they believe these things. Of course, the only evidence I have is what
+      they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon. They may be dealing only
+      in the "personification of truth."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am
+      told that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after
+      all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this
+      "man of straw," and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A
+      preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio,
+      challenged this "man of straw," and the straw man put him out.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the
+      Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain
+      what he calls the "religious thinking of the hour," the "straw man" will
+      put him out too.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of
+      representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which
+      leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have the
+      goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds of
+      representative thinkers&mdash;that is, of orthodox thinkers&mdash;that any
+      orthodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the
+      kindness to give just one?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In my lecture on "Superstition" I did say that to deny the existence of
+      evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the truth
+      of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps of
+      darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that if we
+      give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of the Old
+      and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ. Upon that
+      declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then Jesus Christ was
+      mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true account of what he
+      said and of what he pretended to do. If the New Testament gives a true
+      account of his words and pretended actions, then he did claim to cast out
+      devils. That was his principal business. That was his certificate of
+      divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated his mission and proved
+      that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the
+      veracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that
+      divinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the
+      great fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister,
+      but like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have a
+      little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become
+      spiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious and
+      pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into a corner,
+      they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry "<i>Blasphemy!</i>"
+      I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply mean that they are
+      illogical.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of
+      progressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive
+      religious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If
+      religion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress. It
+      may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but if it
+      is not understood when given, why is it called a "revelation"? There is no
+      progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better mathematicians
+      than others, but the old multiplication table remains the same. So there
+      can be no progress in a revelation from God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, Spain&mdash;and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune&mdash;has
+      remained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to their
+      superstition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that
+      Catholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly
+      admit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with
+      Spain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of them
+      has progressed to any great extent.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man grows
+      better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man is, the
+      nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized, will be what he
+      calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has progressed, it is a
+      demonstration that it was not originally founded on a revelation from God.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      In my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction
+      between the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if God
+      created and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him at
+      all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily for
+      famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if President
+      McKinley thanked God for the victory at Santiago, he also should have
+      thanked him for sending the yellow fever.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any
+      distinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If God
+      governs this world, then everything that happens is the very best that
+      could happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is
+      to be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was to
+      be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by
+      infinite wisdom and goodness.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This God who
+      made man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom, and
+      consequently this God cannot escape the responsibility for the actions of
+      men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is responsible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he
+      would murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would
+      think as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss
+      Ingersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of
+      course I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the
+      address. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without
+      being dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis
+      Parks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants,
+      denounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity is
+      not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that we do
+      not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know that
+      there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head under
+      the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the devil
+      in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that the
+      devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say it
+      honestly?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go
+      along with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it
+      visited our soldiers, came from God, and that we should thank God for it.
+      He does not say the soldiers should thank God for it, or that those who
+      had it should thank God for it, but that we should thank God for it, and
+      there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us to bear
+      with great fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the misfortunes of
+      others.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of course I am
+      not as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to be.
+      I have not the faintest idea of what God's purposes are. He works, even
+      according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with the
+      little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why God should
+      have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or cholera,
+      or why he should ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in
+      partnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have
+      never been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my
+      ignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be
+      that everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not
+      believe it.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      There is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on the
+      workings of the average orthodox mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      One morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father, "One
+      of the ewe lambs is dead."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Well," said the father; "that is all for the best. Twins never do very
+      well, any how."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the old
+      man said, "Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have more
+      wool."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The next morning the son said, "The old ewe is dead."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      "Well," replied the old man; "that may be for the best, but I don't see it
+      this morning."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on the
+      wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly
+      obliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily
+      refuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation might
+      be an advertisement for me.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are some
+      things in the lecture on "Superstition" worth the while even of a
+      Methodist minister to answer.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will he
+      Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that God
+      created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this
+      question: Why did God create a successful rival? When God created the
+      devil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That
+      he was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and did
+      he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That in
+      consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that he would
+      have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in consequence of
+      that he himself would have to be born into this world as a Judean peasant?
+      That he would have to be crucified and suffer for the sins of these people
+      who had been misled by this devil that he deliberately created, and that
+      after all he would be able only to save a few Methodists?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can answer
+      it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no
+      advertisement for him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I now
+      return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, "Ingersoll in many respects
+      is like Voltaire." I think no finer compliment has been paid me by any
+      gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank the Rev.
+      Mr. Belcher.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that
+      every utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that every
+      argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in ringing
+      the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over again for
+      hundreds of years.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives;
+      that you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it. You
+      must answer not the man, but the argument.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that no
+      argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not been
+      answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is still as
+      fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old until it has
+      been answered.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      It is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have been
+      answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course it will
+      be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you
+      believe in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and
+      women become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you
+      believe that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe
+      the stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.
+      Answer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is a person,
+      that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you another question: Why
+      should this devil punish souls in hell for rebelling against God? Why
+      should the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish God's enemies? This
+      may have been answered many times, but one more repetition will do but
+      little harm.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Another thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you
+      believe that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which
+      open only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment
+      is the highest expression of justice and mercy?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      If you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you knew
+      that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to hell and suffer
+      eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing this, you
+      changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend? Now, answer this
+      fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the Presbyterian flavor;
+      just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for any
+      of the children of men&mdash;I say to you that your God is a wild beast,
+      an insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac
+      Arthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely
+      sincere. He is orthodox&mdash;true blue. He believes in a devil; in an
+      acting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think
+      this devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but a
+      little more cunning.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the universe&mdash;king
+      of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will not admit that
+      if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all crumble, but I think
+      he will admit that if the devil does not exist, then Christ was mistaken,
+      or that the writers of the New Testament did not truthfully give us his
+      utterances.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he
+      was mistaken about the existence of God. In other words, if Christ made a
+      mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine, although
+      ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see exactly how
+      Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the Christian creeds
+      do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean orthodox creeds. Is
+      there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil in it?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall of
+      man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the
+      keystone. Remove him, the arch falls.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains intact
+      without crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the atonement and
+      the existence of the devil are all thrown aside?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being good,
+      forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not Christianity. Orthodox
+      Christians say that a man must believe on Christ, must have faith, and
+      that to act as Christ did, is not enough; that a man who acts exactly as
+      Christ did, dying without faith, would go to hell. So when Mr. Campbell
+      speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox Christian.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he knows a
+      good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every conceivable
+      disguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring lion; that at
+      another time he is a god of this world; on another occasion a dragon, and
+      in the afternoon of the same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light, and
+      all the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often assumes the disguise
+      of the serpent.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the
+      wilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made him more
+      than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ could not see
+      through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil with a mask to fool
+      God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ by
+      offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they already belonged to
+      Christ, and when Christ knew that the devil had no title, and when the
+      devil knew that Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil knew
+      that Christ knew that he was the devil, and when the devil knew that he
+      was Christ? Does the reverend gentleman still think that it was the
+      disguise of the devil that tempted Christ?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      I would like some of these questions answered, because I have a very
+      inquiring mind.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      So Mr. Campbell tells us&mdash;and it is very good and comforting of him&mdash;that
+      there is a time coming when the devil shall deceive the nations no more.
+      He also tells us that God is more powerful than the devil, and that he is
+      going to put an end to him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Will Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the devil? If
+      he is going to put an end to him why did he start him? Was it not a waste
+      of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair to let this devil, so
+      powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put Adam
+      and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his power, and not only
+      Adam and Eve within his power, but their descendants, so that the slime of
+      the serpent has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence of what
+      happened in the Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless millions in
+      the presence of the most merciful God?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these things. He
+      may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think of his own
+      congregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves of doubt and
+      thought.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good sense; one
+      who thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of
+      course I am sorry that he does not agree with me, but I have become used
+      to that, and so I thank him for the truths he utters.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I guess by
+      following him up we would find that he did not believe in the existence of
+      a personal God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In fact, he tells
+      us that he has given up the infallibility of the Bible. At the same time,
+      he says it is the most perfect compendium of religious and moral thought.
+      In that I think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast deal of
+      irreligion in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral thought in
+      the Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired nor
+      infallible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      The Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church, declares
+      that those who do not believe in a personal God do not believe in a
+      personal Satan, and <i>vice versa</i>. The one, he says, necessitates the
+      other. In this I do not think he is quite correct. I think many people
+      believe in a personal God who do not believe in a personal devil, but I
+      know of none who do believe in a personal devil who do not also believe in
+      a personal God. The orthodox generally believe in both of them, and for
+      many centuries Christians spoke with great respect of the devil. They were
+      afraid of him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      But I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny a
+      personal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I agree with
+      this because I suppose by "God's word" he means the Bible.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      He further says, and I agree with him, that a "Christian" needs no
+      scientific argument on which to base his belief in the personality of
+      Satan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a scientific
+      argument it is equally true that he never will have one.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      You see this word "Science" means something that somebody knows; not
+      something that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but
+      something that somebody knows.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Of course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the existence of
+      the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says, and I
+      thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove the existence of the
+      devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse, and I do agree with him that the
+      "revealed word" teaches the existence of a personal devil, and that all
+      truly orthodox Christians believe that there is a personal devil, and the
+      Rev. Mr. Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he proves that
+      without this devil there could be no redemption for the evil spirits; so
+      he brings forward the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. At the same
+      time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what the Bible says, he
+      insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme, and then he drops
+      into humor and says that if any further arguments are needed to prove the
+      existence of the devil, that I furnish them.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      How a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can have
+      anything like a sense of humor is beyond even my imagination.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask him the
+      same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture on
+      "Superstition."
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a being of
+      infinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he created has
+      been governed by him.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions, with the
+      request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr. Kraeling,
+      had the power to make a world, would you make an exact copy of this? Would
+      you make a man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing that they would be
+      deceived, knowing that they would fall? Knowing that all the consequences
+      believed in by orthodox Christians would follow from that fall? Would you
+      do it? And would you make your world so as to provide for earthquakes and
+      cyclones? Would you create the seeds of disease and scatter them in the
+      air and water? Would you so arrange matters as to produce cancers? Would
+      you provide for plague and pestilence? Would you so make your world that
+      life should feed on life, that the quivering flesh should be torn by tooth
+      and beak and claw? Would you?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be honest.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Would you make different races of men? Would you make them of different
+      colors, and would you so make them that they would persecute and enslave
+      each other? Would you so arrange matters that millions and millions should
+      toil through many generations, paid only by the lash on the back? Would
+      you have it so that millions and millions of babes would be sold from the
+      breasts of mothers? Be honest, would you provide for religious
+      persecution? For the invention and use of instruments of torture? Would
+      you see to it that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was not
+      overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong would
+      triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not be a shield?
+      Would you make a world where the best would be loaded with chains? Where
+      the best would die in the darkness of dungeons? Where the best would make
+      scaffolds sacred with their blood?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Would you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud should
+      represent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of honest
+      credulity?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Would you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war? Would you
+      so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens, so that woman
+      would be a slave, so that children would be trampled upon as though they
+      were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the woods with wild beasts? Would
+      you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm your children? Would you provide for
+      earthquakes that would swallow them? Would you make them ignorant, savage,
+      and fill their minds with all the phantoms of horror? Would you?
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      Now, it will only take you a few moments to answer these questions, and if
+      you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the
+      orthodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If you say you would not, I
+      will admit that there is a little dawn of intelligence in your brain.
+    </p>
+    <p>
+      At the same time I want it understood with regard to all these ministers
+      that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize their congregations,
+      so that the congregations may allow the ministers to develop, to grow, to
+      become really and truly intelligent. The process is slow, but it is sure.
+    </p>
+    <div style="height: 6em;">
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+      <table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4">
+        <tbody>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <big><big><a
+              href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm">
+              TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big>
+            </td>
+            <td></td>
+          </tr>
+        </tbody>
+      </table>
+      <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
+    </div>
+<pre xml:space="preserve">
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol.
+7 (of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+***** This file should be named 38807-h.htm or 38807-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/8/0/38807/
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+  </body>
+</html>
diff --git a/38807-h/images/portrait.jpg b/38807-h/images/portrait.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1fa6bd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-h/images/portrait.jpg
diff --git a/38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a90d6e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg
diff --git a/38807.txt b/38807.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d381ebf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,12311 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 7
+(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. 7 (of 12)
+       Dresden Edition--Discussions
+
+Author: Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+Release Date: February 9, 2012 [EBook #38807]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Widger
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
+
+By Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF THOUGHT, AND THE
+CROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL."
+
+In Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.
+
+DISCUSSIONS
+
+Dresden Edition
+
+
+1900
+
+CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.
+
+
+MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
+
+(1877.)
+
+Answer to San Francisco Clergymen--Definition of Liberty, Physical
+and Mental--The Right to Compel Belief--Woman the Equal of Man--The
+Ghosts--Immortality--Slavery--Witchcraft--Aristocracy of the
+Air--Unfairness of Clerical Critics--Force and Matter--Doctrine of
+Negation--Confident Deaths of Murderers--Childhood Scenes returned to
+by the Dying--Death-bed of Voltaire--Thomas Paine--The First
+Sectarians Were Heretics--Reply to Rev. Mr. Guard--Slaughter of
+the Canaanites--Reply to Rev. Samuel Robinson--Protestant
+Persecutions--Toleration--Infidelity and Progress--The
+Occident--Calvinism--Religious Editors--Reply to the Rev. Mr.
+Ijams--Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers?--Reply to
+California _Christian Advocate_--Self-Government of French People at
+and Since the Revolution--On the Site of the Bastile--French
+Peasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ--Was the World created in Six
+Days--Geology--What is the Astronomy of the Bible?--The Earth the Centre
+of the Universe--Joshua's Miracle--Change of Motion into Heat--Geography
+and Astronomy of Cosmas--Does the Bible teach the Existence of
+that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?--Saul and the Woman of
+Endor--Familiar Spirits--Demonology of the New Testament--Temptation of
+Jesus--Possession by Devils--Gadarene Swine Story--Test of Belief--Bible
+Idea of the Rights of Children--Punishment of the Rebellious
+Son--Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice--Persecution of Job--The Gallantry
+of God--Bible Idea of the Rights of Women--Paul's Instructions to
+Wives--Permission given to Steal Wives--Does the Bible Sanction
+Polygamy and Concubinage?--Does the Bible Uphold and Justify Political
+Tyranny?--Powers that be Ordained of God--Religious Liberty of
+God--Sun-Worship punishable with Death--Unbelievers to be damned--Does
+the Bible describe a God of Mercy?--Massacre Commanded--Eternal
+Punishment Taught in the New Testament--The Plan of Salvation--Fall
+and Atonement Moral Bankruptcy--Other Religions--Parsee
+Sect--Brahmins--Confucians--Heretics and Orthodox.
+
+
+MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.
+
+(1879.)
+
+Rev. Robert Collyer--Inspiration of the Scriptures--Rev. Dr.
+Thomas--Formation of the Old Testament--Rev. Dr. Kohler--Rev. Mr.
+Herford--Prof. Swing--Rev. Dr. Ryder.
+
+
+TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.
+
+(1882.)
+
+Rev. David Walk--Character of Jesus--Two or Three Christs Described
+in the Gospels--Christ's Change of Opinions--Gospels Later than the
+Epistles--Divine Parentage of Christ a Late Belief--The Man Christ
+probably a Historical Character--Jesus Belittled by his Worshipers--He
+never Claimed to be Divine--Christ's Omissions--Difference between
+Christian and other Modern Civilizations--Civilization not Promoted
+by Religion--Inventors--French and American Civilization: How
+Produced--Intemperance and Slavery in Christian Nations--Advance due to
+Inventions and Discoveries--Missionaries--Christian Nations Preserved by
+Bayonet and Ball--Dr. T. B. Taylor--Origin of Life on this Planet--Sir
+William Thomson--Origin of Things Undiscoverable--Existence after
+Death--Spiritualists--If the Dead Return--Our Calendar--Christ and
+Christmas-The Existence of Pain--Plato's Theory of Evil--Will God do
+Better in Another World than he does in this?--Consolation--Life Not a
+Probationary Stage--Rev. D.O'Donaghue--The Case of Archibald Armstrong
+and Jonathan Newgate--Inequalities of Life--Can Criminals live a
+Contented Life?--Justice of the Orthodox God Illustrated.
+
+
+THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.
+
+(1883.)
+
+Are the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively
+Read?--Increase in the Number of Infidels--Spread of Scientific
+Literature--Rev. Dr. Eddy--Rev. Dr. Hawkins--Rev. Dr. Haynes--Rev.
+Mr. Pullman--Rev. Mr. Foote--Rev. Mr. Wells--Rev. Dr. Van Dyke--Rev.
+Carpenter--Rev. Mr. Reed--Rev. Dr. McClelland--Ministers Opposed to
+Discussion--Whipping Children--Worldliness as a Foe of the Church--The
+Drama--Human Love--Fires, Cyclones, and Other Afflictions as Promoters
+of Spirituality--Class Distinctions--Rich and Poor--Aristocracies--The
+Right to Choose One's Associates--Churches Social Affairs--Progress
+of the Roman Catholic Church--Substitutes for the Churches--Henry
+Ward Beecher--How far Education is Favored by the Sects--Rivals of the
+Pulpit--Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago--French Revolution
+produced by the Priests--Why the Revolution was a Failure--Infidelity
+of One Hundred Years Ago--Ministers not more Intellectual than a Century
+Ago--Great Preachers of the Past--New Readings of Old Texts--Clerical
+Answerers of Infidelity--Rev. Dr. Baker--Father Fransiola--Faith and
+Reason--Democracy of Kindness--Moral Instruction--Morality Born of Human
+Needs--The Conditions of Happiness--The Chief End of Man.
+
+
+THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.
+
+(1888.)
+
+Discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. Coudert,
+and ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club of
+New York--Propositions--Toleration not a Disclaimer but a Waiver of the
+Right to Persecute--Remarks of Courtlandt Palmer--No Responsibility for
+Thought--Intellectual Hospitality--Right of Free Speech--Origin of the
+term "Toleration"--Slander and False Witness--Nobody can Control his own
+Mind: Anecdote--Remarks of Mr. Coudert--Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, and
+Ingersoll--General Woodford's Speech--Reply by Colonel Ingersoll--A
+Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment to Voltaire--Responsibility for
+Thoughts--The Mexican Unbeliever and his Reception in the Other Country.
+
+
+A CHRISTMAS SERMON.
+
+(1891.)
+
+Christianity's Message of Grief--Christmas a Pagan Festival--Reply
+to Dr. Buckley--Charges by the Editor of the Christian Advocate--The
+Tidings of Christianity--In what the Message of Grief Consists--Fear
+and Flame--An Everlasting Siberia--Dr. Buckley's Proposal to Boycott the
+Telegram--Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. Cana Day
+be Blasphemed?--Hurting Christian feelings--For Revenue only What is
+Blasphemy?--Balaam's Ass wiser than the Prophet--The Universalists--Can
+God do Nothing for this World?--The Universe a Blunder if Christianity
+is true--The Duty of a Newspaper--Facts Not Sectarian--The Rev.
+Mr. Peters--What Infidelity Has Done--Public School System not
+Christian--Orthodox Universities--Bruno on Oxford--As to Public
+Morals--No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe--The Atonement
+Immoral--As to Sciences and Art--Bruno, Humboldt, Darwin--Scientific
+Writers Opposed by the Church--As to the Liberation of Slaves--As to
+the Reclamation of Inebriates--Rum and Religion--The Humanity
+of Infidelity--What Infidelity says to the Dying--The Battle
+Continued--Morality not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity--The
+Inquisition and Religious Persecution--Human Nature Derided by
+Christianity--Dr. DaCosta--"Human Brotherhood" as exemplified by
+the History of the Church--The Church and Science, Art and
+Learning----Astronomy's Revenge--Galileo and Kepler--Mrs. Browning:
+Science Thrust into the Brain of Europe--Our Numerals--Christianity and
+Literature--Institution's of Learning--Stephen Girard--James Lick--Our
+Chronology--Historians--Natural Philosophy--Philology--Metaphysical
+Research--Intelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian--Inventions--John
+Ericsson--Emancipators--Rev. Mr. Ballou--The Right of Goa to
+Punish--Rev. Dr. Hillier--Rev. Mr. Haldeman--George A. Locey--The "Great
+Physician"--Rev. Mr. Talmage--Rev. J. Benson Hamilton--How Voltaire
+Died--The Death-bed of Thomas Paine--Rev. Mr. Holloway--Original
+Sin--Rev. Dr. Tyler--The Good Samaritan a Heathen--Hospitals and
+Asylums--Christian Treatment of the Insane--Rev. Dr. Buckley--The
+North American Review Discussion--Judge Black, Dr. Field,
+Mr. Gladstone--Circulation of Obscene Literature--Eulogy of
+Whiskey--Eulogy of Tobacco--Human Stupidity that Defies the Gods--Rev.
+Charles Deems--Jesus a Believer in a Personal Devil--The Man Christ.
+
+
+SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.
+
+(1892.)
+
+Reply to the _Western Watchman_--Henry D'Arcy--Peter's
+Prevarication-Some Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a
+Catholic--Wishes do not Affect the Judgment--Devout Robbers--Penitent
+Murderers--Reverential Drunkards--Luther's Distich--Judge
+Normile--Self-destruction.
+
+
+IS SUICIDE A SIN?
+
+(1894.)
+
+Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in _The New York World_--Under what
+Circumstances a Man has the Right to take his Own Life--Medicine and the
+Decrees of God--Case of the Betrayed Girl--Suicides not Cowards--Suicide
+under Roman Law--Many Suicides Insane--Insanity Caused by Religion--The
+Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic--Natural and Sufficient Cause for
+Self-destruction--Christ's Death a Suicide--Col. Ingersoll's Reply to his
+Critics--Is Suffering the Work of God?--It is not Man's Duty to
+Endure Hopeless Suffering--When Suicide is Justifiable--The
+Inquisition--Alleged Cowardice of Suicides--Propositions
+Demonstrated--Suicide the Foundation of the Christian
+Religion--Redemption and Atonement--The Clergy on Infidelity
+and Suicide--Morality and Unbelief--Better injure yourself than
+Another--Misquotation by Opponents--Cheerful View the Best--The
+Wonder is that Men endure--Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New
+York Journal)--Causes of Suicide--Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise
+Suicide--Suicides with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets--Suicide a Sin
+(Interview in The New York Herald)--Comments on Rev. Alerle St. Croix
+Wright's Sermon--Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The York World)--As to
+the Cowardice of Suicide--Germany and the Prevalence of Suicide--Killing
+of Idiots and Defective Infants--Virtue, Morality, and Religion.
+
+
+IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?
+
+(1891.)
+
+Reply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, "Brutality and Avarice
+Triumphant"--Croakers and Prophets of Evil--Medical Treatment
+for Believers in Universal Evil--Alleged Fraud in Army
+Contracts--Congressional Extravagance--Railroad "Wreckers"--How
+Stockholders in Some Roads Lost Their Money--The Star-Route
+Trials--Timber and Public Lands--Watering Stock--The Formation
+of Trusts--Unsafe Hotels: European Game and Singing Birds--Seal
+Fisheries--Cruelty to Animals--Our Indians--Sensible and Manly
+Patriotism--Days of Brutality--Defence of Slavery by the Websters,
+Bentons, and Clays--Thirty Years' Accomplishment--Ennobling Influence of
+War for the Right--The Lady ana the Brakeman--American Esteem of Honesty
+in Business--Republics do not Tend to Official Corruption--This the Best
+Country in the World.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
+
+(1878.)
+
+Defence of the Lecture on Moses--How Biblical Miracles are sought to
+be Proved--Some _Non Sequiturs_--A Grammatical Criticism--Christianity
+Destructive of Manners--Cuvier and Agassiz on Mosaic Cosmogony--Clerical
+Advance agents--Christian Threats and Warnings--Catholicism the Upas
+Tree--Hebrew Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding Probababilities
+--Contradictions and Mistranslations of the Bible--Number of Errors in
+the Scriptures--The Sunday Question.
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+(1881.)
+
+Charged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware--Can a Conditionless
+Deity be Injured?--Injustice the only Blasphemy--The Lecture
+in Delaware--Laws of that State--All Sects in turn Charged with
+Blasphemy--Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought
+to Be--A Fatal Biblical Passage--Judge Comegys--Wilmington
+Preachers--States with Laws against Blasphemy--No Danger of Infidel
+Mobs--No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated--Comegys a
+Resurrection--Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict--Advice about the Cutting
+out of Heretics' Tongues--Objections to the Whipping-post--Mr. Bergh's
+Bill--One Remedy for Wife-beating.
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.
+
+(8882.)
+
+Solemnity--Charged with Being Insincere--Irreverence--Old Testament
+Better than the New--"Why Hurt our Feelings?"--Involuntary Action of
+the Brain--Source of our Conceptions of Space--Good and Bad--Right and
+Wrong--The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer--Men Responsible
+for their Actions--The "Gradual" Theory Not Applicable to
+the Omniscient--Prayer Powerless to Alter Results--Religious
+Persecution--Orthodox Ministers Made Ashamed of their
+Creed--Purgatory--Infidelity and Baptism Contrasted--Modern Conception
+of the Universe--The Golden Bridge of Life--"The Only Salutation"--The
+Test for Admission to Heaven--"Scurrility."
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.
+
+(1892.)
+
+Dr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving
+Workers--Cloakmakers' Strike--Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension
+Society--The Uncharitableness of Organized Charity--Defence of the
+Cloakmakers--Life of the Underpaid--On the Assertion that Assistance
+encourages Idleness and Crime--The Man without Pity an Intellectual
+Beast--Tendency of Prosperity to Breed Selfishness--Thousands Idle
+without Fault--Egotism of Riches--Van Norden's Idea of Happiness--The
+Worthy Poor.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.
+
+(1898.)
+
+Interview in a Boston Paper--Why should a Minister call this a "Poor"
+World?--Would an Infinite God make People who Need a Redeemer?--Gospel
+Gossip--Christ's Sayings Repetitions--The Philosophy of Confucius--Rev.
+Mr. Mills--The Charge of "Robbery"--The Divine Plan.
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.
+
+(1898.)
+
+Interview in the New York Journal--Rev. Roberts. MacArthur--A
+Personal Devil--Devils who held Conversations with Christ not simply
+personifications of Evil--The Temptation--The "Man of Straw"--Christ's
+Mission authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils--Spain--God
+Responsible for the Actions of Man--Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks--Rev. Dr. E.
+F. Moldehnke--Patience amidst the Misfortunes of Others--Yellow Fever
+as a Divine Agent--The Doctrine that All is for the Best--Rev. Mr.
+Hamlin--Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?--A Compliment by the
+Rev. Mr. Belcher--Rev. W. C. Buchanan--No Argument Old until it is
+Answered--Why should God Create sentient Beings to be Damned?--Rev. J.
+W. Campbell--Rev. Henry Frank--Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on Christ and the
+Devil--Would he make a World like This?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.
+
+     * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San
+     Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various
+     clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon
+     him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man,
+     Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts."
+
+
+I.
+
+AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I offer
+in evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent but a small
+part of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that part shall not
+be defiled or smirched by a single personality. Whatever I say, I shall
+say because I believe it will tend to make this world grander, man
+nearer just, the father kinder, the mother more loving, the children
+more affectionate, and because I believe it will make an additional
+flower bloom in the pathway of every one who hears me.
+
+In the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? What
+have I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that
+in the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his innocent
+flock. What have I said?
+
+I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and
+Child." In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical and
+intellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the right to do
+right; the right to do anything that did not interfere with the real
+happiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty to be the right to
+think right, and the right to think wrong--provided you did your best to
+think right.
+
+This must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by which we
+seek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to think, whether
+his thought is in reality right or wrong; and he cannot be accountable
+to any being for thinking wrong. There is upon man, so far as thought
+is concerned, the obligation to think the best he can, and to honestly
+express his best thought. Whenever he finds what is right, or what he
+honestly believes to be the right, he is less than a man if he fears to
+express his conviction before an assembled world.
+
+The right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. "The right
+of one human being ceases where the right of another commences." My
+definition of intellectual liberty is, the right to think, whether you
+think right or wrong, provided you do your best to think right.
+
+I believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality--the Blessed Trinity of
+Humanity.
+
+I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience--the Blessed Trinity of
+Science.
+
+I believe in Man, Woman and Child--the Blessed Trinity of Life and Joy.
+
+I have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor by force
+to compel another to think your way--that man has no right to compel his
+fellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism. I have
+said, and still say, that even an infinite God has and can have no right
+to compel by force or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept
+a dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such a power is
+incapable of being exercised. You may compel a man to say that he has
+changed his mind. You may force him to say that he agrees with you. In
+this way, however, you make hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible
+that a god wishes the worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage
+of a coward? Does he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is
+it possible that he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I
+were a god it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of
+one grand, brave man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain, than
+the blind worship, the ignorant adoration, the trembling homage of a
+universe of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned by the orthodox
+guardians of this great city not to think. I am told that I am in danger
+of hell; that for me to express my honest convictions is to excite the
+wrath of God. They inform me that unless I believe in a certain way,
+meaning their way, I am in danger of everlasting fire.
+
+There was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men with fear.
+That time has substantially passed away. For a hundred years hell has
+been gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly dying out, the
+brimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have been burning lower and
+lower, and the climate gradually changing. To such an extent has the
+change already been effected that if I were going there to-night I would
+take an overcoat and a box of matches.
+
+They say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief. I deny
+it. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be
+a crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so. The god who
+punishes it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As for me, I would
+a thousand times rather go to perdition and suffer its torments with
+the brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go to heaven and keep the
+company of a god who would damn his children for an honest belief.
+
+The next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man; that she
+has every right that man has, and one more--the right to be protected,
+because she is the weaker. I have said that marriage should be an
+absolutely perfect partnership of body and soul; that a man should treat
+his wife like a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life with
+perfume and with joy. I have said that a husband had no right to be
+morose; that he had no right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the
+joy of life.
+
+I have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of light, and
+fill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of the doors and
+windows and illumine even the darkness of night. I said that marriage
+was the holiest, highest, the most sacred institution among men; that
+it took millions of years for woman to advance from the condition of
+absolute servitude, from the absolute slavery where the Bible found her
+and left her, up to the position she occupies at present. I have pleaded
+for the rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what is more, for
+the rights of little children. I have said that they could be governed
+by affection, by love, and that my heart went out to all the children
+of poverty and of crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets
+and in the sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear
+the footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when
+they hear their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the little
+children, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have
+said that my heart goes out to them one and all; I have asked fathers
+and mothers to cease beating their own flesh and blood. I have said to
+them, When your child does wrong, put your arms around him; let him feel
+your heart beat against his. It is easier to control your child with a
+kiss than with a club.
+
+For expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the religious
+press and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of
+order, as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I make no
+complaint. A few years ago they would have burned me at the stake and I
+should have been compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces through
+flame and smoke. They cannot do it now or they would. One hundred years
+ago I would have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights of men.
+Fifty years ago I would have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife
+and my children would have been torn from my arms in the name of the
+most merciful God. Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living
+in the United States at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not
+then have been allowed to express my thought; but I can now, and I will.
+And when I think about the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is
+illuminated with glory and the air is filled with wings.
+
+I then delivered another lecture entitled "Ghosts," in which I sought to
+show that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own imagination;
+in which I sought to show these imps of darkness, these devils, had all
+been produced by superstition; in which I endeavored to prove that man
+had groveled in the dust before monsters of his own creation; in which I
+endeavored to demonstrate that the many had delved in the soil that the
+few might live in idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens
+that the few might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to
+show that man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred,
+except ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms
+man had covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have
+been assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So far
+as any argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any way make
+the slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man. It cannot in
+any way make the slightest difference whether my personal character is
+good or bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I am concerned,
+I am willing to stake the whole question upon that issue. That is not,
+however, the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The
+question is, whether what I said is true.
+
+I did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain things--among other
+things a book known as the Bible. From the ghosts we received that
+book; and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that book rests the
+doctrine of the immortality of the human soul. This I deny.
+
+Whether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and cannot be
+changed by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If am not, no book
+can render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I should live again than
+that I do live.
+
+The doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The foundation
+of that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality, which, like a
+sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating with its countless
+waves of hope and fear against the shores and rocks of fate and time,
+was not born of any book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child
+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. It is the eternal bow--Hope shining
+upon the tears of Grief.
+
+I did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right. If
+there is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of enslaving
+a human being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the master as
+well. When you put a chain upon the limbs of another, you put a fetter
+also upon your own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slaveholder.
+The slave can at least be just--the slaveholder cannot. I had rather be
+robbed than be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a
+thief. I have said, and I do say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and
+sanctioned the institution of human slavery; and before I get through I
+will prove it.
+
+I said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree, for the
+doctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred texts, people
+were hanged and their bodies burned for getting up storms at sea with
+the intent of drowning royal vermin. Every possible offence was punished
+under the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high treason.
+
+I also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the ghosts,
+for the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy;
+and I will also prove that. And the same book teaches, not political
+liberty, but political tyranny.
+
+I also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts knew
+nothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less, if
+possible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.
+
+This is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air. I am
+well aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the truth
+of my words. I have said these things. No one ever said them in better
+nature than I have. I have not the slightest malice--a victor never
+felt malice. As soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen felt
+called upon to answer me. I want to say that if there is anything I like
+in the world it is fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that
+I have had so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean
+and hateful things. I have read a great many religious papers and
+discussions and think that I now know all the infamous words in our
+language. I know how to account for every noble action by a mean and
+wretched motive, and that, in my judgment, embraces nearly the entire
+science of modern theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon "The
+Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," I was charged with having said that
+there is nothing back of nature, and that nature with its infinite arms
+embraces everything; and thereupon I was informed that I believed in
+nothing but matter and force, that I believed only in earth, that I did
+not believe in spirit. If by spirit you mean that which thinks, then I
+am a believer in spirit. If you mean by spirit the something that says
+"I," the something that reasons, hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a
+believer in spirit. Whatever spirit there is in the universe must be a
+natural thing, and not superimposed upon nature. All that I can say
+is, that whatever is, is natural. And there is as much goodness, in my
+judgment, as much spirit in this world as in any other; and you are just
+as near the heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere. One of
+your clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me, that there is
+matter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without force? What
+would keep it together? What would keep the finest possible conceivable
+atom together unless there was force? Can you imagine such a thing as
+matter without force? Can you conceive of force without matter? Can you
+conceive of force floating about attached to nothing? Can you possibly
+conceive of this? No human being can conceive of force without matter.
+"You cannot conceive of force being harnessed or hitched to matter as
+you would hitch horses to a carriage." You cannot. Now, what is spirit?
+They say spirit is the first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as
+though spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement.
+They say it was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without
+any matter--what would that spirit do? No force, no matter!--a spirit
+living in an infinite vacuum. What would such a spirit turn its
+particular attention to? This spirit, according to these theologians,
+created the world, the universe; and if it did, there must have been a
+time when it commenced to create; and back of that there must have
+been an eternity spent in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that
+a spirit existed during an eternity without any force and without any
+matter? Is it possible that force could exist without matter or spirit?
+Is it possible that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean
+something without force? The only answer I can give to all these
+questions is, I do not know. For my part, I do not know what spirit is,
+if there is any. I do not know what matter is, neither am I acquainted
+with the elements of force. If you mean by matter that which I can
+touch, that which occupies space, then I believe in matter. If you mean
+by force anything that can overcome weight, that can overcome what
+we call gravity or inertia; if you mean by force that which moves the
+molecules of matter, or the movement itself, then I believe in force.
+If you mean by spirit that which thinks and loves, then I believe in
+spirit. There is, however, no propriety in wasting any time about the
+science of metaphysics. I will give you my definition of metaphysics:
+Two fools get together; each admits what neither can prove, and
+thereupon both of them say, "hence we infer." That is all there is of
+metaphysics.
+
+These gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about the
+treatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of man, all
+these are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01
+spirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an eternity before
+there was any force or any matter. Exactly how spirit could act without
+force we do not understand. That we must take upon credit. How spirit
+could create matter without force is a serious question, and we are
+too reverent to press such an inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied,
+however, that spirit is entirely independent of force and matter, and
+any man who denies this must be "a malevolent and infamous wretch."
+
+Another reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said as the
+doctrine of negation. And we are informed by him--speaking I presume
+from experience--that negation is a poor thing to die by. He tells us
+that the last hours are the grand testing hours. They are the hours when
+atheists disown their principles and infidels bewail their folly--"that
+Voltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their
+death-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital"--He also states that
+"another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify Voltaire,
+but that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken possession of him,
+and he cried 'Retire! it is you that have brought me to my present
+state--Begone! what a rich glory you have brought me.'" This, my
+friends, is the same old, old falsehood that has been repeated again and
+again by the lips of hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these
+stories a solitary word of truth; and every intelligent man knows all
+these death-bed accounts to be entirely and utterly false. They
+are taken, however, by the mass of the church as evidence that all
+opposition to Christianity, so-called, fills the bed of the dying
+infidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So far as my experience
+goes, the bad die in many instances as placidly as the good. I have
+sometimes thought that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is engraved
+the record of nearly every possible crime, dies without a shudder,
+without a tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering during his
+last moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in the
+heat of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every
+murderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never
+thought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life. Neither have
+I imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he suffered death.
+The fact is, that when man approaches natural death, his powers, his
+intellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a child. He has
+less and less sense. And just in proportion as he loses his reasoning
+powers, he goes back to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes
+of youth cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his mother.
+Of this very fact, there is not a more beautiful description than that
+given by Shakespeare when he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack
+Falstaff, in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: "A' made a finer end, and
+went away, an it had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between
+twelve and one, ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him
+fumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his
+fingers' end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp
+as a pen, and a' babbled of green fields." As the genius of Shakespeare
+makes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes, decked with daisies, so
+death takes the dying back to the scenes of their childhood, and they
+are clasped once more to the breasts of mothers. They go back, for the
+reason that nearly every superstition in the world has been sanctified
+by some sweet and placid mother. Remember, the superstition has never
+sanctified the mother, but the mother has sanctified the superstition.
+The young Mohammedan, who now lies dying upon some field of battle,
+thinks sweet and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will, as the
+blood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy verse from the blessed
+Koran. Every superstition in the world that is now held sacred has been
+made so by mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home. I know
+what it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender, to throw away every
+superstition, although sanctified by the memory of those they loved.
+Whoever has thrown away these superstitions has been pursued by his
+fellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire the church has pursued
+him as though he had been the vilest criminal. A little over one hundred
+years ago, Catholicism, the inventor of instruments of torture, red with
+the innocent blood of millions, felt in its heartless breast the dagger
+of Voltaire. From that blow the Catholic Church never can recover. Livid
+with hatred she launched at her assassin the curse of Rome, and ignorant
+Protestants have echoed that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire, and
+whenever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume floating above
+some grand knight--a knight who rides to a walled city and demands
+an unconditional surrender. I like him. He was once imprisoned in the
+Bastile, and while in that frightful fortress--and I like to tell it--he
+changed his name. His name was Francois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell
+he changed this name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years afterward
+the Bastile was torn down to the very dust, "Voltaire" was the battle
+cry of the destroyers who did it. I like him because he did more for
+religious toleration than any other man who ever lived or died. I admire
+him because he did more to do away with torture in civil proceedings
+than any other man. I like him because he was always upon the side of
+justice, upon the side of progress. I like him in spite of his faults,
+because he had many and splendid virtues. I like him because his
+doctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country. I like him
+because he hated tyranny; and when he died he died as serenely as ever
+mortal died; he spoke to his servant recognizing him as a man. He said
+to him, calling him by name: "My friend, farewell." These were the last
+words of Voltaire. And this was the only frightful scene enacted at his
+bed of death. I like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the
+intellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at
+the foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite
+in Christendom.
+
+I will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a thousand
+dollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death of Voltaire was
+not as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same absurd story is told
+of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a patriot--he was the first man in
+the world to write these words: "The Free and Independent States of
+America." He was the first man to convince the American people that they
+ought to separate themselves from Great Britain. "His pen did as
+much, to say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of
+Washington." The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic services
+repay them with slander and calumny. If there is in this world a crime,
+ingratitude is a crime. And as for myself, I am not willing to receive
+anything from any man without making at least an acknowledgment of my
+obligation. Y et these clergymen, whose very right to stand in their
+pulpits and preach, was secured to them by such men as Thomas Paine,
+delight in slandering the reputation of that great man. They tell their
+hearers that he died in fear,--that he died in agony, hearing devils
+rattle chains, and that the infinite God condescended to frighten a
+dying man. I will give one thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman
+in San Francisco who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories
+concerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is not one word of truth in
+these accounts; not one word.
+
+Let me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what is
+called a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and
+Volney and Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying "My God, My God, why
+hast thou forsaken me?" what would the clergymen of this city then have
+said?
+
+To resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who have
+opposed the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment, unbecoming
+any intelligent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to die? The
+question is, who is right? The great question is not, who died right,
+but who lived right? There is infinitely more responsibility in living
+than in dying. The moment of death is the most unimportant moment of
+life. Nothing can be done then. You cannot even do a favor for a friend,
+except to remember him in your will. It is a moment when life ceases to
+be of value. While living, while you have health and strength, you
+can augment the happiness of your fellow-men; and the man who has made
+others happy need not be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they
+call themselves, these believers who hope for immortality--thousands
+of them, will rob their neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless
+acts of injustice, when, according to their belief, the witnesses of
+their infamy will live forever; and the men whom they have injured and
+outraged, will meet them in every glittering star through all the ages
+yet to be.
+
+As for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the record in
+the grateful faces of my fellow-men.
+
+These gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who started
+their churches were heretics.
+
+The first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a heretic.
+The first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first Christian was
+denounced as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment they get
+numerous enough to be in the majority in some locality, begin to call
+themselves orthodox. Can there be any impudence beyond this?
+
+The first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was the best
+Baptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always liked him. He
+was a good man--Roger Williams. He was the first man, so far as I know,
+in this country, who publicly said that the soul of man should be free.
+And it was a wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to say
+that, could think that any particular form of baptism was necessary to
+salvation. It does strike me that a man of great brain and thought could
+not possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being, the question
+whether he should dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves
+of fire, should be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized.
+That seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is
+a matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance
+of baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at the judgment
+seat to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing, should ask a man:
+
+"Have you been a good man?" and the man replied:
+
+"Tolerably good."
+
+"Did you love your wife and children?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Did you try and make them happy?"
+
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Did you try and make your neighbors happy?" "Yes, I paid my debts: I
+gave heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was thanked for it or
+not."
+
+Suppose the Supreme Being then should say:
+
+"Were you ever baptized?" and the man should reply:
+
+"I am sorry to say I never was."
+
+Could a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by the
+Supreme Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own case was
+to be called next?
+
+I happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders--how I
+ever got into such bad company, I don't know,--and one of them asked
+what I thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much about it; did
+not know much about it; didn't want to say anything, but they insisted
+upon it. I said, "Well, I'll give you my opinion--with soap, baptism is
+a good thing."
+
+The Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon several
+occasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them
+down. He said some things about me not entirely pleasant, which I do not
+wish to repeat. In his reply he takes the ground:
+
+_First_. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he swore upon it
+or by it when he joined the Masons.
+
+_Second_. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the supposition
+that he had softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the
+heart.
+
+_Third._ That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the inhabitants of
+Canaan, according to the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest." He
+takes the ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the ripping
+open of women with child by the sword of war, was an act of sublime
+mercy. He justifies a war of extermination; he applauds every act of
+cruelty and murder. He says that the Canaanites ought to have been
+turned from their homes; that men guilty of no crime except fighting for
+their country, old men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled,
+prattling children, ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war;
+that it was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious
+persecution into the bodies of all, old and young. This is what the
+reverend gentleman is pleased to call mercy. If this is mercy let us
+have injustice. If there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry that
+man exists. All this, however, is justified upon the ground that God
+has the right to do as he pleases with the being he has created. This I
+deny. Such a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose I could take a stone
+and in one moment change it into a sentient, hoping, loving human being,
+would I have the right to torture it? Would I have the right to give it
+pain? No one but a fiend would either exercise or justify such a right.
+Even if there is a God who created us all he has no such right. Above
+any God that can exist, in the infinite serenity forever sits the figure
+of justice; and this God, no matter how great and infinite he may be, is
+bound to do justice.
+
+_Fourth._ That God chose the Jews and governed them personally for
+thousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in order that his
+peculiar people might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters; that
+he wished to make of the Hebrews a great nation, and that, consequently,
+he was justified in destroying the original inhabitants of that country.
+It seems to me that the end hardly justified the means. According to the
+account, God governed the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded
+in civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified him the first
+opportunity they had. Such an administration can hardly be called a
+success.
+
+_Fifth._ The reverend gentleman seems to think that the practice of
+polygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared with the crime
+of exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the corrupting
+influence of such pictures he descants at great length, and attacks with
+all the bitterness of the narrow theologian the masterpieces of art.
+Allow me to say one word about art. That is one of the most beautiful
+words in our language--Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for
+art to go in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of
+Raffaelle. I like the productions of those splendid souls that put their
+ideas of beauty upon the canvas uncovered.
+
+     "There are brave souls in every land
+     Who worship nature, grand and nude,
+     And who with swift indignant hand
+     Tear off the fig leaves of the prude."
+
+_Sixth_. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions slavery, but that
+it is not an immoral book even if it does.
+
+I can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as
+the reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of Solomon--"by a
+softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart."
+
+It does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really thought my
+fellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he was going to
+misery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try and save
+him. It does seem to me, that instead of having my mouth filled with
+epithets and invectives; instead of drawing the lips of malice back from
+the teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would be filled with
+tears. It seems to me that I would do what little I could to reclaim
+him. I would talk to him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms
+of affection about him. I would not speak of him as though he were a
+wild beast. I would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would
+think of him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the
+damned, and my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred--my eyes
+with tears, not scorn.
+
+If there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed and
+withered by the blight and breath of superstition, as cheerfully to
+defend the most frightful crimes of which we have a record--a man so
+hardened and petrified by creed and dogma that he hesitates not to
+defend even the institution of human slavery--so lost to all sense of
+pity that he applauds murder and rapine as though they were acts of the
+loftiest self-denial.
+
+The next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have said, is the
+Rev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled "Ghosts
+against God or Ingersoll against Honesty." I presume he imagines himself
+to be the defendant in both cases.
+
+This gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon the
+ground that he had to contribute to the support of a "materialistic
+demon." To say the least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied.
+I am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so much better than
+did the infidels in the olden time that I am more than satisfied. It is
+a little thing that I bear.
+
+The brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture. They were
+stretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron boots; they stood
+upon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and
+native land. They were taken from their firesides, from their wives,
+from their children; they were taken to the public square; they were
+chained to stakes, and their ashes were scattered by the countless hands
+of hatred. I am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.
+
+This gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a
+"materialistic demon." When I saw that statement I will tell you what I
+did. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom to think
+that he had contributed a dollar toward my support, toward the support
+of a "materialistic demon." I wrote him a letter and I said:
+
+"My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime of having
+contributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I hereby enclose
+the amount you paid to attend my lecture." I then gave him a little
+good advice. I advised him to be charitable, to be kind, and regretted
+exceedingly that any man could listen to one of my talks for an hour
+and a half and not go away satisfied that all men had the same right to
+think.
+
+This man denied having received the money, but it was traced to him
+through a blot on the envelope.
+
+This gentleman avers that everything that I said about persecution
+is applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what he says. The
+Catholics have probably persecuted more than any other church, simply
+because that church has had more power, simply because it has been more
+of a church. It has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the
+Catholics come nearer believing what they say about their church than
+other Christians do. Was it a Catholic persecution that drove the
+Puritan fathers from England? Was it not the storm of Episcopal
+persecution that filled the sails of the Mayflower? Was it not a
+Protestant persecution that drove the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be
+honest. Who went to Scotland and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was
+it that chained to the stake that splendid girl by the sands of the
+sea for not saying "God save the king"? She was worthy to have been the
+mother of Caesar. She would not say "God save the king," but she would
+say "God save the king, if it be God's will." Protestants ordered her to
+say "God save the king," and no more. She said, "I will not," and they
+chained her to a stake in the sand and allowed her to be drowned by
+the rising of the inexorable tide. Who did this? Protestants. Who drove
+Roger Williams from Massachusetts? Protestants. Who sold white Quaker
+children into slavery? Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers?
+Who burned and destroyed men and women and children charged with
+impossible crimes? Protestants. The Protestants have persecuted exactly
+to the extent of their power. The Catholics have done the same.
+
+I want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of
+religious toleration in the New World were the Catholics of Maryland.
+The next were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger Williams.
+The Catholics passed the act of religious toleration, and after the
+Protestants got into power again in England, and also in the colony of
+Maryland, they repealed the law of toleration and passed another law
+declaring the Catholics from under the protection of all law.
+Afterward, the Catholics again got into power and had the generosity and
+magnanimity to re-enact the old law. And, so far as I know, it is the
+only good record upon the subject of religious toleration the Catholics
+have in this world, and I am always willing to give them credit for it.
+
+This gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for the world
+in the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not know that
+nearly every man who took a forward step was denounced by the church as
+a heretic and infidel? Does he not know that the church has in all ages
+persecuted the astronomers, the geologists, the logicians? Does he not
+know that even to-day the church slanders and maligns the foremost men?
+Has he ever heard of Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John
+W. Draper, one of the leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of
+Auguste Comte, the great Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of
+Laplace, of Spinoza? In short, has he ever heard of a man who took a
+step in advance of his time?
+
+Orthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be orthodoxy
+and becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual
+cloaca; it cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity is simply
+free thought. Every man who really owns his own brain is, in the
+estimation of the church, an infidel.
+
+There is a paper published in this city called _The Occident_. The
+Editor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the people who have assembled
+to hear me, in the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible.
+I cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He alleges that the people
+who assemble to hear me are the low, the debauched and the infamous.
+The man who reads that paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a
+Presbyterian sheet; and would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated
+Castalio. Castalio was the first minister in the history of Christendom
+who acknowledged the innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed
+him like a sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a "dog of Satan;"
+said that he had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very
+grave. The editor of this paper is still warming his hands at the fire
+that burned Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce hatred of
+everything that is free. But what right have we to expect anything good
+of a man who believes in the eternal damnation of infants?
+
+There may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse
+religion than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was, from
+cannibalism to civilization, I have never heard of it.
+
+I make a distinction between the members and the creed of that church. I
+know many who are a thousand times better than the creed--good, warm and
+splendid friends of mine. I would do anything in the world for them. And
+I have said to them a hundred times, "You are a thousand times better
+than your creed." But when you come down to the doctrine of the
+damnation of infants, it is the deformity of deformities. The editor
+of this paper is engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of
+fore-ordination and damnation--those twin comforts of the Presbyterian
+creed, and warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in
+any manner for themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the
+lowest, the vilest and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men
+who are longing to commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off all
+restraint.
+
+My friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional
+obligation upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a responsibility
+upon his brain and upon his heart. You, who never want responsibility,
+give your souls to some church. You, who never want the feeling that you
+are under obligation to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are
+willing to feel and meet responsibility; if you feel that you must give
+an account not only to yourselves but to every human being whom you
+injure, then you must be free. Where there is no freedom, there can be
+no responsibility.
+
+It is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so
+malicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it
+because they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is it
+the result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being written upon
+every orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual inferiority?
+
+This same editor assures his readers that what I say is not worth
+answering, and yet he devotes column after column of his journal to that
+very purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no orator; and upon the
+same page admits that he did not hear me, giving as a reason that he
+does not think it right to pay money for such a purpose. Recollect, that
+in a religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criticises a statue
+or a painting, condemns it, and at the end of the criticism says that he
+never saw it. He criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at
+the end says, "I never heard him, and I never saw him."
+
+As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these gentlemen who
+thought it necessary to hear what any man said in order to answer him.
+
+The next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I must
+say, so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of treatment,
+he is a kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several mistakes as
+to what I really said, but the fault I suppose must have been in the
+report. I am made to say in the report of his sermon, "There is no
+sacred place in all the universe." What I did say was, "There is no
+sacred place in all the universe of thought. There is nothing too holy
+to be investigated, nothing too divine to be understood. The fields of
+thought are fenceless, and without a wall." I say this to-night.
+
+Mr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only the right
+to do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I really said was, man
+has the right to do right, and the right to think right, and the right
+to think wrong. Thought is a means of ascertaining truth, a mode by
+which we arrive at conclusions. And if no one has a right to think,
+unless he thinks right, he would only have the right to think upon
+self-evident propositions. In all respects, with the exception of these
+misstatements to which I have called your attention, so far as I can
+see, Mr. Ijams was perfectly fair, and treated me as though I had the
+ordinary rights of a human being. I take this occasion to thank him.
+
+A great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers and a
+multitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed themselves
+with the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I can only reply to
+those who have made a parade of answering me. Many have said it is not
+worth answering, and then proceeded to answer. They have said, he has
+produced no argument, and then have endeavored to refute it. They have
+said it is simply the old straw that has been thrashed over and over
+again for years and years. If all I have said is nothing, if it is
+all idle and foolish, why do they take up the time of their fellow-men
+replying to me? Why do they fill their religious papers with criticisms,
+if all I have said and done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr.
+Guard, of "some little dog barking at a railway train"? Why stop the
+train, why send for the directors, why hold a consultation and finally
+say, we must settle with that dog or stop running these cars?
+
+Probably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond cavil the
+truth of what I have said.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER?
+
+
+II.
+
+IF this "sacred" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is not
+inspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as
+any devil could be.
+
+"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,
+of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which
+they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.
+
+"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,
+to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever.
+
+"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, _shall be_
+of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen
+and bondmaids."--Leviticus xxv.
+
+This is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another, to buy
+a woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child. This makes
+the whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal tender for labor
+performed. This is the kind of slavery established by the most merciful
+God. The reason given for all this, is, that the persons whom they
+enslaved were heathen. You may enslave them because they are not
+orthodox. If you can find anybody who does not believe in me, the God
+of the Jews, you may steal his wife from his arms, and her babe from
+the cradle. If you can find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew
+Jehovah, you may steal her prattling child from her breast. Can any one
+conceive of anything more infamous? Can any one find in the literature
+of this world more frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all
+this is found in that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the
+25th of Leviticus--from the Bible--from this sacred gift of God--this
+"Magna Charta of human freedom."
+
+2. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the
+seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
+
+3. "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were
+married, then his wife shall go out with him.
+
+4. "If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or
+daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall
+go out by himself.
+
+5. "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and
+children; I w ill not go out free:
+
+6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring
+him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his
+ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."--_Exodus,
+xxi._
+
+The slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his wife and
+children. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife and child. This
+is another of the laws of the most merciful God. This God changes even
+love into a chain. Children are used by him as manacles and fetters,
+and wives become the keepers of prisons. Any man who believes that such
+hideous laws were made by an infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in
+my judgment, insane or totally depraved.
+
+These are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the doctrine
+of the New? What message had he who came from heaven's throne for the
+oppressed of earth? What words of sympathy, what words of cheer, for
+those who labored and toiled without reward? Let us see:
+
+"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters, according to
+the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
+Christ."--_Ephesians, vi._
+
+This is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a woman
+who has been robbed of her child--to a man tracked by hounds through
+lonely swamps--to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding--to a mother
+weeping above an empty cradle.
+
+"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the
+good and gentle, but also to the fro ward."--_I Peter ii., 18_.
+
+"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure
+grief, suffering wrongfully."--_I Peter ii., 19_.
+
+It certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man work
+patiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a slave with
+his wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave escapes
+from slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying of the bloodhound
+must be to the ears of this most merciful God. All this is simply
+infamous. On the throne of this universe there sits no such monster.
+
+"Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh; not
+with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing
+God."--_Col. iii., 22_.
+
+The apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work every moment
+that his strength permitted. He really seems to have feared that
+he might not at all times do the very best he could to promote the
+interests of the thief who claimed to own him. And speaking to all
+slaves, in the name of the Father of All, this apostle says: "Obey in
+all things your masters, not with eye-service, but with singleness of
+heart, fearing God." He says to them in substance, There is no way you
+can so well please God as to work honestly for a thief.
+
+1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters
+worthy of all honor, that the name of God and _his_ doctrine be not
+blasphemed."
+
+Think of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the name
+and doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own yourself!
+
+2. "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them,
+because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are
+faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and
+exhort."
+
+That is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of others.
+Do not hold in contempt the "faithful and beloved, partakers of the
+benefit," who turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
+
+3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words
+_even_ to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
+according to godliness.
+
+4. "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes
+of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
+
+5. "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
+truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
+
+This seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the early
+abolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights, seeking to
+give labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that divine
+garment of the soul, Liberty,--all this was denounced by the apostle as
+a simple strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings
+and perverse disputing, destitute of truth.
+
+6. "But godliness with contentment is great gain.
+
+7. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can
+carry nothing out.
+
+8. "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content."--_I Tim.,
+vi._
+
+This was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking of his
+chains. This is the reason he should never try to better his condition.
+He should be contented simply with the right to work for nothing. If
+he only had food and raiment, and a thief to work for, he should be
+contented. He should solace himself with the apostolic reflection, that
+as he brought nothing into the world, he could carry nothing out, and
+that when dead he would be as happily situated as his master.
+
+In order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word
+_servant_, I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and
+21:
+
+"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."
+
+Yet, notwithstanding these passages the _Christian Advocate_ says, "the
+Bible is the Magna Charta of our liberty."
+
+After reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the same
+paper:
+
+"We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of infidelity and
+atheism, not less offensive to good morals than have been the teachings
+of infidelity during the last century. France has been cursed with such
+teachings for a hundred years, and because of it, to-day her citizens
+are incapable of self-government."
+
+What was the condition of France a century ago? Were they capable of
+self-government then? For fourteen hundred years the common people of
+France had suffered. For fourteen hundred years they had been robbed
+by the altar and by the throne. They had been the prey of priests and
+nobles. All were exempt from taxation, except the common people. The
+cup of their suffering was full, and the French people arose in fury and
+frenzy, and tore the drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air
+with the dust of thrones.
+
+Surely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced by the
+teachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at the place
+where once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison
+standing as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked by the populace.
+I could see their stormy faces and hear their cries. And I saw that
+ancient fortification of tyranny go down forever. And now where once
+stood the Bastile stands the Column of July. Upon its summit is a
+magnificent statue of Liberty, holding in one hand a banner, in the
+other a broken chain, and upon its shining forehead is the star of
+progress. There it stands where once stood the Bastile. And France is
+as much superior to what it was when Voltaire was born, as that statue,
+surmounting the Column of July, is more beautiful than the Bastile that
+stood there once with its cells of darkness, and its dungeons of horror.
+
+And yet we are now told that the French people have rendered themselves
+incapable of government, simply because they have listened to the voice
+of progress. There are magnificent men in France. From that country have
+come to the human race some of the grandest and holiest messages the ear
+of man has ever heard. The French people have given to history some
+of the most touching acts of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the
+amazed stars.
+
+For my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue San
+Antoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to remember that
+the tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in chains, and
+while liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in the Inquisition of Spain.
+And yet we are now told by a religious paper, that France is not capable
+of self-government. I suppose it was capable of self-government under
+the old regime, at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I
+suppose it was capable of self-government when women were seen yoked
+with cattle pulling plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government
+when all who labored were in a condition of slavery.
+
+In the old times, even among the priests, there were some good, some
+sincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a sermon
+preached by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. This old
+priest, among other things, said that the soul of a beggar was as dear
+to God as the soul of the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ
+died as much for a beggar as for a prince. One French peasant, rough
+with labor, cried out: "I propose three cheers for Jesus Christ." I like
+such things. I like to hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris has
+been a kind of volcano, and has made the heavens lurid with its lava
+of hatred, but it has also contributed more than any other city to the
+intellectual development of man. France has produced some infamous
+men, among others John Calvin, but for one Calvin, she has produced a
+thousand benefactors of the human race.
+
+The moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the church,
+they will be in the highest sense capable of self-government. The moment
+France succeeds in releasing herself from the coils of Catholicism--from
+the shadows of superstition--from the foolish forms and mummeries of the
+church--from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand years--she will not
+only be capable of self-government, but will govern herself. Let the
+priests be usefully employed. We want no overseers of the mind; no
+slave-drivers for the soul. We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for
+depriving us of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to
+frighten our children, and paralyze the intellect of women.
+
+
+WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?
+
+III.
+
+FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that the earth
+was made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that
+on the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. Geologists have
+driven the church from this position, and it is now claimed that the
+days mentioned in the Bible are periods of time. This is a simple
+evasion, not in any way supported by the Scriptures. The Bible
+distinctly and clearly says that the world was created in six days.
+There is not within its lids a clearer statement. It does not say six
+periods. It was made according to that book in six days:
+
+31. "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very
+good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."--_Genesis i_.
+
+1. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
+them.
+
+2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
+rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
+
+3. "And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and sanctified
+it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
+and made."--_Genesis ii_.
+
+From the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the word
+days:
+
+15. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of
+rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he
+shall surely be put to death."--Served him right!
+
+16. "Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to
+observe the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual
+covenant.
+
+17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for
+in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
+rested and was refreshed.
+
+18. "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with
+him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
+with the finger of God."--_Exodus xxxi_.
+
+12. "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up
+the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of
+Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley
+of Ajalon.
+
+13. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
+avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
+of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; and hasted not
+to go down about a whole day.
+
+14. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the
+Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for
+Israel."--_Josh. x_.
+
+These passages must certainly convey the idea that this world was made
+in six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were to keep the
+Sabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh day--not period.
+If you say six periods, instead of six days, what becomes of your
+Sabbath? The only reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath
+is that God observed it--that he rested from his work that day and was
+refreshed. Take this reason away and the sacredness of that day has no
+foundation in the Scriptures.
+
+
+WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?
+
+IV.
+
+WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was understood
+by those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. From time to
+time discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent with the
+Scriptures. At first, theologians denounced the discoverers of all facts
+inconsistent with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.
+
+The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the universe; that
+the sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck called the earth.
+The men who discovered that all this was a mistake were denounced by
+the ignorant clergy of that day, precisely as the ignorant clergy of our
+time denounce the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine of the
+earth's place in the solar system was demonstrated; when persecution
+could no longer conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church
+made an effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of
+science. When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation
+became apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of
+the Bible. Then it was pretended that the "days" of creation were vast
+periods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible that the sun
+revolved around the earth, then the account given by Joshua of the sun
+standing still for the space of a whole day, was changed into a figure
+of speech. It was said that Joshua merely conformed to the mode of
+speech common in his day; and that when he said the sun stood still, he
+merely intended to convey the idea that the earth ceased turning upon
+its axis. They admitted that stopping the sun could not lengthen the
+day, and for that reason it must have been the earth that stopped.
+But you will remember that the moon stood still in the valley of
+Ajalon--that the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves
+upon their enemies.
+
+One would naturally suppose that the sun would have given sufficient
+light to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their enemies without
+any assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon had not stopped,
+the relations between the earth and moon would have been changed.
+
+Is there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched piece of
+ignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this nineteenth century
+has for its basis such childish absurdities? According to this account,
+what was the sun, or rather the earth, stopped for? It was stopped in
+order that the Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amorites. For
+the accomplishment of such a purpose the earth was made to pause. Why
+should an almost infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of
+destroying a handful of men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain.
+I strike my hands together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat
+come from? Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that
+there can be no destruction of force. It disappears in one form only
+to reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one thousand
+miles an hour, was stopped. The motion of this vast globe would have
+instantly been changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of the
+greatest scientists of the present day that to stop the earth would
+generate as much heat as could be produced by burning a world as large
+as this of solid coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the
+paltry purpose of defeating a few poor barbarians. The employment of so
+much force for the accomplishment of so insignificant an object would
+be as useless as bringing all the intellect of a great man to bear in
+answering the arguments of the clergymen of San Francisco.
+
+The waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their grand
+courses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to
+destroy an insect to which a single drop of water is "an unbounded
+world." How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect, not only to
+endorse such ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those who do not? Can
+anything be more debasing to the intellect of man than a belief in the
+astronomy of the Bible? According to the Scriptures, the world was
+made out of nothing, and the sun, moon, and stars, of the nothing that
+happened to be left. To the writers of the Bible the firmament was
+solid, and in it were grooves along which the stars were pushed by
+angels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed his geography and astronomy.
+His book was passed upon by the church, and was declared to be the truth
+concerning the subjects upon which he treated.
+
+This eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his guide,
+found and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second, that it was a
+vast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there was a vast body
+of land, then a strip of water all around it, then a strip of land.
+He thought that on the outer strip of land people lived before the
+flood--that at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark crossed the strip
+of water and landed on the shore of the country, in the middle of the
+world, where we now are. This great biblical scholar informed the true
+believers of his day that in the outer strip of land were mountains,
+around which the sun and moon revolved; that when the sun was on the
+side of the mountain next the land occupied by man, it was day, and when
+on the other side, it was night.
+
+Mr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most eminent
+astronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament was solid, and
+that the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells us that these angels
+attended strictly to their business, that each one watched the motions
+of all the others so that proper distances might always be maintained,
+and all confusion avoided. All this was believed by the gentlemen who
+made most of our religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to show
+that the earth must be flat, was the fact that the Bible stated that
+when Christ should come the second time, in glory, the whole world
+should see him. "Now," said Cosmas, "if the world is round, how could
+the people on the other side see the Lord when he comes?" This settled
+the question.
+
+These were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men have been
+for centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long after they had
+become dust they governed the world. The superstitions they planted,
+their descendants watered with the best and bravest blood. To maintain
+their ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed for a
+thousand years, and the infamous work is still being prosecuted.
+
+The Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all truth.
+Any new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the light, or
+rather in the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that test it
+was false, it was denounced, and the person bringing it forward forced
+to recant. It would have been a far better course to have discovered
+every theory found to be in harmony with the Scriptures.
+
+And yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this city, that
+the Bible is the foundation of all science.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED
+WITCHCRAFT?
+
+V.
+
+IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to give
+up the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent
+theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, they were right.
+To give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great degree at least, the
+supernatural. To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the mind
+of man to give up the great ones. The founders of nearly all creeds, and
+of all religions properly so called, have taught the existence of good
+and evil spirits. They have peopled the dark with devils and the light
+with angels. They have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs.
+The moment these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends,
+disappear from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted
+for by natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been
+taken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While the
+church believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified form. The
+evil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and more phenomena
+are accounted for by natural means. Just to the extent that belief has
+been lost in spirits, just to that extent the church has lost its power
+and authority. When men ceased to account for the happening of any event
+by ascribing it to the direct action of good or evil spirits, and began
+to reason from known premises, the chains of superstition began to
+grow weak. Into such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many
+Christians not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take
+the ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us see:
+
+"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."--_Exodus xxii., 18_.
+
+7. "Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a
+familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his
+servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at
+Endor.
+
+8. "And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went,
+and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said,
+I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up,
+whom I shall name unto thee.
+
+9. "And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath
+done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the
+wizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my
+life, to cause me to die?
+
+10. "And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth,
+there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
+
+11. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
+Bring me up Samuel.
+
+12. "And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice: and the
+woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art
+Saul.
+
+13. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
+And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
+
+14. "And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man
+cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that
+it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed
+himself.
+
+15. "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me
+up?"--2 Samuels xxviii.
+
+This reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual seance. Is
+it not one of the wonderful things of the world that men and women who
+believe this account of the witch of Endor, who believe all the miracles
+and all the ghost stories of the Bible, deny with all their force the
+truth of modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I would rather
+believe some one who has heard what he relates, who has seen what he
+tells, or at least thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather
+believe somebody I know, whose reputation for truth is good among those
+who know him. I would rather believe these people than to take the words
+of those who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and
+about whom I know nothing.
+
+31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after
+wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your God."--_Leviticus
+xix_.
+
+6 "And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and
+after wizards, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut
+him off from among his people."--_Leviticus xx._
+
+10. "There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination,
+or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
+
+11. "Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or
+a necromancer.
+
+12. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the
+Lord."--_Deut. xviii_.
+
+I have given you a few of the passages found in the Old Testament upon
+this subject, showing conclusively that the Bible teaches the existence
+of witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits. In the New
+Testament there are passages equally strong, showing that the Savior
+himself was a believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the
+existence of a personal devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching
+of the following:
+
+1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be
+tempted of the devil.
+
+2. "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
+an hungered.
+
+3. "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of
+God, command that these stones be made bread.
+
+4. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
+alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
+
+5. "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on
+a pinnacle of the temple.
+
+6. "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:
+for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and
+in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy
+foot against a stone.
+
+7. "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
+Lord, thy God.
+
+8. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
+sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
+
+9. "And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
+fall down and worship me.
+
+10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
+written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
+serve.
+
+11. "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered
+unto him."--_Matt. iv._
+
+If this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there is
+nothing within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence of
+a personal God. If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits,
+there is nothing in the Bible going to show that good spirits exist
+either in this world or the next.
+
+16. "When the even was come they brought unto him many that were
+possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and
+healed all that were sick."--_Matt. vii._
+
+1. "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country
+of the Gadarenes.
+
+2. "And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out
+of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
+
+3. "Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,
+not with chains:
+
+4. "Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and
+the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in
+pieces: neither could any man tame him.
+
+5. "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the
+tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.
+
+6. "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
+
+7. "And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee,
+Jesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou
+torment me not.
+
+8. "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
+
+9. "And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name
+is Legion, for we are many.
+
+11. "Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine
+feeding.
+
+12. "And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine,
+that we may enter into them.
+
+13. "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went
+out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep
+place into the sea, and they were about two thousand; and were choked in
+the sea."--_Mark v_.
+
+The doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of casting out
+devils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and followers, and
+to all who might believe in him throughout all the coming time:
+
+17. "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall
+they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.
+
+18. "And 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."--_Mark xvi._
+
+I would like to see the clergy who have been answering me, tested in
+this way: Let them drink poison, let them take up serpents, let them
+cure the sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then believe that
+they believe.
+
+I deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in the
+ignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them. "They are
+tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
+These devils have covered the world with blood and tears. They have
+filled the earth with fear. They have filled the lives of children with
+darkness and horror. They have peopled the sweet world of imagination
+with monsters. They have made religion a strange mingling of fear and
+ferocity. I am doing what I can to reave the heavens of these monsters.
+For my part, I laugh at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient
+and modern, great and small.
+
+
+THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.
+
+VI.
+
+ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the slavery of
+man.
+
+18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
+the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they
+have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.
+
+19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
+out unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of his place.
+
+20. "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
+stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and
+a drunkard.
+
+21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he
+die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall
+hear, and fear."--_Deut. xxi._
+
+Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He
+proceeded to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of age,
+was not consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a man was
+willing to offer upon the altar his only son. And such was the slavery
+of children, that the only son had not the spirit to resist.
+
+Have you ever read the story of Jephthah?
+
+30 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt
+without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
+
+31. "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 for a burnt offering.
+
+32. "So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against
+them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
+
+33. "And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even
+twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great
+slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children
+of Israel.
+
+34."And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter
+came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only
+child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
+
+35. "And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and
+said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one
+of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I
+cannot go back....
+
+39. "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned
+unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had
+vowed."--_Judges xi._
+
+Is there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this? What can
+we think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God?
+And what can we think of a God who would accept such a sacrifice? Can
+such a God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead for the rights of
+children. I plead for the government of kindness and love. I plead
+for the republic of home, the democracy of the fireside. I plead for
+affection. And for this I am pursued by invective. For this I am called
+a fiend, a devil, a monster, by Christian editors and clergymen,
+by those who pretend to love their enemies and pray for those that
+despitefully use them.
+
+Allow me to give you another instance of affection related in the
+Scriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the name of
+Job. The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to meet Satan, said
+to him: "Are you acquainted with my servant Job? Have you noticed what
+an excellent man he is?" And Satan replied to him and said: "Why should
+he not be an excellent man--you have given him everything he wants? Take
+from him what he has and he will curse you." And thereupon the Lord gave
+Satan the power to destroy the property and children of Job. In a little
+while these high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed
+somewhat elated with his success, and called again the attention of
+Satan to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body
+and he would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the
+body of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this, Job
+did not sin with his lips.
+
+This book seems to have been written to show the excellence of patience,
+and to prove that at last God will reward all who will bear the
+afflictions of heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The sons and
+daughters of Job had been slain, and then the Lord, in order to reward
+Job, gave him other children, other sons and other daughters--not the
+same ones he had lost; but others. And this, according to the writer,
+made ample amends. Is that the idea we now have of love? If I have a
+child, no matter how deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody
+can make the loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want
+the one I loved and the one I lost.
+
+
+THE GALLANTRY OF GOD.
+
+VII.
+
+I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no respect
+for the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It takes something
+besides epithets and invectives to prove or disprove anything. Let us
+see what the sacred volume says concerning the mothers and daughters of
+the human race.
+
+A man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has not
+there an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is less than a
+man.
+
+11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
+
+12. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
+man, but to be in silence."
+
+The reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to the
+sacred writer, was:
+
+13. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
+
+14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
+transgression.
+
+15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they
+continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."--_1 Tim. ii._
+
+3. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
+the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
+
+That is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man that man
+does to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to Christ that Christ
+does to God.
+
+This places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this barbarous
+idiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any woman look other
+than with contempt upon such passages? How can any woman believe that
+this is the will of a most merciful God?
+
+7. "For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is
+the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
+
+And this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the next
+verse:
+
+8. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."
+
+This same chivalric gentleman also says:
+
+9. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the
+man."--_1 Cor. xi._
+
+22. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
+Lord."
+
+Is it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?
+
+23. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
+of the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.
+
+24. "Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives
+be to their own husbands in everything."--_Eph. v._
+
+Even the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A man could
+divorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her husband.
+
+Every noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in contempt.
+According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be
+purified from the crime of having born sons and daughters. To make love
+and maternity crimes is infamous.
+
+10. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord
+thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
+captive,
+
+11. "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
+unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,
+
+12. "Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave
+her head, and pare her nails."--_Deut. xxi_.
+
+This is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from hell,
+from a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem
+or from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism complete and utter.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE?
+
+VIII.
+
+READ the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of Numbers--an
+order unfit to be reproduced in print--an order which I am unwilling
+to repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of
+Deuteronomy. Read the-life of Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of
+Jacob, and then tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and
+concubinage. All the languages of the world are insufficient to express
+the filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast--woman a slave. It destroys
+the fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild
+beasts. It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of the
+Bible--a doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon. It is by the
+Bible that Brigham Young justifies the practice of this beastly horror.
+It takes from language those sweetest words, husband, wife, father
+mother, child and lover. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals,
+and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents
+of loathsome lust. Yet the book justifying this infamy is the book upon
+which rests the civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I
+denounce this frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and
+the infamous _Christian Advocate_ says that the moral sentiment of
+this State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline for his blasphemous
+utterances and for his base and debasing scurrility.
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL TYRANNY?
+
+IX.
+
+FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but the right
+to govern himself. All political authority is vested in the people
+themselves, They have the right to select their officers and agents,
+and these officers and agents are responsible to the people. Political
+authority does not come from the clouds. Man should not be governed by
+the aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Republican or Democratic
+book. Exactly the opposite doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn
+that the people have no power whatever; that all power and political
+authority comes from on high, and that all the kings, all the potentates
+and powers, have been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel
+kings have been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of
+Deity. The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one
+duty--the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some of the political
+ideas in the great "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+
+1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
+power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.
+
+2. "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
+of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
+
+According to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King of Great
+Britian by divine right, and by divine right was the lawful King of the
+American Colonies. The leaders in the Revolutionary struggle resisted
+the power, and according to these passages, resisted the ordinances of
+God; and for that resistance they are promised the eternal recompense of
+damnation.
+
+3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
+thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
+shalt have praise of the same....
+
+5. "Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also
+for conscience sake.
+
+6. "For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's
+ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."--_Romans, xiii._
+
+13. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;
+whether it be to the king as supreme.
+
+14. "Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
+punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.
+
+15. "For so is the will of God."--_1 Pet. ii._
+
+Had these ideas been carried out, political progress in the world would
+have been impossible. Upon the necks of the people still would have been
+the feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this infamous doctrine.
+Whether higher powers are ordained of God or not, if those higher powers
+endeavor to destroy the rights of man, I for one shall resist. Whenever
+and wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn in support of a human
+right, I am a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to titled
+wrong and robed injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man.
+The real rulers are the people, and the rulers so-called are but the
+servants of the people. They are not ordained of any God. All political
+power comes from and belongs to man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest
+the thrones of Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses have been
+repeated by brainless kings and heardess priests. For fifteen hundred
+years each one of these texts has been a bastile in which has been
+imprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of these texts has been
+an obstruction on the highway of humanity. Each one has been a
+fortification behind which have crouched the sainted hypocrites and the
+titled robbers. According to these texts, a robber gets his right to rob
+from God. And it is the duty of the robbed to submit. The thief gets his
+right to steal from God. The king gets his right to trample upon human
+liberty from God. I say, fight the king--fight the priest.
+
+
+THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.
+
+X.
+
+THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world with
+blood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, Christians
+are beginning to say that men have a right to differ upon religious
+questions provided the questions about which they differ are not
+considered of great importance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance
+is: "In non-essentials, Liberty; in essentials, Unity."
+
+The Christian world have condescended to say that upon all non-essential
+points we shall have the right to think for ourselves; but upon matters
+of the least importance, they will think and speak for us. In this they
+are consistent. They but follow the teachings of the God they worship.
+They but adhere to the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures.
+Within that volume there is no such thing as religious toleration.
+Within that volume there is not one particle of mercy for an
+unbeliever. For all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners
+of their own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any
+Christian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that extent
+false to his religion. Let us see what the "Magna Charta" of liberty
+says upon this subject:
+
+6. "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.
+
+7. "Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh
+unto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the earth even
+unto the other end of the earth.
+
+8. "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.
+
+9. "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.
+
+10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath
+sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out
+of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."--_Deut. xiii._
+
+That is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your bosom
+had said, "I like the religion of India better than the religion of
+Palestine," it was then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most
+High--understand me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High--said:
+
+"Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand shall be
+the first upon her to put her to death."
+
+This I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to believe
+in such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in order to be
+saved, I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you a few
+more extracts from the "Magna Charta" of human liberty.
+
+2. "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord
+thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the
+sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
+
+3. "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the
+sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.
+
+4. "And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired
+diligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such
+abomination is wrought in Israel.
+
+5. "Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have
+committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that
+woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."
+
+Under this law if the woman you loved had said: "Let us worship the sun;
+I am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let us worship the
+sun; let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the world
+with light and love, when the dawn stands jocund on the mountain's misty
+top; it is the sun whose beams illumine and cover the earth with verdure
+and with beauty; it is the sun that covers the trees with leaves, that
+carpets the earth with grass and adorns the world with flowers; I adore
+the sun because in its light I have seen your eyes; it has given to
+me the face of my babe; it has clothed my life with joy; let us in
+gratitude fall down and worship the glorious beams of the sun."
+
+For this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your hands:
+
+"Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither shalt
+thou conceal her.
+
+"But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first upon her to
+put her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
+
+"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die."
+
+For my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a God who
+would make such a law or give such a command. This you may say is the
+doctrine of the Old Testament--what is the doctrine of the New?
+
+"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth
+not shall be damned."
+
+That is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the "tidings
+of great joy."
+
+Every one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip upon
+the backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has been a
+sword. Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack. Every one has
+been a fountain of tears. These words have filled the hearts of men with
+hatred. These words invented all the instruments of torture. These words
+covered the earth with blood.
+
+For the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired book.
+If then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws commanding
+religious intolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this same God
+took upon himself flesh, and came among the Jews and taught a different
+religion, and they crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown?
+
+
+DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY?
+
+XI.
+
+IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, changeable,
+unjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is
+it possible to read the words said to have been spoken by this Deity,
+without a shudder? Is it possible to contemplate his character without
+hatred?
+
+"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour
+flesh."--_Deut. xxxii._
+
+Is this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to his
+weak, his wandering and suffering children?
+
+"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of
+thy dogs in the same." _Psalms, lxviii._
+
+Is it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the blood of
+his children?
+
+22. "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by
+little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts
+of the field increase upon thee.
+
+23. "But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall
+destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
+
+24. "And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt
+destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to
+stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them."--_Deut. vii._
+
+If these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they had been
+spoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have
+been surprised. But these things are attributed to a God of infinite
+mercy.
+
+40. "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
+and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none
+remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of
+Israel commanded."--_Josh, x._
+
+14. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of
+Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with
+the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they
+any to breathe."--_Josh. xi._
+
+19. "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,
+save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in
+battle.
+
+20. "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come
+against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that
+they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
+commanded Moses."--_Josh. xi._
+
+There are no words in our language with which to express the indignation
+I feel when reading these cruel and heartless words.
+
+"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
+peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and
+open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein shall be
+tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no
+peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege
+it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou
+shalt smite every male thereof with the sword. But the women, _and the
+little ones_, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the
+spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the
+spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
+
+"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from
+thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of
+these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance,
+thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."
+
+These terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion. The men
+who were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their homes, their
+firesides, for their wives and for their little children. Yet these
+things, by the clergy of San Francisco, are called acts of sublime
+mercy.
+
+All this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.
+The Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words of
+vengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite
+brutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart the sweet flower
+of pity and trample it in the bloody dust of superstition. Do not, I
+beseech you, justify the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled
+babes. Do not let the gaze of the gorgon of superstition turn your
+hearts to stone.
+
+Is there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not with joy
+and gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect that all the
+passages in the Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and concubinage,
+political tyranny, the subjection of woman, the enslavement of children,
+establishing domestic and political tyranny, and that all the commands
+to destroy men, women and children, are but interpolations of kings
+and priests, made for the purpose of subjugating mankind through the
+instrumentality of fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would
+not think vastly more of the Bible if all these infamous things were
+eliminated from it?
+
+Surely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred from
+the fact that in the same volume are found the frightful passages I have
+quoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and studied precisely as
+we read and study any book whatever. The good in it should be preserved
+and cherished, and that which shocks the human heart should be cast
+aside forever.
+
+While the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with disease,
+famine, war, pestilence and death, there are no threatenings of
+punishment beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punishment is a
+dogma of the New Testament. This doctrine, the most cruel, the most
+infamous of which the human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at
+all, in the Bible--in the New Testament. One cannot imagine what the
+human heart has suffered by reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal
+damnation. It is a doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so
+infinitely cruel, that it is impossible for me to respect either the
+head or heart of any human being who teaches or fears it. This
+doctrine necessarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite
+punishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes committed by finite
+beings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am astonished it ever
+found lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we can be happy in
+heaven while those we loved on earth are suffering infinite torments in
+eternal fire, defames and calumniates the human heart.
+
+
+THE PLAN OF SALVATION.
+
+XII.
+
+WE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the salvation
+of all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made
+manifest to the children of men. According to the great scheme of the
+atonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in order to satisfy a
+law. What kind of law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of
+innocence? Who made this law? If God made it he must have known that the
+innocent would have to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is
+to me a medley of contradictions, impossibilities and theological
+conclusions. We are told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the
+Garden of Eden death never would have entered the world. We are further
+informed that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not
+have been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death
+never would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first
+parents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world, you and
+I never would have existed. The earth would have been filled thousands
+of generations before you and I were born. At the feast of life, death
+made seats vacant for us. According to this doctrine, we are indebted
+to the devil for our existence. Had he not tempted Eve--no sin. If there
+had been no sin--no death. If there had been no death the world would
+have been filled ages before you and I were born. Therefore, we owe our
+existence to the devil. We are further informed that as a consequence of
+original sin the scheme called the atonement became necessary; and that
+if the Savior had not taken upon himself flesh and come to this atom
+called the earth, and if he had not been crucified for us, we should all
+have been cast forever into hell. Had it not been for the bigotry of
+the Jews and the treachery of Judas Iscariot, Christ would not have been
+crucified; and if he had not been crucified, all of us would have had
+our portion in the lake that burneth with eternal fire.
+
+According to this great doctrine, according to this vast and most
+wonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to the devil,
+our salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.
+
+So far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of
+salvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of
+believing a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,
+ample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal fire simply
+because there is not testimony enough to satisfy his mind? Can there be
+such a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?
+
+And yet this same Deity says to me, "resist not evil; pray for those
+that despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will eternally damn
+mine." It seems to me that even gods should practice what they preach.
+
+All atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its
+provisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever
+he is guilty of a wicked action he says, "charge it." This kind of
+bookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in sin.
+
+The truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most creeds
+are better than the Bible, and most men are better than their God.
+
+
+OTHER RELIGIONS.
+
+XIII.
+
+WE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in all ages
+endeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and Whither? He has
+endeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to pluck the secret of
+his existence from the night. He has questioned the spectres of his own
+imagination. He has explored the mysterious avenues of dreams. He
+has peopled the heavens with spirits. He has mistaken his visions for
+realities. In the twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows
+for gods. In all ages he has been the slave of misery, the dupe of
+superstition and the fool of hope. He has suffered and aspired.
+
+Religion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we throw
+aside the grosser and absurder forms of faith--practically at first by
+ceasing to observe them, and lastly, by denying them altogether. Every
+church necessarily by its constitution endeavors to prevent this natural
+growth or development. What has happened to other religions must happen
+to ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing
+away. Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as noble
+as ours can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say the least,
+been as reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.
+
+Man has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these questions
+in all the countries of the world, and I respect all such men and women;
+but let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you that in other
+countries there is something.
+
+The Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the three stairs
+that lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said: "Who is there?"
+"Thy servant, O God!" But the gates would not open. For seven years he
+did every act of kindness; again he came, and the voice said: "Who is
+there?" And he replied: "Thy slave, O God!" Yet the gates were shut. Yet
+seven other years of kindness, and the man again knocked; and the voice
+cried and said: "Who is there?" "Thyself, O God!" And the gates wide
+open flew.
+
+I say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.
+
+A Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful
+descriptions of perdition, wrote these words: "Two angels flying out
+from the blissful city of God--the angel of love and the angel of
+pity--hovered over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of
+hell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and one tear of pity
+extinguished all the fires." Has orthodoxy produced anything as
+generously beautiful as this? Let me read you this: Sectarians, hear
+this: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this: Clergy of America who
+expect to have your happiness in heaven increased by seeing me burning
+in hell, hear this:
+
+This is the prayer of the Brahmins--a prayer that has trembled from
+human lips toward heaven for more than four thousand years:
+
+"Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation. Never will
+I enter into final bliss alone. But forever and everywhere will I labor
+and strive for the final redemption of every creature throughout all
+worlds, and until all are redeemed. Never will I wrongly leave this
+world to sin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain and work and suffer
+where I am."
+
+Has the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the infinite
+charity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all the shining
+worlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine that a
+large majority are going to eternal ruin.
+
+Compare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it with the
+imprecation of Christ: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
+for the devil and his angels;" with the ideas of Jeremy Taylor, with the
+creeds of Christendom, with all the prayers of all the saints, and in no
+church except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like this.
+
+"When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain
+from it."
+
+Since the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human conduct
+given superior to this?
+
+Are the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius? He was
+asked if there was any single word comprising the duties of man. He
+replied: "Reciprocity." Upon being asked what he thought of the
+doctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: "That is not
+my doctrine. If you return benefits for injuries what do you propose
+for benefits? My doctrine is; For benefits return benefits; for injuries
+return justice without any admixture of revenge."
+
+To return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I cannot
+put a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an injury.
+
+Now, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it doing, I
+ask you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth
+century? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this except from the honesty
+of my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a consolation to us now? Is it
+even a consolation when those we love die? The dead are so near and the
+promises are so far away. It is covered with the rubbish of the past.
+I ask you, is it all that is demanded by the brain and heart of the
+nineteenth century?
+
+We want something better; we want something grander; we want
+something that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want to
+advance--that is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a
+heretic--you cannot do it.
+
+Nearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and
+bloodshed. They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon the
+human brain. They have all, however, been perfectly natural productions,
+and under similar circumstances would all be reproduced. Only by
+intellectual development are the old superstitions outgrown. As only
+the few intellectually advance, the majority is left on the side of
+superstition, and remains there until the advanced ideas of the few
+thinkers become general; and by that time there are other thinkers still
+in advance.
+
+And so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully proceeds
+from age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the
+heretics denounce their denouncers as the disciples of superstition
+and ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod was orthodox. Socrates was a
+blasphemer. Anytus worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while
+the sellers of indulgences were the best of Catholics. Roger Williams
+was a heretic, while the Puritans who drove him from Massachusetts were
+all orthodox. Every step in advance in the religious history of the
+world has been taken by heretics. No superstition has been destroyed
+except by a heretic. No creed has been bettered except by a heretic.
+Heretic is the name that the orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing
+pioneer. It is shouted by the dwellers in swamps to the people upon the
+hills. It is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn. It is
+what the rotting says of the growing. Heretic is the name that a stench
+gives to a perfume.
+
+With this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from the lips
+of the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud--heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is
+an epitaph--heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a
+mist--heresy the star shining forever above the child of truth.
+
+I am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe that Want
+will forever extend its withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for
+charity. I do not believe that the children will forever be governed by
+cruelty and brute force. I do not believe that poverty will dwell with
+man forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever cover the earth,
+or that the shadow of the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I
+do not believe that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that
+malice and superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.
+
+I believe the time will come when there will be charity in every heart,
+when there will be love in every family, and when law and liberty and
+justice, like the atmosphere, will surround this world.
+
+We have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated ourselves
+before the ignorance of the past.
+
+Let us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the brightening
+future. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not throw away our idea
+of justice for the sake of any book or of any religion whatever. Let us
+live according to our highest and noblest and purest ideal.
+
+By this time we should know that the real Bible has not been written.
+
+The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or
+apostles, or evangelists, or of Christs.
+
+Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great
+book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes
+no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no
+punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man
+in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no
+fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and
+understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims
+to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader
+to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed.
+This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists
+testifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and
+crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with
+its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower,
+confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite
+abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.
+
+Ladies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this evening; you
+cannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual hospitality of this great
+city by the Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you--I thank you
+again and again, a thousand times.
+
+
+
+
+MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.
+
+
+     * Chicago Times, 1879.
+
+To the Editor:--
+
+NOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received with
+scorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval. Only a few weeks ago,
+I stated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was mistaken; that
+the "flood" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of Babel existed only in
+credulity; that God did not create the universe from nothing, that he
+did not start the first woman with a rib; that he never upheld slavery;
+that he was not a polygamist; that he did not kill people for making
+hair-oil; that he did not order his generals to kill the dimpled babes;
+that he did not allow the roses of love and the violets of modesty to
+be trodden under the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew language
+was written without vowels; that the Bible was composed of many books,
+written by unknown men; that all translations differed from each other;
+and that this book had filled the world with agony and crime.
+
+At that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned clergymen
+in Chicago would substantially agree with me--in public. I have read
+the replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi Kohler, Rev.
+Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr. Ryder, and will now ask them a few
+questions, answering them in their own words.
+
+First. Rev. Robert Collyer.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible? Answer. "It is a splendid
+book. It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the meanest bigots.
+Through this book men give their hearts for good to God, or for evil to
+the devil. The best argument for the intrinsic greatness of the book
+is that it can touch such wide extremes, and seem to maintain us in the
+most unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most tender mercy; that it can
+inspire purity like that of the great saints, and afford arguments in
+favor of polygamy. The Bible is the text book of ironclad Calvinism and
+sunny Universalism. It makes the Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy.
+It inspired the Union soldier to live and grandly die for the right, and
+Stonewall Jackson to live nobly, and die grandly for the wrong."
+
+_Question_. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a book with as
+many passages in favor of wrong as right, is inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "I look upon the Old Testament as a rotting tree. When it
+falls it will fertilize a bank of violets."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that God upheld slavery and polygamy? Do
+you believe that he ordered the killing of babes and the violation of
+maidens?
+
+_Answer._ "There is threefold inspiration in the Bible, the first,
+peerless and perfect, the word of God to man; _the second, simply and
+purely human, and then below this again, there is an inspiration born of
+an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as anything well can
+be_. A threefold inspiration, of heaven first, then of the earth, and
+then of hell, all in the same book, all sometimes in the same chapter,
+and then, besides, a great many things that need no inspiration."
+
+_Question_. Then after all you do not pretend that the Scriptures are
+really inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves as the
+church makes for them. They leave me free to say this is false, or this
+is true. The truth even within the Bible, dies and lives, makes on this
+side and loses on that."
+
+_Question_. What do you say to the last verse in the Bible, where a
+curse is threatened to any man who takes from or adds to the book?
+
+_Answer._ "I have but one answer to this question, and it is: Let who
+will have written this, I cannot for an instant believe that it was
+written by a divine inspiration. Such dogmas and threats as these are
+not of God, but of man, and not of any man of a free spirit and heart
+eager for the truth, but a narrow man who would cripple and confine the
+human soul in its quest after the whole truth of God, and back those who
+have done the shameful things in the name of the most high."
+
+_Question_. Do you not regard such talk as "slang"?
+
+(Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the writer of Revelation
+was narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his discourse as "slang,"
+but I think that Unitarian ministers can do so with the greatest
+propriety.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe in the stories of the Bible, about Jael, and
+the sun standing still, and the walls falling at the blowing of horns?
+
+_Answer._ "They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they will, but
+they are not the word of God. So I say again, it was not the God and
+Father of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that nail crashing
+through the king's temple after she had given him that bowl of milk and
+bid him sleep in safety, but a very mean devil of hatred and revenge,
+that I should hardly expect to find in a squaw on the plains. It was not
+the ram's horns and the shouting before which the walls fell flat. If
+they went down at all, it was through good solid pounding. And not for
+an instant did the steady sun stand still or let his planet stand still
+while barbarian fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he keeps
+now. They might believe it who made the record. I do not. And since the
+whole Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather in
+this church. A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way. Newton
+might believe it as a Christian, and disbelieve it as a philosopher.
+We stand then with the philosopher against the Christian, for we must
+believe what is true to us in the last test, and these things are not
+true."
+
+Second. Rev. Dr. Thomas.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Old Testament?
+
+_Answer._ "My opinion is that it is not one book, but many--thirty-nine
+books bound up in one. The date and authorship of most of these books
+are wholly unknown. The Hebrews wrote without vowels, and without
+dividing the letters into syllables, words, or sentences. The books
+were gathered up by Ezra. At that time only two of the Jewish tribes
+remained. All progress has ceased. In gathering up the sacred book,
+copyists exercised great liberty in making changes and additions."
+
+_Question_. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "There maybe the inspiration of art, of poetry, or oratory;
+of patriotism--and there are such inspirations. There are moments when
+great truths and principles come to men. They seek the man, and not the
+man them."
+
+_Question_. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "But still I know of no way to convince anyone of spirit, and
+inspiration, and God, only as his reason may take hold of these things."
+
+_Question_. Do you think the Old Testament true?
+
+_Answer._ "The story of Eden may be an allegory. The history of the
+children of Israel may have mistakes."
+
+_Question_. Must inspiration claim infallibility? Answer. "It is a
+mistake to say that if you believe one part of the Bible you must
+believe all. Some of the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others not;
+or there may be degrees of inspiration."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers to kill the
+children and the married women, and save for themselves, the maidens, as
+recorded in _Numbers xxxi, 2_,
+
+Do you believe that God upheld slavery?
+
+Do you believe that God upheld polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The Bible may be wrong in some statements. God and right
+cannot be wrong. We must not exalt the Bible above God. It may be that
+we have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby given not a little
+occasion for such men as Mr. Ingersoll to appear at the other extreme,
+denying too much."
+
+_Question_. What then shall be done?
+
+_Answer._ "We must take a middle ground. It is not necessary to believe
+that the bears devoured the forty-two children, nor that Jonah was
+swallowed by the whale."
+
+Third. Rev. Dr. Kohler.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion about the Old Testament?
+
+_Answer._ "I will not make futile attempts of artificially interpreting
+the letter of the Bible so as to make it reflect the philosophical,
+moral and scientific views of our time. The Bible is a sacred record of
+humanity's childhood."
+
+_Question_. Are you an orthodox Christian?
+
+_Answer._ "No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned backward to a ruined
+temple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming like Lot's wife, a pillar of
+salt."
+
+_Question_. Do you really believe the Old Testament was inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men like Voltaire
+and Thomas Paine, whose bold denial and cutting wit were so instrumental
+in bringing about this glorious era of freedom, so congenial and
+blissful, particularly to the long-abused Jewish race."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "Of course there is a destructive axe needed to strike down
+the old building in order to make room for the grander new. The divine
+origin claimed by the Hebrews for their national literature, was claimed
+by all nations for their old records and laws as preserved by the
+priesthood. As Moses, the Hebrew law-giver, is represented as having
+received the law from God on the holy mountain, so is Zoroaster the
+Persian, Manu the Hindoo, Minos the Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and
+Numa the Roman."
+
+_Question_. Do you believe all the stories in the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "All that can and must be said against them is that they have
+been too long retained around the arms and limbs of grown-up manhood, to
+check the spiritual progress of religion; that by Jewish ritualism and
+Christian dogmatism they became fetters unto the soul, turning the light
+of heaven into a misty haze to blind the eye, and even into a hell-fire
+of fanaticism to consume souls."
+
+_Question_. Is the Bible inspired?
+
+_Answer._ "True, the Bible is not free from errors, nor is any work of
+man and time. It abounds in childish views and offensive matter. I
+trust that it will in a time not far off be presented for common use in
+families, schools, synagogues and churches, in a refined shape, cleansed
+from all dross and chaff, and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer
+delights to dwell."
+
+Fourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.
+
+_Question_. Is the Bible true?
+
+_Answer._ "Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The question is not, is
+the Bible inspired, but is it true?' That sounds very plausible, but you
+know as applied to _any ancient book_ it is simply nonsense."
+
+_Question_. Do you think the stories in the Bible exaggerated?
+
+_Answer._ "I dare say the numbers are immensely exaggerated."
+
+_Question_. Do you think that God upheld polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The truth of which simply is, that four thousand years ago
+polygamy existed among the Jews, as everywhere else on earth then, and
+even their prophets did not come to the idea of its being wrong. _But
+what is there to be indignant_ about in that?"
+
+_Question_. And so you really wonder why any man should be indignant
+at the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that beastliness called
+polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "What is there to be indignant about in that?"
+
+
+Fifth. Prof. Swing.
+
+_Question_. What is your idea of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ "I think it is a poem."
+
+
+Sixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.
+
+_Question_. And what is your idea of the sacred Scriptures?
+
+_Answer._ "Like other nations, the Hebrews had their patriotic,
+descriptive, didactic and lyrical poems in the same varieties as other
+nations; but with them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form
+of their poetry, it always possesses the characteristic of religion."
+
+_Question_. I suppose you fully appreciate the religious characteristics
+of the Song of Solomon.
+
+No answer.
+
+_Question_. Does the Bible uphold polygamy?
+
+_Answer._ "The law of Moses did not forbid it, but contained many
+provisions against its worst abuses, and such as were intended to
+restrict it within narrow limits."
+
+_Question_. So you think God corrected some of the worst abuses of
+polygamy, but preserved the institution itself?
+
+I might question many others, but have concluded not to consider those
+as members of my Bible Class who deal in calumnies and epithets.
+From the so-called "replies" of such ministers, it appears that while
+Christianity changes the heart, it does not improve the manners, and
+that one can get into heaven in the next world without having been a
+gentleman in this.
+
+It is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling satisfaction
+I have experienced in reading the admissions of the clergy of Chicago.
+Surely, the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won, when ministers
+admit that the Bible is filled with ignorant and cruel mistakes;
+that each man has the right to think for himself, and that it is not
+necessary to believe the Scriptures in order to be saved. From the
+bottom of my heart I congratulate my pupils on the advance they have
+made, and hope soon to meet them on the serene heights of perfect
+freedom.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+Washington, D. C., May 7, 1879.
+
+
+
+
+TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.
+
+
+     * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.
+
+THE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. David
+Walk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D.
+O'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.
+
+_Question_. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the
+Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?--Rev. David Walk.
+
+_Answer._ In all probability, there was a man by the name of Jesus
+Christ, who was, in his day and generation, a reformer--a man who was
+infinitely shocked at the religion of Jehovah--who became almost insane
+with pity as he contemplated the sufferings of the weak, the poor, and
+the ignorant at the hands of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and
+bloodthirsty church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted the
+downfall of the temple. In all probability, he hated, at last, every
+pillar and stone in it, and despised even the "Holy of Holies." This
+man, of course, like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion
+he held in his youth. He changed his views from time to time--fanned the
+spark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon extended
+and widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and better man.
+
+I find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In some
+portions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he
+says that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because it is God's holy
+city, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond that expression.
+So, too, when it is recorded that he drove the money changers from the
+temple. This, had it happened, would have been the act simply of one who
+had respect for this temple and not for the religion taught in it.
+
+It would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in the
+religion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he wished to
+reform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he devoted
+his life to its destruction. This view shows that he "increased in
+stature and grew in knowledge."
+
+This view is also supported by the fact that, at first, according to
+the account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel was not for
+the Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more patriotism than
+philosophy. In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gentiles by
+the persecution he endured at home. He found, as every Freethinker now
+finds, that there are many saints not in churches and many devils not
+out.
+
+The character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in the
+Gospels, depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make
+a Christ to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth; and
+since the Gospels were finished, millions of men have been adding to and
+changing the character of Christ.
+
+There is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is that
+the Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take it for
+granted that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he
+quotes none of them. There is also this remarkable fact: Paul quotes
+none of the miracles of the New Testament. He says not one word
+about the multitude being fed miraculously, not one word about the
+resurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son. He had never heard of
+the lame, the halt, and the blind that had been cured; or if he had, he
+did not think these incidents of enough importance to be embalmed in an
+epistle.
+
+So we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the four
+Gospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four Gospels were not
+written until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more certain than
+that the early Christians knew nothing of what we call the Gospels of
+Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these things have been growths. At
+first it was believed that Christ was a direct descendant from David. At
+that time the disciples of Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was
+expected through the blood of David.--For that reason, the genealogy of
+Joseph, a descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after,
+that the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the
+son of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given,
+believed that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they
+give the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related to David?
+In other words, why should the son of God attempt to get glory out of
+the fact that he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king? There
+is only one answer to this. The Jews expected the Messiah through
+David, and in order to prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the
+genealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea became popularized that
+Christ was the son of God, and then were interpolated the words "as
+was supposed" in the genealogy of Christ. It was a long time before the
+disciples became great enough to include the world in their scheme, and
+before they thought it proper to tell the "glad tidings of great joy"
+beyond the limits of Judea.
+
+My own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether he
+lived in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is worth its
+example, its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and heroism.
+It is of no earthly importance whether he changed water into wine or
+not. All his miracles are simply dust and darkness compared with what he
+actually said and actually did. We should be kind to each other whether
+Lazarus was raised or not. We should be just and forgiving whether
+Christ lived or not. All the miracles in the world are of no use to
+virtue, morality, or justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to
+ignorance, to fear and folly.
+
+Neither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They are
+worth the truth that is in them and no more.
+
+The words of Paul are often quoted, that "all scripture is given by
+inspiration of God." Of course that could not have applied to anything
+written after that time. It could have applied only to the Scriptures
+then written and then known. It is perfectly clear that the four Gospels
+were not at that time written, and therefore this statement of Paul's
+does not apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply to anything
+written after that statement was written. Neither does it apply to that
+statement. If it applied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not
+the New.
+
+Christ has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of the
+miraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human, he will
+have gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think of him
+as I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus, of Bruno. I place
+him with the great, the generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for
+the man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I think he was in
+many things mistaken. His reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect.
+He seemed to believe that his father in heaven would protect him. He
+thought that if God clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he
+provided for the sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just
+and loving man. In this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death,
+overwhelmed, he cried out: "Why hast thou forsaken me?"
+
+I do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever claimed to
+be inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he
+was an honest man. These claims were all put in his mouth by others--by
+mistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers, by zealous and credulous
+followers, and sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This has
+happened to all the great men of the world. All historical characters
+are, in part, deformed or reformed by fiction. There was a man by the
+name of George Washington, but no such George Washington ever existed
+as we find portrayed in history. The historical Caesar never lived. The
+historical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism
+to rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to
+find the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the Olympian
+gods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far greater than
+Christ the god.
+
+To me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said nothing as
+to the obligation man is under to his country, nothing as to the rights
+of the people as against the wish and will of kings, nothing against the
+frightful system of human slavery--almost universal in his time. What
+he did not say is altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is
+marvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing
+about education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing
+about art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer a
+reward to those who would desert their wives and families. Of course,
+I do not believe that he said the words that were attributed to him, in
+which a reward is offered to any man who will desert his kindred. But if
+we take the account given in the four Gospels as the true account, then
+Christ did offer a reward to a father who would desert his children. It
+has always been contended that he was a perfect example of mankind, and
+yet he never married. As a result of what he did not teach in connection
+with what he did teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm
+in polygamy. They belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of
+the next. They consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while
+he would exchange his chains for wings. They comforted the captive by
+saying that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for the bowers
+of Paradise. His followers believed that he had said that "Whosoever
+believeth not shall be damned." This passage was the cross upon which
+intellectual liberty was crucified.
+
+If Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how to
+cure disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free; if he had
+crowned the people with their rightful power; if he had placed the home
+above the church; if he had broken all the mental chains; if he had
+flooded all the caves and dens of fear with light, and filled the future
+with a common joy, he would in truth have been the Savior of this world.
+
+_Question_. How do you account for the difference between the Christian
+and other modern civilizations?
+
+_Answer._ I account for the difference between men by the difference in
+their ancestry and surroundings--the difference in soil, climate, food,
+and employment. There would be no civilization in England were it not
+for the Gulf Stream. There would have been very little here had it not
+been for the discovery of Columbus. And even now on this continent there
+would be but little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask:
+How do you account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was
+the greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the
+Egyptian religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time when
+the civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that prove that
+Vishnu was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual world for centuries.
+Does that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of heaven and
+earth? The same may be said of Rome. There was a time when Rome governed
+the world, and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth of the
+Roman mythology. As a matter of fact, Rome was far better than any
+Christian nation ever was to the end of the seventeenth century. A
+thousand years of Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest
+of Rome. There were no poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no
+philosophers as great as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors
+like Marcus Aurelius, no women like the mothers of Rome.
+
+The civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but it
+has never been increased by any form of superstition. When America was
+discovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it would have, for
+instance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake Michigan put the other
+side of it. The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of commerce
+became deserted. The prow of the world turned westward, and, as a
+result, France, England, and all countries bordering on the
+Atlantic became prosperous. The world has really been civilized by
+discoverers--by thinkers. The man who invented powder, and by that means
+released hundreds of thousands of men from the occupations of war, did
+more for mankind than religion. The inventor of paper--and he was not
+a Christian--did more than all the early fathers for mankind. The
+inventors of plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the inventors
+of wagons, coaches, locomotives; the inventors of skiffs, sail-vessels,
+steamships; the men who have made looms--in short, the inventors of
+all useful things--they are the civilizers taken in connection with the
+great thinkers, the poets, the musicians, the actors, the painters, the
+sculptors. The men who have invented the useful, and the men who have
+made the useful beautiful, are the real civilizers of mankind.
+
+The priests, in all ages, have been hindrances--stumbling-blocks. They
+have prevented man from using his reason. They have told ghost stories
+to courage until courage became fear. They have done all in their power
+to keep men from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a state of
+childhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good and wise.
+They have always known that their reputation for wisdom depended upon
+the ignorance of the people.
+
+I account for the civilization of France by such men as Voltaire. He did
+good by assisting to destroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the
+same way. He did harm in building another church. I account, in part,
+for the civilization of England by the fact that she had interests
+greater than the church could control; and by the further fact that her
+greatest men cared nothing for the church. I account in part for the
+civilization of America by the fact that our fathers were wise enough,
+and jealous of each other enough, to absolutely divorce church and
+state. They regarded the church as a dangerous mistress--one not fit to
+govern a president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson
+and Paine were at that time prominent in the councils of the people.
+There is this peculiarity in our country--the only men who can be
+trusted with human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels
+hereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners have an opportunity to
+be heard.
+
+Neither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in the
+world. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country was
+visited by Christians, and they are now used only in those ports where
+Christians are allowed to enter. It has often been claimed that there
+is but one way to make a man temperate, and that is by making him
+a Christian; and this is claimed in face of the fact that Christian
+nations are the most intemperate in the world. For nearly thirteen
+centuries the followers of Mohammed have been absolute teetotalers--not
+one drunkard under the flag of the star and crescent. Wherever, in
+Turkey, a man is seen under the influence of liquor, they call him a
+Christian. You must also remember that almost every Christian nation
+has held slaves. Only a few years ago England was engaged in the slave
+trade. A little while before that our Puritan ancestors sold white
+Quaker children in the Barbadoes, and traded them for rum, sugar, and
+negro slaves. Even now the latest champion of Christianity upholds
+slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.
+
+Sometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether perfect.
+When I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the
+many who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the depravity of the
+great cities; of the starvation in the manufacturing centers of Great
+Britain, and, in fact, of all Europe; when I see women working like
+beasts of burden, and little children deprived, not simply of education,
+but of air, light and food, there is a suspicion in my mind that
+Christian civilization is not a complete and overwhelming success.
+
+After all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we have made,
+by the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For the future I
+rely upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the intellect. I rely
+upon labor; upon human interests in this world; upon the love of wife
+and children and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but upon good
+men and women. I do not rely upon superstition, but upon knowledge; not
+upon miracles, but upon facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living;
+and when we become absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the
+superstitions of the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.
+
+Neither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are pleased
+to call "the heathen." Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We
+exchange ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort to force a religion
+upon the people always ends in war. Commerce, founded upon mutual
+advantage, makes peace. An honest merchant is better than a missionary.
+
+Spain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization, and yet,
+for hundreds of years, that government was simply an organized crime.
+When one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the invasion of
+the New World, the persecution in the Netherlands, the expulsion of the
+Jews, and the Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of Europe
+preserve themselves from each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a
+standing army of six hundred thousand men, France a half million, and
+all their neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized.
+They are in the enjoyment of Christian governments--have their hundreds
+of a thousands of ministers, and the land covered with cathedrals and
+churches--and yet every nation is nearly beggared by keeping armies in
+the field. Christian kings have no confidence in the promises of each
+other. What they call peace is the little time necessarily spent in
+reloading their guns. England has hundreds of ships of war to protect
+her commerce from other Christians, and to force China to open her ports
+to the opium trade. Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in
+one of his dispatches to the English government, used substantially the
+following language: "England regards the opium question simply as one of
+trade, but to China, it has a moral aspect." Think of Christian England
+carrying death and desolation to hundreds of thousands in the name of
+trade. Then think of heathen China protesting in the name of morality.
+At the same time England has the impudence to send missionaries to
+China.
+
+What has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the public
+peace in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so alienated
+nations, nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as
+what has been known as religion. The idea that all men must worship the
+same God, believe the same dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked
+with bloody hands the flower of pity from the human heart.
+
+Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies.
+It is not a result of "inspiration." It is the child of invention, of
+discovery, of applied knowledge--that is to say, of science. When man
+becomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights;
+when thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing
+useful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our
+fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized.
+
+_Question_. Since Laplace and other most distinguished astronomers hold
+to the theory that the earth was originally in a gaseous state, and then
+a molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable or animal life,
+could not exist, how do you account for the origin of life on this
+planet without a "Creator"?--Dr. T. B. Taylor.
+
+_Answer._ Whether or not "the earth was originally in a gaseous state
+and afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of vegetable and animal
+life could not exist," I do not know. My belief is that the earth as it
+is, and as it was, taken in connection with the influence of the sun,
+and of other planets, produced whatever has existed or does exist on
+the earth. I do not see why gas would not need a "creator" as much as
+a vegetable. Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for
+some one to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now
+portions of the world in which there is not one particle of vegetable
+life. It may be that on the wide waste fields of the Arctic zone
+there are places where no vegetable life exists, and there may be many
+thousand miles where no animal life can be found. But if the poles of
+the earth could be changed, and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a
+different relative position to the sun, the snows would melt, the hills
+would appear, and in a little while even the rocks would be clothed with
+vegetation. After a time vegetation would produce more soil, and in a
+few thousand years forests would be filled with beasts and birds.
+
+I think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account for the
+origin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have come from some
+meteoric stone falling from some other planet having in it the germs of
+life. What would you think of a farmer who would prepare his land and
+wait to have it planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you think
+of a Deity who would make a world like this, and allow it to whirl
+thousands and millions of years, barren as a gravestone, waiting for
+some vagrant comet to sow the seeds of life?
+
+I believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of the
+vegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that crystallization is
+the first step toward what we call life, and yet I believe life is back
+of that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a gaseous state, it
+was filled with life. These are subjects about which we know but little.
+How do you account for chemistry? How do you account for the fact that
+just so many particles of one kind seek the society of just so many
+particles of another, and when they meet they instantly form a glad and
+lasting union? How do you know but atoms have love and hatred? How
+do you know that the vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that
+crystallization itself is not an expression of delight? How do you know
+that a vine bursting into flower does not feel a thrill? We find sex in
+the meanest weeds--how can you say they have no loves?
+
+After all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The difficulty is
+not thus solved. You leave your creator as much in need of a creator as
+anything your creator is supposed to have created. The bottom of your
+stairs rests on nothing, and the top of your stairs leans upon nothing.
+You have reached no solution.
+
+The word "God" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as we can,
+and we say the rest of the way is "God." We look as far as we can,
+and beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we know but
+blindness, we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal segment of a
+circle, and we say the rest is "God."
+
+Man must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one knows the
+origin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and
+the whither are questions that no man can answer. In the presence of
+these questions all intellects are upon a level. The barbarian knows
+exactly the same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher. Only
+those who think that they have had some supernatural information pretend
+to answer these questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the
+unfathomable, is the realm wholly occupied by the "inspired."
+
+We are satisfied that all organized things must have had a beginning,
+but we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be. Forms change,
+but substance remains eternally the same. A beginning of substance is
+unthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of anything commencing to
+exist _without_ a cause as _with_ a cause. There must be something for
+cause to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing--were such a thing
+possible--would produce nothing. There can be no relation between cause
+and nothing. We can understand how things can be arranged, joined or
+separated--and how relations can be changed or destroyed, but we cannot
+conceive of creation--of nothing being changed into something, nor of
+something being made--except from preexisting materials.
+
+_Question_. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in the
+affirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of
+man after death--which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the
+phenomena of the nineteenth century--what further evidence should
+thoughtful people require in order to settle the question, "Does death
+end all?"
+
+_Answer._ I admit that in all ages men have believed in spooks and
+ghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves nothing. Men have
+for thousands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped the absurd.
+Our ancestors have worshiped snakes and birds and beasts. I do not admit
+that any ghost ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever performed
+except in imagination; and what you are pleased to call the "phenomena
+of the nineteenth century," I fear are on an exact equality with the
+phenomena of the Dark Ages.
+
+We do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows the
+origin of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any
+more than one knows why or how his heart beats. People, I imagine, have
+always had dreams. In dreams they often met persons whom they knew to be
+dead, and it may be that much of the philosophy of the present was born
+of dreams. I cannot admit that anything supernatural ever has happened
+or ever will happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you call the
+"phenomena of the nineteenth century," if by such "phenomena" you mean
+the reappearance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future
+state, because I do not know. Neither do I aver that there is one,
+because I do not know. Upon this question I am simply honest. I find
+that people who believe in immortality--or at least those who say they
+do--are just as afraid of death as anybody else. I find that the most
+devout Christian weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who says
+that death ends all. You see the promises are so far away, and the dead
+are so near. Still, I do not say that man is not immortal; but I do say
+that there is nothing in the Bible to show that he is. The Old
+Testament has not a word upon the subject--except to show us how we lost
+immortality. According to that book, man was driven from the Garden of
+Eden, lest he should put forth his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree
+of life and live forever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us
+how we lost immortality. In the New Testament we are told to seek for
+immortality, and it is also stated that "God alone hath immortality."
+
+There is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists: The
+Spiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the miracles of
+the New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the story about the
+witch of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at the Spiritualists for
+believing that the same kind of things happen now. As a matter of fact,
+the Spiritualists have the best of it, because their witnesses are now
+living, whereas the Christians take simply the word of the dead--of
+men they never saw and of men about whom they know nothing. The
+Spiritualist, at least, takes the testimony of men and women that he can
+cross-examine. It would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make
+common cause. Then the Christians could prove their miracles by the
+Spiritualists, and the Spiritualists could prove their "phenomena" by
+the Christians.
+
+I believe that thoughtful people require some additional testimony in
+order to settle the question, "Does death end all?" If the dead return
+to this world they should bring us information of value.
+
+There are thousands of questions that studious historians and savants
+are endeavoring to settle--questions of history, of philosophy, of law,
+of art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able to shed a
+flood of light. All the questions of the past ought to be settled. Some
+modern ghosts ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs, and
+give us an outline of the history of Egypt. They ought to be able to
+read the arrow-headed writing and all the records of the past. The
+hieroglyphics of all ancient peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts
+and facts that have been imprisoned for so many thousand years should be
+released and once again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought
+to be able to give us the history of buried cities. They should clothe
+with life the dust of all the past. If they could only bring us valuable
+information; if they could only tell us about some steamer in distress
+so that succor could be sent; if they could only do something useful,
+the world would cheerfully accept their theories and admit their
+"facts." I think that thoughtful people have the right to demand such
+evidence. I would like to have the spirits give us the history of
+all the books of the New Testament and tell us who first told of the
+miracles. If they could give us the history of any religion, or nation,
+or anything, I should have far more confidence in the "phenomena of the
+nineteenth century."
+
+There is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is, they are
+liberal. They give to others the rights they claim for themselves. They
+do not pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain. They do
+not slander and persecute even those who deny their "phenomena." But
+I cannot admit that they have furnished conclusive evidence that death
+does not end all. Beyond the horizon of this life we have not seen. From
+the mysterious beyond no messenger has come to me.
+
+For the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future a single
+star. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.
+
+_Question_. How, when, where, and by whom was our present calendar
+originated,--that is "Anno Domini,"--and what event in the history of
+the nations does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of Jesus of
+Nazareth?
+
+_Answer._ I have already said, in answer to a question by another
+gentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date
+from somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about his having been
+born on Christmas, because in reading other religions, I find that that
+time has been celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of it is
+this:
+
+About the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After that the
+days begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for many centuries
+in most nations they had a festival in commemoration of that event. The
+Christians, I presume, adopted this day, and made the birth of Christ
+fit it. Three months afterward--the 21st of March--the days and nights
+again become equal, and the day then begins to lengthen. For centuries
+the nations living in the temperate zones have held festivals to
+commemorate the coming of spring--the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud
+and flower. This is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians
+adopted that in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a
+matter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend
+to show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth
+or resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly the
+other way.
+
+While we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to say that
+we get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas
+of algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from the same source.
+So from the Arabs we receive chemistry, and our first true notions of
+geography. They gave us also paper and cotton.
+
+Owing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in the exact
+time of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to
+the fact that it was a long time before any near approach was made to
+the actual time, all calendars after awhile became too inaccurate for
+general use, and they were from time to time changed.
+
+Right here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the monuments and
+festivals in the world are not sufficient to establish an impossible
+event. No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of living evidence,
+can substantiate a miracle. The monument only proves the _belief_ of the
+builders.
+
+If we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and
+festivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated. Turkey
+is filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in such
+festivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such celebration does
+not even tend to prove that God, by his special providence, protected
+Washington from the arrows of an Indian. The Hebrews celebrate what is
+called the Passover, but this celebration does not even tend to prove
+that the angel of the Lord put blood on the door-posts in Egypt. The
+Mohammedans celebrate to-day the flight of Mohammed, but that does not
+tend to prove that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of God.
+
+Nobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a monument.
+Monuments simply prove that people endeavor to substantiate truths and
+falsehoods by the same means.
+
+_Question_. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest for the
+present, how do you account for the hell here--namely, the existence
+of pain? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this
+present time in misery. If for these there is no life to come, their
+existence is a mistake; but if there is a life to come, it may be that
+the sequel to the acts of the play to come will justify the pain and
+misery of this present time?--Rev. Myron W. Reed.
+
+_Answer._ There are four principal theories:
+
+_First_--That there is behind the universe a being of infinite power and
+wisdom, kindness, and justice.
+
+_Second_--That the universe has existed from eternity, and that it is
+the only eternal existence, and that behind it is no creator.
+
+_Third_--That there is a God who made the universe, but who is not
+all-powerful and who is, under the circumstances, doing the best he can.
+
+_Fourth_--That there is an all-powerful God who made the universe, and
+that there is also a nearly all-powerful devil, and this devil ravels
+about as fast as this God knits.
+
+By the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to account
+for the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a malevolent
+being with power enough, and with cunning enough, to frequently
+circumvent God, the problem of evil becomes solved so far as this world
+is concerned. But why this being was evil is still unsolved; why the
+devil is malevolent is still a mystery. Consequently you will have to go
+back of this world, on that theory, to account for the origin of evil.
+If this devil always existed, then, of course, the universe at one time
+was inhabited only by this God and this devil.
+
+If the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that God
+does not see to it that justice is always done.
+
+If the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from
+eternity, and is without a creator, then we must account for the
+existence of evil and good, not by personalities behind the universe,
+but by the nature of things.
+
+If there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all, it seems
+to me that he should have made a world in which innocence should be a
+sufficient shield. He should have made a world where the just man should
+have nothing to fear.
+
+My belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled
+with wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must protect
+ourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our conflict with
+these obstacles, with each other, and with what may be called the forces
+of nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like
+begets like; that man gives his constitution, at least in part, to his
+children; that weakness and strength are in some degree both hereditary.
+This is a fact in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for this
+fact--filled as it is with pain and joy. But it seems to me that an
+infinite God should so have arranged matters that the bad would not
+pass--that it would die with its possessor--that the good should
+survive, and that the man should give to his son, not the result of his
+vices, but the fruit of his virtues.
+
+I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in
+another world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to prevail
+here, why will he not allow the same thing in the world to come? If
+there is any being with power to prevent it, why is crime permitted? If
+a man standing upon the railway should ascertain that a bridge had been
+carried off by a flood, and if he also knew that the train was coming
+filled with men, women, and children; with husbands going to their
+wives, and wives rejoining their families; if he made no effort to
+stop that train; if he simply sat down by the roadside to witness the
+catastrophe, and so remained until the train dashed off the precipice,
+and its load of life became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be
+denounced by every good man as the most monstrous of human beings. And
+yet this is exactly what the supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees
+the train rushing to the gulf. He gives no notice. He sees the ship
+rushing for the hidden rock. He makes no sign. And he so constructed
+the world that assassins lurk in the air--hide even in the sunshine--and
+when we imagine that we are breathing the breath of life, we are taking
+into ourselves the seeds of death.
+
+There are two facts inconsistent in my mind--a martyr and a God.
+Injustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.
+
+I would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of
+happiness hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from them
+the fear of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for me to
+explain the facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit the existence of
+an infinite Being. I find in this world that physical and mental evils
+afflict the good. It seems to me that I have the same reason to expect
+the bad to be rewarded hereafter. I have no right to suppose that
+infinite wisdom will ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence
+will increase in kindness, or that the justice of the eternal can
+change. If, then, this eternal being allows the good to suffer pain
+here, what right have we to say that he will not allow them to suffer
+forever?
+
+Some people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for the
+production of self-denying men and women--that is, for the production
+of character. The statistics show that a large majority die under five
+years of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster who killed the most
+of his pupils the first day? If this doctrine is true, and if manhood
+cannot be produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are infinitely
+unfortunate.
+
+I admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still, all pain,
+all misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there is an infinitely
+wise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that
+happens must be for the best. That philosophy of special providence,
+going to the extreme, is infinitely better than most of the Christian
+creeds. There seems to be no half-way house between special providence
+and atheism. You know some of the Buddhists say that when a man commits
+murder, that is the best thing he could have done, and that to be
+murdered was the best thing that could have happened to the killed. They
+insist that every step taken is the necessary step and the best step;
+that crimes are as necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and
+virtue is finally the same.
+
+But whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by the
+facts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease
+are hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn truth rises
+the religion of the body. Every man should refuse to increase the misery
+of this world. And it may be that the time will come when man will be
+great enough and grand enough utterly to refrain from the propagation
+of disease and deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers
+and mothers. We do know that the misery in this world can be lessened;
+consequently I believe in the religion of this world. And whether there
+is a heaven or hell here, or hereafter, every good man has enough to
+do to make this world a little better than it is. Millions of lives are
+wasted in the vain effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny
+of man. This world has been neglected. We have been taught that life
+should be merely a preparation for death.
+
+To avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the
+accomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead
+of faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by
+ignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.
+
+_Question_. State with what words you can comfort those who have, by
+their own fault, or by the fault of others, found this life not worth
+living?
+
+_Answer._ If there is no life beyond this, and so believing I come to
+the bedside of the dying--of one whose life has been a failure--a "life
+not worth living," I could at least say to such an one, "Your failure
+ends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is nothing for you--neither
+pain nor misery, neither grief nor joy." But if I were a good orthodox
+Christen, then I would have to say to this man, "Your life has been a
+failure; you have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended
+eternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you will be
+a failure forever."
+
+Admitting that there is another world, and that the man's life had been
+a failure in this, then I should say to him, "If you live again, you
+will have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be no time, no
+date, no matter how many millions and billions of ages may have passed
+away, at which you will not have the opportunity of doing right."
+
+Under no circumstances could I consistently say to this man: "Although
+your life has been a failure; although you have made hundreds and
+thousands of others suffer; although you have deceived and betrayed the
+woman who loved you; although you have murdered your benefactor; still,
+if you will now repent and believe a something that is unreasonable
+or reasonable to your mind, you will, at the moment of death, be
+transferred to a world of eternal joy." This I could not say. I would
+tell him, "If you die a bad man here, you will commence the life to
+come with the same character you leave this. Character cannot be made by
+another for you. You must be the architect of your own." There is to me
+unspeakably more comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than
+that it is to be perpetuated forever.
+
+How can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died without
+believing in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away
+her tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the mother whose brave
+boy fell in defence of his country, she knowing and you knowing, that
+the boy was not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible, and
+had no faith in the blood of the atonement? What words of comfort have
+you for such fathers and for such mothers?
+
+To me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea that this
+life is a probationary state--that the few moments spent here decide the
+fate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived more merciless,
+more unjust. I am doing all I can to destroy that doctrine. I want, if
+possible, to get the shadow of hell from the human heart.
+
+Why has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of infinite
+wisdom and kindness, why does he make failures? What excuse has infinite
+wisdom for peopling the world with savages? Why should one feel grateful
+to God for having made him with a poor, weak and diseased brain; for
+having allowed him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of
+insanity? Why should one thank God, who lived and died a slave?
+
+After all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute truth?
+Is it not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to convey comfort
+through falsehood? People must reap not only what they sow, but what
+others have sown. The people of the whole world are united in spite of
+themselves.
+
+Next to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is to
+enjoy an immortality of delight--next to that, is to assure him that a
+place of eternal punishment does not exist.
+
+After all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and
+splendid sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made no
+exception in favor of man. To the greatest, to the most successful,
+there comes a time when the fevered lips of life long for the cool,
+delicious kiss of death--when, tired of the dust and glare of day, they
+hear with joy the rustling garments of the night.
+
+Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends. Their views
+in regard to the question of a future life, and the existence of a God,
+were in perfect accord. They said:
+
+"'We know so little about these matters that we are not justified in
+giving them any serious consideration. Our motto and rule of life shall
+be for each one to make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy
+every pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself to be influenced
+at all by thoughts of a future life.'
+
+"Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a time
+when no human eye saw him--and he had no belief in a God--Jonathan stole
+every dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him penniless. He had no
+fear, no remorse; no one saw him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed
+life immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old
+age he went the way of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were
+against him.
+
+"His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent, dissatisfied with
+mankind and with himself, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and
+depressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest in painless suicide."
+
+_Question_. What are we to think of the rule of life laid down by these
+men? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is there no remedy to
+correct such irregularities?--Rev. D. O'Donaghue.
+
+_Answer._ The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain strange ideas as
+to right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan
+Newgate concluded to make themselves as comfortable as they could and
+enjoy every pleasure within their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue
+states that one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to
+steal what little money Mr. Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman
+think that Mr. Newgate made or could make himself comfortable in that
+way? He tells us that Mr. Newgate "had no remorse,"--that he "became
+rich and enjoyed life immensely,"--that he "lived in contentment and
+pleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all flesh."
+
+Does the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal without
+fear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the
+fruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and happy life,
+that one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow and delightful old
+age? Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue?
+
+And right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.
+O'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without remorse, to
+enjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And why did he allow
+Mr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in penury and discontent,
+until at last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in suicide? Does
+the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say that if there is no future life it
+is wise to steal in this? If the grave is the eternal home, would the
+Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise people to commit crimes in order that they
+may enjoy this life? Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God
+or not, truth is better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or
+hell, honesty is always the best policy. There is no world, and can be
+none, where vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of joy.
+
+According to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more fortunate than
+Mr. Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had
+rather be of such a disposition that I would be driven to suicide by
+misfortune than to live in contentment upon the misfortunes of
+others. The reverend gentleman, however, should have made his question
+complete--he should have gone the entire distance. He should have added
+that Mr. Newgate, after having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly
+converted, joined the church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the
+very day that his victim committed suicide.
+
+But I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a fact.
+
+A young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful, and
+trustful. She belonged to no church--knew nothing about a future
+world--basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled with
+gentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her cheeks. She
+believed in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved
+everything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered her. He was
+tried; convicted; a motion for a new trial overruled and a pardon
+refused. In his cell, in the shadow of death, he was converted--he
+became a Catholic. With the white lips of fear he confessed to a priest.
+He received the sacrament.
+
+He was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the realms of
+bliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs
+of hell.
+
+The poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while her
+murderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is the
+justice of the orthodox God.
+
+Allow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: "Is there no
+remedy to correct such irregularities?"
+
+As long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the
+Christian system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart and
+brain. Of all religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous,
+and absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the enemies of human
+happiness; they are the assassins of natural joy. Every father, every
+mother, every good man, every loving woman, should hold this doctrine in
+abhorrence; they should refuse to pay men for preaching it; they should
+not build churches in which this infamy is taught; they should teach
+their little children that it is a lie; they should take this horror
+from childhood's heart--a horror that makes the cradle as terrible as
+the coffin.
+
+
+
+
+THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.
+
+
+     * Brooklyn Union, 1883.
+
+
+_Question_. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost unanimously
+have declared that the church is suffering very little from the
+skepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers,
+whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel, is not great; and
+that the books of such writers are not read as much as some people think
+they are. What is your opinion with regard to that subject?
+
+_Answer._ It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by
+his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for
+the ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. By
+comparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that
+has been made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite
+orthodox would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy.
+Only a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and
+Darwin and Humboldt would have been considered as the most infamous of
+monsters.
+
+Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The
+scientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat
+in hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked
+the forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that
+time every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was
+authority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of
+the world. Now everything has changed, and everybody knows it except
+the clergy. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is
+finding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in
+the language of the common people; that he was not teaching any science;
+that he allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them
+there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question
+of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way.
+All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be
+regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute
+of fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of
+inspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in
+contempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of men who combat
+and deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher
+than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought
+than all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel
+twenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I
+would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn
+leaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and
+employments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply
+disbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with
+indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of
+thousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.
+Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of
+eternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd
+by millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and
+vicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to
+answer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful
+reason: That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from
+reading the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he
+cannot defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more
+infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the
+theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who
+feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his congregation is
+concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the
+young people in his church don't know enough to have intelligent doubts,
+and that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr.
+Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other
+defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity
+should never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been
+successfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the
+impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells
+tells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not
+be spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling
+of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great
+majority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current
+infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it
+would be dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position
+of the infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help
+of God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree.
+Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is
+all smoke.
+
+He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks
+that the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his
+brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that
+infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
+his general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his
+brethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never had a
+discussion. The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the
+catechism; that there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the
+brute force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to
+use the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the rod is
+a divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for their children;
+that mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the religion of
+universal love. The man who cannot raise children without whipping them
+ought not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl
+is unfit to have the control of a human being. The father who keeps
+a rod in his house keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There
+is nothing reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in fear.
+Kindness, guided by intelligence, is the only reforming force. An appeal
+to brute force is an abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and
+child upon a savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father
+prompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in the
+victim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is infamous.
+All this is passing away, however, with orthodox Christianity. That
+children are treated better than formerly shows conclusively the
+increase of what is called infidelity. Infidelity has always been a
+protest against tyranny in the state, against intolerance in the church,
+against barbarism in the family. It has always been an appeal for light,
+for justice, for universal kindness and tenderness.
+
+_Question_. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is
+the greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is on the increase?
+
+_Answer._ I see that all the ministers you have interviewed regard
+worldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is worldliness? I
+suppose worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs of this
+world; getting enjoyment out of this life; gratifying the senses, giving
+the ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food;
+cultivating the imagination; playing games of chance; adorning the
+person; developing the body; enriching the mind; investigating the facts
+by which we are surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking;
+working; inventing; buying; selling; hoping--all this, I suppose, is
+worldliness. These "worldly" people have cleared the forests, plowed
+the land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and
+have produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the
+preachers denounce them. Were it not for "worldly" people how would the
+preachers get along? Who would build the churches? Who would fill the
+contribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all questions)
+would pay the salaries? It is the habit of the ministers to belittle men
+who support them--to slander the spirit by which they live. "It is as
+though the mouth should tear the hand that feeds it." The nobility of
+the Old World hold the honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so
+contemptible themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor.
+And so the minister pretending to be spiritual--pretending to be a
+spiritual guide--looks with contempt upon the men who make it possible
+for him to live. It may be said by "worldliness" they only mean
+enjoyment--that is, hearing music, going to the theater and the opera,
+taking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea. Of course,
+ministers look upon theaters as rival attractions, and most of their
+hatred is born of business views. They think people ought to be driven
+to church by having all other places closed. In my judgment the theater
+has done good, while the church has done harm. The drama never has
+insisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On
+the contrary, upon the stage have forever been found impersonations
+of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and these
+impersonations have always been applauded, and have been represented
+that they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites have been
+worshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and
+execration. Shakespeare has done far more for the world than the Bible.
+The ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldliness.
+Nothing can be more absurd than this talk of spirituality. As though
+readers of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were
+engaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher
+than human love? A man is in love with a girl, and he has determined to
+work for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is
+there anything more spiritual than that--anything higher? They marry. He
+clears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of this
+hovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few simple things
+of beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers call "worldliness."
+Is there anything more spiritual? In a little while, in this cabin, in
+this home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle's rock, while
+softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything more
+spiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender than to see husband
+and wife bending, with clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the
+dimpled miracle of love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you
+love; spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind--for he who
+improves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the
+plowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of "Health &
+Heresy" rather than the old partnership of "Disease & Divinity," doing
+business at the old sign of the "Skull & Crossbones." Some of the
+ministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells
+us the cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and
+cyclones, and things of that character for the purpose of making people
+spiritual; of calling their attention to the fact that everything in
+this world is of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had great
+faith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is
+a thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for
+a banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the average
+Christian that thick soup has, according to Bumble, on the English
+pauper: "It makes 'em impudent." The devil made a mistake in not
+doubling Job's property instead of leaving him a pauper. In prosperity
+the ministers think that we forget death and are too happy. In the arms
+of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment forgotten.
+According to the ministers, God kills our children in order that we
+may not forget him. They imagine that the man who goes into Dakota,
+cultivates the soil and rears him a little home, is getting too
+"worldly." And so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs
+of wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers in
+Brooklyn say this is done because we are getting too "worldly." They
+think we should be more "spiritual;" that is to say, willing to live
+upon the labor of others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime,
+"It is more blessed to give than to receive." If this is so, why not
+give the money back? "Spiritual" people are those who eat oatmeal and
+prunes, have great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's "Task" and
+Pollok's "Course of Time," laugh at the jokes in _Harper's Monthly_,
+wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has
+elevated the world "beggarly elements."
+
+_Question_. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit
+that the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the
+establishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and
+fashionable churches.
+
+_Answer._ The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was
+at hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the
+presence of such a belief what are known as class distinctions could not
+easily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond
+of union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they
+lack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.
+He took in part the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the
+older parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the
+traveler gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As
+they become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is
+the same in the church. The church no longer believes the creed, no
+longer acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the
+sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister
+to a man just above the falls; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as
+a lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If
+he really believed that the coachman had an immortal soul, capable of
+eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make
+the calling and election of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact
+the rich man now cares but little for servants. They are not included
+in the scheme of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The church
+has become a club. It is a social affair, and the rich do not care to
+associate in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at
+church. As they expect to be in heaven together forever, they can afford
+to be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to
+get acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The
+church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of place
+in such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest seat; like
+poor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table
+of Christ they are below the salt.
+
+They are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they
+feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the
+millionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the
+contribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the church.
+It costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary,
+fashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too
+many jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be
+superiority.
+
+_Question_. Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of
+churches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not the rich there
+predominate and the poor be just as much out of place?
+
+_Answer._ I think the effect would be precisely the same, no matter what
+the society is, what object it has, if composed of rich and poor. Class
+distinctions, to a greater or less extent, will creep in--in fact, they
+do not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement, and they
+are born of the different conditions of the members.
+
+These class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For
+instance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs. Others
+obtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according
+to the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on intellectual
+grounds, for instance.
+
+There is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power,
+but there are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of
+character, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
+mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any
+one blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with arrogant
+wealth. The right to make the distinction is with all classes, and with
+the individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have any society
+for any purpose--that is, where they meet together--without certain
+embarrassments being produced by these distinctions. Nowt for instance,
+suppose there should be a society simply of intelligent and cultured
+people. There, wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded. But,
+after all, the distinction that intelligence draws between talent and
+genius is as marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and
+wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such
+vast importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are
+forgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and
+intelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political parties, in
+time of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion has been
+founded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions
+are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave liberty to the
+slave during the Civil war, and clad him in the uniform of the nation;
+we wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly
+willing to forget the distinction of color. Common peril produces pure
+democracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor young man
+coming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about
+the old fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of
+the trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;
+shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed;
+let him have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and
+coaches; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for more
+police. He will then say: "We want protection; the rabble must be put
+down." We have an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country an
+aristocracy of literature--men and women who imagine themselves writers
+and who hold in contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces in
+the most elegant diction--people who look upon a mistake in grammar as
+far worse than a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy
+of muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness.
+Intellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel as wealth
+without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle without mercy. So that,
+after all, the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where the
+intellect is directed by the heart.
+
+_Question_. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as cruel
+as the aristocracy of wealth--what do you mean by that?
+
+_Answer._ By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to say, the
+aristocracy of education--of simple brain--expressed in innumerable
+ways--in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say
+that that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth.
+After all, why should a man be proud of something given him by
+nature--something that he did not earn, did not produce--something that
+he could not help? Is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth which
+you have accumulated than of brain which nature gave you? And, to carry
+this idea clearly out, why should we be proud of anything? Is there any
+proper occasion on which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows for
+you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And why
+should a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition or
+of good acts?
+
+_Question_. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of
+course, you must recognize the right of every one to select his own
+companions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the
+companionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace
+and unintelligent persons?
+
+_Answer._ All men should have the same rights, and one right that
+every man should have is to associate with congenial people. There are
+thousands of good men whose society I do not covet. They may be stupid,
+or they may be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested,
+and may be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care
+nothing. In either case they are not congenial. They have the right to
+select congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus
+made, they are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the
+good of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and
+are consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these
+distinctions in the church more than we do in the club is that the
+church talks one way and acts another; because the church insists that a
+certain line of conduct is essential to salvation, and that every human
+being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were true, then, in
+the presence of such an infinite verity, all earthly distinctions should
+instantly vanish. Every Christian should exert himself for the salvation
+of the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness that he
+would show to save a king. The accidents of wealth, education, social
+position, should be esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly
+work side by side with the poorest. The churches will never reach the
+poor as long as they sell pews; as long as the rich members wear their
+best clothes on Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-room
+are taken to the table of the last supper, the poor will remain in the
+highways and hedges. Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So
+long as the ministers shut up their churches, and allow the poor to go
+to hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil without a competitor
+for three months in the year, the churches will not materially impede
+the march of human progress. People often, unconsciously and without any
+malice, say something or do something that throws an unexpected light
+upon a question. The other day, in one of the New York comic papers,
+there was a picture representing the foremost preachers of the country
+at the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy
+each others society. These ministers are supposed to be the apostles of
+the religion of kindness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and
+yet the idea that they could associate happily together is regarded as
+a joke! After all, churches are like other institutions, they have to
+be managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather than
+upon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up
+the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their
+hold. The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to be a fire,
+and they offered to insure; and as long as the fire was expected
+the premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then came the
+Universalist Church, saying that there would be no fire, and yet
+asking the people to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It
+undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other churches. So with the
+Unitarian. That church has no basis for organization; no reason, because
+no hell is threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the
+churches have lost their belief in eternal fire, they have lost their
+influence, and the reason they have lost their belief is on account
+of the diffusion of knowledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and
+infamous. Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelligent
+people can no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the
+churches must finally abandon it, and when they do, that is the end of
+the church militant.
+
+_Question_. What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic
+Church, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in
+any particular, in regard to future punishment?
+
+_Answer._ Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another
+battle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations
+have not been converted since then. The time has passed to preach
+with sword and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no
+more victories. That church increases in this country mostly from
+immigration. Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It is at war
+with the idea of our Government, antagonistic to true republicanism, and
+is in every sense anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control
+its members. That church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of
+education. It is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used
+as a political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are
+thousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably believe the creed
+of the church. That church has lost the power to anathematize. It can
+no longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces--upon persuasion,
+sophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity.
+
+_Question_. You have stated your objections to the churches, what would
+you have to take their place?
+
+_Answer._ There was a time when men had to meet together for the purpose
+of being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds and
+hundreds of years most people depended for their information on what
+they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of
+course, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not
+only all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he
+was a gentleman; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was
+necessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no
+way of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily
+press gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you
+the thoughts of the greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can
+command the principal sources of information. There is no necessity for
+going to the church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister
+write what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,
+people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a church in
+the name of duty and there inflict upon them a sermon that under no
+circumstances they would read. Of course, there will always be meetings,
+occasions when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear what a
+man has to say upon some questions, but the idea of going fifty-two days
+in a year to hear anybody on the same subject is absurd.
+
+_Question_. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that
+statement?
+
+_Answer._ Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not
+orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his
+creed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes
+the ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, consequently, no
+one could be an infidel. Every one believes in kindness, at least
+theoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes to
+the conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of
+intellectual convictions upon certain subjects. The more sermons like
+that are preached, probably the better. What I intended was the eternal
+repetition of the old story: That God made the world and a man, and
+then allowed the devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme
+of salvation, of vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned
+everybody except Noah and his family, and afterward, when he failed
+to civilize the Jewish people, came in person and suffered death, and
+announced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved,
+and those who did not, eternally lost. Now, this story, with occasional
+references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding
+heat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of Paradise, is the average
+sermon, and this story is told again, again, and again, by the same men,
+listened to by the same people without any effect except to tire the
+speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would take their texts from
+Shakespeare; if they would read every Sunday a selection from some of
+the great plays, the result would be infinitely better. They would all
+learn something; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear
+short. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness of
+the pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The dignified
+dullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has never been
+excelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the ministry were
+given no new weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock of a century
+ago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than their
+weapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by
+keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring
+the facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor
+of education; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a
+Protestant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The
+Catholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a
+Catholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
+belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a
+doubt; a doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are
+warned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow
+whatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes no
+difference, and they are expected to get their revenge by treating
+their flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of
+the churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing,
+because they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden
+aunts.
+
+Thousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with
+trade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence. But when you
+get at the real opinions of people, a vast majority have outgrown the
+doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good
+for women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep
+order. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of independence.
+They are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they
+are beginning everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a
+probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad;
+that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous; that
+it must have been written by men. And the people at large are beginning
+to find that the ministers have kept back the facts; have not told the
+history of the Bible; have not given to their congregations the latest
+advices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
+Christianity has outlived its usefulness. The church has a great deal
+to contend with. The scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at
+Genesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of
+the motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws
+of Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is
+something besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival of the
+pulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers
+take hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at
+work all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so
+universal that the preacher is following his example. The flock has
+ceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In
+a little while all the libraries will be open--all the museums. There
+will be music in the public parks; the opera, the theater. And what
+will churches do then? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty
+pews, unless the church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands
+of the present.
+
+_Question_. You speak as if the influences working against Christianity
+to-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you think that
+Christianity is any worse off now than it was during the French
+Revolution, when the priests were banished from the country and
+reason was worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume,
+Bolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it?
+
+_Answer._ You must remember that the French Revolution was produced by
+Catholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to infinite extremes;
+that it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand
+those times, provided you know the history of the Catholic Church.
+The seeds of the French Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The
+people had suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and
+the French Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs
+no longer. It was something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted
+from intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were
+carried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to
+tear down palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of
+all the centuries. Catholicism has never recovered--it never will. The
+dagger of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism
+has staggered from that day to this.
+
+It has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire there
+were twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In the French
+Revolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated reason. There
+was destruction without the genius of construction. They had to use
+materials that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.
+
+The French Revolution was a failure because the French people were a
+failure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism
+had made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him.
+Probably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have
+read the works of Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little
+while ago, a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one
+hundred dollars to repeat a paragraph, or to give the title, even, of
+one of Voltaire's volumes. Most ministers think he was an atheist. The
+trouble with the infidels in England a hundred years ago was that they
+did not go far enough. It may be that they could not have gone further
+and been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground that there was
+an infinite, all-wise, beneficent God, creator of the universe, and that
+this all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of
+the Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the author of
+nature, and the theologians completely turned the tables by showing
+that this god of nature was in the pestilence and plague business,
+manufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of
+necessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment, the Deists
+were all successfully answered. The god of nature is certainly as bad as
+the God of the Old Testament. It is only when we discard the idea of a
+deity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are able
+ever to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that I am neither
+a favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not
+believe in the existence of any personal god. I regard the universe as
+the one fact, as the one existence--that is, as the absolute thing. I am
+a part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply say that I
+do not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say
+that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not know,
+and the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that subject
+give me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on
+the subject, because I know that they know that they do not know. The
+infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, comparatively speaking,
+of geology; nothing of astronomy; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and
+Darwin; nothing of evolution; nothing, comparatively speaking, of other
+religions; nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other
+words, the infidels of a hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox
+Christianity to be false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The
+infidels of to-day have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred
+years ago it was a guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and
+fulfillment. Everything in nature is working against superstition
+to-day. Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from
+dust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The smallest
+pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of grass, rightly
+understood, destroys the orthodox creed.
+
+_Question_. You say that the pews will be empty in the future unless
+the church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the
+ministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than
+those of a hundred years ago, and are not the "liberal" views in regard
+to the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the
+fall of man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in
+many churches, an indication that the church is meeting the demands of
+many people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in
+Christianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions?
+
+_Answer._ As to the first part of this question, I do not think the
+ministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were a hundred years
+ago; that is, I do not think they have greater brain capacity, but
+I think on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The
+amelioration of orthodox Christianity is not by the intelligence in the
+pulpit, but by the brain in the pews. Another thing: One hundred years
+ago the church had intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened
+a career. Not so now. There are too many avenues to distinction and
+wealth--too much worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit.
+Martyrs had rather be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day
+are not naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence.
+There are some great exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers
+nearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher
+is a great man--not the most consistent man in the world--but he is
+certainly a man of mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get rid
+of the idea that Plymouth Church is necessary to him--after that time
+he would not utter an orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might
+mention some others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable
+for intelligence. The intelligent men of the world do not believe in
+orthodox Christianity. It is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The
+conservative ministers are the stupid ones. The conservative professors
+are those upon whose ideas will be found the centuries' moss, old red
+sandstone theories, pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the second part
+of the question: The views of the church are changing, the clergy of
+Brooklyn to the contrary, notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind
+of boa-constrictor; anything it can not dodge it will swallow. The
+church is bound to have something for sale that somebody wants to buy.
+According to the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the
+pulpit dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on
+business principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories insists
+on having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and
+they must supply the market with such religious vegetables as the
+congregations desire. Thousands have given up belief in the inspiration
+of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement idea and original
+sin. Millions believe now, that this is not a state of probation; that
+a man, provided he is well off and has given liberally to the church, or
+whose wife has been a regular attendant, will, in the next world, have
+another chance; that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new
+trial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it used to be supposed;
+that, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are
+cool; and that, after all, there is not so much to fear from the future.
+They regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give
+them the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their old
+clothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off,
+somewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for paupers. There is a
+great trade of this kind going on now--selling old theological clothes
+to the colored people in the South. All I have said applies to all
+churches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not change its
+ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that
+clothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and throb of
+life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the spirit
+that emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned in
+another direction. Of course, the churches are all going to endeavor to
+meet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for old texts.
+They will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They will find
+that "flat" meant "a little rounding;" that "six days" meant "six long
+times;" that the word "flood" should have been translated "dampness,"
+"dew," or "threatened rain;" that Daniel in the lion's den was an
+historical myth; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with
+this world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to
+harmonize with the facts of modern science. They will not change the
+words of the creed; they will simply give "new meanings and the highest
+criticism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other words, the
+churches will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that
+which can be sold. Already the old goods are being "marked down." If,
+however, the church should fail, why then it must go. I see no reason,
+myself, for its existence. It apparently does no good; it devours
+without producing; it eats without planting, and is a perpetual burden.
+It teaches nothing of value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents.
+It threatens without knowledge and promises without power. In my
+judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it
+does not go in name, it must go in fact, because it must change; and,
+therefore, it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert from
+useful channels the blood and muscle of the world.
+
+_Question_. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons delivered lately
+the theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping out
+of discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years
+preached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosticism, and
+infidelity, so much so as to lead to their being reprimanded by some of
+their more conservative brethren?
+
+_Answer._ Of course there are hundreds of thousands of ministers
+perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so
+much harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them
+to stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most
+part, are like this: Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of
+Genesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement
+is true, because in the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And
+we know, too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because
+Voltaire was nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are
+the usual arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself.
+And, in my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer
+a man's argument, the next best thing is to attack his character. "You
+have no case," said an attorney to the plaintiff. "No matter," said the
+plaintiff, "I want you to give the defendant the devil."
+
+_Question_. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's statement that
+he generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives them
+to young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are said
+to speak of the Bible?
+
+_Answer._ Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such
+immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away
+the mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that
+accounts for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would
+not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly
+indebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and
+take this occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all
+the converts to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think
+it honest in young men to play a game like that on the doctor.
+
+_Question_. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of
+Christianity and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher
+preached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the
+present time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral,
+social, and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke
+criticism on the part of the secular newspaper press?
+
+_Answer._ I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to
+preach about things happening in this world; in other words, that the
+preachers themselves are beginning to be touched with worldliness.
+They find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons
+dealing in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are
+losing interest in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more interest
+in gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find
+that their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetually of death and
+coffins; and worms and dust and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs
+and hearses, biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That they
+prefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in which they have a
+present interest, and about which something cheerful can be said.
+In fact, it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art,
+something about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it
+necessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something that
+has happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that, for
+the time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the
+furnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably honest.
+Maybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are
+endeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church members
+think that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not
+criticising their motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the
+character or reputation of ministers, but simply giving my ideas,
+avoiding anything personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor very
+bad---just fair to middling.
+
+_Question_. You say that Christians will not read for fear that they
+will unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in
+the interview I had with him: "If you do not allow man to reason you
+crush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credibility of
+his faith, and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth,
+and so satisfies his wants."
+
+_Answer._ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father
+Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not
+think that reason should be guided by faith; I think that faith should
+be guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith
+would be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be
+based on what has not happened, but upon what has; not upon something
+we know nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are
+acquainted. The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we
+reason, we must have something as a basis, something secular, something
+that we think we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by
+analogy, and we say thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may
+happen. We do not say thus and so _may_ happen, therefore something else
+_has_ happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from
+the unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you do not allow a
+man to reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must
+govern reason. Who makes the faith? The church. And the church tells the
+man that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he
+may afterward reason, taking the faith as a fact. This makes him an
+intellectual slave, and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right
+to examine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their
+prisoners by insisting that there is nothing beyond the walls.
+
+_Question_. You criticise the church for not encouring the poor to
+mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose
+his own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-confessing
+Christians in real life, and will not there always be some greater,
+richer, wiser, than the rest?
+
+_Answer._ I do not blame the church because there are these distinctions
+based on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the church for
+is pretending to do away with these distinctions. These distinctions in
+men are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood, in education,
+and they are differences that will eternally exist--that is, as long as
+the human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some
+generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with
+is the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich and poor. I
+want the democracy of kindness--what you might call the republicanism of
+justice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep from robbing him.
+I can give him his rights without enjoying his company, and he can give
+me my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not poverty have
+rights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in
+contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same church
+or not? We cannot judge men by their wealth, or by the position they
+hold in society. I like every kind man; I hate every cruel one. I like
+the generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I
+like men that love their families, that are kind to their wives,
+gentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or
+mendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is the
+fairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel, or
+bursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
+man because he is rich; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor.
+
+_Question_. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infidelity is
+greatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and creates more notice
+than conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of
+the accepted line of thought.
+
+_Answer._ There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced, was
+a wonder. At that time the church had great power; it could retaliate;
+it could destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when too many men
+objected to being burned. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in
+novelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been
+turned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless
+influences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion.
+Other religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was
+found but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our
+own religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great
+comment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have
+already about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error.
+
+Thousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question,
+because they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear
+their own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the
+spirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage
+of the world is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox
+minister who believes the Thirty-nine articles with all his might, is
+regarded to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by
+the galvanic battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those
+of life--not quite.
+
+_Question_. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and
+what kind of instruction would you give?
+
+_Answer._ I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is
+Christianity? I do not include in the word "Christianity" the average
+morality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion;
+that is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in
+the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and
+resurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ,
+and eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity
+its miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and
+the inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as
+I understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I
+suppose Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness.
+I do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my
+friends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep
+the viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in
+self-defence. Christianity--that is, the miraculous part--must be
+abandoned. As to morality--morality is born, is born of the instinct of
+self-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word "conscience" never
+would have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime.
+Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to
+being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of
+human want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired
+work. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of
+the product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to
+do it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume
+it was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible
+other things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of
+the Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a
+mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without
+miracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is
+not a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder
+is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to
+investigate and to reason for themselves, and that there are facts
+enough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two
+families; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians,
+and they teach their children their creed; teach them that they are
+naturally totally depraved; that they can only hope for happiness in
+a future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain
+belief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his children
+forever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the
+father and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each
+other because kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle;
+that they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And
+suppose this father and mother say to their children: "If you are happy
+it must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must
+suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer
+for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you
+plant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant." And suppose
+these parents also say: "You must find out the conditions of happiness.
+You must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You
+must ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act
+in accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and
+peace." In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my
+judgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the
+other. The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this
+world, but not in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the
+dividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they
+must serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my
+doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the
+highest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is
+wrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here
+and now. It means health; it means intelligence, contentment, success.
+Vice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than
+judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion
+we are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved
+by faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We must be saved by
+knowledge, by intelligence--the only lever capable of raising mankind.
+
+_Question_. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says "that
+man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is your
+idea of the chief end of man?
+
+_Answer._ It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should
+be held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal
+reward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy
+here? Why not go to heaven now--that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the
+sunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad
+enough; so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent
+deity; but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do
+I believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the
+Infinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no
+superiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve
+what we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average
+Presbyterian? What good will it do him to know that his course has been
+approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even,
+for the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges?
+I do not see how we can help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite
+Being, certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can
+affect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin
+against man. For that reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is
+the only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with
+the ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the
+angels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care to
+associate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such society.
+I suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat touched with
+worldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough
+to say about the Infinite "I know nothing of eternal joy, I have no
+conception about another world, I know nothing." At the same time, I am
+not attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can
+hope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to
+drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out
+the fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.
+
+
+
+
+THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.
+
+
+     * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon.
+     Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the
+     Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan
+     Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as
+     submitted in advance, were the following propositions:
+
+Colonel Ingersoll's Opening.
+
+Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:
+
+I AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to differ
+with me. I want to convince you that you are under no compulsion to
+accept my creed; that you are, so far as I am concerned, absolutely free
+to follow the torch of your reason according to your conscience; and I
+believe that you are civilized to that degree that you will extend to me
+the right that you claim for yourselves.
+
+
+First. Thought is a necessary natural product--the result of what is
+called impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain,
+not forgetting the Fact of heredity.
+
+Second. No human being is accountable to any being-human or divine--for
+his thoughts.
+
+Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each
+other, and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.
+
+Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all
+subjects.
+
+Fifth. For one man to say to another, "I tolerate you," is an assumption
+of authority--not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute.
+
+Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his
+ideas, that the rest of the world have to express their thoughts to him.
+
+Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing Mr.
+Ingersoll, among other things said:
+
+"The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that of the
+great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august saying, 'There shall be no
+slavery of the mind.'
+
+"When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the tomb of Victor
+Hugo. It was placed in a recess in the crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite
+it was the tomb of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another recess, was
+the memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked at these three
+monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been born in France, and had he
+passed in his long life account, the acclaim of the liberal culture of
+France would have enlarged that trio into a quartette.
+
+"Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in print,
+notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black formerly Attorney-General of the
+United States: lately in the pages of The North American Review with the
+Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and last but not least the Right Hon. William
+E Gladstone, England's greatest citizen, has taken up the cudgel against
+him in behalf of his view of Orthodoxy To-night, I believe-for the first
+time, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial discussion. I
+have now the honor to introduce this distinguished orator."
+
+I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being thinks as he
+must; and the first proposition really is, whether man has the right to
+think. It will bear but little discussion, for the reason that no man
+can control his thought. If you think you can, what are you going to
+think to-morrow? What are you going to think next year? If you can
+absolutely control your thought, can you stop thinking?
+
+The question is, Has the will any power over the thought? What is
+thought? It is the result of nature--of the outer world--first upon the
+senses--those impressions left upon the brain as pictures of things in
+the outward world, and these pictures are transformed into, or produce,
+thought; and as long as the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will
+be produced. Whoever looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears
+any sound--or any symphony--no matter what--thinks. Whoever looks upon
+the sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the face of a fellow-man,
+thinks, and the result of that look is an absolute necessity. The
+thought produced will depend upon your brain, upon your experience, upon
+the history of your life.
+
+One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one he loved the best had
+been devoured by its hungry waves, will have certain thoughts; and he
+who sees it for the first time, will have different thoughts. In other
+words, no two brains are alike; no two lives have been or are or ever
+will be the same. Consequently, nature cannot produce the same effect
+upon any two brains, or upon any two hearts.
+
+The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is that we are
+different. If we were all the same, we would die dumb. No thought would
+be expressed after we found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We
+differ--our thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce that we call
+conversation.
+
+Back of language is thought. Back of language is the desire to express
+our thought to another. This desire not only gave us language--this
+desire has given us the libraries of the world. And not only the
+libraries; this desire to express thought, to show to others the
+splendid children of the brain, has written every book, formed every
+language, painted every picture, and chiseled every statue--this desire
+to express our thought to others, to reap the harvest of the brain.
+
+If, then, thought is a necessity, "it follows as the night the day"
+that there is, there can be, no responsibility for thought to any being,
+human or divine.
+
+A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes upon it, and the
+sensitive plate receives a picture. Is it in fault, is it responsible,
+for the picture? So with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture
+is imprinted there. The plate may not be perfectly level--it may be too
+concave, or too convex, and the picture may be a deformity; so with the
+brain. But the man does not make his own brain, and the consequence is,
+if the picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.
+
+We take then these two steps: first, thought is a necessity; and second,
+the thought depends upon the brain.
+
+Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with careless hands
+the seeds of thought. Some brains are poor and barren fields, producing
+weeds and thorns, and some are like the tropic world where grow the palm
+and pine--children of the sun and soil.
+
+You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of Shakespeare? All that your
+brain is able to hold. It depends upon your brain. If you are great--if
+you have been cultivated--if the wings of your imagination have been
+spread--if you have had great, free, and splendid thoughts--'r you have
+stood upon the edge of things--if you have had the courage to meet all
+that can come--you get an immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived
+nobly--if you have loved with every drop of your blood and every fibre
+of your being--if you have suffered--if you have enjoyed--then you get
+an immensity from Shakespeare. But if you have lived a poor, little,
+mean, wasted, barren, weedy life--you get very little from that immortal
+man.
+
+So it is from every source in nature--what you get depends upon what you
+are.
+
+Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity, there can be
+no responsibility for thought. And why has man ever believed that his
+fellow-man was responsible for his thought?
+
+Everything that is, everything that has been, has been naturally
+produced. Man has acted as, under the same circumstances, we would have
+acted; because when you say "under the circumstances," it is the same as
+to say that you would do exactly as they have done.
+
+There has always been in men the instinct of self-preservation. There was
+a time when men believed, and honestly believed, that there was above
+them a God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient
+for my illustration to say, one. Man believed that there was in the sky
+above him a God who attended to the affairs of men. He believed that
+that God, sitting upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He
+believed also, that that God held the community responsible for the sins
+of individuals. He honestly believed it. When the flood came, or when
+the earthquake devoured, he really believed that some God was filled
+with anger--with holy indignation--at his children. He believed it, and
+so he looked about among his neighbors to see who was in fault, and if
+there was any man who had failed to bring his sacrifice to the altar,
+had failed to kneel, it may be to the priest, failed to be present in
+the temple, or had given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe
+or of that nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God, they
+seized the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance
+and of their fear.
+
+They believed when the lightning leaped from the cloud and left its
+blackened mark upon the man, that he had done something--that he had
+excited the wrath of the gods.
+
+And while man so believed, while he believed that it was necessary, in
+order to defend himself, to kill his neighbor--he acted simply according
+to the dictates of his nature.
+
+What I claim is that we have nov-advanced far enough not only to
+think, but to know, that the conduct of man has nothing to do with the
+phenomena of nature. We are now advanced far enough to absolutely know
+that no man can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough to cause an
+earthquake. I think we have got to that point that we absolutely
+know that no man can be wicked enough to entice one of the bolts from
+heaven--that no man can be cruel enough to cause a drought--and that you
+could not have infidels enough on the earth to cause another flood.
+I think we have advanced far enough not only to say that, but to
+absolutely know it--I mean people who have thought, and in whose minds
+there is something like reasoning.
+
+We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is just as apt to hit
+a good man as a bad man. We know it. We know that the earthquake is just
+as liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as
+well as I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt to outride
+the storm as one crowded with missionaries. You know it.
+
+I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I believe, as much as
+I believe that I live, that the reason a thing is right is because it
+tends to the happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as I be-believe
+that I live, that on the average the good man is not only the happier
+man, but that no man is happy who is not good.
+
+If then we have gotten over that frightful, that awful superstition--we
+are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts of each other.
+
+I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as saying, that there
+is no God. All I intend to say is, that so far as we can see, no man
+is punished, no nation is punished by lightning, or famine, or storm.
+Everything happens to the one as to the other.
+
+Now, let us admit that there is an infinite God. That has nothing to do
+with the sinlessness of thought--nothing to do with the fact that no man
+is accountable to any being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And
+let me tell you why.
+
+If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men who sin against
+him. You can trust him, if you believe in him. He has the power. He has
+a heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that
+the earthquake will not swallow you, or the lightning strike you, simply
+because you tell your thoughts, if one of your neighbors differs with
+you, and acts improperly or thinks or speaks improperly of your God,
+leave him with your God--he can attend to him a thousand times better
+than you can, He has the time. He lives from eternity to eternity. More
+than that, he has the means. So that, whether there be this Being or
+not, you have no right to interfere with your neighbor.
+
+The next proposition is, that I have the same right to express my
+thought to the whole world, that the whole world has to express its
+thought to me.
+
+I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy, where
+the majority rule; it is not a republic. It is a country with one
+inhabitant. This brain is the world in which my mind lives, and my mind
+is the sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances
+the rest of the world as one drop of water balances the sea. Each soul
+is crowned. Each soul wears the purple and the tiara; and only those are
+good citizens of the intellectual world who give to every other human
+being every right that they claim for themselves, and only those are
+traitors in the great realm of thought who abandon reason and appeal to
+force.
+
+If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you must abuse your
+neighbors to keep on good terms with God, then the question of religion
+is exactly like every question--I mean of thought, of mind--I have
+nothing to say now about action.
+
+Is there authority in the world of art? Can a legislature pass a law
+that a certain picture is beautiful, and can it pass a law putting in
+the penitentiary any impudent artistic wretch who says that to him it is
+not beautiful? Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all
+the same; we are not touched by the same sounds--the same beautiful
+memories* do not arise. Suppose you have an authority in music? You may
+make men, it may be, by offering them office or by threatening them with
+punishment, swear that they all like that tune--but you never will
+know till the day of your death whether they do or not. The moment you
+introduce a despotism in the world of thought, you succeed in making
+hypocrites--and you get in such a position that you never know what your
+neighbor thinks.
+
+So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force. No one can be
+compelled to pray. No matter how you tie him down, or crush him down on
+his face or on his knees, it is above the power of the human race to put
+in that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do it. Neither
+can you compel anybody to worship a God. Worship rises from the heart
+like perfume from a flower. It cannot obey; it cannot do that which
+some one else commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its
+own nature. And do you think any God would be satisfied with compulsory
+worship? Would he like to see long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on
+their terrified knees repeating words without a soul--giving him what
+you might call the shucks of sound? Will any God be satisfied with
+that? And so I say, we must be as free in one department of thought as
+another.
+
+Now, I take the next step, and that is, that the rights of all are
+absolutely equal.
+
+I have the same right to give you my opinion that you have to give me
+yours. I have no right to compel you to hear, if you do not want to. I
+have no right to compel you to speak if you do not want to. If you do
+not wish to know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.
+
+The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this liberty of
+expression, is of more value than any other thing beneath the stars. Of
+more value than any religion, of more value than any government, of more
+value than all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws
+that he has passed, is this liberty--the absolute liberty of the human
+mind. Take away that word from language, and all other words become
+meaningless sounds, and there is then no reason for a man being and
+living upon the earth.
+
+So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality--that is all.
+You come to me with a new idea. I invite you into the house. Let us see
+what you have. Let us talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I
+will bid it a polite "good day." If I do like it, I will say: "Sit down;
+stay with me, and become a part of the intellectual wealth of my world."
+That is all.
+
+And how any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the
+right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man
+who speaks--who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can
+liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond
+the liberty to speak against liberty--the real believer in free speech
+allowing others to speak against the right to speak? Is there any
+limitation beyond that?
+
+So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has admitted that he
+violated his own doctrine. No man can open his mouth against the freedom
+of speech without denying every argument he may put forward. Why? He is
+exercising the right that he denies. How did he get it? Suppose there
+is one man on an island. You will all admit now that he would have the
+right to do his own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right
+to express his thought. Now, will somebody tell me how many men would
+have to emigrate to that island before the original settler would lose
+his right to think and his right to express himself?
+
+If there be an infinite Being--and it is a question that I know nothing
+about--you would be perfectly astonished to know how little I do know on
+that subject, and yet I know as much as the aggregated world knows, and
+as little as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy wings the
+summer air--if there be such a Being, I have the same right to think
+that he has simply because it is a necessity of my nature--because I
+cannot help it. And the Infinite would be just as responsible to the
+smallest intelligence living in the infinite spaces--he would be just
+as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can be to him,
+provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity of his nature.
+
+There is another phrase to which I object--"toleration." "The limits
+of toleration." Why say "toleration"? I will tell you why. When
+the thinkers were in the minority--when the philosophers were
+vagabonds--when the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires--when
+the majority were ignorantly orthodox--when they hated the heretic as a
+last year's leaf hates a this year's bud--in that delightful time
+these poor people in the minority had to say to ignorant power, to
+conscientious rascality, to cruelty born of universal love: "Don't kill
+us; don't be so arrogantly meek as to burn us; tolerate us." At that
+time the minority was too small to talk about rights, and the great big
+ignorant majority when tired of shedding blood, said: "Well, we will
+tolerate you; we can afford to wait; you will not live long, and when
+the Being of infinite compassion gets hold of you we will glut our
+revenge through an eternity of joy; we will ask you every now and then,
+'What is your opinion now?'"
+
+Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness would have his
+revenge, they "tolerated" these thinkers, and that word finally took
+the place almost of liberty. But I do not like it. When you say "I
+tolerate," you do not say you have no right to punish, no right to
+persecute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for a few
+years, but you retain the right. I deny it.
+
+And let me say here to-night--it is your experience, it is mine--that
+the bigger a man is the more charitable he is; you know it. The more
+brain he has, the more excuses he finds for all the world; you know it.
+And if there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander than any
+man; he must have a thousand times more charity than the human heart can
+hold, and is it possible that he is going to hold his ignorant children
+responsible for the impressions made by nature upon their brain? Let us
+have some sense.
+
+There is another side to this question, and that is with regard to the
+freedom of thought and expression in matters pertaining to this world.
+
+No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor. He has no right
+to utter slander. He has no right to bear false witness. He has no right
+to be actuated by any motive except for the general good--but the
+things he does here to his neighbor--these are easily defined and easily
+punished. All that I object to is setting up a standard of authority in
+the world of art, the world of beauty, the world of poetry, the world
+of worship, the world of religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is
+what I object to; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every
+human being that has benefited this world would have been destroyed.
+If the people who believe that a certain belief is necessary to insure
+salvation had had control of this world, we would have been as ignorant
+to-night as wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in spite of
+them. There has not been a book of any value printed since the invention
+of that art--and when I say "of value," I mean that contained new
+and splendid truths--that was not anathematized by the gentlemen who
+believed that man is responsible for his thought. Every step has been
+taken in spite of that doctrine.
+
+Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of mind. And I have no
+fear about any other world--not the slightest. When I get there, I will
+give my honest opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought
+there; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least my
+self-respect.
+
+A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it. I cannot help
+it. I read a story--no matter whether in the original Hebrew, or whether
+it has been translated. I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter
+whether it is written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner--I have
+my idea about its truth. And I insist that each man has the right to
+judge that for himself, and for that reason, as I have already said, I
+am defending your right to differ with me--that is all. And if you do
+differ with me, all that it proves is that I do not agree with you.
+There is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars--there is no
+being--that can force my soul upon its knees, unless the reason is
+given. I will be no slave. I do not care how big my master is, I am just
+as small, if a slave, as though the master were small. It is not the
+greatness of the master that can honor the slave. In other words, I
+am going to act according to my right, as I understand it, without
+interfering with any other human being. And now, if you think--any of
+you, that you can control your thought, I want you to try it. There is
+not one here who can by any possibility think, only as he must.
+
+You remember the story of the Methodist minister who insisted that he
+could control his thoughts. A man said to him, "Nobody can control his
+own mind." "Oh, yes, he can," the preacher replied. "My dear sir," said
+the man, "you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without thinking of
+something else." "Oh, yes, I can." "Well, if you will do it, I will give
+you that horse, the best riding horse in this county." "Well, who is to
+judge?" said the preacher. "I will take your own word for it, and if you
+say the Lord's Prayer through without thinking of anything else, I will
+give you that horse." So the minister shut his eyes and began: "Our
+Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy
+will be done,"--"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"
+
+I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel more interest
+in the freedom of thought and speech than in all other questions,
+knowing, as I do, that it is the condition of great and splendid
+progress for the race; remembering, as I do, that the opposite idea has
+covered the cheek of the world with tears; remembering, and knowing, as
+I do, that the enemies of free thought and free speech have covered this
+world with blood. These men have filled the heavens with an infinite
+monster; they have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have
+made the present, when they have had the power, a perdition. These men,
+these doctrines, have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. These
+men, these doctrines, have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day.
+These men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced and
+killed every philosopher they could lay their bloody, cruel, ignorant
+hands upon.
+
+And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought, everywhere,
+in every department, domain, and realm of the human mind.
+
+
+REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.
+
+_Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President_: It is not only "the sense of
+the church" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is any sense at all;
+and I am only wondering how a reasonably intelligent being--meaning
+myself--could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr. Kernan, have
+undertaken to speak to-night.
+
+This is a new experience. I have never sung in any of Verdi's operas--I
+have never listened to one through--but I think I would prefer to try
+all three of these performances rather than go on with this duty which,
+in a vain moment of deluded vanity, I heedlessly undertook.
+
+I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the master of a ship
+who thinks that he can safely guide his bark. (I am not alluding to the
+traditional bark of St. Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always
+be, but the ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a
+guide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which we generally
+take for granted, and which are as necessary to our safety as the air
+which we breathe, or the sunshine that we enjoy, have been quietly,
+pleasantly, and smilingly thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just
+preceded me.
+
+Carlyle once said--and the thought came to me as the gentleman was
+speaking--"A Comic History of England!"--for some wretch had just
+written such a book--(talk of free thought and free speech when men do
+such things!)--"A Comic History of England!" The next thing we shall
+hear of will be "A Comic History of the Bible!" I think we have heard
+the first chapter of that comic history to-night; and the only comfort
+that I have--and possibly some other antiquated and superannuated
+persons of either sex, if such there be within my hearing--is that
+such things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the order of
+blasphemy, have been uttered with such charming bonhomie, and received
+with such enthusiastic admiration, that I have wondered whether we are
+in a Christian audience of the nineteenth century, or in a possible
+Ingersollian audience of the twenty-third.
+
+And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and desultory
+remarks, which are the only ones that I can make now and with which I
+may claim your polite attention--let me say a word about the comparison
+with which your worthy President opened these proceedings.
+
+There are two or three things upon which I am a little sensitive: One,
+aspersions upon the land of my birth--the city of New York; the next,
+the land of my fathers; and the next, the bark that I was just speaking
+of.
+
+Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to exhibit in the
+best possible style the new actor upon his stage, said that he had seen
+Victor Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques Rousseau's, and
+that he thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll.
+If that had been merely the expression of a natural desire to see him
+speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the interests of the Christian
+community have thought, but not said, "Amen!" (Here you will at once
+observe the distinction I make between free thought and free speech!)
+
+I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and particularly the
+eloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will think, that in anything I may
+say I intend any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent
+in freedom of speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as this
+rises entirely above and beyond the plane of personalities.
+
+I suppose that your President intended to compare Colonel Ingersoll to
+Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau. I have no retainer from either of
+those gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave you, I wish to
+defend their memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I do not
+think--with all respect to the eloquent and learned gentleman--that he
+is entitled to a place in that niche. Voltaire did many wrong things.
+He did them for many reasons, and chiefly because he was human.
+But Voltaire did a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble
+tragedies, which charmed and delighted his audiences, and dignified the
+stage, throughout his work was some effort to ameliorate the condition
+of the human race. He fought against torture; he fought against
+persecution; he fought against bigotry; he clamored and wrote against
+littleness and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed when he
+entered upon his domains at Fernay, to erect a church to the God of
+whom the most our friend can say is, "I do not know whether he exists or
+not."
+
+Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman, and in our
+day would probably have been locked up in an asylum and treated by
+intelligent doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a religious
+education, and if there be in his works or sayings anything to parallel
+what we have heard tonight--whether a parody on divine revelation, or a
+parody upon the prayer of prayers--I have not seen it.
+
+Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with prose and poetry
+that have made him the Shakespeare of the nineteenth century--poems as
+deeply imbued with a devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as
+the writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left the traces
+of his beneficent action all over the literature of his day, of his
+country, and of his race.
+
+All these men, then, have built up something. Will anyone, the most
+ardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell me what he has built up?
+
+To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman says that freedom of
+thought is a grand thing. Unfortunately, freedom of thought exists. What
+one of us would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts, if he
+only could? What persecution have any of us suffered to compare with the
+involuntary recurrence of these demons that enter our brain--that bring
+back past events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even with
+our blood--and make us slaves of a power unseen but uncontrollable and
+uncontrolled? Is it not unworthy of so eloquent and intelligent a man to
+preach before you here to-night that thought must always be free?
+
+When in the history of the world has thought ever been fettered? If
+there be a page in history upon which such an absurdity is written, I
+have failed to find it.
+
+Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most cruel and arbitrary ruler
+can no more penetrate into your bosom and mine and extract the inner
+workings of our brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun
+from its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is unseen, unhandled and
+untouched, and no despot has yet been able to reach it, except when the
+thoughts burst into words. And therefore, may we not consider now, and
+say, that liberty of word is what he wants, and not liberty of thought,
+which no one has ever gainsaid, or disputed?
+
+Liberty of speech!--and the gentleman generously tells us, "Why, I only
+ask for myself what I would cheerfully extend to you. I wish you to be
+free; and you can even entertain those old delusions which your mothers
+taught, and look with envious admiration upon me while I scale the giddy
+heights of Olympus, gather the honey and approach the stars and tell
+you how pure the air is in those upper regions which you are unable to
+reach."
+
+Thanks for his kindness! But I think that it is one thing for us to
+extend to him that liberty that he asks for--the liberty to destroy--and
+another thing for him to give us the liberty which we claim--the liberty
+to conserve.
+
+Oh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so pleasant! It marks the
+footsteps all through our life. The baby begins by destroying his bib;
+the older child by destroying his horse, and when the man is grown up
+and he joins the regiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a
+chance he will destroy human life.
+
+This building cost many thousand days' work. It was planned by more or
+less skillful architects (ignorant of ventilation, but well-meaning).
+Men lavished their thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance,
+upon this building. It took months and possibly years to build it and to
+adorn it and to beautify it. And yet, as it stands complete tonight with
+all of you here in the vigor of your life and in the enjoyment of such
+entertainment as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen
+men who with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all of us to
+instant destruction.
+
+The dynamite man may say to me, "I give you full liberty to build and
+occupy and insure, if you will give me liberty to blow up." Is that a
+fair bargain? Am I bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it?
+Liberty of speech! Tell me where liberty of speech has ever existed.
+There have been free societies, England was a free country. France has
+struggled through crisis after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We
+think we have liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would
+undertake to say that our society could live with liberty of speech?
+We have gone through many crises in our short history, and we know that
+thought is nothing before the law, but the word is an act--as guilty at
+times as the act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes
+that disgrace humanity and require the police.
+
+A word is an act--an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go
+unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker
+than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously?
+Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona--is it Iago, or
+Othello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the
+scaffold--who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned
+the ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer--but
+Iago went scot free. That was a word.
+
+"Oh," says the counsel, "but that does not apply to individuals; be
+tender and charitable to individuals." Tender and charitable to men if
+they endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate and respect!
+
+Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my house, my castle,
+and debauch my children from the faith that they have been taught? Are
+you tender and charitable to them and to me when you teach them that I
+have instructed them in falsehood, that their mother has rocked them in
+blasphemy, and that they are now among the fools and the witlings of the
+world because they believe in my precepts? Is that the charity that you
+speak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such as that, should ever
+invade my home or yours!
+
+We all understand, and the learned gentleman will admit, that his
+discourse is but an eloquent apology for blasphemy. And when I say this,
+I beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice
+of strong words to give point to a pointless argument, or to offend
+a courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he would, with
+characteristic candor, say, "Yes, that is what I claim--the liberty to
+blaspheme; the world has outgrown these things; and I claim to-day, as I
+claimed a few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of New
+Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your tongue is free to revile
+and insult man's maker." New Jersey was behind in the race for progress,
+and did not accept his argument. His unfortunate client was convicted
+and had to pay the fine which the press--which is seldom mistaken--says
+came from the pocket of his generous counsel.
+
+The argument was a strong one; the argument was brilliant, and was able;
+and I say now, with all my predilections for the church of my fathers,
+and for your church (because it is not a question of our differences,
+but it is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the roots, not
+what branches may bear richer fruit or deserve to be lopped off)--I say,
+why has every Christian State passed these statutes against blasphemy?
+Turning into ridicule sacred things--firing off the Lord's Prayer as
+you would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem--that is what I mean by
+blasphemy. If there is any other or better definition, give it me, and I
+will use it.
+
+Now understand. All these States of ours care not one fig what our
+religion is. Behave yourselves properly, obey the laws, do not require
+the intervention of the police, and the majesty of your conscience will
+be as exalted as the sun. But the wisest men and the best men--possibly
+not so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without offence to
+him--other names that shine brightly in the galaxy of our best men, have
+insisted and maintained that the Christian faith was the ligament that
+kept our modern society together, and our laws have said, and the laws
+of most of our States say, to this day, "Think what you like, but do
+not, like Samson, pull the pillars down upon us all."
+
+If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that I should
+say it now. My exordium has been very long, but it was no longer than
+the dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.
+
+Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech we never had. Did we
+have it before the war? Many of us here remember that if you crossed an
+imaginary line and went among some of the noblest and best men that ever
+adorned this continent, one word against slavery meant death. And if you
+say that that was the influence of slavery, I will carry you to Boston,
+that city which numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to
+the acre as any city on the globe--was it different there?
+
+Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he got there, was
+seized and turned back; and when a few good and brave men, in defence
+of free speech, undertook to defend the slave and to try and give him
+liberty, they were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city. You
+may say, "That proves there was no liberty of speech." No; it proves
+this: that wherever, and wheresoever, and whenever, liberty of speech is
+incompatible with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall
+back and give way, in order that the State may be preserved.
+
+First, above everything, above all things, the safety of the people is
+the supreme law. And if rhetoricians, anxious to tear down, anxious to
+pluck the faith from the young ones who are unable to defend it, come
+forward with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces clothed in
+second-hand purple and tinsel, and try to tear down the temple, then
+it is time, I shall not say for good men--for I know so few they make a
+small battalion--but for good women, to come to the rescue.
+
+
+GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.
+
+Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen>: At this late hour, I could not
+attempt--even if I would--the eloquence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll;
+nor the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend Mr.
+Coudert. But there are some things so serious about this subject that
+we discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if, without preface, and
+without rhetoric, I get at once to what from my Protestant standpoint
+seems the fatal logical error of Mr. Inger-soll's position.
+
+Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement--and that I may not, for I could
+not, do him injustice, nor myself injustice, in the quotation, I will
+give it as he stated it--he starts with this statement: that thought is
+a necessary natural product, the result of what we call impressions made
+through the medium of the senses upon the brain.
+
+Do you think that is thought? Now stop--turn right into your own
+minds--is that thought? Does not will power take hold? Does not reason
+take hold? Does not memory take hold, and is not thought the action of
+the brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed by manifold
+and varying influences?
+
+Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human being is
+accountable to any being, human or divine, for his thought.
+
+He starts with the assumption that thought is the inevitable impression
+burnt upon the mind at once, and then jumps to the conclusion that there
+is no responsibility. Now, is not that a fair logical analysis of what
+he has said?
+
+My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then my mind, out
+of that impression, works good or evil. The glass of brandy, being
+presented to my physical sense, inspires thirst--inspires the thought
+of thirst--inspires the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for
+the result of the mind given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise
+to the dignity of self-control?
+
+Every thing of sense leaves its impression upon the mind. If there be no
+responsibility anywhere, then is this world blind chance. If there be
+no responsibility anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he
+be guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve no censure if I be
+carrying you back into the path of superstition. Why, admit for a moment
+that a man has no control over his thought, and you destroy absolutely
+the power of regenerating the world, the power of improving the world.
+The world swings one way, or it swings the other. If it be true that in
+all these ages we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that
+is true simply and alone because the mind of man through reason, through
+memory, through a thousand inspirations and desires and hopes, has ever
+tended toward better results and higher achievements.
+
+No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I recognize that I
+am accountable to myself; I recognize that whether I rise or fall, that
+whether my life goes upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And
+so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in spite
+of all eloquence, each woman, each man within this audience is
+responsible--first of all to herself and himself--whether when bad
+thoughts, when passion, when murder, when evil come into the heart or
+brain he harbors them there or he casts them out.
+
+I am responsible further--I am responsible to my neighbor. I know that I
+am my neighbor's keeper, I know that as I touch your life, as you touch
+mine, I am responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my
+influence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am dragging you
+down; you are either helping me up or you are dragging me down--and you
+know it. Sophistry cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us
+from it. You know that if you look back through the record of your life,
+there are lives that you have helped and lives that you have hurt. You
+know that there are lives on the downward plane that went down because
+in an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with blessing, lives
+that have gone up because you have reached out to them a helping
+hand. That responsibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an
+accountability that you and I cannot avoid or evade.
+
+I believe one thing further: that because there is a creation there is a
+Creator. I believe that because there is force, there is a Projector of
+force; because there is matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe
+these things. I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not; it
+may be that he is right, that I am wrong; but if there be a Power
+that sent me into this world, so far as that Power has given me wrong
+direction, or permitted wrong direction, that Power will judge me
+justly. So far as I disregard the light that I have, whatever it
+may be--whether it br light of reason, light of conscience, light of
+history--so far as I do that which my judgment tells me is wrong, I am
+responsible and I am accountable.
+
+Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply this: It would
+vary from the theory as taught by the mother church--it certainly swings
+far away from the theory as suggested by my friend; I understand the
+Protestant theory to be this: That every man is responsible to himself,
+to his neighbor, and to his God, for his thought. Not for the first
+impression--but for that impression, for that direction and result which
+he intelligently gives to the first impression or deduces from it. I
+understand that the Protestant idea is this: that man may think--we know
+he will think--for himself; but that he is responsible for it. That a
+man may speak his thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He
+must use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the well-being of
+any other one--so that when using this liberty, when exercising this
+freedom, he is accountable at the last to his God. And so Protestantism
+sends me into the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.
+
+It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the bar of his
+conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man, but it holds him in the
+inevitable grip of absolute responsibility for every light word idly
+spoken.
+
+God grant that he may use that power so that he can face that
+responsibility at the last!
+
+It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and stand by his church
+according to his own conviction.
+
+It stands for this; the absolute liberty of each individual man to
+think, to write, to speak, to act, according to the best light within
+him; limited as to his fellows, by the condition that he shall not use
+that liberty so as to injure them; limited in the other direction, by
+those tremendous laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in
+spite of all logic.
+
+If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a wrong, that
+wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If
+I would try to escape what you call judgment, what you call penalty, I
+cannot escape the working of the inevitable-law that follows a cause by
+effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law--not the creation of
+some dark monster flashing through the skies--but, as I believe, the
+beneficent creation which puts into the spiritual life the same control
+of law that guides the material life, which wisely makes me responsible,
+that in the solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my
+brother up and never to drag my brother down.
+
+
+REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.
+
+The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground boldly that
+expression is not free--that no man has the right to express his real
+thoughts--and I suppose that he acted in accordance with that idea. How
+are you to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he said, or
+not? How is it possible for us to ascertain whether he is simply the
+mouthpiece of some other? Whether he is a free man, or whether he says
+that which he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.
+
+He tells you that I am about to take away the religion of your mothers.
+I have heard that said a great many times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has
+the religion of his mother, and judging from the argument he made, his
+mother knew at least as much about these questions as her son. I believe
+that every good father and good mother wants to see the son and the
+daughter climb higher upon the great and splendid mount of thought than
+they reached.
+
+You never can honor your father by going around swearing to his
+mistakes. You never can honor your mother by saying that ignorance is
+blessed because she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents
+by finding out more than they did.
+
+There is another thing that I was a little astonished at--that Mr.
+Coudert, knowing that he would be in eternal felicity with his harp in
+his hand, seeing me in the world of the damned, could yet grow envious
+here to-night at my imaginary monument.
+
+And he tells you--this Catholic--that Voltaire was an exceedingly good
+Christian compared with me. Do you know I am glad that I have compelled
+a Catholic--one who does not believe he has the right to express his
+honest thoughts--to pay a compliment to Voltaire simply because he
+thought it was at my expense?
+
+I have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and when I hear that
+name pronounced, I think of a plume floating over a mailed knight--I
+think of a man that rode to the beleaguered City of Catholicism and
+demanded a surrender--I think of a great man who thrust the dagger of
+assassination into your Mother Church, and from that wound she never
+will recover.
+
+One word more. This gentleman says that children are destructive--that
+the first thing they do is to destroy their bibs. The gentleman, I
+should think from his talk, has preserved his!
+
+They talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy? Let us be honest with each
+other. Whoever lives upon the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.
+Whoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. Whoever denies
+to others the rights that he claims for himself is a blasphemer.
+
+Who is a worshiper? One who makes a happy home--one who fills the
+lives of wife and children with sunlight--one who has a heart where
+the flowers of kindness burst into blossom and fill the air with
+perfume--the man who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted,
+and holds her thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately and
+loves her as truly and as rapturously as when she was a bride--he is a
+worshiper--that is worship.
+
+And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why we should not have
+free speech, that only a few years ago some of the best men in the
+world, if you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you down.
+What an argument was that! They were not good men. They were
+the whippers of women and the stealers of babes--robbers of the
+trundlebed--assassins of human liberty. They knew no better, but I do
+not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly
+a barbarian.
+
+So much for debauching his family by telling them that his precepts
+are false. If he has taught them as he has taught us to-night, he has
+debauched their minds. I would be honest at the cradle. I would not
+tell a child anything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be
+absolutely honest.
+
+But he says that thought is absolutely free--nobody can control thought.
+Let me tell him: Superstition is the jailer of the mind. You can so
+stuff a child with superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile
+and its poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind, and
+superstition is the assassin of liberty.
+
+So when anybody goes into his family and tells these great and shining
+truths, instead of debauching his children they will kill the snakes
+that crawl in their cradles. Let us be honest and free.
+
+And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a Protestant. The
+Catholic Church says: "Don't think; pay your fare; this is a through
+ticket, and we will look out for your baggage." The Protestant Church
+says: "Read that Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves; but if you
+do not come to a right conclusion you will be eternally damned." Any
+sensible man will say, "Then I won't read it--I'll believe it without
+reading it." And that is the only way you can be sure you will believe
+it; don't read it.
+
+Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our thoughts. Why?
+Could you help thinking as you did on this subject? No, Could you help
+believing the Bible? I suppose not. Could you help believing that story
+of Jonah? Certainly not--it looks reasonable in Brooklyn.
+
+I stated that thought was the result of the impressions of nature upon
+the mind through the medium of the senses. He says you cannot have
+thought without memory. How did you get the first one?
+
+Of course I intended to be understood--and the language is clear--that
+there could be no thought except through the impressions made upon the
+brain by nature through the avenues called the senses. Take away the
+senses, how would you think then? If you thought at all, I think you
+would agree with Mr. Coudert.
+
+Now, I admit--so we need never have a contradiction about it--I admit
+that every human being is responsible to the person he injures. If he
+injures any man, woman, or child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that
+crawls, he is responsible to that animal, to that being--in other words,
+he is responsible to any being that he has injured.
+
+But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one. I will tell
+you why. You cannot help him, and you cannot hurt him. If there be an
+infinite Being, he is conditionless--he does not want anything--he has
+it. You cannot help anybody that does not want something--you cannot
+help him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a conditioned being
+and you change his condition so as to inflict a harm. But if God be
+conditionless, you cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do
+not trouble yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within
+reach--all our duties are right here; and my religion is simply this:
+
+_First_. Give to every other human being every right that you claim for
+yourself.
+
+_Second_. If you tell your thought at all, tell your honest thought. Do
+not be a parrot--do not be an instrumentality for an organization. Tell
+your own thought, honor bright, what you think.
+
+My next idea is, that the only possible good in the universe is
+happiness. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here.
+The way to be happy is to try and make somebody else so.
+
+My good friend General Woodford--and he is a good man telling the best
+he knows--says that I will be accountable at the bar up yonder. I am
+ready to settle that account now, and expect to be, every moment of my
+life--and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I do not believe
+that a solitary being can rise and say that I ever injured him or her.
+
+But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story, how we will settle
+if we do get there.
+
+You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his
+country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told
+him that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or
+twelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when
+that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body.
+But he denied it. He was one of those men who would not believe further
+than his vision extended.
+
+So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose
+and he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was
+blown so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said,
+"My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no
+other country, and here it is!" So he did his best--paddled with what
+little strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat.
+Sure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high.
+The poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the
+tall man as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied
+your existence--I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such
+country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going
+to kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my
+misery. Do it now!"
+
+The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till
+he asked, "What are you going to do with me, because over in that other
+country I denied your existence?" "What am I going to do with you?" said
+the supposed God. "Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I
+am going to treat you well."
+
+
+
+
+A CHRISTMAS SERMON.
+
+
+     * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel
+     Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December
+     19,1891.
+
+
+I.
+
+THE good part of Christmas is not always Christian--it is generally
+Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.
+
+Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message
+of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its
+lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.
+
+It taught some good things--the beauty of love and kindness in man. But
+as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has
+given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the
+soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled
+the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not
+satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.
+
+In answer to this "Christmas Sermon" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor
+of the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist
+Church, wrote an article, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening
+Telegram for publishing such a "sermon."
+
+This attack was headed "Lies That Are Mountainous." The Telegram
+promptly accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do
+his utmost. On the very same day it published an answer from Colonel
+Ingersoll that echoed throughout America.'
+
+And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the
+old festival called Christmas.
+
+Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers
+of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin
+perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the
+sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a
+festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is
+the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed
+from the Pagans the best it has.
+
+I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy.
+We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much
+like the English.
+
+I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming
+Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman.
+We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days--the
+more the better.
+
+Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget--a good day to throw away
+prejudices and hatreds--a good day to fill your heart and your house,
+and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.
+
+R. G Ingersoll.
+
+
+COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.
+
+II.
+
+WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for
+kindness, charity and love.
+
+The gentle editor of the _Christian Advocate_ charges me with having
+written three "gigantic falsehoods," and he points them out as follows:
+_First_--"Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy? but with
+a message of eternal grief."
+
+_Second_--"It [Christianity] has filled the future with fear and flame,
+and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the
+home of nearly all the sons of men."
+
+_Third_--"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity] has deprived God of
+the pardoning power."
+
+Now, let us take up these "gigantic falsehoods" in their order and see
+whether they are in accord with the New Testament or not--whether they
+are supported by the creed of the Methodist Church.
+
+I insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but
+with a message of eternal grief.
+
+According to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the tidings
+that the human race was totally depraved, and that all men were in a
+lost condition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe the new
+religion, would be tormented in eternal fire.
+
+These were not "tidings of great joy."
+
+If the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was to be
+wrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would go to
+the bottom, would they talk about "tidings of great joy"? It is to be
+presumed that Christ knew what his mission was, and what he came for.
+He says: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to
+send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
+his father, and the daughter against her mother." In my judgment, these
+are not "tidings of great joy."
+
+Now, as to the message of eternal grief:
+
+"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
+cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
+
+"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous
+[meaning the Methodists] into life eternal."
+
+"He that believeth not shall be damned."
+
+"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
+abideth on him."
+
+"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
+but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
+hell."
+
+"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever."
+
+Knowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that during
+the last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has died in the
+faith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it can
+truthfully be said that Christianity came with a message of eternal
+grief.
+
+Now, as to the second "gigantic falsehood," to the effect that
+Christianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the
+keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all
+the sons of men.
+
+In the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some other
+world, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah
+killed one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was glutted
+when the victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future to sleep and
+oblivion. But in the New Testament we are told that the punishment
+in another world is everlasting, and that "the smoke of their torment
+ascendeth up forever and ever."
+
+This awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future with
+fear and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox churches have
+constructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are
+to be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this prison God is the
+keeper. The doors are opened only to receive.
+
+The doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As I have
+often said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the justice of
+endless pain, is suffering from at least two diseases--petrifaction of
+the heart and putrefaction of the brain.
+
+The next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of the
+pardoning power.
+
+The Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life
+is a period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation
+after death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.
+
+This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then
+God will never release a soul from hell--the pardoning power will never
+be exercised.
+
+How happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing
+that billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers,
+brothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal
+dungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!
+
+Yet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New
+Testament, of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those who
+would desert brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or
+children.
+
+It seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring "tidings of great
+joy," but that it came with a "message of eternal grief"--that it did
+"fill the future with fear and flame," that it did make God "the keeper
+of an eternal penitentiary," that the penitentiary "was destined to be
+the home of nearly all the sons of men," and that "it deprived God of
+the pardoning power."
+
+Of course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible, others of
+war--some filled with mercy, and others cruel as the fangs of a wild
+beast.
+
+According to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison--an everlasting
+Siberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony and shame.
+
+What do I think of what the Doctor says about the _Telegram_ for having
+published my Christmas sermon?
+
+The editor of the _Christian Advocate_ has no idea of what intellectual
+liberty means. He ought to know that a man should not be insulted
+because another man disagrees with him.
+
+What right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons, and what
+right has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley? The same right
+that I have to disagree with them both.
+
+I do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist papers or
+books. But I do tell them to investigate for themselves--to stand by
+what they believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all things,
+to preserve their mental manhood. The good Doctor wants the _Telegram_
+destroyed--wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of
+punishing the _Telegram_--because it published something with which the
+reverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree with the
+Doctor.
+
+It is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The doctor
+of theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost its
+lightning--it is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it and
+amusing those who hear.
+
+The _Telegram_ has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest sense, a
+newspaper--wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to its friends, fair
+with its enemies, and true to the public.
+
+What have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?
+
+Nothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say that I
+am incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this
+proves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.
+
+I cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental manners.
+The cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained
+by an ignorant or a malicious personality.
+
+I know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so I
+say--More light!
+
+
+III.
+
+THE Rev. James M. King--who seems to have taken this occasion to become
+known--finds fault because "blasphemous utterances concerning Christmas"
+were published in the _Telegram_, and were allowed "to greet the eyes of
+innocent children and pure women."
+
+How is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,
+holier than another--that is to say, two equal spaces of time are
+substantially alike. We call a day "good" or "bad" according to what
+happens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with
+noble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and
+misery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?
+
+A man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of
+December, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned,
+with good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe
+that Christ was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all
+his friends unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called "clean
+families" be violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to
+whether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor
+of the triumph of the sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian
+families so weak intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other
+side? Or is their case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows
+it? Why do all these ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise
+a question as to the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability
+of the impossible?
+
+A minister says to me that I am going to hell--that I am bound to be
+punished forever and ever--and thereupon I say to him: "There is no
+hell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to
+suffer agony forever;" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me
+this question: "Why do you hurt my feelings?" It does not occur to him
+that I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal
+grief.
+
+Does the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ
+with him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the
+memory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his
+divine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other
+than a good and heroic man. And there are thousands of people who
+admire the character of Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever
+existed--who admire the character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or
+Per-dita, not believing that any of the characters mentioned actually
+lived.
+
+And it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any
+really good man or good woman--that is, no human being hates a man known
+to be good--a woman known to be pure and good. No human being hates a
+lovable character.
+
+It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to
+understand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad
+motive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a
+man is a Christian or a Mohammedan "for revenue only." I do not say that
+a man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches
+with the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his
+reasons--with his motives I have nothing to do.
+
+Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity "for revenue
+only." Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox
+religion that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can
+hardly believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far.
+I regret exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his
+remark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for
+any human being to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his
+fellow-men. Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read, even
+in this ignorant present, that there is one man, and that man myself,
+who advocates human liberty--the absolute enfranchisement of the
+soul--and does it "for revenue"--because this charge is such a splendid
+compliment to my fellow-men.
+
+Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the
+_Telegram_ and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is
+in harmony with the intelligence of the age.
+
+My opinion is that the _Telegram_ will receive the praise of enlightened
+and generous people.
+
+Personally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,
+and I would much rather meet on the desert--were I about to perish for
+want of water--a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a Christian
+who would not; because, after all is said and done, we are compelled to
+judge people by their actions.
+
+I do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,
+inhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes
+place there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,
+masked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we
+can possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the
+actions of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the
+character, of the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good
+or bad, not by his theories, but by his actions.
+
+Under no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched
+in becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well
+enough to inquire: What is blasphemy?
+
+A man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain
+the pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A
+man who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He
+who runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a
+blasphemer.
+
+In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there
+is one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In
+the presence of this statue the good man worships--the bad man
+blasphemes--that is to say, he is not true to the ideal.
+
+A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So,
+too, a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is
+a blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as
+portrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as
+bad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes that the character of
+Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it
+good, he is a blasphemer and a coward.
+
+All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed by the numerically strong
+and intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who,
+finding no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.
+
+Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do
+not say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests
+had not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to
+God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not
+use, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.
+
+Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests "for revenue
+only," but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that
+the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without
+revenue.
+
+I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel
+has a right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost
+cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have
+ever objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of
+others.
+
+I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as
+the Christmas Sermon are "revolting to a vast majority of the people who
+give character to the community in which we live." I suppose that a
+very large majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly
+satisfied that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not
+disagree with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me.
+And I also imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are
+perfectly willing to hear the other side.
+
+I do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that
+have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense
+or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth
+preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate
+of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.
+
+I do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words
+published by, the _Telegram_. The most that can possibly be said against
+them, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that they
+were true--that they cannot be answered except by abuse.
+
+It is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood
+of intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print.
+The church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most
+of this time it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many
+centuries it controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had
+within its gift wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world
+is concerned, of heaven and hell--that is to say, of prosperity and
+misfortune. It pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the
+scaffold with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet
+for many centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.
+Millions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has made
+millions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this world,
+but it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under this
+pretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal flames.
+
+At last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous
+assumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many
+years gradually losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now
+to the people. The partnership between altar and throne has in many
+countries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of church and state
+has ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their honest thoughts.
+In the arena where speech is free, superstition is driven to the wall.
+Man relies more and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest is
+the interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its power. In a little
+while religion will take its place with astrology, with the black art,
+and its ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand
+performers.
+
+With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but
+little to say.
+
+I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press--that he,
+like Lucretia Mott, believes in "truth for authority, and not authority
+for truth." At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am not a
+scientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there is
+any fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be
+pointed out. I admit also, that I am a "sentimentalist"--that is, that I
+am governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment--that my mind is so that
+cruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and admiration. I
+admit that I am so much of "a sentimentalist" that I have no love for
+the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for me
+to believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless
+billions of men, women and children.
+
+I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have "stabbed
+to the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies," and I hope to stab
+many, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the
+heart there will be no foundation left for what I called "orthodox"
+Christianity--but goodness will survive, justice will live, and the
+flower of mercy will shed its perfume forever.
+
+When we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a
+minister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a
+divine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion:
+"If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not
+see why he could not utilize the Colonel." It is natural for a man to
+justify himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however,
+will remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and
+that the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that
+the spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet.
+It was the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I
+suggest to the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he
+will find:--
+
+_First_, that the ass _first_ saw the angel of the Lord; _second_, that
+the prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; _third_, that
+the prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent
+ass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and
+demonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In
+addition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the
+prophet--in other words, had to work a miracle--in order to make the
+prophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his
+cruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever
+the ass saw him--the angel--showing that the spiritual discernment of
+the ass in those days was far superior to that of the prophet.
+
+I regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.
+Dixon is not quite polite.
+
+All of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he
+who seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.
+
+And there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the
+justice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the
+foundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument
+fails passion comes to the rescue.
+
+Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each
+other.
+
+The course pursued by the _Telegram_ is worthy of all praise. It has not
+only been just to both sides, but it has been--as is its custom--true to
+the public.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+INGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.
+
+IV.
+
+_To the Editor of the Evening Telegram _:
+
+SOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the columns of
+the _Telegram_ have wandered from the questions under discussion. It may
+be well enough to state what is really in dispute.
+
+I was called to account for having stated that Christianity did not
+bring "tidings of great joy," but a message of eternal grief--that it
+filled the future with fear and flame--made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned
+forever, and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the
+pardoning power.
+
+These statements were called "mountainous lies" by the Rev. Dr.
+Buckley, and because the _Telegram_ had published the "Christmas Sermon"
+containing these statements, he insisted that such a paper should not be
+allowed in the families of Christians or of Jews--in other words, that
+the _Telegram_ should be punished, and that good people should refuse to
+allow that sheet to come into their homes.
+
+It will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if the
+orthodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the bearer of a
+message of eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race are to
+become eternal convicts, and God has deprived himself of the pardoning
+power. According to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost
+can ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.
+
+The Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of
+Christianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that
+doctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with "tidings of
+great joy."
+
+Personally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I have no
+quarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the human race.
+I find fault with no one for filling the future with joy--for dreaming
+splendid dreams and for uttering splendid prophecies. I do not object
+to Christianity because it promises heaven to a few, but because it
+threatens the many with perdition.
+
+It does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that degree
+that he died that they might be saved, abandons his children the moment
+they are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might do something
+for a soul after it has reached the other world.
+
+Is it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done for a
+majority of souls in this world?
+
+Think of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in poverty and
+crime. Think of the millions who are only partially developed in this
+world. Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of passion. Think
+of the temptations innumerable. Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of
+the arrogance of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak--and
+can we then say that an infinite God has done, in this world, all
+that could be done for the salvation of his children? Is it not barely
+possible that something may be done in another world? Is there nothing
+left for God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it
+leaves this world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence
+of eternal pain?
+
+I insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did not come
+with "tidings of great joy," but that its message was and is one of
+eternal grief.
+
+If the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast blunder--an
+infinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that every pulse of life
+should cease--better that all the gods should fall palsied from their
+thrones, than that the creed of Christendom should be true.
+
+There is another question and that involves the freedom of the press.
+
+The _Telegram_ has acted with the utmost fairness and with the highest
+courage. After all, the American people admire the man who takes
+his stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality of
+progress, the press must be free. Only the free can carry a torch.
+Liberty sheds light.
+
+The editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position, and
+he must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and ignorant
+children. He must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, suppress the
+truth--neither must he be dictated to by any church or any society of
+believers or unbelievers. The _Telegram_, by its course, has given
+a certificate of its manliness, and the public, by its course, has
+certified that it appreciates true courage.
+
+All Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and that
+the sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember that there
+are no such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany, or
+Catholic chemistry. The sciences are secular. .
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues--and yet, in some
+things, I agree with him. He is certainly right when he says that "Mr.
+Buckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-American," but I
+am not certain that he is right when he says that it is un-Christian.
+
+The church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with kind
+words and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always been rather
+relentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has never forgiven.
+There is in the history of Christendom no instance where the church has
+extended the hand of friendship to a man who denied the truth of its
+creed.
+
+There is in the church no spirit--no climate--of compromise. In the
+nature of things there can be none, because the church claims that it
+is absolutely right--that there is only one road leading to heaven.
+It demands unconditional surrender. It will not bear contradiction.
+It claims to have the absolute truth. For these reasons it cannot
+consistently compromise, any more than a mathematician could change the
+multiplication table to meet the view of some one who should deny that
+five times five are twenty-five.
+
+The church does not give its opinion--it claims to know--it demands
+belief. Honesty, industry, generosity count for nothing in the absence
+of belief. It has taught and still teaches that no man can reach heaven
+simply through good and honest deeds. It believes and teaches that the
+man who relies upon himself will be eternally punished--and why should
+the church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat
+impatiently to damn?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters asks--and probably honestly thinks that the
+questions are pertinent to the issues involved--"What has infidelity
+done for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it
+founded? What has it done for the elevation of public morals?" And he
+inquires what science or art has been originated by infidelity. He asks
+how many slaves it has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed,
+how many fallen women it has restored, and what it did for the relief
+of the wounded and dying soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it
+ever assisted to higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.
+
+Although these questions have nothing whatever to do with the matters
+under discussion, still it may be well enough to answer them.
+
+It is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been built
+by Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted that
+hospitals and asylums have been built in countries not Christian; that
+there were such institutions in China thousands of years before Christ
+was born, and that many centuries before the establishment of any
+orthodox church there were asylums on the banks of the Nile--asylums for
+the old, the poor, the infirm--asylums for the blind and for the insane,
+and that the Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity
+with kindness and affection. The same is true of India and probably of
+most ancient nations.
+
+There has always been more or less humanity in man--more or less
+goodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have always
+loved their children. There must always have been more good than evil,
+otherwise the human race would have perished. The best things in the
+Christian religion came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered
+the sublimest of truths, and all ages have been redeemed by honesty,
+heroism, and love.
+
+But let me answer these questions in their order.
+
+_First_--As to the schools.
+
+It is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always been
+in favor of education--that is to say, of education enough to make a
+Catholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have
+always been in favor of enough education to make a Protestant out of a
+Catholic. Many schools and many colleges have been established for the
+spread of what is called the Gospel and for the education of the clergy.
+Presbyterians have founded schools for the benefit of their creed.
+The Methodists have established colleges for the purpose of making
+Methodists. The same is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of
+fact, these schools have in many important directions hindered rather
+than helped the cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to
+investigate for themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were
+told that thought is dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with
+creeds--with the ideas of others. Their credulity was applauded and
+their curiosity condemned. If all the people had been educated in these
+sectarian schools, all the people would have been far more ignorant
+than they are. These schools have been, and most of them still are, the
+enemies of higher education, and just to the extent that they are under
+the control of theologians they are hindrances, and just to the extent
+that they have become secularized they have been and are a benefit.
+
+Our public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I admit
+that it never could have been established without the assistance of
+Christians--neither could it have been supported without the assistance
+of others. But such is the value placed upon education that people of
+nearly all denominations, and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all
+opinions, for the most part agree that the children of a nation should
+be educated by the nation. Some religious people are opposed to these
+schools because they are not religious--because they do not teach some
+creed--but a large majority of the people stand by the public schools
+as they are. These schools are growing better and better, simply because
+they are growing less and less theological, more and more secular.
+
+Infidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that only that
+should be taught in schools which somebody knows or has good reason to
+believe.
+
+The greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who have the
+least confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that stand highest
+in the estimation of the most intelligent are those that have drifted
+farthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought has always been and ever
+must be the friend of education. Without free thought there can be no
+such thing--in the highest sense--as a school. Unless the mind is free,
+there are no teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and splendid
+sense.
+
+The church has been and still is the enemy of education, because it has
+been in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological schools have
+been what might be called the deformatories of the human mind.
+
+For instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In this
+university he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua
+stopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts the truth
+of the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and yet believes that
+water was turned into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory of
+cause and effect, and at the same time he thoroughly believes in the
+miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes. Can such an institution,
+with any propriety, be called a seat of learning? Can we not say of such
+a university what Bruno said of Oxford: "Learning is dead and Oxford is
+its widow."
+
+Year after year the religious colleges are improving--simply because
+they are becoming more and more secular, less and less theological.
+Whether infidelity has founded universities or not, it can truthfully be
+said that the spirit of investigation, the spirit of free thought, the
+attitude of mental independence, contended for by those who are called
+infidels, have made schools useful instead of hurtful.
+
+Can it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice against
+education? Can there be found in the literature of free thought one
+line against the enlightenment of the human race? Has free thought ever
+endeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not always appealed to the
+senses--to demonstration? It has not said, "He that hath ears to hear,
+let him hear," but it has said, "He that hath brains to think, let him
+think."
+
+The object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every direction,
+to the end that man may know the conditions of happiness--and every
+school should be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by anything
+except a perceived fact. He should not be the slave of a creed, engaged
+in the business of enslaving others.
+
+So much for schools.
+
+
+Second--As to public morals.
+
+Christianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every church
+unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I do not
+mean by this that any church consciously advocates immorality. I
+most cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of ministers are
+endeavoring to do good--that they are pure, self-denying men, trying
+to make this world better. But there is a frightful defect in their
+philosophy. They say to the bank cashier: You must not steal, you must
+not take a dollar--larceny is wrong, it is contrary to all law, human
+and divine--but if you do steal every cent in the bank, God will as
+gladly, quickly forgive you in Canada as he will in the United States.
+On the other hand, what is called infidelity says: There is no being in
+the universe who rewards, and there is no being who punishes--every act
+has its consequences. If the act is good, the consequences are good; if
+the act is bad, the consequences are bad; and these consequences must be
+borne by the actor. It says to every human being: You must reap what
+you sow. There is no reward, there is no punishment, but there are
+consequences, and these consequences are the invisible and implacable
+police of nature. They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No
+power can awe them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make
+them pause. Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant
+their victim.
+
+This great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If all
+men knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of their own
+actions--if they absolutely knew that they could not injure another
+without injuring themselves, the world, in my judgment, would be far
+better than it is.
+
+Free thought has attacked the morality of what is called the atonement.
+The innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the innocent
+does suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the
+guilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in some way, causes
+the innocent to suffer. This being the very essence of wrong, how can
+the suffering of innocence justify the guilty? If there be a world of
+joy, he who is worthy to enter that world must be willing to carry his
+own burdens in this.
+
+So much for morality.
+
+
+Third--As to sciences and art.
+
+I do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any science.
+I do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New Testament.
+There is not one word, so far as I remember, about education--nothing
+about any science, nothing about art. The writers of the New Testament
+seem to have thought that the world was about coming to an end. This
+world was to be sacrificed absolutely to the next. The affairs of this
+life were not worth speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at
+once for the other life.
+
+The sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not interfere
+with orthodox theology. To the extent that they were supposed to
+interfere with theology they have been obstructed and denounced.
+Astronomy was found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the
+astronomers were imprisoned and despised. Geology contradicted the
+Mosaic account, and the geologists were denounced and persecuted. Every
+step taken in astronomy was taken in spite of the church, and every fact
+in geology had to fight its way. The same is true as to the science of
+medicine. The church wished to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and
+prayer, and with the bones of the saints. The church wished man to
+rely entirely upon God--that is to say, upon the church--and not upon
+himself. The physician interfered with the power and prosperity of the
+priest, and those who appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking
+faith in God. This state of things existed even in the Old Testament
+times. A king failed to send for the prophets, but sent for a physician,
+and then comes this piece of grim humor: "And Asa slept with his
+fathers."
+
+The great names in science are not those of recognized saints.
+
+Bruno--one of the greatest and bravest of men--greatest of all
+martyrs--perished at the stake, because he insisted on the existence of
+other worlds and taught the astronomy of Galileo.
+
+Humboldt--in some respects the wisest man known to the scientific
+world--denied the existence of the supernatural and "the truths of
+revealed religion," and yet he revolutionized the thought of his day and
+left a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.
+
+Darwin--greatest of scientists--so great that our time will probably
+be known as "Darwin's Century"--had not the slightest confidence in any
+possible phase of the so-called supernatural. This great man left the
+creed of Christendom without a foundation. He brought as witnesses
+against the inspiration of the Scriptures such a multitude of facts,
+such an overwhelming amount of testimony, that it seems impossible to
+me that any unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain
+a believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the
+schools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded. He
+revolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.
+
+The writers who have done most for science have been the most bitterly
+opposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries
+of the world that cannot be found on the "Index Expurgatorius." Kant
+and Fichte and Spinoza were far above and beyond the orthodox-world.
+Voltaire did more for freedom than any other man, and yet the church
+denounced him with a fury amounting to insanity--called him an atheist,
+although he believed not only in God, but in special providence. He was
+opposed to the church--that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that
+reason he was despised.
+
+And what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of Draper,
+of Haeckel, of Buechner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and
+hundreds and thousands of others who have filled the scientific world
+with light and the heart of man with love and kindness?
+
+It may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that Christianity is
+indebted to Greece and Rome for its highest conceptions, and it may be
+well to add that for many centuries Christianity did the best it could
+to destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and Rome. A few were buried,
+and in that way were saved from Christian fury.
+
+The same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few fragments
+were rescued, and these became the seeds of modern literature. A few
+statues were preserved, and they are to-day models for all the world.
+
+Of course it will be admitted that there is much art in Christian lands,
+because, in spite of the creeds, Christians, so-called, have turned
+their attention to this world. They have beautified their homes, they
+have endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and fine linen. They have
+been forced from banquets or from luxury by the difficulty of camels
+going through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of carrying water
+to the rich man. They have cultivated this world, and the arts have
+lived. Did they obey the precepts that they find in their sacred
+writings there would be no art, they would "take no thought for the
+morrow," they would "consider the lilies of the field."
+
+
+Fourth--As to the liberation of slaves.
+
+It was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he spoke of
+slavery. The Bible upholds human slavery--white slavery. The Bible was
+quoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The man who went to Africa
+to steal women and children took the Bible with him. He planted himself
+firmly on the Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:
+
+     "He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,
+     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."
+
+So when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the planters
+defended their action by reading the Bible. When a poor woman was sold,
+her children torn from her breast, the auction block on which she stood
+was the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her quoted the Scriptures; the
+man who bought her repeated the quotations, and the ministers from
+the pulpit said to the weeping woman, as her child was carried away:
+"Servants, be obedient unto your masters."
+
+Freethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas Paine
+did more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood upon the
+western world. The first article he ever wrote in this country was one
+against the institution of slavery. Freethinkers have also been in favor
+of free bodies. Freethinkers have always said "free hands," and the
+infidels, the wide world over, have been friends of freedom.
+
+
+Fifth--As to the reclamation of inebriates.
+
+Much has been said, and for many years, on the subject of
+temperance--much has been uttered by priests and laymen--and yet there
+seems to be a subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland is
+extremely orthodox, yet it is not extremely temperate. England is
+nothing if not religious, and London is, par excellence, the
+Christian city of the world, and yet it is the most intemperate. The
+Mohammedans--followers of a false prophet--do not drink.
+
+
+Sixth--As to the humanity of infidelity.
+
+Can it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying only
+because they were orthodox?
+
+Is it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the creed of
+forgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more than one hundred
+and fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true that where the church
+has cared for one orphan it has created hundreds? Can Christianity
+afford to speak of war?
+
+The Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each
+other. In Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation--all that can be
+borrowed by pledging the prosperity of the future--the labor of those
+yet unborn--is used for the purpose of keeping Christians in the field,
+to the end that they may destroy other Christians, or at least prevent
+other Christians from destroying them. Europe is covered with churches
+and fortifications, with temples and with forts--hundreds of thousands
+of priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and countless
+bayonets--and that whole country is oppressed and impoverished for the
+purpose of carrying on war. The people have become deformed by labor,
+and yet Christianity boasts of peace.
+
+
+Seventh--"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?"
+
+Is it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying when the
+dying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and that he, unless
+he has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict? Will it cheer him to
+know that, even if he is to be saved, countless millions are to be lost?
+Is it possible for the Christian religion to put a smile upon the face
+of death?
+
+On the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying: What
+happens to you will happen to all. If there be another world of joy, it
+is for all. If there is another life, every human being will have the
+eternal opportunity of doing right--the eternal opportunity to live, to
+reform, to enjoy. There is no monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who
+delights in the agony of his children. These frightful things are savage
+dreams.
+
+Infidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of pity.
+
+Infidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every grave.
+
+Let us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under
+discussion. Let us not wander away.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+Jan'y 9, 1891.
+
+
+INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.
+
+V.
+
+NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.
+
+The industrious people of the world--those who have anything--are, as
+a rule, opposed to larceny; a very large majority of people object to
+being murdered, and so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large
+majority of people believe in what they call, or what they understand
+to be, justice--at least as between others. There is no very great
+difference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not
+moral.
+
+It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks
+all morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything
+that tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind; but he attacks
+Buddhism. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack
+kindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been
+added to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but what he
+believes to be the parasite.
+
+If people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues common
+to all religions, they should not give Christianity credit for all the
+good that has been done. There were millions of virtuous men and women,
+millions of heroic and self-denying souls before Christianity was known.
+
+It does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or
+charity ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these virtues
+to persecute his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief. If
+Christianity has persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the
+virtues it has inculcated. If this reason--this cause--is inherent in
+that something else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then
+Christianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of
+course back of Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may
+be responsible.
+
+Is there anything in Christianity that will account for such
+persecutions--for the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by the church
+that belief was necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same
+time that the fate of man was eternal punishment; that the state of man
+was that of depravity, and that there was but one way by which he could
+be saved, and that was through belief--through faith. As long as this
+was honestly believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels
+to preach a doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves
+which, in their judgment, would result in the damnation of souls.
+
+The law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great
+bodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the life
+of a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how much
+more would he have the right to take the life of one who was about to
+assassinate the soul of his son!
+
+Christians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt that
+God would hold the community responsible if the community allowed
+a blasphemer to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed the
+freethinker, or rather the free talker, in self-defence.
+
+At the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of self-defence;
+that is to say, the defence of the soul. If the founder of Christianity
+had plainly said: "It is not necessary to believe in order to be saved;
+it is only necessary to do, and he who really loves his fellow-men, who
+is kind, honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest"--if he had
+only said that, there would probably have been but little persecution.
+
+If he had added to this: "You must not persecute in my name. The
+religion I teach is the Religion of Love--not the Religion of Force and
+Hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not stretch them
+upon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them
+alive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour molten lead into
+their ears. You must treat all with absolute kindness. If you cannot
+convert your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument, that is the end.
+You must never resort to force, and, whether he believes as you do or
+not, treat him always with kindness"--his followers then would not have
+murdered their fellows in his name.
+
+If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be
+carried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death
+through torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what
+he must have known, if he were God, would happen.
+
+All that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless.
+Not only so--it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and
+the useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless
+remains.
+
+Now, falling back on the old assertion, "By its fruits we may know
+Christianity," then I think we are justified in saying that, as
+Christianity consists of a mixture of morality and _something else_, and
+as morality never has persecuted a human being, and as Christianity has
+persecuted millions, the cause of the persecution must be the _something
+else_ that was added to morality.
+
+I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that
+"Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of
+human nature." On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the
+whole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act
+in accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would be
+doomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been held up
+to contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions denounced as wicked
+and filthy.
+
+Dr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the value of
+freedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free thought; and
+what is freedom worth if the mind is to be enslaved?
+
+Dr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their efforts
+to be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for exercising their
+freedom as against the church.
+
+It is not true that the church "has taught and established the fact of
+human brotherhood." This has been the result of a civilization to which
+Christianity itself has been hostile.
+
+Can we prove that "the church established human brotherhood" by
+banishing the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the tortures
+of the Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland; by the
+burning of Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution of the Irish; by
+whipping and hanging Quakers in New England; by the slave trade; and by
+the hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ?
+
+We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and most
+cruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded upon a Bible
+that upholds the institution of slavery has taught and established the
+fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination to conceive.
+
+Neither do I think it true that "we are indebted to Christianity for the
+advancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and learning."
+
+I cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some
+learning, and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion
+of the absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have
+had what might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have
+been somewhat broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities,
+contradictions, and impossibilities. The church was not the friend of
+science or learning when it burned Vanini for writing his "Dialogues
+Concerning Nature." What shall we say of the "Index Expurgatorius"? For
+hundreds of years all books of any particular value were placed on the
+"Index," and good Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of
+science and learning?
+
+That we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of science
+seems absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the enemy of
+astronomy, and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy
+took her revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens
+bears a Christian name.
+
+Can it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of any
+true philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.
+
+The church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object
+is to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result
+that the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the result
+reached by the mind must be abandoned.
+
+For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever
+anything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church
+immediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been
+changed, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science
+does not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.
+
+Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians
+destroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could lay
+their violent hands; and nothing has been produced by the Christian
+world equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved. There
+have been many artists who were Christians; but they were not artists
+because they were Christians; because there have been many Christians
+who were not artists. It cannot be said that art is born of any creed.
+The mode of expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain
+degree, by the belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and
+feeling.
+
+So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian,
+but in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so was his creed.
+Consequently, they could not by any possibility have assisted him.
+Kepler did not discover or announce what are known as the "Three Laws"
+because he was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of
+his creed.
+
+Every Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and clung to
+a fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has
+done so certainly without the assistance of his creed.
+
+Let me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each other to
+please God; when they were ready to destroy a man with sword and
+flame for teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in Spain were
+teaching geography to their children with brass globes. So, too, they
+had observatories and knew something of the orbits of the stars.
+
+They did not find out these things because they were Mohammedans, or
+on account of their belief in the impossible. They were far beyond the
+Christians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically said by Mrs.
+Browning, that "Science was thrust into the brain of Europe on the point
+of a Moorish lance."
+
+From the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the higher
+branches practical. We also got from them the art of making cotton
+paper, which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence. We
+learned from them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness possible in
+Christendom.
+
+So from among people of different religions we have learned many useful
+things; but they did not discover them on account of their religion.
+
+It will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true because the
+Greeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor
+of monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men, was born and lived in
+a monarchy.
+
+Dr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of a vast
+number of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects,
+but of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for
+many centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by
+Christianity.
+
+As a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result of
+countless causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way
+of hindrance.
+
+Does the Doctor think that the material progress of the world was caused
+by this passage: "Take no thought for the morrow"?
+
+Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on this
+inspired declaration: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye
+of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible has
+produced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever seen.
+
+This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature
+been produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many
+generations, take the ground that the Bible was the only important book,
+and that books differing from the Bible should be destroyed?
+
+If Christianity--Catholic and Protestant--could have had its way, the
+works of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin, Haeckel,
+Spencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gibbon, Buckle and
+Buechner would not have been published. In short, the philosophy that
+enlightens and the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.
+
+The greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my judgment, the
+poetic--the dramatic; that is to say, the literature of fiction in its
+widest sense. Certainly if the church could have had control, the plays
+of Shakespeare never would have been written; the literature of the
+stage could not have existed; most works of fiction, and nearly all
+poetry, would have perished in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to
+say that "the Bible has produced the richest and most varied literature
+the world has ever seen."
+
+Thousands of theological books have been written on thousands of
+questions of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on
+subjects not worth discussing--not worth thinking about--and that will,
+in a few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.
+
+Mr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:
+
+"Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone
+of them!"
+
+Stephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best
+charity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land; and under
+the roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans
+have been reared, clothed, fed and educated, not only in books, but in
+avocations, and become happy and useful citizens. Under his will
+there has been distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more than
+$500,000; and this distribution goes on year after year.
+
+One of the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity
+of James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two cases simply
+to show that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried
+away by his zeal.
+
+So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that "we are indebted to
+Christianity for our chronology."
+
+According to Christianity this world has been peopled about six thousand
+years. Christian chronology gives the age of the first man, and then
+gives the line from father to son down to the flood, and from the flood
+down to the coming of Christ, showing that men have been upon the earth
+only about six thousand years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and
+I do not believe that there is an intelligent, well-educated Christian
+in the world, having examined the subject, who will say that the
+Christian chronology is correct.
+
+Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that "we are indebted
+to Christianity for the continuation of history." The best modern
+historians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,
+Buckle and Draper.
+
+Neither can I admit that "we are indebted to Christianity for natural
+philosophy."
+
+I do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been Christians,
+or, rather, that some Christians have been natural philosophers to the
+extent that their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Humboldt and
+Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more
+for natural philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.
+
+Whoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural
+philosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to interfere
+with nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind, each
+inconsistent with the other. To the extent that he believes in the
+supernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with the natural, and to
+that extent fails to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include the
+caprice of the Infinite. It is founded on the absolute integrity and
+invariability of nature.
+
+Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that "we are
+indebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology."
+
+The church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language and
+that other languages had been derived from that; and for hundreds and
+hundreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested simply
+because they started with that absurd assumption and believed in the
+Tower of Babel.
+
+Christianity cannot now take the credit for "metaphysical research." It
+has always been the enemy of metaphysical research. It never has said
+to any human being, "Think!" It has always said, "Hear!" It does not
+ask anybody to investigate. It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely
+true, and, instead of asking investigation, it threatens every
+investigator with eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroying what
+has been called Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.
+
+This gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one. This is his
+argument: Christian countries are the most intelligent; therefore they
+owe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next step is taken.
+Christianity, being the best, having produced these results, must have
+been of divine origin.
+
+Let us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the first
+nation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have used the
+same arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the religion
+of Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: "Egypt is the most
+intelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all nations; it has
+been made so by its religion; its religion is, therefore, divine"?
+
+So there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same argument.
+Certainly this argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have
+been repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the
+religion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true,
+or that Jupiter was in fact a god.
+
+Is it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been
+institutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been
+observatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature, the
+world would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?
+
+Countries depend on something besides their religion for progress.
+Nations with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly
+poor religion; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth
+or happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and
+barren.
+
+Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat,
+no corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual
+mendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has the arrogance
+to pretend that it supports the giver.
+
+Mr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: "Every discovery in
+science, invention and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels
+have contributed their share, but never one of them has reached the
+grandeur of originality."
+
+This, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered with
+one name--John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics I ever met.
+
+I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original. Darwin was
+certainly regarded as such.
+
+I do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some
+doubts about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph.
+
+Neither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of
+the abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were
+Christians. But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The
+Quakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the
+Christians of New England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from
+town to town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their bodied, not
+only, but took their lives.
+
+Mr. Peters asks: "What name is there among the world's emancipators
+after which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'" Well, let me give
+him a few--Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.
+
+Mr. Peters asks: "Why is it that in Christian countries you find the
+greatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the greatest
+freedom of thought, speech, and action?"
+
+Is this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more
+infidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty in
+France than in Spain.
+
+There is far more infidelity in England than there was a century ago,
+and there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There is far
+more infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years ago, and
+a hundred infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago; and there
+is far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech and
+action, than ever before.
+
+A few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest extent.
+Now there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand times less
+religion.
+
+Orthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.
+
+Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to have
+wandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that when one
+denies the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man,
+but when he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes a
+Christian, that he is a very faithful, good and loving son.
+
+Mr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that Nature
+has, or that the State has. I do not think he understands what I have
+said. The State ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The
+State may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first, for its
+own protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If
+no one could do the State any injury, certainly the State would have
+no right to punish under the plea of protection; and if no human being
+could by any possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reformation
+could not be given.
+
+Let us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him. Therefore
+he need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn anybody for his
+protection.
+
+Let us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two
+grounds--that is, the protection of society and the reformation of the
+punished--how can eternal punishment be justified? In the first place,
+God does not punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the
+punishment is to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished.
+What excuse then is left?
+
+Let us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we say
+"consequences," and that every good man has the right to reap the good
+consequences of good actions, and that every bad man must bear the
+consequences of bad actions, then you must say to the good: If you stop
+doing good you will lose the harvest. You must say to the bad: If you
+stop doing bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it be a fact
+in Nature that all must reap what they sow, there is neither mercy nor
+cruelty in this fact, and I hold no God responsible for it. The trouble
+with the Christian creed is that God is described as the one who gives
+rewards and the one who inflicts eternal pain.
+
+There is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have known
+when he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned. What right
+had he to create men, knowing that they were to be damned?
+
+So much for Mr. Ballou.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He takes the
+ground, in the first place, that "infidelity, Christianity, science, and
+experience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty, in
+the inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap."
+He then takes the ground that, "if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we
+must not sow the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the
+cause; the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this,
+and this only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary."
+
+Very good; but that is not the point. The real thing under discussion
+is this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man fails to live
+a good life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in
+another world, if there be one? Can he cease to do evil in the eternal
+penitentiary? and if he does, can he be pardoned--can he be released?
+
+It is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If the
+consequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences are
+bad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain acts tend
+to unhappiness and others to happiness.
+
+Now, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live in
+harmony with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we have an
+opportunity of reforming in another world? If not, then the few years
+that we live here determine whether we shall be angels or devils
+forever.
+
+It seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do
+good, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems to me that
+they may reform.
+
+I do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest in his
+children, simply because they leave this world and go where he is. Is
+it possible that an infinite God does all for his children here, in this
+poor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and that if he
+fails to reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make them
+eternal convicts?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that "an
+infinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up
+under conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their
+concentrated agony and not break his heart."
+
+I do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an infinite God,
+without mercy. I do not admit that there is an infinite Being anywhere
+responsible for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors
+of this life. I cannot believe that there is in the universe a Being
+with power to prevent these things. I hold no God responsible. I
+attribute neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps
+nor rejoices. I cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has
+been, was created by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent
+God. But it is far better that we should all go down "with souls
+unsatisfied" to the dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the
+voiceless dust, than that countless millions of human souls should
+suffer forever.
+
+Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal
+revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.
+
+Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small
+compass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is:
+"If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a
+physician can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies, ought
+there to be any escape?"
+
+He concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the patient was
+obdurate and suffered the penalty.
+
+The application he makes is this:
+
+"The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the Great
+Physician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain, and a
+life of eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not
+tidings of great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it not unreasonable on
+the part of Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak out and throw the blame
+on God?"
+
+The answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an
+infinite God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he
+gave us free will it does not change the result, because he knew how we
+would use the free will.
+
+Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take the
+remedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create them?
+There would have been much less misery in the world had he left them
+dust.
+
+What right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change dust into
+a sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the heir of endless
+agony?
+
+If the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to take
+the medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would refuse to
+take it, the cases might be parallel.
+
+According to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who never
+heard of the medicine or of the "Great Physician."
+
+There is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly think
+he could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is the
+following paragraph:
+
+"Who" (speaking of Jesus) "has such an eye to our need; such a lip to
+kiss away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the fire; _such
+a foot to trample our enemies_; such a heart to embrace all our
+necessities?"
+
+What does the reverend gentleman mean by "_such a foot to trample our
+enemies_"?
+
+This, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the
+history of the church. In the name of its founder it has "trampled on
+its enemies," and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of
+the world.
+
+The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this discussion
+with a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states that
+"Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or
+sorrow comes he" (meaning the infidel) "does not paw nor mock nor cry
+'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and
+whines and howls."
+
+The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems to
+think that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being brave,
+or demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of death.
+
+Thousands of people have died for false religions and in honor of false
+gods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the religion, but it did
+prove the sincerity of their convictions.
+
+A great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the scaffold
+the utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage exhibited by dying
+murderers has never been appealed to in justification of murder.
+
+The reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies endured by
+Thomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that he wished his
+work had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil ever had any
+agency in any work he had in the writing of that book (meaning "The Age
+of Reason,") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus to have mercy
+upon him.
+
+Of course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its falsity has
+been demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and yet ministers of
+the Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.
+
+So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close his
+letters with the words, "Crush the wretch!" (meaning Christ). This is
+not so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.
+
+This gentleman also says that "Voltaire was the prey of anguish and
+dread, alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he complained
+that he was abandoned by God; that when he died his friends fled from
+the room, declaring the sight too terrible to be endured."
+
+There is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read the life
+of Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost serenity.
+
+Let me tell you how Voltaire died.
+
+He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the comforts
+of life. He was a man of wealth--of genius. Among the literary men of
+the world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of
+success. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery.
+He stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They
+began to fear that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to
+make a terrible example of Voltaire.
+
+Toward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire
+was dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of
+superstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.
+
+"Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the Cure of St.
+Sulpice and the Abbe Gautier, and brought them into his uncle's
+sick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.
+
+"'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my thanks.'
+
+"The abbe spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to patience. The
+Cure of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced himself, and
+asked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of
+our Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands against the
+cure's coif shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other
+side:
+
+"'Let me die in peace!'
+
+"The cure seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif dishonored
+by the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him a little
+brushing and went out with the Abbe Gautier.
+
+"He expired," says Wagniere, "on the 30th of May, 1788, at about a
+quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.
+
+"Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his
+_valet-de-chambre_, who was watching by him, pressed it and said:
+'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone!'
+
+"These were his last words."
+
+From this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful--from
+these words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch--all the
+frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and
+made. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed
+all the shameless calumnies about the death of this great and wonderful
+man.
+
+Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at
+the foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite
+in Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin
+of superstition. Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the
+darkness of myth and miracle; through the midnight of Christianity;
+through the blackness of bigotry; past cathedral and dungeon; past rack
+and stake; past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the
+sacred torch of Reason.
+
+Let me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the
+publication of his "Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason", every
+falsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to the
+world. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another
+infidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the
+public streets.
+
+Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not
+respected. Under the Constitution that he had first suggested, his life
+was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three millions
+of his fellow-citizens, and they were willing to deny it unto him.
+
+He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But he
+maintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind, and
+never for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died almost alone.
+
+The moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for his
+death-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains,
+and these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even of the
+present day.
+
+The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some ministers
+were impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he
+ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness
+of arrogance, called that they might enjoy the agonies of the dying
+friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments of
+expiring life fanned into flame by the breath of indignation, had the
+goodness to curse them both.
+
+His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold
+hand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled
+ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that
+Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"
+
+And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that subject."
+
+These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as
+serenely as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession of
+his mind, and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the doctrines of
+his life.
+
+Every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover of
+the great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the
+splendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the American
+Revolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, "The Crisis" was the first
+star that glittered in the wide horizon of despair.
+
+We should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these
+words: "The United States of America."
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining what
+infidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though he
+would like to be present.
+
+For my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will die in
+peace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades to night.
+
+Of course when I said that "Christianity did not bring tidings of great
+joy, but a message of eternal grief," I meant orthodox Christianity; and
+when I said that "Christianity fills the future with fire and flame,
+and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in which most of
+the children of men were to be imprisoned forever," I was giving what I
+understood to be the Evangelical belief on that subject.
+
+If the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal punishment, then
+for one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what little I have done
+toward that end has not been done in vain.
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says:
+"Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when Death's icy
+fingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his
+like who have gone before him have done, he will sing another strain."
+
+How shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the writing of
+such a sentence?
+
+The reverend gentleman "loves his enemies," and yet he is filled with
+glee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's icy
+fingers feel for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him no harm.
+
+He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the prophet
+Isaiah, commencing: "The vile person will speak villainy."
+
+Is this passage applicable only to me?
+
+The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the "Christmas Sermon."
+For his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the "Christmas Sermon"
+contains:
+
+If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of
+probation, that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all who
+have heard the Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to be
+eternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not "bring tidings of
+great joy," but a Message of Eternal Grief. And if the orthodox churches
+are still preaching the doctrine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be
+far better if every church crumbled into dust than that such preaching
+and such teaching should be continued.
+
+It would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted
+and their congregations enlightened.
+
+I admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside hell; but
+if they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they ought publicly
+to change their creeds.
+
+I admit, also, that the average minister advises his congregation to be
+honest and to treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these
+ministers fail to follow their own advice when they make what they call
+"replies" to me.
+
+Of course there are many good things about the church. To the extent
+that it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes charity,
+it is good. To the extent that it causes men and women to lead moral
+lives it is good. But to the extent that it fills the future with fear
+it is bad. To the extent that it convinces any human being that there is
+any God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal torments on his own
+children, it is bad.
+
+And such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching does
+pollute the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does furrow the
+cheeks of the best and tenderest with tears..Such teaching does rob old
+age of all its joy, and covers every cradle with a curse!
+
+The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God. He says:
+"God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto
+the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human mind could
+suggest for the weal of the race."
+
+According to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose
+of seeing what the world would do, _knowing all the time exactly what
+would be done_.
+
+Let us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then all people
+became tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what
+is known as "Original Sin."
+
+According to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse and
+worse. It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve them,
+but he patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years without having
+established any church, without having given them a Bible, and then he
+drowned all but eight persons.
+
+Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of Original Sin
+was also in their blood.
+
+It seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have killed
+the remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out of his
+garden, and furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presbyterian
+Confession of Faith.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness
+are the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues
+were in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will be
+convinced by the words of Christ himself. He will probably remember
+the story of the Good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that it is
+exactly in point. The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He was not one
+of "the chosen people." He was a poor, "miserable heathen," who knew
+nothing about the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never heard
+of the "scheme of salvation." And yet, according to Christ, he was far
+more charitable than the Levites--the priests of Jehovah, the highest
+of "the chosen people." Is it not perfectly plain from this story that
+charity was in the world before Christianity was established?
+
+A great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though the
+Christians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler
+will read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of
+"Mental Diseases," he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane
+with the utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its throne
+by the voice of music; that the temples were resorted to by crowds of
+the insane; and that "whatever gifts of nature or productions of art
+were calculated to impress the imagination were there united. Games
+and recreations were instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens
+surrounded these holy retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes
+transported patients to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile."
+
+So in ancient Greece it is said that "from the hands of the priest the
+cure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medicine,
+with the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for the
+cure of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples exhibits
+a profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The early
+morning was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and music.
+Then came conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate
+diet. Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine;
+then reading, music and conversation concluded the day."
+
+So "Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders.
+He recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as
+possible." It is also stated that "the philosophy and arts of Greece
+spread to Rome, and the first special treatise on insanity is that
+of Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper
+treatment."
+
+"Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and ignorance
+of the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud
+worse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again consigned to the
+miracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else totally neglected.
+Idiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The
+frantic and furious were chained in lonesome dungeons and exhibited
+for money, like wild beasts. The monomaniacs became, according to
+circumstance, the objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They
+were regarded as possessed with demons and subjected either to priestly
+exorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel
+treatment of the insane continued with little or no alleviation down to
+the end of the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe."
+
+Let me quote a description of these Christian asylums.
+
+"Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan cities of
+Europe, but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome,
+confined in jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons or
+made the butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public
+asylums the inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained
+to floors or walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like
+wild beasts. They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of
+their keepers."
+
+I call particular attention to the following paragraph: "Such was the
+state of the insane generally throughout Europe at the commencement of
+this century. Such it continued to be in England so late as 1815 and
+in Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of parliamentary
+commissions in those years respectively."
+
+Dr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.
+
+Not only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance of
+the Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the
+Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700 years, and in
+addition to this they treated their lunatics with great kindness.
+
+The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent debtors, and
+the Thesium was a refuge for slaves.
+
+Again, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of
+Christianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for
+people, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy
+is that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always
+been engaged in maligning human nature--in attacking the human heart--in
+efforts to destroy all natural passions.
+
+Perfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated in
+India and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the Christian
+era. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced. All the good that
+Christianity has in it came from the human heart. Everything in that
+system of religion came from this world; and in it you will find not
+only the goodness of man, but the imperfections of man--not only the
+love of man, but the malice of man.
+
+Let me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected
+or abused the insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly
+supposed that the insane were filled with devils.
+
+In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand it,
+is a doctor of theology--and I should think such theology stood in need
+of a doctor--and the _Telegram_, I have nothing to say. There is only
+one side to that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore criticised
+what is known as the "Christmas Sermon," I have answered him, leaving
+but very little to which I care to reply in his last article.
+
+Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of
+reasons--instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John
+Howard, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only names;
+and, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give the reasons
+advanced by those whose names he pronounces.
+
+Jonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology
+was infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible
+for him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of the
+"Real Presence."
+
+Milton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of
+brigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular battles;
+but Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of his
+poetical and absurd vagaries.
+
+All the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend to prove
+the existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions
+and millions of the most devoted men could not, by their devotion,
+substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.
+
+There are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that
+ought not to be passed over in silence.
+
+The first is to the effect that I was invited to write an article for
+the _North American Review_, Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that
+Judge Black was improperly treated.
+
+Now, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did write
+one; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is also true
+that Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his reply appeared
+in the same number of the _Review._
+
+Dr. Buckley alleges that the _North American Review_ gave me an
+opportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an
+opportunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in
+fact. Mr. Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the _Review_, is
+still living and will tell the facts. Personally I had nothing to do
+with it, one way or the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as
+formidable, and was not only willing that he should be heard again, but
+anxious that he should.
+
+So much for that.
+
+As to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them to say
+whether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor,
+by his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my respect and
+love.
+
+Most ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a
+blasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips.
+They cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as much and with
+as sincere devotion as they love God. They cannot imagine that another
+prizes liberty above all gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine
+that any mind is so that it places Justice above all persons, a mind
+that cannot conceive even of a God who is not bound to do justice.
+
+If God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice.
+
+Neither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah and
+Jupiter as substantially the same, with this exception--that he thinks
+far more of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human feelings.
+
+I do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who states his
+honest thoughts in proper language, his object being, not to torture
+the feelings of others, but simply to give his thought--to find and
+establish the truth.
+
+Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be without
+foundation. Speaking of myself, he said: "In him the laws to prevent the
+circulation of obscene publications through the mails have found their
+most vigorous opponent."
+
+It is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are
+that an effort was made to classify obscene literature with what the
+pious call "blasphemous and immoral works." A petition was forwarded to
+Congress to amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could
+not be thrown from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be
+made, the law should be repealed.
+
+It was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly should have
+done so had it been presented to me. The petition was absolutely proper.
+
+A few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while it bore
+my name it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes of this
+answer I am perfectly willing that the signature should be regarded as
+genuine, as there is nothing in the petition that should not have been
+granted.
+
+The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League--but not a member
+of that society was in favor of the circulation of obscene literature;
+but they did think that the privacy of the mails had been violated, and
+that it was of the utmost importance to maintain the inviolability of
+the postal service.
+
+I disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of obscene
+literature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it
+through the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to that
+effect that were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others
+were passed, and I resigned from the League on that account.
+
+Nothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or indirectly, or
+could have been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications
+through the mails; and I will pay a premium of $1,000 a word for
+each and every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene
+publications through the mails.
+
+I might use much stronger language. I might follow the example of
+Dr. Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy all
+unprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.
+
+Now, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to read
+that even now, and I believe the readers of the _Telegram_ would like to
+read it once more; so here it is:
+
+"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the
+skeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is
+the mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine
+and the shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields; the
+breath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth
+of summer and autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned light.
+Drink it and you will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the
+'Harvest Home,' mingled with the laughter of children. Drink it and you
+will feel within your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks
+of many perfect days. For forty years this liquid joy has been within
+the happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips of men."
+
+I re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very
+accurate, made some mistakes in his version.
+
+Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have sunk in
+this direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco,
+and here it is:
+
+"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed
+island of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.
+Above their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene,
+and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were
+kind, innocent, gentle and loving.
+
+"The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and of this
+climate the sacred leaves were born--the leaves that breed in the mind
+of him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they grew.
+
+"These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the vows of
+peace. They have given consolation to the world. They are the companions
+of the lonely--the friends of the imprisoned, of the exile, of workers
+in mines, of fellers of forests, of sailors on the desolate seas. They
+are the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds of
+those who build with thought and dream the temples of the soul.
+
+"They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of
+pain--drive fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the mind and
+fill the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof
+some potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that, when released by fire,
+doth softly steal within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the
+captured sentinels of care and grief.
+
+"These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke, like
+incense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile of the
+sea."
+
+There are some people so constituted that there is no room in the heaven
+of their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread their
+wings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest. Such men would
+hold Shakespeare responsible for what Falstaff said about "sack," and
+for Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety.
+
+There is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: "In the presence
+of human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless."
+
+John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense of humor.
+He preached a sermon on "The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes." He insisted
+that they were caused by the wickedness of man, and that the only way to
+cure them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
+
+The man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in danger of
+falling into the pit of Absurdity.
+
+The Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,
+contributes his part to the discussion.
+
+He took a text from John, as follows: "He that committeth sin is of the
+devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose
+the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the
+devil."
+
+According to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed
+sin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is not a
+metaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand with words.
+He stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth,
+but a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a physical
+body, and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.
+
+According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the
+beginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the
+beginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the
+Creator of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of
+the devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies,
+and Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil--that is to say, the
+grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost "blasphemous."
+
+The Doctor also tells us "that Jesus believed as much in the personality
+of the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter."
+
+That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be
+true, that Christ believed in a personal devil--a devil with whom he had
+conversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and
+endeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below.
+
+Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed
+in thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary
+Magdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or,
+rather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might
+go into a drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man.
+
+I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that
+some devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.
+
+Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the
+integrity of the New Testament.
+
+The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New
+Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says:
+
+"The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,
+shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the
+authority of God's law."
+
+How does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial
+intellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd
+and persevering?
+
+If the devil has an "imperial intellect," why does he attempt the
+impossible?
+
+Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the
+devil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and
+mend.
+
+Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems
+to be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the "Arch Enemy of God"--of
+that "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the
+church"--the Doctor says:
+
+"The devil may be conceded to be sincere."
+
+It has been said:
+
+"An honest God is the noblest work of man," and it may now be added: A
+sincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.
+
+But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the
+Doctor says that he "cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver
+lectures" (like myself, I suppose), "edit a newspaper" (like the editor
+of the _Telegram_), "or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his
+servants to do these things for him."
+
+There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting
+(I quote from the _Telegram's_ report):
+
+"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of the
+Bible--_not the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures_--is
+operating to overcome all these works."
+
+I take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have said
+about Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I give it
+here:
+
+"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have
+infinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has
+died for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that
+great and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my admiration and my
+tears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. He
+was regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites,
+who have, in all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and
+manhood out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have
+been his friend, and should he come again he will not find a better
+friend than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation
+I have a different feeling."
+
+I have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither have I
+mentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to
+thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have manfully advocated the
+right of free speech, and who have upheld the _Telegram_ in the course
+it has taken.
+
+I thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel quite
+grateful to those who have failed to say unkind words. Epithets are
+not arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice
+illogical.
+
+And, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist that
+orthodox Christianity did not come with "tidings of great joy," but with
+a message of eternal grief.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+New York, February 5, 1892.
+
+
+
+
+SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.
+
+
+     *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis
+     Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.
+
+_Question_. Have you read an article in the _Western Watchman_, entitled
+"Suicide of Judge Normile"? If so, what is your opinion of it?
+
+_Answer._ I have read the article, and I think the spirit in which it
+is written is in exact accord with the creed, with the belief, that
+prompted it.
+
+In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but of
+Henry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had been
+shocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no right "to
+feel special concern in the life or death of either," for the reason,
+"that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as infidels and
+scoffers."
+
+According to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on
+the direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the _Watchman_ is to be
+believed, Catholics have no right to have special concern for the fate
+of such people, even after their death.
+
+The church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the lost--that
+it was trying in every way to convert the infidels and save the
+scoffers--that it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the fold
+than for the one that had strayed. We have been told that God so loved
+infidels and scoffers, that he came to this poor world and gave his life
+that they might be saved. But now we are told by the _Western Watchman_
+that the church, said to have been founded by Christ, has no right to
+feel any special concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.
+
+Possibly the _Watchman_ only refers to the infidels and scoffers who
+were once Catholics.
+
+If the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a Christian;
+that is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from grace and not only
+denied his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that he did not
+know him; that he never had made his acquaintance. And yet, this same
+Peter was taken back and became the rock on which the Catholic Church is
+supposed to rest.
+
+Are the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ, when
+they publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of one who
+left the church and who died in his sins?
+
+The _Watchman_, in order to show that it was simply doing its duty, and
+was not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as follows: "A warm
+personal friendship existed between D'Arcy and Normile and the managers
+of this paper." What would the _Watchman_ have said if these men had
+been the personal enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm
+personal friends, once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers
+of the _Watchman_, "warm personal friends" of the dead, had no right to
+feel any special concern about these friends in the flames of perdition.
+One would think that pity had changed to piety.
+
+Another wonderful statement is that "both of these men determined to go
+to hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there
+was a heaven."
+
+Admitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good place, and
+that hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be, unpleasant, why
+should any sane man unalterably determine to go to hell? It is hard to
+think of any reason, unless he was afraid of meeting those Catholics in
+heaven who had been his "warm personal friends" in this world. The truth
+is that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or any other country. The
+truth is that Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that
+the Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that
+it is the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that
+they were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their "warm
+personal friends."
+
+It is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile "studied"
+to convince themselves "that there was no God, that they went back to
+Paganism and lived among the ancients," and "that they soon revelled
+in the grossness of Paganism." If they went back to Paganism, they
+certainly found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and earth with
+deities. The Catholics have only three, while the Pagans had hundreds.
+And yet there were some very good Pagans. By associating with Socrates
+and Plato one would not necessarily become a groveling wretch. Zeno was
+not altogether abominable. He would compare favorably, at least, with
+the average pope. Aristotle was not entirely despicable, although wrong,
+it may be, in many things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He
+perceived the beauty of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and
+joy. He did not teach his disciples to revel in grossness, although his
+maligners have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he uttered
+some very sublime and generous sentiments. Among other things, he said
+this: "When we say that we should love Romans, but not foreigners, we
+destroy the bond of universal brotherhood and drive from our hearts
+charity and justice."
+
+Suppose a Pagan had written about "two warm personal friends" of his,
+who had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said this:
+"Although our two warm personal friends have both died by their own
+hands, and although both have gone to the lowest hell, and are now
+suffering inconceivable agonies, we have no right to feel any special
+concern about them or about their sufferings; and, to speak frankly, we
+care nothing for their agonies, nothing for their tears, and we mention
+them only to keep other Pagans from joining that blasphemous and
+ignorant church. Both of our friends were raised as Pagans, both were
+educated in our holy religion, and both had read the works of our
+greatest and wisest authors, and yet they fell into apostasy, and
+studied day and night, in season and out of season, to convince
+themselves that a young carpenter of Palestine was in fact, Jupiter,
+whom we call Stator, the creator, the sustainer and governor of all."
+
+It is probable that the editor of the _Watchman_ was perfectly
+conscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a sense of
+religious duty could induce any man to attack the character of a "warm
+personal friend," and to say that although the friend was in hell, he
+felt no special concern as to his fate.
+
+The _Watchman_ seems to think that it is hardly probable or possible
+that a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of every religion
+feel substantially in this way. It is probable that the Mohammedan is
+of the opinion that no sane believer in the religion of Islam could
+possibly become a Catholic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I do
+not know.
+
+Now, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history of
+his church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword, of
+philosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the "Bride of
+God," and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may reasonably
+come to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the best possible
+church in this, the best possible of all worlds.
+
+It would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history of
+superstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The
+truth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no matter
+whether they are for or against the Catholic creed. All intelligent
+people are intellectually hospitable. Every man who knows something of
+the operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that his wish has
+not, to his knowledge, influenced his judgment. He may admit that his
+wish has influenced his speech, but he must certainly know that it has
+not affected his judgment.
+
+In other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of solitaire and
+really believe that he has won the game. No matter what the appearance
+of the cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost or won. So, men
+may say that their judgment is a certain way, and they may so affirm in
+accordance with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the declaration
+can affect the real judgment. So, a man must know whether he believes a
+certain creed or not, or, at least, what the real state of his mind
+is. When a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural, in the
+miraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for
+granted that he is telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me
+that the man could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he
+does not know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does
+not believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the
+Scriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly
+believe every word he says.
+
+I admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women who
+believe what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,
+undoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.
+
+Let us give to others the liberty which we claim for ourselves.
+
+The _Watchman_ seems to think that unbelief, especially when coupled
+with what they call "the sins of the flesh," is the lowest possible
+depth, and tells us that "robbers may be devout," "murderers penitent,"
+and "drunkards reverential."
+
+In some of these statements the _Watchman_ is probably correct. There
+have been "devout robbers." There have been gentlemen of the highway,
+agents of the road, who carried sacred images, who bowed, at holy
+shrines for the purpose of securing success. For many centuries the
+devout Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand and Isabella
+were great robbers. A great many popes have indulged in this theological
+pastime, not to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the _Watchman_ is
+right. There is nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with
+devotion.
+
+There have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless impelled
+by a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent. David, with
+dying breath, advised his son to murder the old friends of his father.
+He certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without
+remorse, and Calvin burned his "warm personal friend" to gain the
+applause of God. Philip the Second was a murderer, not penitent, because
+he deemed it his duty. The same may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of
+thousands of others.
+
+Robert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly virtuous,
+and yet I like him better than I do those who planned and carried into
+bloody execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
+
+Undoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California cut the
+throat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at the same
+time that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for her prayers.
+He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He made a motion for
+a new trial. This was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the
+executive refused to interfere. Then he became penitent and experienced
+religion. On the scaffold he remarked that he was going to heaven; that
+his only regret was that he would not meet the woman he had murdered,
+as she was not a Christian when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be
+penitent.
+
+An old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer the last
+sacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must forgive all
+his enemies. "I have no enemies," said the dying man, "I killed the last
+one three weeks ago." Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.
+
+So, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and I might
+add, honest and generous.
+
+Some good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a hospitable
+glass, and there have been priests who used the blood of the grape for
+other than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good Catholic in his
+day, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the world this couplet:
+
+     "Who loves not woman, wine and song,
+     Will live a fool his whole life long."
+
+The _Watchman_, in effect, says that a devout robber is better than an
+infidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a freethinker, in the
+sight of God.
+
+Another curious thing in this article is that after sending both men to
+hell, the _Watchman_ says: "As to their moral habits we know nothing."
+
+It may then be taken for granted, if these "warm personal friends" knew
+nothing against the dead, that their lives were, at least, what the
+church calls moral. We know, if we know anything, that there is no
+necessary connection between what is called religion and morality.
+Certainly there were millions of moral people, those who loved mercy
+and dealt honestly, before the Catholic Church existed. The virtues were
+well known, and practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning
+brain of an Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the _Auto da
+fe_ delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of people died
+for the right, before the wrong organized the infallible church.
+
+But why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to say
+harsh and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of death with
+the thorns of hatred? Suppose the editor of the _Watchman_ had died, and
+Judge Normile had been the survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have
+attacked the unreplying dead?
+
+Henry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and I
+was his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my admiration and
+respect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly intelligent man, well
+informed on many subjects, of varied reading, possessed of a clear and
+logical mind, a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things in
+literature and art, and the noble things in life. He gave his opinions
+freely, but without the least arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing
+that others should enjoy the privilege of differing with him. He was, so
+far as I could perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others,
+free and manly in his bearing, "of most excellent fancy," and a most
+charming and agreeable companion.
+
+According, however, to the _Watchman_, such a man is far below a "devout
+robber" or a "penitent murderer." Is it possible that an assassin like
+Ravillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire; and that all
+the Catholic robbers and murderers who retain their faith, give greater
+delight to God than the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have filled
+the world with intellectual light?
+
+Possibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the _Watchman_ is in
+error, and possibly there may be for the erring, even in another world,
+some asylum besides hell.
+
+Judge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid of
+the future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own hand. Can
+anything be more pitiful--more terrible? How can a man in the flowing
+tide and noon of life destroy himself? What storms there must have
+been within the brain; what tempests must have raved and wrecked; what
+lightnings blinded and revealed; what hurrying clouds obscured and hid
+the stars; what monstrous shapes emerged from gloom; what darkness fell
+upon the day; what visions filled the night; how the light failed; how
+paths were lost; how highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one
+thought--the thought of death--swift, compassionate and endless--became
+the insane monarch of the mind.
+
+Standing by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it is far
+better to pity than to revile--to kiss the clay than curse the man.
+
+The editor of the _Watchman_ has done himself injustice. He has not
+injured the dead, but the living.
+
+I am an infidel--an unbeliever--and yet I hope that all the children of
+men may find peace and joy. No matter how they leave this world, from
+altar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with crime, I
+hope that good may come to all.
+
+R. G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+
+
+IS SUICIDE A SIN?
+
+
+     * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.
+
+Col. Ingersoll's First Letter.
+
+I DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it
+is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow,
+more failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In
+civilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many
+fail. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the
+country a man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help,
+but in the city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In
+the roar of the streets, his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only
+friend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so
+the poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and
+falls asleep.
+
+To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and
+suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts
+and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want;
+support it by beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to
+whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why
+should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones
+dead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the
+future have for him?
+
+Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life
+is of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others,
+why should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden
+to those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that God made
+us and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our duty to remain
+until he called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What
+pleasure can it give God to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the
+quivering flesh slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is
+this a festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A
+little morphine would give him sleep--the agony would be forgotten and
+he would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.
+
+If God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine and why
+should doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of God? No one,
+except a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition.
+Why should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning
+building, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet
+through his brain or a dagger in his heart? Would it give God pleasure
+to see him burn? When did the man lose the right of self-defence?
+
+So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and
+ruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should
+he live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others,
+with grief and pain, with agony and tears?
+
+Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still
+his heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the
+ache of toil. The dead have no masters.
+
+So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against
+her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that
+will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes
+of dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds
+broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying
+from horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door
+of death.
+
+Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide--cases
+in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.
+
+As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man
+honestly decides that death is best--best for him and others--and acts
+upon the decision, why should he be blamed?
+
+Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may
+have lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some
+men fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two
+fires--the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take
+the chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their
+belief, between two fires--the flames of the fagot that could burn but
+for a few moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they
+chose the flames of the fagot.
+
+Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and
+pangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot afford to call the
+suicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or
+that Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was
+not a craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who
+felt that they had reached the end---that the journey was done, the
+voyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man
+who commits suicide, who "does the thing that ends all other deeds,
+that shackles accident and bolts up change" is not lacking in physical
+courage.
+
+If men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,
+in hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the
+stains of dishonor; they would not live in filth and want, in poverty
+and hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can
+be accounted for only by the fear of death or "of something after."
+
+Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He
+knew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that "at the bottom of
+every river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger,
+Liberty sat and smiled." He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed
+himself to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said: "There is
+this blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits
+innumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in
+which I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death."
+
+To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman law
+persons found guilty of certain offences were not only destroyed,
+but their blood was polluted and their children became outcasts. If,
+however, they died before conviction their children were saved. Many
+committed suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards.
+Although guilty of great crimes they had enough of honor, of manhood,
+left to save their innocent children. This was not cowardice.
+
+Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their
+property. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose
+proportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of
+frenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart--the
+light fading from their lives--seek the refuge of death.
+
+Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways--who mangle their
+throats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take
+poisons that torture like the rack--such persons must be insane. But
+those who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and
+against, and who decide that death is best--the only good--and then
+resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full
+possession of their minds.
+
+Life is not the same to all--to some a blessing, to some a curse, to
+some not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some
+with the keenest joy and some with indifference.
+
+Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number
+of suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the
+hand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural
+death. A belief in eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such
+believers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the
+future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have
+less hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox
+religion has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to
+murder their children and many thousands to destroy themselves and
+others.
+
+It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill
+themselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is
+forgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.
+
+I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the
+twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.
+
+The law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is
+cruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful
+suicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so
+persecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of
+death, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man
+seeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take
+extra pains and precautions to make death certain.
+
+This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and
+enforced by ignorance and cruelty.
+
+When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and
+narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death,
+why should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?
+
+Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take
+gods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my
+estimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world.
+People should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for
+other worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our
+sufferings and our duties are here.
+
+The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law
+as to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent
+suicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and
+its penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.
+
+We should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every
+suicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient
+cause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each
+other. There is no space between--no room for chance. Given a certain
+heart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary
+result. If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must
+by education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value
+of the average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart--do away with
+false pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help
+our fellows without degrading them. We must make industry--useful work
+of all kinds--honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our
+charity--a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned to
+really reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done,
+but we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the
+sick. Why should they despise the mentally weak--the diseased in brain?
+
+Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances--of
+conditions--and we do as we must.
+
+This great truth should fill the heart with pity for the failures of our
+race.
+
+Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide; that
+in olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove a stake
+through his body, and then took his property from his children and gave
+it to the State.
+
+If Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox religion
+rests upon suicide--that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without
+suicide the whole world would have been lost.
+
+If Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the
+Jews without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed
+them to take his life.
+
+If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death
+with knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not
+say that he committed suicide?
+
+There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed the
+Jews to kill him, then he consented to his own death--refused, though
+perfectly able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in fact, a
+suicide.
+
+We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there
+shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and
+women will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.
+
+To the hopelessly imprisoned--to the dishonored and despised--to those
+who have failed, who have no future, no hope--to the abandoned, the
+brokenhearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and
+women--how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!
+
+And even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome deliverer.
+Death is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed
+long--when we are weary--when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk,
+for the cool kisses of the night--when the senses are dull--when
+the pulse is faint and low--when the mists gather on the mirror
+of memory--when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly
+perceived--when the future has but empty hands--death is as welcome as a
+strain of music.
+
+After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal
+happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by
+no dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and
+forever.
+
+The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in
+spite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and stagger
+and crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is
+that so few of the miserable are brave enough to die--that so many are
+terrified by the "something after death"--by the spectres and phantoms
+of superstition.
+
+Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic
+snows--how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea--how they
+linger in famine--how they fight disaster and despair! On the crumbling
+edge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full of hope
+and courage.
+
+But many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are
+disheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and
+give the earth their blood.
+
+They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or
+blame--we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.
+
+One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming
+and loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous
+impulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and
+so sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he
+thought was wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be
+merciful in our judgments.
+
+All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the
+malignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the
+ignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances
+and conditions--sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in
+passion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of
+insanity--raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out
+the light of life.
+
+Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane
+they should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be
+reasoned with, calmed and assisted.
+
+R. G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.
+
+IN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that
+"under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself."
+
+This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and
+the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of
+self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the
+gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that
+it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience.
+Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes--worse than the
+murder of another.
+
+The first question, then, is:
+
+Has a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?
+
+A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer--his agony is intense--his
+suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken.
+Is this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the
+cancer so that it might feed on the quiverering flesh of this victim?
+
+This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no
+use to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use
+to his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is
+rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to
+sleep.
+
+Has he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to
+take refuge in sleep?
+
+If there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure in the
+sufferings of men--that he gloats over the agonies of his children. If
+there be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power, lessen the
+evils of life.
+
+So I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer--a burden to himself
+and others, useless in every way--has the right to end his pain and pass
+through happy sleep to dreamless rest.
+
+But those who have answered me would say to this man: "It is your duty
+to be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift
+of God. You hold it in trust and you have no right to end it. The cancer
+is the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it with food."
+
+Take another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the rest
+of the passengers have escaped--gone in the lifeboats--and he is left
+alone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He cannot
+swim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the ship he
+burns. In any event he can live but a few moments.
+
+Those who have answered me, those who insist that under no circumstances
+a man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,
+"Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly Father
+that you be clothed in flame--that you slowly roast--that your eyes be
+scorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is
+not your own, only the agony is yours."
+
+I would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to
+burning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right
+of choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing yourself to be
+burned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier
+death.
+
+Let us suppose another case:
+
+A man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is about to
+be tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pine
+into his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make
+the preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is
+about to suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of
+poison. He knows that he can take it and in one moment pass beyond their
+power, leaving to them only the dead body.
+
+Is this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it, until
+the savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good
+God? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is it the duty of this man
+to allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to
+defend himself? Is it the will of God that he die by torture? What would
+any man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room
+for discussion?
+
+If the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped
+the tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another
+world be tortured forever by an infinite savage?
+
+Suppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition
+flourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends,
+many frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of
+pain.
+
+Those who loved God, who had been "born twice," would take a fellow-man
+who had been convicted of "heresy," lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,
+secure his arms and legs with chains, fasten him to the earth so that
+he could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his
+stomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his
+body. Then these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking
+food and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.
+
+Now, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within his hand
+a dagger, would it excite the wrath of the "good God," if with one quick
+stroke he found the protection of death?
+
+To this question there can be but one answer.
+
+In the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have
+the right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was
+under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the ship and
+perish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by
+savages; to drop the dagger and endure the "mercies" of the church.
+
+If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their
+lives, then I was right when I said that "under many circumstances a man
+has a right to kill himself."
+
+_Second_.--I denied that persons who killed themselves were physical
+cowards. They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their
+misfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the
+dagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps
+from some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not and
+cannot be a physical coward.
+
+The basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and
+when that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die,
+no matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist.
+The suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears. He seeks the very
+thing that cowardice endeavors to escape.
+
+So, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a
+coward, but a reasonable man.
+
+It must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He is to
+bear the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just
+as certainly there is no physical cowardice.
+
+Is the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer
+a coward?
+
+Is the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is
+the man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages or
+"Christians" a coward?
+
+_Third_.--I also took the position that some suicides were sane; that
+they acted on their best judgment, and that they were in full possession
+of their minds. Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the right to
+take his life, and, if, under such circumstances, he does take his life,
+then it cannot be said that he was insane.
+
+Most of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground
+that suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it
+is the greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must
+have been sane. So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal
+admit that he was sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapable of
+committing a crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who have
+passionately asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion
+admitted that those who killed themselves were sane.
+
+They agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that "some who have
+committed suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds."
+
+It seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to
+be true: _First_, that under some circumstances a man has the right
+to take his life; _second_, that the man who commits suicide is not a
+physical coward, and, _third_, that some who have committed suicide were
+at the time sane and in full possession of their minds.
+
+_Fourth_.--I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is the
+foundation of the Christian religion.
+
+I still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to protect
+himself without injuring his assailants--that having that power it was
+his duty to use it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own
+death and was guilty of suicide.
+
+To this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the redemption
+of man, that he made an atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas
+about redemption and atonement are born of a belief in the "fall
+of man," on account of the sins of our first "parents," and of the
+declaration that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of
+sin." The foundation has crumbled. No intelligent person now believes in
+the "fall of man"--that our first parents were perfect, and that their
+descendants grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.
+
+Intelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of
+history, man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage,
+whose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and
+delight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but
+not all the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from the den to the
+home, the palace, has been long and painful, through many centuries
+of suffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages of discovery,
+invention, self-sacrifice and thought.
+
+Redemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest. The
+idea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain
+of sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and
+scribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put him to death that
+he might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from
+the consequences of his own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and
+natural brain.
+
+In no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be found.
+
+But if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times because
+it was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a religion of
+kindness, of good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and
+ceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he believed to be right and
+true, he suffered death, then he was a noble man--a benefactor of his
+race. But if he were God there was no need of this. The Jews did not
+wish to kill God. If he had only made himself known all knees would have
+touched the ground. If he were God it required no heroism to die. He
+knew that what we call death is but the opening of the gates of eternal
+life. If he were God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need to
+suffer pain. He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.
+
+Even the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from
+these conclusions--from these arguments--and so, instead of attacking
+the arguments, they attack the man who makes them.
+
+_Fifth_.--I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt to
+commit suicide a crime.
+
+It seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately
+longs for death should be pitied, instead of punished--helped rather
+than imprisoned.
+
+A despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman
+without home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with
+tear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night
+leaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of
+death. She is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the
+authorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb and
+locked in a felon's cell.
+
+To me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages would
+enforce.
+
+_Sixth_.--In this discussion a curious thing has happened. For several
+centuries the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very good
+thing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the
+hour of death. They have in spite of the truth, declared that all
+the great unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,
+surrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair. Think of the thousands
+and thousands of clergymen who have described the last agonies of
+Voltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from
+play to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep
+as serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks, reaches
+the sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the
+noblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a star that meets
+the morning.
+
+At the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer
+could meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could
+smilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him killed to meet him
+in heaven.
+
+But the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the
+creed of the church in power could not die in peace. God would see to it
+that his last moments should be filled with the insanity of fear--that
+with his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for
+pardon.
+
+This has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering me,
+declare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death--that
+to avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience, they gladly
+and cheerfully put out the light of life. It is now said that infidels
+believe that death is the end--that it is a dreamless sleep--that it is
+without pain--that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for gods,
+or heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing for
+the day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they carelessly
+throw it down.
+
+The infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide.
+
+This certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having
+forced the clergy to contradict themselves.
+
+_Seventh_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+unbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real
+conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+far above himself.
+
+In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being superior to himself?
+
+What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.
+What is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will
+increase the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness
+in its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases
+or preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.
+
+It is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands
+out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his
+well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+
+So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so
+far as what he considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is
+swayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really
+intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for
+him. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for
+him is good for others--for all the world.
+
+It is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the supernatural is
+necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who
+has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give
+the same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of
+all morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in
+the supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural
+heavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed
+by the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
+governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are
+obedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by
+alms.
+
+Right and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just as
+criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments.
+
+_Eighth_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the
+unbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real
+conception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is
+impossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
+far above himself.
+
+In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being superior to himself?
+
+What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.
+What is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will
+increase the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness
+in its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases
+or preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.
+
+It is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands
+out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his
+well-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.
+
+So it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so
+far as what he Considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is
+swayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really
+intelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for
+him. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for
+him is food for others--for all the world.
+
+It is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is
+necessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who
+has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give
+the same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of
+all morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the
+experience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural
+origin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in
+the supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural
+heavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed
+by the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
+governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are
+obedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by
+alms.
+
+Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.
+
+Murder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten
+Commandments.
+
+_Eighth_.--Many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of
+letters who have answered me, have said that suicide is the worst of
+crimes--that a man had better murder somebody else than himself. One
+clergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in
+an act of sin, and therefore he had better kill another person. Probably
+he would commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.
+
+I do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To say
+that it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd.
+The man about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for him to
+kill another man, who wishes to live?
+
+To my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than
+another. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw away your
+own money than steal the money of another--better kill yourself if you
+wish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.
+
+The clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the
+greatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is wonderful
+how much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men.
+Wonderful the amount of their information about other worlds and how
+limited their knowledge is of this.
+
+There may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor deny. I
+am honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid enough to admit
+that the question is beyond the limitations of my mind. Yet I think I
+know as much on that subject as any human being knows or ever knew, and
+that is--nothing. I do not say that there is not another world, another
+life; neither do I say that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems
+to me that every sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is
+an infinitely good God and another world, then the infinitely good
+God will be just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If this
+infinitely good God loves his children in this world, he will love them
+in another. If he loves a man when he is alive, he will not hate him the
+instant he is dead.
+
+If we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God, he knew
+exactly what we would do--the temptations that we could and could not
+withstand--knew exactly the effect that everything would have upon us,
+knew under what circumstances we would take our lives--and produced
+such circumstances himself. It is perfectly apparent that there are many
+people incapable by nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable of
+preserving their mental poise in stress and strain of disaster, disease
+and loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to
+despair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes like a flash
+of lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so strong,
+so vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all
+obligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains except a fierce and
+wild desire to die. Thousands and thousands become moody, melancholy,
+brood upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until reason
+abdicates and frenzy takes possession of the soul. If there be an
+infinitely wise and powerful God, all this was known to him from the
+beginning, and he so created things, established relations, put in
+operation causes and effects, that all that has happened was the
+necessary result of his own acts.
+
+_Ninth_.--Nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have been
+exceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I
+never uttered. They have declared that I have advised people who were in
+trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men who
+have lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not good in
+health, to kill themselves at once, without taking into consideration
+any duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or society.
+
+No man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he
+is able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if he can
+possibly be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those he
+loves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery, between child
+and want, as long as he can be of any use, it is his duty to remain.
+
+I believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things,
+in bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against
+adversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having
+confidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints
+and shards, and in changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things
+to good. I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and good
+nature.
+
+Of the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the world--of
+all that live. My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the
+phantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no
+fear.
+
+The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality
+of the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope--hope for all of the
+children of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor
+the immortality of the soul. For many years I have said 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.
+
+What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.
+
+After all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People do not
+kill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All wish to be
+happy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for
+friends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of self-destruction
+never enters the human mind.
+
+The oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,
+the robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point, the
+ministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal pain;
+these are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless
+down to death.
+
+It will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to die. Of
+this there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that
+any god takes any interest in the affairs of men--that any sides with
+the right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the
+oppressed. Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has
+allowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and
+murdered by his enemies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of
+prayers have been uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague,
+pestilence and famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to
+overwhelm?
+
+_Tenth_.--Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that so many men, so
+many women endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that so
+many, in spite of "age, ache and penury," guard with trembling hands the
+spark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last; that
+the helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that the
+exiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live
+on; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the
+future has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of death.
+
+It is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short
+journey. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon,
+the twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what
+he cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of madness,
+or in the calm of thought and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the
+serenity of death.
+
+Let us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing of any
+realm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of life.
+Let us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the suffering,
+the despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by grief and shame,
+by misery and want, by chance and fate until their only friend is death.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+SUICIDE A SIN.
+
+     * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Do you think that what you have written about suicide has
+caused people to take their lives?
+
+_Answer._ No, I do not. People do not kill themselves because of the
+ideas of others. They are the victims of misfortune.
+
+_Question_. What do you consider the chief cause of suicide?
+
+_Answer._ There are many causes. Some individuals are crossed in love,
+others are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still others are diseased
+in body and frequently in mind. There are a thousand and one causes that
+lead up to the final act.
+
+_Question_. Do you consider that nationality plays a part in these
+tragedies?
+
+_Answer._ No, it is a question of individuals. There are those whose
+sorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace
+of death.
+
+_Question_. Do you, then, advise suicide?
+
+_Answer._ No, I have never done so, but I have said, and still say, that
+there are circumstances under which it is justifiable for a person to
+take his life.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the law which prohibits
+self-destruction?
+
+_Answer._ That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a man was
+tried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I think he
+pleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible crime of
+the poor wretch, sentenced him to the penitentiary for two years.
+This was an outrage; infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our
+civilization.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the frequency of
+suicides?
+
+_Answer._ By no means. After this, persons in New York who have made up
+their minds to commit suicide will see to it that they succeed.
+
+_Question_. Have your opinions been in any way modified since your first
+announcement of them?
+
+_Answer._ No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No one can
+answer my articles on suicide, because no one can satisfactorily refute
+them. Every man of sense knows that a person being devoured by a cancer
+has the right to take morphine, and pass from agony to dreamless sleep.
+So, too, there are circumstances under which a man has the right to end
+his pain of mind.
+
+_Question_. Have you seen in the papers that many who have killed
+themselves have had on their persons some article of yours on suicide?
+
+_Answer._ Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that I do not
+think these persons were led to kill themselves by reading the articles.
+Many people who have killed themselves were found to have Bibles or
+tracts in their pockets.
+
+_Question_. How do you account for the presence of the latter?
+
+_Answer._ The reason of this is that the theologians know nothing.
+The pious imagine that their God has placed us here for some wise and
+inscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us when he wants us. All
+this is idiotic. When a man is of no use to himself or to others, when
+his days and nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should he
+remain to endure them longer?
+
+
+SUICIDE A SIN.
+
+     * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.
+
+COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he had read
+the Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.
+
+_Answer._ Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an interview had with
+the reverend gentleman.
+
+Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same views
+still. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion among the
+orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected when anything
+sensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common
+sense with his theology, and, of course this has displeased the truly
+orthodox.
+
+Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of supernatural
+religion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. The orthodox
+ministers take the ground that an infinite Being created man, put him
+on the earth and determined his days. They say that God desires every
+person to live until he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that
+we are all on guard and must remain so until relieved by a higher
+power--the superior officer.
+
+The trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It proves
+that God kills every person who dies as we say, "according to nature."
+It proves that we ought to say, "according to God." It proves that God
+sends the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence, for the purpose of
+killing people. It proves that all diseases and all accidents are his
+messengers, and that all who do not kill themselves, die by the act,
+and in accordance with the will of God. It also shows that when a man is
+murdered, it is in harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When God
+created the man who was murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and
+when he made the man who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he
+would do. So that the murder was the act of God.
+
+Can it be said that God intended that thousands should die of famine and
+that he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain? Can we say that
+he intended that thousands of innocent men should die in dungeons and on
+scaffolds?
+
+Is it possible that a man, "slowly being devoured by a cancer," whose
+days and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to himself and
+a burden to others, is carrying out the will of God? Does God enjoy
+his agony? Is God thrilled by the music of his moans--the melody of his
+shrieks?
+
+This frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every human
+being a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous but it is
+idiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the universe.
+
+Now, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our minds,
+and have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of the world's
+history, then we know--if we know anything--that man has taken his
+chances, precisely the same as other animals. He has been destroyed
+by heat and cold, by flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless
+diseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his
+strength, his foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He
+has defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has
+he been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever happened in
+nature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure the human race.
+
+Consequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is not in any
+way affected by a supposed obligation to the Infinite.
+
+All theological considerations must be thrown aside because we see and
+know that the laws of life are the same for all living things--that when
+the conditions are favorable, the living multiply and life lengthens,
+and when the conditions are unfavorable, the living decrease and life
+shortens. We have no evidence of any interference of any power superior
+to nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and
+obligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here in
+this world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to any
+phantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a man under
+certain circumstances has the right to end his life.
+
+If he can be of no use to others--if he is of no use to himself--if
+he is a burden to others--a curse to himself--why should he remain? By
+ending his life he ends his sufferings and adds to the well-being
+of others. He lessens misery and increases happiness. Under such
+circumstances undoubtedly a man has the right to stop the pulse of pain
+and woo the sleep that has no dream.
+
+I do not think that the discussion of this question is of much
+importance, but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and a
+sensible position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister, but
+like a man.
+
+When wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised. I feel
+then that there is a little light in the East, possibly the dawn of a
+better day.
+
+I congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave and
+philosophic words.
+
+There is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to avoid
+death, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has this right,
+then the theologians must admit that God, in making his decrees, took
+into consideration the result of such actions. Now, if God knew that
+while most men would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his decrees
+were so made that they would harmonize with the acts of those who would
+avoid death, can we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take
+into consideration the acts of those who would seek death? Let us
+remember that all actions, good, bad and indifferent, are the necessary
+children of conditions--that there is no chance in the natural world in
+which we live.
+
+So, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and that all
+have the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be charitable.
+
+When some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret, frenzied
+with fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life, let us have
+pity--Let us be generous.
+
+
+SUICIDE AND SANITY.
+
+     * New York Press, 1897. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first question, to
+which Colonel Ingersoll replied:
+
+_Answer._ No. At the same time I believe that a great majority of
+suicides are insane. There are circumstances under which suicide is
+natural, sensible and right. When a man is of no use to himself, when he
+can be of no use to others, when his life is filled with agony, when the
+future has no promise of relief, then I think he has the right to cast
+the burden of life away and seek the repose of death.
+
+_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?
+
+_Answer._ I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with suicide. Of
+nearly all things death is the most feared. And the man who voluntarily
+enters the realm of death cannot properly be called a coward. Many men
+who kill themselves forget the duties they owe to others--forget their
+wives and children. Such men are heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are
+not cowards.
+
+_Question_. When is the suicide of the sane justifiable?
+
+_Answer._ To escape death by torture; to avoid being devoured by a
+cancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love; when you can be of
+no use to others or to yourself; when life is unbearable; when in all
+the horizon of the future there is no star of hope.
+
+_Question_. Do you believe that any suicides have been caused or
+encouraged by your declaration three years ago that suicide sometimes
+was justifiable?
+
+_Answer._ Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated, invented,
+suicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever
+taken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts, you cannot induce
+a man to kill himself. The man who takes his own life does not go to
+others to find reasons or excuses.
+
+_Question_. On the whole is the world made better or worse by suicides?
+
+_Answer._ Better by some and poorer by others.
+
+_Question_. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most educated of
+civilized nations, leads the world in suicides?
+
+_Answer._ I do not know that Germany is the most educated; neither do I
+know that suicide is more frequent there than in all other countries. I
+know that the struggle for life is severe in Germany, that the laws
+are unjust, that the government is oppressive, that the people are
+sentimental, that they brood over their troubles and easily become
+hopeless.
+
+_Question_. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not killing of born
+idiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth equally so?
+
+_Answer._ There is no relation between the questions--between suicides
+and killing idiots. Suicide may, under certain circumstances, be right
+and killing idiots may be wrong; killing idiots may be right and suicide
+may be wrong. When we look about us, when we read interviews with
+preachers about Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.
+
+_Question_. Should suicide be forbidden by law?
+
+_Answer._ No. A law that provides for the punishment of those who
+attempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are willing to meet
+death are not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law would be to
+make the person who had concluded to kill himself a little more careful
+to succeed.
+
+_Question_. What is your belief about virtue, morality and religion?
+
+_Answer._ I believe that all actions that tend to the well-being of
+sentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe that real religion
+consists in doing good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in
+the uniformity of nature; that matter will forever attract matter in
+proportion to mass and distance; that, under the same circumstances,
+falling bodies will attain the same speed, increasing in exact
+proportion to distance; that light will always, under the same
+circumstances, be reflected at the same angle; that it will always
+travel with the same velocity; that air will forever be lighter than
+water, and gold heavier than iron; that all substances will be true
+to their natures; that a certain degree of heat will always expand the
+metals and change water into steam; that a certain degree of cold will
+cause the metals to shrink and change water into ice; that all atoms
+will forever be in motion; that like causes will forever produce like
+effects, that force will be overcome only by force; that no atom
+of matter will ever be created or destroyed; that the energy in the
+universe will forever remain the same, nothing lost, nothing gained;
+that all that has been possible has happened, and that all that will be
+possible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all thoughts, dreams,
+fancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of all successes
+and all failures, are in nature; that there is in the universe no power
+superior to nature; that man is under no obligation to the imaginary
+gods; that all his obligations and duties are to be discharged and done
+in this world; that right and wrong do not depend on the will of an
+infinite Being, but on the consequences of actions, and that these
+consequences necessarily flow from the nature of things. I believe that
+the universe is natural.
+
+
+
+
+IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?
+
+
+     *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and
+     Avarice Triumphant," published in the North American Review,
+     June, 1891.
+
+THERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy individual
+and national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They
+mistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening of the world.
+To them everything has changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and
+women have ceased to be beautiful. They are dyspeptic, and it gives them
+the greatest pleasure to say that the art of cooking has been lost.
+
+For many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. They
+lifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step in
+advance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and goodness
+and self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. They doubted
+the morality of well-dressed people--considered it impossible that the
+prosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on the limbs of a dead
+tree, they hooted the obsequies of spring, believing it would come no
+more.
+
+There are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and slander
+the land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of Cassandra
+mission, and they really seem to enjoy their work. They honestly believe
+that every kind of crime is on the increase, that the courts are
+all corrupt, that the legislators are bribed, that the witnesses are
+suborned, that all holders of office are dishonest; and they feel like a
+modern Marius sitting amid the ruins of all the virtues.
+
+It is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are wrong.
+They do not want arguments, because they will not heed them. They need
+medicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a physician.
+
+General Hawkins is probably right when he says that some fraudulent
+shoes, some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels were sold to the
+Government during the war; but we must remember that there were millions
+and millions of as good shoes as art and honesty could make, millions of
+the best muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most magnificent
+ships ever built, sold to the Government during the same period. We must
+not mistake an eddy for the main stream. We must also remember another
+thing: there were millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the
+shoes, to use the muskets, and to man the ships.
+
+So it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land subsidies
+voted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured by bribery
+is preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is not the
+slightest evidence tending to show that the general policy of hastening
+the construction of railways through the Territories of the United
+States was corruptly adopted--not the slightest. At the same time,
+it may be that some members of Congress were induced by personal
+considerations to vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the
+policy was wise, and through the granting of the subsidies thousands
+of miles of railways were built, and these railways have given to
+civilization vast territories which otherwise would have remained
+substantially useless to the world. Where at that time was a wilderness,
+now are some of the most thriving cities in the United States--a
+great, an industrious, and a happy population. The results have
+justified the action of Congress.
+
+It is also true that some railroads have been "wrecked" in the United
+States, but most of these wrecks have been the result of competition. It
+is the same with corporations as with individuals--the powerful combine
+against the weak. In the world of commerce and business is the great
+law of the survival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary
+institutions. They have but little regard for the rights of one another.
+Some fortunes have been made by the criminal "wrecking" of roads, but
+even in the business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the
+companies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard, other
+things being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.
+
+Many railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to develop the
+country through which they passed. While they waited for immigration,
+interest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took place; then
+reorganization. By that time the country had been populated; towns were
+springing up along the line; increased business was the result. On the
+new bonds and the new stock the company paid interest and dividends.
+Then the ones who first invested and lost their money felt that they had
+been defrauded.
+
+So it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of crimes--easy
+to indict the entire nation, and at the same time impossible to
+substantiate one of the charges. Everyone who knows the history of
+the Star-Route trials knows that nothing was established against the
+defendants, knows that every effort was made by the Government to
+convict them, and also knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men,
+never suspected of being improperly influenced, after having heard
+the entire case, pronounced the defendants not guilty. After this, of
+course, any one can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who cares
+nothing for the facts, that the defendants were all guilty.
+
+It may also be true that some settlers in the far West have taken timber
+from the public lands, and it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws
+and regulations were such that where a settler was entitled to take up a
+certain amount of land he had to take it all in one place; he could not
+take a certain number of acres on the plains and a certain number of
+acres in the timber. The consequence was that when he settled upon
+the land--the land that he could cultivate--he took the timber that he
+needed from the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I
+suppose it may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass and
+possibly drank the Government's water.
+
+It will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been "watered" in
+this country. And what is the crime or practice known as watering stock?
+
+For instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth, we will
+say, $3,000,000--able to pay interest on that sum at the rate of six per
+cent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued has nothing to do
+with the value of the thing represented by the stock. If there was
+one share of stock representing this railroad, it would be worth three
+million dollars, whether it said on its face it was one dollar or one
+hundred dollars. If there were three million shares of stock issued on
+this property, they would be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter
+whether it said on this stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a
+thousand dollars, the share would be worth one dollar--no more, no less.
+If any one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value
+of the thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if a
+pie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each piece is
+worth twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do
+not increase the value of the pie.
+
+If, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find its
+relation to the thing represented by all the stock.
+
+It can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The reason
+is perfectly clear. Corporations are like individuals--they combine.
+Unfortunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out
+against the abuses of trusts. It is natural for corporations to defend
+themselves--natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a profitable
+pool; and when strong corporations combine, little corporations suffer.
+It is with corporations as with fishes--the large eat the little; and it
+may be that this will prove a public benefit in the end. When the large
+corporations have taken possession of the little ones, it may be that
+the Government will take possession of them--the Government being the
+largest corporation of them all.
+
+It is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but certainly
+no one imagines that the people of this country build houses for the
+purpose of having them burned, or that they erect hotels having in view
+the broiling of guests. Men act as they must; that is to say, according
+to wants and necessities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper
+than in an old one, money is scarcer, interest higher, and consequently
+people build cheaply and take the risks of fire. They do not do this
+on account of the Constitution of the United States, or the action of
+political parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free.
+In the hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of
+fire as of famine.
+
+The destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be greatly
+regretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The people
+of America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and
+building houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the aesthetic side
+of their natures. Nature has been somewhat ruthless with us. The storms
+of winter breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer,
+have tended, it may be, to harden somewhat the sensibilities; in
+consequence of which they have allowed their horses and cattle to bear
+the rigors of the same climate.
+
+It is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in the
+interest of the present, by those who care nothing for the future. All
+these things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against; but we
+must not hint, provided we are lovers of the Republic, that such things
+are caused by free institutions.
+
+General Hawkins asserts that "Christianity has neither preached nor
+practiced humanity towards animals," while at the same time "Sunday
+school children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a terrible
+thing it is to break the Sabbath;" that "museum trustees tremble with
+pious horror at the suggestion of opening the doors leading to the
+collections on that day," and that no protests have come "from lawmakers
+or the Christian clergy." Few people will suspect me of going out of my
+way to take care of Christianity or of the clergy. At the same time, I
+can afford to state the truth. While there is not much in the Bible with
+regard to practicing humanity toward animals, there is at least this:
+"The merciful man is merciful to his beast." Of course, I am not
+alluding now to the example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle
+of the Egyptians with hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of
+their owners.
+
+In regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much like
+other people.
+
+So, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against cruelty to
+animals, but enough have protested against it to secure the enactment of
+laws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry Bergh, who did as much
+good as any man who has lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded
+in his efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds
+and thousands of professing Christians--probably millions. Let us be
+honest.
+
+It is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction between
+offences and virtues, to regard the little as the important--that is to
+say, to invert the pyramid.
+
+It is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true that the
+fringe of civilization has been composed of many low and cruel men. It
+is true that the red man has been demoralized by the vices of the white.
+It is a frightful fact that, when a superior race meets an inferior, the
+inferior imitates only the vices of the superior, and the superior those
+of the inferior. They exchange faults and failings. This is one of the
+most terrible facts in the history of the human race.
+
+Nothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians. There is,
+however, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when we lived along
+the Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors that they could ever
+go beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with the Indians drove them back
+but a few miles. In a little while, through immigration, the white race
+passed the line, and another treaty was made, forcing the Indians still
+further west; yet the tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while
+again the line was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was
+made, pushing the Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the
+Illinois, across the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at
+every step some treaty made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of
+the white men who made it to foretell the growth of the Republic.
+
+But the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" made a great
+mistake when he selected the last thirty years of our national life as
+the period within which the Americans have made a change of the national
+motto appropriate, and asserted that now there should be in place of the
+old motto the words, "Plundering Made Easy."
+
+Most men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one should be
+blind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his country. He
+should call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing his
+country into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease and the defects
+be corrected. He should do what he can to make his country great,
+prosperous, just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate the
+faults of your country for the purpose of calling attention to your own
+virtues, or to earn the praise of a nation that hates your own. This is
+what might be called wallowing in the gutter of reform.
+
+The thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have passed
+from virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact,
+the most glorious years in the life of this or of any other nation.
+
+In 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national institution.
+It was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave
+Law was in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in nearly all
+of the Northern States it was a crime to give food, shelter, or raiment
+to a man or woman seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal,
+hospitality a misdemeanor, and charity a crime. Men and women were sold
+like beasts. Mothers were robbed of their babes while they stood under
+our flag. All the sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the
+bloody feet of brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery
+fixed in law and creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of
+honest men were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by
+Northern lovers of the "Union."
+
+Now, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto could
+properly have been, "Plundering Made Easy." Those were the days of
+brutality, and the brutality was practiced to the end that we might make
+money out of the unpaid labor of others.
+
+It is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the then
+condition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North and South,
+was responsible. There were many years of compromise, and thousands of
+statesmen, so-called, through conventions and platforms, did what they
+could to preserve slavery and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted
+politics, demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and poisoned
+our literature. The Websters, Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary
+expedients for principles, and really thought that the progress of
+the world could be stopped by the resolutions of a packed political
+convention. Yet these men, mistaken as they really were, worked and
+wrought unconsciously in the cause of human freedom. They believed that
+the preservation of the Union was the one important thing, and that it
+could not be preserved unless slavery was protected--unless the North
+would be faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution. For
+the purpose of keeping the nation true to the Union and false to itself,
+these men exerted every faculty and all their strength. They exhausted
+their genius in showing that slavery was not, after all, very bad,
+and that disunion was the most terrible calamity that could by any
+possibility befall the nation, and that the Union, even at the price of
+slavery, was the greatest possible blessing. They did not suspect that
+slavery would finally strike the blow for disunion. But when the time
+came and the South unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as
+to the infinite value of the Union gave to our flag millions of brave
+defenders.
+
+Now, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty years of
+"Brutality and Avarice."
+
+The Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain one
+people for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's protest
+against disunion. The Constitution of the United States is now the
+charter of human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with the idea that
+all men are entitled to liberty have been repealed. The black man knows
+that the Constitution is his shield, that the laws protect him, that our
+flag is his, and the black mother feels that her babe belongs to her.
+Where the slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse. The dealer
+in human flesh is now a teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a
+child, he develops and illumines the mind of a pupil.
+
+There is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their thoughts.
+Lips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the history of our
+world has so much been done for education.
+
+The amount of business done in a country on credit is the measure of
+confidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it may truthfully
+be said that, where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an
+exceedingly large per cent. of the people are regarded as honest. In our
+country a very large per cent. of contracts are faithfully fulfilled.
+Probably there is no nation in the world where so much business is
+done on credit as in the United States. The fact that the credit of the
+Republic is second to that of no other nation on the globe would seem to
+be at least an indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.
+
+The author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" seems to be of the
+opinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who fight for
+the right are not degraded--they are ennobled. When men face death and
+march to the mouths of the guns for a principle, they grow great; and if
+they come out of the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur; they
+become better men, better citizens, and they love more intensely than
+ever the great cause for the success of which they put their lives in
+pawn.
+
+The period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great victory
+the sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the greatest principles
+involved in the Revolution were almost forgotten.
+
+During the Civil war the North grew great and the South was educated.
+Never before in the history of mankind was there such a period of moral
+exaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest light on
+the pages of our history became famous then. Against the few who were
+actuated by base and unworthy motives let us set the great army that
+fought for the Republic, the millions who bared their breasts to
+the storm, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who did their duty
+honestly, nobly, and went back to their wives and children with no
+thought except to preserve the liberties of themselves and their
+fellow-men.
+
+Of course there were some men who did not do their duty--some men false
+to themselves and to their country. No one expects to find sixty-five
+millions of saints in America. A few years ago a lady complained to the
+president of a Western railroad that a brakeman had spoken to her with
+great rudeness. The president expressed his regret at the incident, and
+said among other things: "Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is
+for us to get gentlemen to fill all those places."
+
+It is hardly to be expected that the American people should excel all
+others in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have been very busy
+taking possession of the Republic. It is hard to overestimate the
+courage, the industry, the self-denial it has required to fell the
+forests, to subdue the fields, to construct the roads, and to build the
+countless homes. What has been done is a certificate of the honesty and
+industry of our people.
+
+It is not true that "one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals
+seem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: 'Successful wrong is
+right.'" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are
+rich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how
+they use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the
+golden calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much
+of the gold of the calf--and this distinction is seen by the calves
+themselves.
+
+Nowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than
+here. There are millions of business men--merchants, bankers, and men
+engaged in all trades and professions--to whom reputation is as dear as
+life.
+
+There is one thing in the article "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"
+that seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the
+statement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the
+shortcomings of the American people can be accounted for by the fact
+that our Government is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a
+French official complained to a friend that he was compelled to employ
+twenty clerks to do the work done by four under the empire, and on being
+asked the reason answered: "It is the Republic." He was told that, as
+he was the head of the bureau, he could prevent the abuse, to which he
+replied: "I know I have the power; but I have been in this position for
+more than thirty years, and am now too old to learn another occupation,
+and I _must_ make places for the friends of the deputies." And then it
+is added by General Hawkins: "_And so it is here_."
+
+It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the
+Indians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the
+law, or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from
+the consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading
+of the history of the world will show that nations under the control of
+kings and emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the
+bad we do by the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should
+not be made responsible for our vices.
+
+Is it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization of men?
+Is a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men?
+In order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor?
+Is human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great
+Republic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to
+abdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the
+rights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing
+to become a serf, a servant or a slave?
+
+Is it possible that "high character is impracticable" in this Republic?
+Is this the experience of the author of "Brutality and Avarice
+Triumphant"? Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays no
+dividends"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best market in
+the world for books, for music, and for art?
+
+There is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping
+slanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best
+country, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the
+average, better clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They
+are fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of
+the forces of nature, than any other of the children of men. Here
+the burdens of government are lightest, the responsibilities of the
+individual greatest, and here, in my judgment, are to be worked out the
+most important problems of social science.
+
+Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than
+you will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has
+crowned; we stand erect.
+
+Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national
+failing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great
+calamities open the hearts and hands of all.
+
+Here you will find democracy in the family--republicanism by the
+fireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the
+government. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines
+himself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into
+the family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and
+wives are beginning to be equals.
+
+The highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.
+By this standard America stands first among nations.
+
+There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country--an
+amplitude--that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our
+faults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.
+
+No American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an
+enemy of the great Republic.
+
+Robert G. Ingersoll.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.
+
+     * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.
+
+
+_Question_. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your
+lectures by the _Cincinnati Gazette_ and the _Catholic Telegraph_?
+
+_Answer._ I have read portions of the articles.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of them?
+
+_Answer._ Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a distinct
+subject of thought.
+
+_Question_. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the
+_Gazette_ against your lecture on Moses?
+
+_Answer._ The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance
+prevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one could
+reasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the advantage
+of telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a
+few mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also shows that,
+although God was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms; but
+whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the
+slave is not stated. The article has nothing to do with my position. I
+am perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called Egypt; that
+the Jews were once slaves; that they got away and started a little
+country of their own. All this may be true without proving that they
+were miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or
+that God went into partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have
+been a man by the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned
+into snakes.
+
+A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of
+his remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought
+a stone from the mountain. He requested the children to pass in line
+before him so that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone.
+After they had all seen it he said: "You will as you grow up meet people
+who will deny that there ever was a flood, or that God saved Noah and
+the animals in the ark, and then you can tell them that you know better,
+because you saw a stone from the very mountain where the ark rested."
+
+That is precisely the kind of argument used in the _Gazette_. The
+article was written by some one who does not quite believe in the
+inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of
+hell, would probably say so.
+
+I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca,
+such a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made known his will
+to Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the _Gazette_ would
+answer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore
+God must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general
+as Washington, but I do not admit that God kept him from being shot. I
+admit that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not
+admit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses,
+but I do not admit that God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I
+admit that there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit
+that he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the
+river, and put his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit
+that the article appeared in the _Gazette_, but I do not admit that it
+amounted to anything whatever.
+
+_Question_. Did you notice what the _Catholic Telegraph_ said about your
+lecture being ungrammatical?
+
+_Answer._ Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the _Catholic Telegraph_
+occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as brilliant as
+Ingersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After making this
+statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault
+with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes the following sentence:
+"It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive
+language." After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman
+says on the subject of grammar.
+
+In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more
+remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one
+exception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except
+in an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the
+usual amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile,
+ignorant and malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a
+gentleman who worships a God who will damn dimpled babes to an eternity
+of fire, simply because they were not baptized.
+
+_Question_. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history
+and the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the
+Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and
+has been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in
+science. What do you think of that statement?
+
+_Answer._ I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is
+substantially like the gentleman's theology, depending simply upon
+persistent assertion.
+
+I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil
+animals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed
+that God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then
+produced other forms. Agassiz was the last scientist of any standing who
+ventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.
+
+_Question_. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists
+regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?
+
+_Answer._ I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look
+upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the
+same relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this
+opinion. The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley,
+Tyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others
+in the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened
+orthodox gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a
+rule, both are exceedingly small.
+
+_Question_. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that
+God went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no
+such passage in the Bible.
+
+_Answer._ Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the
+twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before thee,
+which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from
+before thee."
+
+_Question_. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your ideas
+are generally received with favor?
+
+_Answer._ Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers
+as there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the
+majority.
+
+_Question_. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make
+strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going
+to hear you?
+
+_Answer._ Yes; in many places ministers have advised their congregations
+to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The
+result has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever failed to
+publicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance agents.
+
+_Question_. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?
+
+_Answer._ Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters,
+threatening me with the wrath of God, and calling my attention to the
+uncertainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These letters are
+nearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say,
+full of hatred and impertinence.
+
+_Question_. Don't you think it remarkable that the _Telegraph_, a
+Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from
+such an orthodox sheet as the _Gazette_?
+
+_Answer._ I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All
+superstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few
+years all the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of
+liberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of arrogance,
+of theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic
+quoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the same men would have
+taken great pleasure in swearing that the Catholic Church was the
+worst possible organization. That church should forever hold its peace.
+Wherever it has had authority it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced
+Italy to a hand organ, Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to
+contempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of
+man has withered. The recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew
+should make a priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre
+should make a Protestant careful.
+
+I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces
+Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor Emmanuel. I
+could not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the point that no one is able to judge
+of these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?
+
+_Answer._ I do not think it is necessary to understand Hebrew to decide
+as to the probability of springs gushing out of dead bones, or of
+the dead getting out of their graves, or of the probability of ravens
+keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I hardly think it is necessary
+even to be a Greek scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils
+actually left a person and took refuge in the bodies of swine. Besides,
+if the Bible is not properly translated, the circulation ought to stop
+until the corrections are made. I am not accountable if God made a
+revelation to me in a language that he knew I never would understand. If
+he wishes to convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do
+it in English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to
+it.
+
+_Question_. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible owing to
+mistranslations?
+
+_Answer._ No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to help
+out the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it
+been correctly translated. Nearly all of the _mistakes_, as Mr. Weller
+would say, have been made for the purposes of harmony.
+
+_Question_. How many errors do you suppose there are?
+
+_Answer._ Well, I do not know. It has been reported that the American
+Bible Society appointed a committee to hunt for errors, and the said
+committee returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand. And
+thereupon the leading men said, to correct so many errors will destroy
+the confidence of the common people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.
+Thereupon it was decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other
+day that a very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that
+they knew they were publishing a book full of errors.
+
+_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?
+
+_Answer._ My first objection is, it is not true.
+
+Second.--It is not inspired.
+
+Third.--It upholds human slavery.
+
+Fourth.--It sanctions concubinage.
+
+Fifth.--It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as the
+utter destruction of old men and little children.
+
+Sixth.--After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it commands the
+generals to divide the girls among the soldiers and priests. Beyond
+this, infamy has never gone. If any God made this order I am opposed to
+him.
+
+Seventh.--It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems to, from the
+following:
+
+"Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord
+of all that he hath, both of _man_ and _beast_, and of the field of his
+possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy
+unto the Lord."
+
+"None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be redeemed; but
+shall surely be put to death." (Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus,
+28th and 29th verses.)
+
+Eighth.--Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and unjust.
+Think of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of killing a man for
+picking up sticks on Sunday!
+
+Ninth.--It upholds polygamy.
+
+Tenth.--It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of
+any science whatever.
+
+Eleventh.--It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches a man to kill
+his own wife if she differs with him on religion; that is to say, if he
+is orthodox. There is no book in the world in which can be found so much
+that is thoroughly despicable and infamous. Of course there are some
+good passages, some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old
+Testament, few and far between.
+
+Twelfth.--It treats woman like a beast, and man like a slave. It fills
+heaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and grief.
+
+_Question_. Do you think any book inspired?
+
+_Answer._ No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if it had been
+the intention of this God to give to man an inspired book, he should
+have waited until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare as the
+instrument. Then there never would have been any doubt as to the
+inspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more goodness, more
+intelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of this world.
+
+_Question_. What do you think as a freethinker of the Sunday question in
+Cincinnati?
+
+_Answer._ I think that it is a good thing to have a day of recreation, a
+day of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and theology. I am
+in favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness on Sunday. I am
+opposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy will take half
+the pains to make the people intelligent that they do to make them
+superstitious, the world will soon have advanced so far that it can
+enjoy itself without excess. The ministers want Sunday for themselves.
+They want everybody to come to church because they can go no where
+else. It is like the story of a man coming home at three o'clock in the
+morning, who, upon being asked by his wife how he could come at such a
+time of night, replied, "The fact is, every other place is shut up." The
+orthodox clergy know that their churches will remain empty if any other
+place remains open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,
+orthodox clergy, because I have great respect for Unitarians and
+Universalists.
+
+
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+
+     * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.
+
+_Question_. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have been indicted
+in the State of Delaware for the crime of blasphemy?
+
+_Answer._ Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is the
+Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington
+to the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in which he
+almost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against me, for
+what he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter
+of fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God, provided
+always that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by
+the orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is
+conditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take
+from a man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and
+he suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is
+because he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless,
+he cannot in any way be affected by what anybody else may do; and,
+consequently, a sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the
+principle of the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy
+was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able
+to take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind
+which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. Injustice is the
+only blasphemy that can be committed, and justice is the only true
+worship. Man can sin against man, but not against God. But even if man
+could sin against God, it has always struck me that an infinite being
+would be entirely able to take care of himself without the assistance of
+a Chief Justice. Men have always been violating the rights of men, under
+the plea of defending the rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so
+perfectly delightful to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,
+and get God in his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has
+taken this occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in
+heaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified
+copy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help
+satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little ahead.
+
+The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That
+lecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; and,
+to tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what a Yankee
+would call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for me to tell
+whether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I have
+no personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In fact he has done me
+a favor. He has called the attention of the civilized world to certain
+barbarian laws that disfigure and disgrace the statute books of most
+of the States. These laws were passed when our honest ancestors were
+burning witches, trading Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and
+molasses, branding people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with
+hot irons, putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the
+name of God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We
+have outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter
+of fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the States,
+like Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though there might be
+trouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware, without getting one
+man broad enough, sensible enough, and honest enough, to do justice. I
+hardly think it would be possible in any State to select a jury in the
+ordinary way that would convict any person charged with what is commonly
+known as blasphemy.
+
+All the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of being
+blasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as
+blasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists; the Baptists, the
+Presbyterians, and the Catholics all united in denouncing the Quakers,
+and they all together denounced the Unitarians--called them blasphemers
+because they did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ--the
+Unitarians only insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary,
+that one infinite being could do all the business, and that the other
+two were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.
+
+Then all the churches united to call the Universalists blasphemers.
+I can remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with a thousand times
+more horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this strange thing about
+the history of theology--nobody has ever been charged with blasphemy
+who thought God bad. For instance, it never would have excited any
+theological hatred if a man had insisted that God would finally damn
+everybody. Nearly all heresy has consisted in making God better than the
+majority in the churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never
+will forgive the Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn
+anybody eternally. Now, all these sects have charged each other with
+blasphemy, without anyone of them knowing really what blasphemy is. I
+suppose they have occasionally been honest, because they have mostly
+been ignorant. It is said that Torquemada used to shed tears over the
+agonies of his victims and that he recommended slow burning, not because
+he wished to inflict pain, but because he really desired to give the
+gentleman or lady he was burning a chance to repent of his or her sins,
+and make his or her peace with God previous to becoming a cinder.
+
+The root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious persecution
+is the idea that some certain belief is necessary to salvation. If
+orthodox Christians are right in this idea, then persecution of all
+heretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right to defend my body
+from attack, surely I should have a like right to defend my soul. Under
+our laws I could kill any man who was endeavoring, for example, to take
+the life of my child. How much more would I be justified in killing
+any wretch who was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a
+doctrine which, if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of
+that child's soul?
+
+If the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is true, no
+infidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be hunted
+from the wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They should not
+be allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to poison the minds of
+women and children; in other words, they should not be allowed to empty
+heaven and fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this country is
+because the Christians of this country do not believe their doctrine.
+The passage from the Bible, "Go ye into all the world and preach the
+Gospel to every creature," coupled with the assurance that, "Whosoever
+believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall
+be damned," is the foundation of most religious persecution. Every
+word in that passage has been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain
+and dungeon. That one passage has probably caused more agony among men,
+women and children, than all the passages of all other books that
+were ever printed. Now, this passage was not in the book of Mark when
+originally written, but was put there many years after the gentleman who
+evolved the book of Mark from his inner consciousness, had passed
+away. It was put there by the church--that is to say, by hypocrisy and
+priestly craft, to bind the consciences of men and force them to come
+under ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that passage has been
+received and believed, and been made binding by law in most countries
+ever since.
+
+What would you think of a law compelling a man to admire Shakespeare, or
+calling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not a statute necessary
+to uphold the reputation of Raphael or of Michael Angelo? Is it possible
+that God cannot write a book good enough and great enough and grand
+enough not to excite the laughter of his children? Is it possible that
+he is compelled to have his literary reputation supported by the State
+of Delaware?
+
+There is another very strange thing about this business. Admitting that
+the Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his work than are the
+sun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for disbelieving this
+Bible we are to be damned forever, we ought to be equally damned for
+a mistake in geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man to go
+to heaven who swears that the earth is flat, and damning a fellow who
+thinks it is round, but who-has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to
+me to be perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this view of it, it
+is just as necessary to be right on the subject of the equator as on the
+doctrine of infant baptism.
+
+_Question_. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge Comegys? Is he
+a personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him? Have you any idea what
+reason he had for attacking you?
+
+_Answer._ I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside of the
+political reason I have intimated, I do not know why he attacked me. I
+once delivered a lecture entitled "What must we do to be Saved?" in the
+city of Wilmington, and in that lecture I proceeded to show, or at
+least tried to show, that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about
+Christianity, as it is understood in Delaware; and I also endeavored to
+show that all men have an equal right to think, and that a man is only
+under obligations to be honest with himself, and with all men, and that
+he is not accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed
+with--otherwise it might be Judge Comegys himself would be damned--but
+that he is only accountable for the use he makes of what little mind
+he has received. I held that the safest thing for every man was to be
+absolutely honest, and to express his honest thought. After the delivery
+of this lecture various ministers in Wilmington began replying, and
+after the preaching of twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which,
+considered as a reply, was a success, I presume it occurred to these
+ministers that the shortest and easiest way would be to have me indicted
+and imprisoned.
+
+In this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and time-honored way.
+I believe it is, as it always has been, easier to kill two infidels than
+to answer one; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that is
+now slowly rising over the intellectual world, it must be done by brute
+force, and by brute force alone. And it must be done pretty soon,
+or they will not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they have a
+majority of the civilized world on their side to-day. No heretic ever
+would have been burned if he could have been answered. No theologian
+ever called for the help of the law until his logic gave out.
+
+I suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get his right
+to be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to decide which creed
+is the correct one? How did he dare to pit his little brain against the
+word of God? He may say that his father was a Presbyterian. But what
+was his grandfather? If he will only go back far enough he will, in all
+probability, find that his ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go
+back a little farther still, that they were barbarians; that at one time
+they were naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right
+had they to change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the
+same kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented
+any change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and they
+would have said: "Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon his
+body shall be held guilty of blasphemy;" and all the ancestors of this
+Judge, and of these ministers, would have said, Amen!
+
+What right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He must have
+been a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might have changed
+his religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is incapable of
+any improvement in a religious point of view? Does he think that the
+Presbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now, but that they will
+forever be the best that God can make? Is there to be no advancement?
+Has there been no advancement? Are the pillory and the whipping-post to
+be used to prevent an excess of thought in the county of New Castle? Has
+the county ever been troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms
+of any such disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge,
+and my principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his
+race. He will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no
+other Chief Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his
+illustrious example. The next Judge will say: "So far as I am concerned,
+the Lord may attend to his own business, and deal with infidels as he
+may see proper." Thus great good has been accomplished by this Judge,
+which shows, as Burns puts it, "that a pot can be boiled, even if the
+devil tries to prevent it."
+
+_Question_. How will this action of Delaware, in your opinion, affect
+the other States?
+
+_Answer._ Probably a few other States needed an example exactly of this
+kind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say: "Delaware is perfectly
+ridiculous," and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New Jersey might have
+done the same thing. Maryland will exclaim: "Did you ever see such a
+fool!" And yet I was threatened in that State. The average American
+citizen, taking into consideration the fact that we are blest, or
+cursed, with about one hundred thousand preachers, and that these
+preachers preach on the average one hundred thousand sermons a
+week--some of which are heard clear through--will unquestionably hold
+that a man who happens to differ with all these parsons, ought to have
+and shall have the privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one
+hundred thousand clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who
+happens to disagree with them, without calling on the army or navy to do
+it, especially when it is taken into consideration that an infinite
+God is already on their side. Under these circumstances, the average
+American will say: "Let him talk, and let the hundred thousand preachers
+answer him to their hearts' content." So that in my judgment the result
+of the action of Delaware will be: First, to liberalize all other
+States, and second, finally to liberalize Delaware itself. In many of
+the States they have the same idiotic kind of laws as those found in
+Delaware--with the exception of those blessed institutions for the
+spread of the Gospel, known as the pillory and the whipping-post. There
+is a law in Maine by which a man can be put into the penitentiary
+for denying the providence of God, and the day of judgment. There are
+similar laws in most of the New England States. One can be imprisoned in
+Maryland for a like offence.
+
+In North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain
+religious belief; and so in several other of the Southern States.
+In half the States of this Union, if my wife and children should be
+murdered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a court of justice
+to tell who the murderer was. You see that, for hundreds of years,
+Christianity has endeavored to put the brand of infamy on every
+intellectual brow.
+
+_Question_. I see that one objection to your lectures urged by Judge
+Comegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach of the
+peace--to riot and bloodshed.
+
+_Answer._ Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people who love
+their enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that those disciples
+who, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be smitten also, will
+get up a riot. He seems to imagine that good Christians feel called upon
+to violate the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's reputation.
+If Christianity produces people who cannot hear their doctrines
+discussed without raising mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is
+stopped being preached the better.
+
+There is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a Christian
+for His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob for such a
+purpose. Christians can teach and preach their views to their hearts'
+content. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal hell, if it gives
+them the least pleasure, and they may bang their Bibles as long as their
+fists last, but no infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop
+them, or put them down by brute force, or even by an appeal to the
+law, and I would advise Judge Comegys, if he wishes to compliment
+Christianity, to change his language and say that he feared a breach of
+the peace might be committed by the infidels--not by the Christians. He
+may possibly have thought that it was my intention to attack his State.
+But I can assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,
+I shall take some State of my size. There is no glory to be won in
+wringing the neck of a "Blue Hen!"
+
+_Question_. I should judge, Colonel, that you are prejudiced against the
+State of Delaware?
+
+_Answer._ Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many splendid people
+in Delaware, and since I have known more of their surroundings, my
+admiration for them has increased. They are, on the whole, a very good
+people in that State. I heard a story the other day: An old fellow in
+Delaware has been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering peaches
+there in their season--a kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just as
+the season closed, he was leaning sadly against a tree, "Boys!" said he,
+"I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years from now." The boys
+asked, "What for?" The old fellow replied: "Just to see how damned
+little they'd get the baskets by that time." And it occurred to me that
+people who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be as
+quiet as possible on the subject of blasphemy.
+
+
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.
+
+
+     * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.
+
+_Question_. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' compliments to you
+before the Delaware grand jury?
+
+_Answer._ Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies upon the law
+passed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to me as though he
+had died about the date of the law, had risen from the dead, and had
+gone right on where he had left off. I presume he is a good man, but
+compared with other men, is something like his State when compared with
+other States.
+
+A great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge Comegys
+as unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in
+exact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip-ping-post,
+and the suppression of free speech are the natural fruit of the Old and
+New Testament.
+
+Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, without
+the protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the protection
+of law, and all church property would be taxed like other property. The
+Sabbath would be no longer a day devoted to superstition. Everyone
+could express his honest thought upon every possible subject. Everyone,
+notwithstanding his belief, could testify in a court of justice. In
+other words, honesty would be on an equality with hypocrisy.
+Science would stand on a level, so far as the law is concerned, with
+superstition. Whenever this happens the end of orthodox Christianity
+will be near.
+
+By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness. I
+mean no natural virtue, because all the natural virtues existed and had
+been practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions before Christ was
+born. There certainly were some good men even in the days of Christ in
+Jerusalem, before his death.
+
+By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a good man
+dying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By
+Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the next world a
+few will be forever happy, while the many will be eternally miserable.
+Christianity, as I have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and
+sustained by law. It was founded by the sword that is to say, by physical
+force,--and must be preserved by like means.
+
+In many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to testify.
+In the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were living, he
+could not be a witness, although he had more brains than the State of
+Delaware has ever produced, or is likely to produce as long as the laws
+of 1740 remain in force. Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could
+be fined and imprisoned in the State of Delaware, and, in fact, in many
+States of this Union.
+
+Christianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of infamy on
+the brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter "C," standing for
+"convict" every brain that is great enough to discover the frauds. I
+have no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good and sincere Christian. I
+believe that he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the Jewish
+Jehovah. I believe that every word he said was in exact accord with
+the spirit of orthodox Christianity. Against this man personally I have
+nothing to say. I know nothing of his character except as I gather it
+from this charge, and after reading the charge I am forced simply to
+say, Judge Comegys is a Christian.
+
+It seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,
+notwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge. Although
+the Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of blessed memory;
+although he had quoted to them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became
+a Judge simply because of his hatred of the English colonists, simply
+because he despised liberty in the new world; notwithstanding the fact
+that I could have been punished with insult, with imprisonment, and with
+stripes, and with every form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a
+few years ago I could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through
+the tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance even
+in the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one
+lecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely refused to
+indict me.
+
+The grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply by
+making a report in which they declared that my lecture had "no parallel
+in the habits of respectable vagabondism" that I was "an arch-blasphemer
+and reviler of God and religion," and recommended that should I ever
+attempt to lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware blasphemy
+is a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. I have no doubt that
+every member of the grand jury signing this report was entirely honest;
+that he acted in exact accord with what he understood to be the demand
+of the Christian religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report
+is exceedingly mild and gentle.
+
+I have now in the house, letters that passed between certain bishops in
+the fifteenth century, in which they discussed the propriety of cutting
+out the tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some of the bishops
+were in favor of and some against it. One argument for cutting out their
+tongues which seemed to have settled the question was, that unless the
+tongues of heretics were cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen
+who were burning them, by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would
+commend these letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand
+jury.
+
+I want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against Judge
+Comegys or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would, raised in
+Delaware, in the shadow of the whipping-post and the pillory. We
+must remember that Delaware was a slave State; that the Bible
+became extremely dear to the people because it upheld that peculiar
+institution. We must remember that the Bible was the block on which
+mother and child stood for sale when they were separated by the
+Christians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as the title-pages to
+slavery, and as the book of all books that gave the right to masters to
+whip mothers and to sell children.
+
+There are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping and
+standing in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain crimes
+and sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from the
+penitentiary are furnished by the State with a dark jacket plainly
+marked on the back with a large Roman "C," the letter to be of a light
+color. This they are to wear for six months after being discharged,
+and if they are found at any time without the dark jacket and the
+illuminated "C" they are to be punished with twenty lashes upon the bare
+back. The object, I presume, of this law, is to drive from the State all
+the discharged convicts for the benefit of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
+Maryland--that is to say, other Christian communities. A cruel people
+make cruel laws.
+
+The objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a punishment
+which cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who administers the
+punishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded as the person who
+receives it. I am opposed to any kind of punishment that cannot be
+administered by a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment
+everywhere. It should be taken from the asylums and penitentiaries, and
+any man who would apply the lash to the naked back of another is beneath
+the contempt of honest people.
+
+_Question_. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced in the New
+York Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a punishment for
+wife-beating?
+
+_Answer._ The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr. Bergh's bill.
+He will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters, who, under the
+same circumstances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they are not
+wife-beaters when they commence the business of beating others, they
+soon will be. I think that wife-beating in great cities could be stopped
+by putting all the wife-beaters at work at some government employment,
+the value of the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The
+trouble now is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely
+poor, so that the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last
+crust out of her own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging for
+the prison here, you will in the first place prevent thousands of wives
+from informing, and in many cases, where the wife would inform, she
+would afterward be murdered by the flogged brute. This brute would
+naturally resort to the same means to reform his wife that the State
+had resorted to for the purpose of reforming him. Flogging would beget
+flogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness of heart. When he reads
+that a wife has been beaten, he says the husband deserves to be beaten
+himself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be the executioner, I imagine you could
+not prove by the back of the man that the punishment had been inflicted.
+
+Another good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the Catholic
+Church. We should also do away with the idea that a marriage is a
+sacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered happy by seeing a
+husband and wife live together, although the husband gets most of his
+earthly enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman should live with
+a man a moment after he has struck her. Just as the idea of liberty
+enlarges, confidence in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will
+diminish. Delaware occupies toward freethinkers precisely the same
+position that a wife-beater does toward the wife. Delaware knows that
+there are no reasons sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently
+these reasons are supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post.
+The whipping-post is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory
+is a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a kind
+of holy and serene delight. I am opposed to the religion of brute force,
+but all these frightful things have grown principally out of a belief in
+eternal punishment and out of the further idea that a certain belief is
+necessary to avoid eternal pain.
+
+If Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn every body
+forever simply for being intellectually honest, surely he ought to
+allow the good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentleman for two
+months. Of course there are thousands and thousands of good people in
+Delaware, people who have been in other States, people who have listened
+to Republican speeches, people who have read the works of scientists,
+who hold the laws of 1740 in utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge
+Comegys and who have a kind of sympathy for the grand jury.
+
+You will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six or seven
+hundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884 will stand
+redeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged from the
+statute book. Delaware has not had the best of opportunities. You must
+remember that it is next to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle
+in the path of progress. It is just beyond Maryland, which is another
+obstacle. I heard the other day that God originally made oysters with
+legs, and afterward took them off, knowing that the people of Delaware
+would starve to death before they would run to catch anything. Judge
+Comegys is the last judge who will make such a charge in the United
+States. He has immortalized himself as the last mile-stone on that road.
+He is the last of his race. No more can be born. Outside of this he
+probably was a very clever man, and it may be, he does not believe
+a word he utters. The probability is that he has underestimated the
+intelligence of the people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that he is
+entirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate him intellectually,
+and overestimate him morally. Nothing could tempt me to do this man
+injustice, though I could hardly add to the injury he has done himself.
+He has called attention to laws that ought to be repealed, and to
+lectures that ought to be repeated. I feel in my heart that he has done
+me a great service, second only to that for which I am indebted to the
+grand jury. Had the Judge known me personally he probably would have
+said nothing. Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in his State
+and sentenced to two months of solitary confinement, the Judge having
+become acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist on
+spending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months he
+would, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy, providing
+he had honor enough to express his honest thought. After all, it is
+all a question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot convince myself
+there is any God who will ever damn a man for having been honest. This
+gives me a certain hope for the Judge and the grand jury.
+
+For two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must have been
+in heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and remarked
+to the angels in the language of the late Adjt. Gen. Thomas: "The eyes
+of all Delaware are upon you."
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.
+
+
+     * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday
+     afternoon, when he answered the question "What Must We Do to
+     Be Saved?" But before doing so he replied to the recent
+     criticisms of city clergymen on his "Talmagian Theology"--
+     Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.
+
+_Ladies and Gentlemen_:
+
+WHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their duty to
+reply for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that I am
+blasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always been considered
+by theologians as a crime. Ministers have always said you will have no
+respect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solemnity is a condition
+precedent to believing anything without evidence. And if you can only
+get a man solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe anything.
+
+In this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I may say
+by way of preface that I have always held him in the highest esteem. He
+struggles, according to his statement, with the problem of my sincerity,
+and he about half concludes that I am not sincere. There is a little
+of the minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always account for a
+difference of opinion by attacking the motive. Now, to him, it makes no
+difference whether I am sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my
+argument be answered? Suppose you could prove that the maker of the
+multiplication table held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times
+ten would be a hundred still.
+
+My sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the argument--not the
+slightest. But this gentleman begins to suspect that I am doing what
+I do for the sake of applause. What a commentary on the Christian
+religion, that, after they have been preaching it for sixteen or
+eighteen hundred years, a man attacks it for the sake of popularity--a
+man attacks it for the purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to
+speak upon this subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my
+fellow-citizens differed with me; and I was denounced as though I had
+been a wild beast. But I have lived to see the majority of the men and
+women of intellect in the United States on my side; I have lived to see
+the church deny her creed; I have lived to see ministers apologize in
+public for what they preached; and a great and glorious work is going
+on until, in a little while, you will not find one of them, unless it
+is some old petrifaction of the red-stone period, who will admit that
+he ever believed in the Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of
+Eternal Agony. The religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the
+intellect of America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go
+to hear infidelity it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the
+orthodox Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They are beginning
+to hold it in contempt.
+
+But this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I attacked
+certain doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain.
+I hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in
+this universe who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who
+denies to any human being the right of reformation, then that God is not
+good, that God is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I
+despise that doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that
+horror from the cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that
+horror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers,
+and sisters. It is a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of
+life and all the hopes of mankind. I despise it.
+
+And the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I admit
+here to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how
+old it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men were inspired
+or not. I have no reverence for what I believe to be false, and in
+determining what is false I go by my reason. And whenever another man
+gives me an argument I examine it. If it is good I follow it. If it is
+bad I throw it away. I have no reverence for any book that upholds human
+slavery. I despise such a book. I have no reverence for any book that
+upholds or palliates the infamous institution of polygamy. I have no
+reverence for any book that tells a husband to kill his wife if she
+differs with him upon the subject of religion. I have no reverence for
+any book that defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have
+no reverence for a God that orders his legions to slay the old and
+helpless, and to whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers
+and babes. I have no reverence for such a book; neither have I any
+reverence for the author of that book. No matter whether he be God or
+man, I have no reverence. I have no reverence for the miracles of the
+Bible. I have no reverence for the story that God allowed bears to tear
+children in pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but I have
+reverence for the truth, for justice, for charity, for humanity, for
+intellectual liberty, and for human progress.
+
+I have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I have
+never met any minister that I thought had brain enough to think for
+himself and for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence for barbarism,
+no matter how ancient it may be, and no reverence for the savagery of
+the Old Testament; no reverence for the malice of the New. And let me
+tell you here to-night that the Old Testament is a thousand times better
+than the New. The Old Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the
+grave. God was satisfied when his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for
+the New Testament--it was reserved for universal benevolence--to rend
+the veil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze of man
+upon the abyss of hell. The New Testament is just as much worse than the
+Old, as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the fashion to say that
+the Old Testament is bad and that the New Testament is good. I have no
+reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my reason;
+no reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my heart;
+and, no matter how old it is, no matter how many have believed it, no
+matter how many have died on account of it, no matter how many live for
+it, I have no reverence for that book, and I am glad of it.
+
+Dr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things with
+infinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy,
+or religious persecution, but that I should "mildly
+suggest"--mildly,--should not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to
+church the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When I meet one I tell
+him, "There is no hell," and he says: "What do you want to hurt our
+feelings for?" He wishes me mildly to suggest that the sun and moon did
+not stop, that may be the bears only frightened the children, and that,
+after all, Lot's wife was only scared. Why, there was a minister in this
+city of Chicago who imagined that his congregation were progressive,
+and, in his pulpit, he said that he did not believe the story of Lot's
+wife--said that he did not think that any sensible man would believe
+that a woman was changed into salt; and they tried him, and the
+congregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And finally he went
+before that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and owned up to
+the chloride of sodium, and said: "I not only take the Bible _cum grano
+salis_, but with a whole barrelful."
+
+My doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so; no need
+of going away around the bush and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly,
+peradventure. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.
+
+I am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well as the
+bad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one word against
+honesty, one word against liberty, one word against charity, one word
+against any institution that is good. I attack the bad, not the good,
+and I would like to have some minister point out in some lecture or
+speech that I have delivered, one word against the good, against the
+highest happiness of the human race.
+
+I have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor of
+liberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in favor of
+progress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one word in favor
+of the bad, and I never expect to.
+
+Dr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in spite of
+us.
+
+Doesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You
+see, you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell--these are the avenues by
+which Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought,
+and you cannot by any possibility help thinking.
+
+Neither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are
+made independently of your will. "But," says this reverend doctor,
+"Whence comes this conception of space?" I can tell him. There is such
+a thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies room--space--and,
+in our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes
+naturally--not supernaturally.
+
+Does the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God for us to
+conceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something.
+We can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say space.
+"But," says this gentleman, "Where do we get the idea of good and bad?"
+I can tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to
+enjoy and the capacity to suffer--every man. Whenever a man enjoys
+himself he calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad.
+The animals that are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the
+hurtful, he calls bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls
+good; those that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good
+ones, he calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is
+out that ministers to him, he says "this is good;" when the storm comes
+and blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his crop,
+he says "this is bad." And all phenomena that affect men well he calls
+good; all that affect him ill he calls bad.
+
+Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect
+in nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That
+is the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man
+could not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and
+the words right and wrong never could have passed human lips. There are
+no supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience--some of them
+from our forefathers, many from experience. A man works--food does not
+come of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in
+the sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a
+revelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it
+than the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen,
+we never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten
+Commandments been given from Mount Sinai.
+
+You go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and
+let a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and
+the hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you
+would see whether he would need a direct revelation from God in order
+to make up his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of
+right and wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think
+for a moment he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite
+of us. I heard a story of a man who said, "No man can think of one thing
+a minute, he will think of something else." Well, there was a little
+Methodist preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute--that he
+could say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing. "Well,"
+said the man, "I'll tell you what I will do. There is the best
+road-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you will just
+say the Lord's Prayer, and not think of another thing." And the little
+fellow shut up his eyes: "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be
+thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done--I suppose you will throw
+in the saddle and bridle?"
+
+I have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some
+fact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of
+thought--that every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown,
+and that some are very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very
+rich. That is my opinion.
+
+Again he asks: "If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any
+one blamed for thinking as he does?" It is not a question of blame, it
+is a question of who is right--a question of who is wrong. Admit that
+every one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought
+is right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.
+Admit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that
+does not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss
+is just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it
+prove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it
+prove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold
+men responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their
+actions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this--the
+right to do anything that does not interfere with another--in other
+words, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this--the right to
+think right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to
+think right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.
+
+The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I
+believe in that theory.
+
+If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct
+interference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is right. It is a
+theory of evolution.
+
+I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came
+from the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in
+science. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed,
+the shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the
+spreading and the growing; and that is as true in every other department
+of the world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not
+account for the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely
+inspired, and it will not do to say God gradually grows. If he is
+infinite now, he knows as much as he ever will. If he has been always
+infinite, he knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible as he knows
+to-day; and, consequently, whatever he said then must be as true now
+as it was then. You see they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with
+religion--a little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the
+supernatural.
+
+Hear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in
+the world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.
+All the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said
+all the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried
+it last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world
+upon its knees implored God to save one life, and the man died. The man
+died! Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it
+was in answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say
+now? What is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: "There is
+prayer and there is rain." Good. "Can he that is himself or any one else
+say there is no possible relation between one and the other?" I do. Let
+us put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any
+one say there is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr.
+Thomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year's crops? And yet
+this gentleman really throws out the idea that there is some possible
+relation between prayer and rain, between rain and health; and he tells
+us that he would have died twenty-five years ago had it not been for
+prayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon certain
+facts--not upon prayer. All the prayer in the world cannot take the
+place of the circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is
+no substitute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take the
+place of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find that he
+eats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This reverend Doctor
+says: "Shall we say that all the love of the unseen world"--how does he
+know there is any love in the unseen world? "and the love of God"--how
+does he know there is any love in God? "heed not the cries and tears of
+earth?"
+
+I do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious
+persecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons,
+of those who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled prayer with
+the clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving
+this God, simply for worshiping this God. And what did God do? Nothing.
+The chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in
+the dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God
+do? Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were
+piled around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did
+God do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and
+thousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands
+to God and implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and
+what did God do?
+
+Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the
+naked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children were sold from
+the arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden
+beneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did God do? Nothing. Human
+beings, his children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and
+what did God do? Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the
+shipwrecked go down in the billows; and what does God do? Nothing. There
+come plague and pestilence and famine. What does God do? Thousands
+and thousands perish. Little children die upon the withered breasts of
+mothers; and what does God do? Nothing.
+
+What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever
+touched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history
+of the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and
+imprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and
+best. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of
+help ever been reached from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe
+it.
+
+Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he
+to tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much
+brain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt--and a doubt is
+born of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church
+to be unorthodox. They have passed on his case and they have found him
+unconstitutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here
+is what he says: "Christianity"--orthodox Christianity I suppose
+he means--"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and
+punishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles
+of the government of God are the same there as here; that character, and
+not profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and Dickens, and
+all others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their
+just rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the
+time, be it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what
+Christianity teaches."
+
+If it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity.
+It never has taught it. Christianity--orthodox Christianity--teaches
+that when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity
+for reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the
+eternal line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion
+in this life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That is
+Christianity. They say: "Now is the accepted time." If you put it off
+until you die, that is too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world
+is that there is no opportunity for reformation in another world. The
+doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord
+Jesus Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in
+the next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail here,
+God in his infinite wisdom will never give you another chance. That
+is orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox Christianity, the
+greatest, the best and the sublimest of the world are now in hell. And
+why is it that they say it is not orthodox Christianity? I have made
+them ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to their attention the
+fact that such men as Darwin, such men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow,
+Laplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in hell, it struck them all at
+once that the company in heaven would not be very interesting with such
+men left out.
+
+And now they begin to say: "We think the Lord will give those men
+another chance." I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine
+expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have
+made them ashamed of their doctrine--and that is glory enough. They will
+let me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine that
+God will treat us as we treat others--I admit that is taught by Matthew,
+Mark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that
+understood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he
+was driven out of the church because he thought God too good to damn
+men forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic
+Church is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon that
+question. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory--that is, a place
+where a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new trial.
+
+Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell
+your congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine
+inspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people
+whether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.
+
+Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever upheld
+polygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor of
+religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether
+you honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the
+bad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think
+and there will not be as much difference between you and myself as you
+imagine.
+
+The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the
+rescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he
+is a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a choice as to the
+manner in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman
+regards modern infidelity as "pitifully shallow" as to its intellectual
+conceptions and as to its philosophical views of the universe and of
+the problems regarding man's place in it and of his destiny. "Pitifully
+shallow!"
+
+What is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception
+is that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern
+conception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms
+all matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has
+been, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe.
+And this is called "pitiful."
+
+What is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the
+universe is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who
+made it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world.
+And they even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in
+which he signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in
+a garden and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of
+infinite wisdom made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he
+would have to drown them. That Being peopled a planet like this with
+men, women and children, knowing that he would have to consign most of
+them to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That
+is an infamous conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception
+of Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall
+and of every other man who has thought. I love to think of the whole
+universe together as one eternal fact. I love to think that everything
+is alive; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy. I love to
+think that when a bud bursts into blossom it feels a thrill. I love to
+have the universe full of feeling and full of joy, and not full of
+simple dead, inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all eternity.
+
+Another thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose
+to banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our
+relations to the present and to the possible future from human thought.
+
+I have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do
+not make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know
+anything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y
+or do not know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of
+heaven. Wait until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble
+then. This is what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of
+life from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it.
+Life is a shadowy strange and winding road on which we travel for a few
+short steps, just a little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love,
+to the low and quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where
+the only salutation is "Good-Night!" Whether there is a good morning I
+do not know, but I am willing to wait.
+
+Let us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for
+the future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who
+happen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of
+Humboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare
+their splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist
+creed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he
+tells me that, "No one has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and
+Darwin are castaways!" Why not? They were not Christians. They did
+not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the
+inspiration of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they
+are castaways. But he says: "No one has the right to say that orthodoxy
+condemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right, and
+who has tried to bless the earth he is raised on." That is what I say,
+but that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man
+in the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of God, or in the
+divinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there
+an orthodox minister in this town now who will stand up and say that an
+honest atheist can be saved? He will not. Let any preacher say it, and
+he will be tried for heresy.
+
+I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment,
+and they cross-examine him, and they say to him:
+
+"Did you believe the Bible?"
+
+"No."
+
+"Did you belong to the church?"
+
+"No."
+
+"Did you take care of your wife and children?"
+
+"Yes?"
+
+"Pay your debts?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Love your country?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Love the whole world?"
+
+"Yes."
+
+"Never made anybody unhappy?"
+
+"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged
+let them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but," said
+he, "I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity
+of Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the
+existence of God. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine."
+Now, I want to know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with
+that man?
+
+He is sent to hell.
+
+That is their doctrine.
+
+Then the next fellow comes. He says:
+
+"Where did you come from?"
+
+And he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and he says:
+
+"I came from the gallows. I was just hung."
+
+"What were you hung for?"
+
+"Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left. The day
+I was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb."
+
+That is Christianity. And they say to him: "Come in! Let the band play!"
+
+That is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is hanged--there is a
+minister there, and the minister tells him he is all right. All he has
+to do is just to believe on the Lord.
+
+Another objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am scurrilous.
+Scurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he is not
+scurrilous, calls infidels, "donkeys, serpents, buzzards." That is
+simply to show that he is not scurrilous.
+
+Dr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks independently of
+the will; and I propose to prove by him that it does. He is the last
+man in the world to controvert that doctrine--the last man. In spite of
+himself his mind absorbed the sermon of another man, and he repeated it
+as his own. I am satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind
+acted independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence
+in favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely
+obliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously offered.
+
+He also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and renders him
+unfit for the discharge of the highest duties pertaining to life, and
+that we show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor to overthrow
+Calvinism. What is Calvinism? It is the doctrine that an infinite God
+made millions of people, knowing that they would be damned. I have
+answered that a thousand times. I answer it again. No God has a right to
+make a mistake, and then damn the mistake. No God has a right to make
+a failure, and a man who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous
+success. No God has a right to make an investment that will not finally
+pay a dividend.
+
+The world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life and all
+mine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all going wrong,
+that immorality was stalking through the land, that crime was about to
+engulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their prophecies, the world
+has steadily grown better, and there is more justice, more charity, more
+kindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the world to-day than
+ever before. And there is more infidelity in the world to-day than ever
+before.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.
+
+
+     * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the
+     issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts
+     transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the
+     starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had
+     struck because they could not live on reduced wages.
+     Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing
+     starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up
+     the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle
+     for higher wages
+
+     While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of
+     destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a
+     fund "for the extension of the church." The extension
+     committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with
+     such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city.
+     The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter
+     twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging
+     between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning
+     Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money
+     contributed for the extension of the church would find its
+     way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.
+
+     Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the
+     matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other
+     things that demanded his immediate attention.
+
+     Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension
+     Committee, was seen at his office in the North American
+     Bank, of which institution he is President.
+
+     He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their
+     trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the
+     charitable to extend to them direct aid.
+
+     Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor
+     and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the
+     church.
+
+     "The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the
+     giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their
+     idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save
+     men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.
+
+     "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own
+     resources. If the poor felt that they could get material
+     help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or
+     woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my
+     typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she
+     gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the
+     lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where
+     people are poor, it's their own fault.
+
+     "After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of
+     material things--it is the soul that makes life worth
+     living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see
+     this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have
+     been working all day, singing hymns and following the leader
+     in prayer."
+
+     Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who
+     need material help?" was asked.
+
+     "No, sir; I do not," said Mr. Van Norden. "If a man or woman
+     wants money, they should work for It."
+
+     "But is employment always to be had?"
+
+     "I think it is by Americans. You'll find that most of the
+     people out of work are those who are not adapted to the
+     conditions of this country.
+
+Colonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such
+philosophy.--New York Morning Advertiser, March 10,1892.
+
+_Question_. Have you read the article in the Morning Advertiser entitled
+"Workers Starving"?
+
+_Answer._ I have read it, and was greatly surprised at the answers made
+to the reporter of the Advertiser.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of the remarks of the Rev. John Hall and
+by Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the "Church Extension Committee"?
+
+_Answer._ My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have answered under some
+irritation, or that the reporter did not happen to take down all he
+said. It hardly seems probable that Dr. Hall should have said that he
+had no time to discuss the matter of aiding the needy poor, giving as a
+reason that there were so many other things that demanded his immediate
+attention. The church is always insisting that it is, above all things,
+a charitable institution; that it collects and distributes many millions
+every year for the relief of the needy, and it is always quoting: "Sell
+that thou hast and give to the poor." It is hard to imagine anything of
+more importance than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppressed.
+Of course, I know that the church itself produces nothing, and that it
+lives on contributions; but its claim is that it receives from those who
+are able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent need.
+
+I have sometimes thought, that the most uncharitable thing in the
+world is an organized charity. It seems to have the peculiarities of a
+corporation, and becomes as soulless as its kindred. To use a very old
+phrase, it generally acts like "a beggar on horseback."
+
+Probably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for the poor, and I
+imagine that he must have been irritated or annoyed when he made the
+answer attributed to him in the _Advertiser_. The good Samaritan may
+have been in a hurry, but he said nothing about it. The Levites
+that passed by on the other side seemed to have had other business.
+Understand me, I am saying nothing against Dr. Hall, but it does seem
+to me that there are few other matters more important than assisting our
+needy fellow-men.
+
+_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Warner Van Norden's sentiments as
+expressed to the reporter?
+
+_Answer._ In the first place, I think he is entirely mistaken. I do not
+think the cloakmakers brought their trouble upon themselves. The wages
+they receive were and are insufficient to support reasonable human
+beings. They work for almost nothing, and it is hard for me to
+understand why they live at all, when life is so expensive and death so
+cheap. All they can possibly do is to earn enough one day to buy food
+to enable them to work the next. Life with them is a perpetual struggle.
+They live on the edge of death. Under their feet they must feel the side
+of the grave crumbling, and thus they go through, day by day, month by
+month, year by year. They are, I presume, sustained by a hope that is
+never realized.
+
+Mr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of helping the poor and
+needy of the city, save in the way employed by the church, and that the
+experience of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms to the poor
+only encourages them in their idleness and their crimes.
+
+Is Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground that when Christ said: "Sell
+that thou hast and give to the poor," he intended to encourage idleness
+and crime?
+
+Is it possible that when it was said, "It is better to give than to
+receive," the real meaning was, It is better to encourage idleness and
+crime than to receive assistance?
+
+For instance, a man falls into the water. Why should one standing on the
+shore attempt to rescue him? Could he not properly say: "If all who fall
+into the water are rescued, it will only encourage people to fall into
+the water; it will make sailors careless, and persons who stand on
+wharves, will care very little whether they fall in or not. Therefore,
+in order to make people careful who have not fallen into the water,
+let those in the water drown." In other words, why should anybody
+be assisted, if assistance encourages carelessness, or idleness, or
+negligence?
+
+According to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of place in this world,
+kindness is a mistake, and hospitality springs from a lack of
+philosophy. In other words, all should take the consequences of their
+acts, not only, but the consequences of the acts of others.
+
+If I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still insist that men
+should be charitable on their own account. A man without pity, no matter
+how intelligent he may be, is at best only an intellectual beast, and
+if by withholding all assistance we could finally people the world
+with those who are actually self-supporting, we would have a population
+without sympathy, without charity--that is to say, without goodness. In
+my judgment, it would be far better that none should exist.
+
+Mr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty of the church is to save
+men's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally. I think that
+conditions have a vast deal to do with morality and goodness. If you
+wish to change the conduct of your fellow-men, the first thing to do is
+to change their conditions, their surroundings; in other words, to help
+them to help themselves--help them to get away from bad influences, away
+from the darkness of ignorance, away from the temptations of poverty and
+want, not only into the light intellectually, but into the climate of
+prosperity. It is useless to give a hungry man a religious tract, and it
+is almost useless to preach morality to those who are so situated that
+the necessity of the present, the hunger of the moment, overrides every
+other consideration. There is a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a
+good deal of persuasion in necessity.
+
+Prosperity is apt to make men selfish. They imagine that because they
+have succeeded, others and all others, might or may succeed. If any man
+will go over his own life honestly, he will find that he has not always
+succeeded because he was good, or that he has always failed because
+he was bad. He will find that many things happened with which he had
+nothing to do, for his benefit, and that, after all is said and done, he
+cannot account for all of his successes by his absolute goodness. So,
+if a man will think of all the bad things he has done--of all the bad
+things he wanted to do--of all the bad things he would have done had he
+had the chance, and had he known that detection was impossible, he will
+find but little foundation for egotism.
+
+_Question_. What do you say to this language of Mr. Van Norden. "It is
+best to teach people to rely upon their own resources. If the poor felt
+that they could get material help they would want it always, and in this
+day, if a man and woman cannot get along, it is their own fault"?
+
+_Answer._ All I can say is that I do not agree with him. Often there are
+many more men in a certain trade than there is work for such men. Often
+great factories shut down, leaving many thousands out of employment. You
+may say that it was the fault of these men that they learned that trade;
+that they might have known it would be overcrowded; so you may say it
+was the fault of the capitalist to start a factory in that particular
+line, because he should have known that it was to be overdone.
+
+As no man can look very far into the future, the truth is it was
+nobody's fault, and without fault thousands and thousands are thrown out
+of employment. Competition is so sharp, wages are so small, that to be
+out of employment for a few weeks means want. You cannot say that this
+is the fault of the man who wants bread. He certainly did not wish to go
+hungry; neither did he deliberately plan a failure. He did the best he
+could. There are plenty of bankers who fail in business, not because
+they wish to fail; so there are plenty of professional men who cannot
+make a living, yet it may not be their fault; and there are others who
+get rich, and it may not be by reason of their virtues.
+
+Without doubt, there are many people in the city of New York who
+cannot make a living. Competition is too sharp; life is too complex;
+consequently the percentage of failures is large. In savage life there
+are few failures, but in civilized life there are many. There are many
+thousands out of work and out of food in Berlin to-day. It can hardly be
+said to be their fault. So there are many thousands in London, and every
+other great city of the world. You cannot account for all this want by
+saying that the people who want are entirely to blame.
+
+A man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough to think that his
+wealth was the result of his own unaided efforts; and he is sometimes
+heartless enough to say that others should get rich by following his
+example.
+
+Mr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter who gets two dollars a
+day, and that she dresses better than the lords and ladies did of olden
+times. He must refer to the times of the Garden of Eden. Out of two
+dollars a day one must live, and there is very little left for gorgeous
+robes. I hardly think a lady is to be envied because she receives two
+dollars a day, and the probability is that the manner in which she
+dresses on that sum--having first deducted the expenses of living--is
+not calculated to excite envy.
+
+The philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to be concentrated into this
+line: "Where people are poor it is their own fault." Of course this is
+the death of all charity.
+
+We are then informed by this gentleman that "happiness does not lie in
+the enjoyment of material things--that it is the soul that makes life
+worth living."
+
+Is it the soul without pity that makes life worth living? Is it the soul
+in which the blossom of charity has never shed its perfume that makes
+life so desirable? Is it the soul, having all material things, wrapped
+in the robes of prosperity, and that says to all the poor: It is your
+own fault; die of hunger if you must--that makes life worth living?
+
+It may be asked whether it is worth while for such a soul to live.
+
+If this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I do not wish to visit his
+working girls' club, or to "hear girls who have been working all day
+singing hymns and following the leader in prayer." Why should a soul
+without pity pray? Why should any one ask God to be merciful to the poor
+if he is not merciful himself? For my own part, I would rather see
+poor people eat than to hear them pray. I would rather see them clothed
+comfortably than to see them shivering, and at the same time hear them
+sing hymns.
+
+It does not seem possible that any man can say that there are no worthy
+poor in this city who need material help. Neither does it seem possible
+that any man can say to one who is starving that if he wants money he
+must work for it. There are hundreds and thousands in this city willing
+to work who can find no employment. There are good and pure women
+standing between their children and starvation, living in rooms
+worse than cells in penitentiaries--giving their own lives to their
+children--hundreds and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross of every
+suffering, worthy of the reverence and love of mankind. So there are men
+wandering about these streets in search of work, willing to do anything
+to feed the ones they love.
+
+Mr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I do not believe that he
+expresses his real sentiments. But, after all, why should we expect
+charity in a church that believes in the dogma of eternal pain? Why
+cannot the rich be happy here in their palaces, while the poor suffer
+and starve in huts, when these same rich expect to enjoy heaven forever,
+with all the unbelievers in hell? Why should the agony of time interfere
+with their happiness, when the agonies of eternity will not and cannot
+affect their joy? But I have nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr. Van
+Norden--only against their ideas.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.
+
+
+     * Boston, 1898.
+
+_Question_. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some attention to the
+lecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a
+report of it, and what have you to say?
+
+_Answer._ Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. Mr. Mills. I
+do not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr.
+Plumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with his
+religion and some science with his superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to
+have successfully avoided both. His manners do not appear to me to be of
+the best. Why should he call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply
+because he does not happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to
+say that this "poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven,
+a majestic being--unique--peculiar--who "trod the sea and hushed the
+storm and raised the dead"? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world a "poor"
+world? According to his creed, it was created by infinite wisdom,
+infinite goodness and infinite power. How dare he call the work of such
+a being "poor"?
+
+Is it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work of the
+Infinite and say to God that he made a "poor" world? If I believed
+this world had been made by an infinitely wise and good Being, I should
+certainly insist that this is not a poor world, but, on the contrary,
+a perfect world. I would insist that everything that happens is for the
+best. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I would insist that the
+fault we thought we saw, lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and
+benevolent Creator.
+
+Dr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor mechanic
+and a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious
+preachers, takes several things for granted; things that have not been
+established by evidence, and things which in their nature cannot be
+established.
+
+He tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty Redeemer from
+Heaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven is? Does he know
+that any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure that an infinite God
+would be foolish enough to make people who needed a redeemer?
+
+He also says that this Being "trod the sea, hushed the storm and raised
+the dead." Is there any evidence that this Being trod the sea? Any more
+evidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the ocean? Any evidence
+that he hushed the storm any more than there is that the storm comes
+from the cave of AEolus? Is there any evidence that he raised the dead?
+How would it be possible to prove that the dead were raised? How
+could we prove such a thing if it happened now? Who would believe
+the evidence? As a matter of fact, the witnesses themselves would
+not believe and could not believe until raising of the dead became so
+general as to be regarded as natural.
+
+Dr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the only
+evidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the
+storm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows anything, that
+these stories were not written until Christ himself had been dead for at
+least four generations. He knows also that these accounts were written
+at a time when the belief in miracles was almost universal, and
+when everything that actually happened was regarded of no particular
+importance, and only the things that did not happen were carefully
+written out with all the details.
+
+So Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm "spake as never man
+spake." Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who denounced human slavery
+many years before Christ was born? Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the
+greatest of the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha? Has he read
+the dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna? If he has, he knows that every
+great and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he
+lived. Did he ever read Lao-tsze? If he did--and this man lived many
+centuries before the coming of our Lord--he knows that Lao-tsze said "we
+should render benefits for injuries. We should love our enemies, and
+we should not resist evil." So it will hardly do now to say that Christ
+spake as never man spake, because he repeated the very things that other
+men had said.
+
+So he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly groping
+Socrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius? Only a
+little while ago a book was published by Mr. For-long showing the origin
+of the principal religion and the creeds that have been taught. In this
+book you will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you
+will also find a few pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and
+after you have read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you
+will find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,
+while the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of stone or
+piles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply
+a sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by feeling, but he had
+intelligence--a great brain in which burned the torch of reason. Read
+Confucius, and you will think that he must have known the sciences of
+to-day; that is to say, the conclusions that have been reached by modern
+thinkers. It could have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he
+spake as never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him
+you will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the
+intelligence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.
+
+Dr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct theology.
+Whether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I do know that I
+am not trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring to destroy it.
+I have no more confidence in theology than I have in astrology or in
+the black art. Theology is a science that exists wholly independent of
+facts, and that reaches conclusions without the assistance of evidence.
+It also scorns experience and does what little it can to do away with
+thought.
+
+I make a very great distinction between theology and real religion. I
+can conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now, here we are, men
+and women in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain senses.
+There are things that we can ascertain, and by developing our brain we
+can avoid mistakes, keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles
+out of our hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we
+should use all our senses, gathering information from every possible
+quarter, and this information should be only used for the purpose of
+ascertaining the facts, for finding out the conditions of well-being, to
+the end that we may add to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.
+
+In other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in mental
+hospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I say reason,
+I mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the flame small and
+flickering, but, after all, it is the only light I have, and never with
+my consent shall any preacher blow it out.
+
+Now, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men of their
+greatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why do you call
+Christ good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do you put him
+above mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because he was just? Why
+do you put him before justice? Suppose it should turn out that no such
+person as Christ ever lived. What harm would that do justice or mercy?
+Wouldn't the tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't justice,
+holding aloft her scales, from which she blows even the dust of
+prejudice, be as noble, as admirable as now? Is it not better to love,
+justice and mercy than to love a name, and when you put a name above
+justice, above mercy, are you sure that you are benefiting your
+fellow-men?
+
+If Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my argument
+instead of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness instead
+of telling the consequences that would follow from my action? We have
+nothing to do with the consequences. I said that to believe without
+evidence, or in spite of evidence, was superstition. If that definition
+is correct, Dr. Plumb is a superstitious man, because he believes at
+least without evidence. What evidence has he that Christ was God? In
+the nature of things, how could he have evidence? The only evidence
+he pretends to have is the dream of Joseph, and he does not know that
+Joseph ever dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not write an account
+of his dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only hearsay for the dream, and the
+dream is the foundation of his creed.
+
+Now, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me with
+being a burglar--a coarse, blasphemous burglar--who wishes to rob
+somebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesitate to tell a
+Mohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He would tell a Mormon in
+Utah that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham Young was
+no better. In other words, if in Turkey, he would be a coarse and
+blasphemous burglar, and he would follow the same profession in Utah. So
+probably he would tell the Chinese that Confucius was an ignorant
+wretch and that their religion was idiotic, and the Chinese priest would
+denounce Dr. Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr.
+Plumb would be perfectly astonished that a priest could be so low, so
+impudent and malicious.
+
+Of course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to it.
+
+If Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a
+little and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in all
+probability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb,
+and yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a little
+superstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his many virtues,
+there may be a little righteous malice.
+
+The Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I suppose
+he has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So I believe
+him to be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am concerned, I
+have no objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he can to get all the
+churches to act together. He may never succeed, but I am not responsible
+for that.
+
+So I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes to be the
+gospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an infinitely good
+God made a poor world; that he made man and woman and put them in the
+Garden of Eden, and that this same God before that time had manufactured
+a devil, and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew that he would
+corrupt the man and woman that he had determined to make; that he could
+have defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he allowed his
+Satanic Majesty to succeed; that at the time he allowed him to succeed,
+he knew that in consequence of his success that he (God) in about
+fifteen or sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole
+world with the exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for
+seed. At the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were totally
+depraved, that they were saturated with the sin of Adam and Eve, and
+that their children would be their natural heirs. He also knew at the
+time he allowed the devil to succeed, that he (God), some four thousand
+years afterward, would be compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe,
+to learn the carpenter's trade, and to go about the country for three
+years preaching to the people and discussing with the rabbis of his
+chosen people, and he also knew that these chosen people--these people
+who had been governed and educated by him, to whom he had sent a
+multitude of prophets, would at that time be so savage that they would
+crucify him, although he would be at that time the only sinless being
+who had ever stood upon the earth. This he knew would be the effect of
+his government, of his education of his chosen people. He also knew at
+the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in consequence of that
+success a vast majority of the human race would become eternal convicts
+in the prison of hell.
+
+All this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is
+infinitely wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What would
+this God have done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or goodness?
+
+Of all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of
+savagery, there is none more perfectly absurd than Christianity.
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.
+
+
+     * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.
+
+_Question_. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, the interest
+manifested in the letters to the _Journal_ which have followed your
+lecture of Sunday, and what do you think of them?
+
+_Answer._ I have read the letters and reports that have been published
+in the _Journal_. Some of them seem to be very sincere, some not quite
+honest, and some a little of both.
+
+The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many Christians
+do not believe in a personal devil, but are still Christians. He states
+that they hold that the references in the New Testament to the devil
+are simply to personifications of evil, and do not apply to any personal
+existence. He says that he could give the names of a number of pastors
+who hold such views. He does not state what his view is. Consequently, I
+do not know whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.
+
+The statement that the references in the New Testament to a devil
+are simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any personal
+existence, seems to me utterly absurd.
+
+The references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as good and
+satisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the angels referred
+to in the New Testament simply personifications of good, and are there
+no such personal existences? If devils are only personifications of
+evil, how is it that these personifications of evil could hold arguments
+with Jesus Christ? How could they talk back? How could they publicly
+acknowledge the divinity of Christ? As a matter of fact, the best
+evidences of Christ's divinity in the New Testament are the declarations
+of devils. These devils were supposed to be acquainted with supernatural
+things, and consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the
+average Jew, not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was
+unable to recognize a deity when he met him.
+
+Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls them, were
+of various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others could talk, and
+Christ said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they were very difficult
+to expel from the bodies of men; that it required fasting and prayer to
+get them out. Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did not exist?
+That they were only "personifications of evil"?
+
+Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted
+by the devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and that this
+personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to
+induce him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come
+from? Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not
+have been. Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it
+existed it came from the inside of Christ, so that, according to
+MacArthur, Christ was the creator of his own devil.
+
+I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur's
+opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some
+time he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or
+whether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New
+Testament can be explained away by calling the devils "personifications
+of evil." Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a
+"personification of evil" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the
+world, and whether Christ expelled seven "personifications of evil" from
+Mary Magdalene, and how did they come to count these "personifications
+of evil"? If the devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil,"
+then, of course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may
+be different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet
+Mary Magdalene had seven.
+
+Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously
+beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take
+it for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in
+their creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word
+of God; that they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in
+salvation by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I
+take it for granted that they believe these things. Of course, the only
+evidence I have is what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon.
+They may be dealing only in the "personification of truth."
+
+When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am
+told that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after
+all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this
+"man of straw," and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A
+preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio,
+challenged this "man of straw," and the straw man put him out.
+
+Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the
+Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain
+what he calls the "religious thinking of the hour," the "straw man" will
+put him out too.
+
+Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of
+representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which
+leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have
+the goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds
+of representative thinkers--that is, of orthodox thinkers--that any
+orthodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the
+kindness to give just one?
+
+In my lecture on "Superstition" I did say that to deny the existence
+of evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the
+truth of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps
+of darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that
+if we give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of
+the Old and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ.
+Upon that declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then
+Jesus Christ was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true
+account of what he said and of what he pretended to do. If the New
+Testament gives a true account of his words and pretended actions, then
+he did claim to cast out devils. That was his principal business. That
+was his certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated
+his mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.
+
+Now, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the
+veracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that
+divinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the
+great fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.
+
+Now, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister,
+but like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have
+a little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become
+spiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious
+and pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into
+a corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry
+"_Blasphemy!_" I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply
+mean that they are illogical.
+
+Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of
+progressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive
+religious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If
+religion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress.
+It may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but
+if it is not understood when given, why is it called a "revelation"?
+There is no progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better
+mathematicians than others, but the old multiplication table remains the
+same. So there can be no progress in a revelation from God.
+
+Now, Spain--and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune--has
+remained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to
+their superstition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that
+Catholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly
+admit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with
+Spain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of
+them has progressed to any great extent.
+
+Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man
+grows better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man
+is, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized,
+will be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has
+progressed, it is a demonstration that it was not originally founded on
+a revelation from God.
+
+In my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction
+between the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if God
+created and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him
+at all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily
+for famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if
+President McKinley thanked God for the victory at Santiago, he also
+should have thanked him for sending the yellow fever.
+
+I stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any
+distinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If God
+governs this world, then everything that happens is the very best that
+could happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is
+to be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was
+to be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by
+infinite wisdom and goodness.
+
+It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This God who
+made man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom,
+and consequently this God cannot escape the responsibility for the
+actions of men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is
+responsible.
+
+If I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he
+would murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would
+think as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with
+me.
+
+The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss
+Ingersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of
+course I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the
+address. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without
+being dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis
+Parks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.
+
+The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants,
+denounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity
+is not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that
+we do not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know
+that there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head
+under the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.
+
+Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the
+devil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that
+the devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say
+it honestly?
+
+But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go
+along with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it
+visited our soldiers, came from God, and that we should thank God for
+it. He does not say the soldiers should thank God for it, or that those
+who had it should thank God for it, but that we should thank God for it,
+and there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us
+to bear with great fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the
+misfortunes of others.
+
+He says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of course I am
+not as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to
+be. I have not the faintest idea of what God's purposes are. He works,
+even according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with
+the little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why God
+should have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or
+cholera, or why he should ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in
+partnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have
+never been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my
+ignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be
+that everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not
+believe it.
+
+There is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on
+the workings of the average orthodox mind.
+
+One morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father,
+"One of the ewe lambs is dead."
+
+"Well," said the father; "that is all for the best. Twins never do very
+well, any how."
+
+The next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the
+old man said, "Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have
+more wool."
+
+The next morning the son said, "The old ewe is dead."
+
+"Well," replied the old man; "that may be for the best, but I don't see
+it this morning."
+
+The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on
+the wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly
+obliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily
+refuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation
+might be an advertisement for me.
+
+Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are
+some things in the lecture on "Superstition" worth the while even of a
+Methodist minister to answer.
+
+Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will
+he Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that God
+created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this
+question: Why did God create a successful rival? When God created the
+devil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That
+he was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and
+did he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That
+in consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that
+he would have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in
+consequence of that he himself would have to be born into this world as
+a Judean peasant? That he would have to be crucified and suffer for
+the sins of these people who had been misled by this devil that he
+deliberately created, and that after all he would be able only to save a
+few Methodists?
+
+Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can
+answer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no
+advertisement for him.
+
+The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I
+now return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, "Ingersoll in many
+respects is like Voltaire." I think no finer compliment has been paid me
+by any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank
+the Rev. Mr. Belcher.
+
+The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that
+every utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that
+every argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in
+ringing the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over
+again for hundreds of years.
+
+Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives;
+that you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it.
+You must answer not the man, but the argument.
+
+Another thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that
+no argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not
+been answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is
+still as fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old
+until it has been answered.
+
+It is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have
+been answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course
+it will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.
+
+Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you
+believe in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and
+women become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you
+believe that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe
+the stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?
+
+Now, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.
+Answer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is
+a person, that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you another
+question: Why should this devil punish souls in hell for rebelling
+against God? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish
+God's enemies? This may have been answered many times, but one more
+repetition will do but little harm.
+
+Another thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you
+believe that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which
+open only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment
+is the highest expression of justice and mercy?
+
+If you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you
+knew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to hell and
+suffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing
+this, you changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend?
+Now, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the
+Presbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.
+
+I say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for
+any of the children of men--I say to you that your God is a wild beast,
+an insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.
+
+At the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac
+Arthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.
+
+The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely
+sincere. He is orthodox--true blue. He believes in a devil; in an
+acting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think
+this devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but
+a little more cunning.
+
+According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the
+universe--king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will
+not admit that if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all
+crumble, but I think he will admit that if the devil does not exist,
+then Christ was mistaken, or that the writers of the New Testament did
+not truthfully give us his utterances.
+
+Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he
+was mistaken about the existence of God. In other words, if Christ
+made a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine,
+although ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see
+exactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the
+Christian creeds do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean
+orthodox creeds. Is there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil
+in it?
+
+Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall
+of man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the
+keystone. Remove him, the arch falls.
+
+Now, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains intact
+without crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the atonement and
+the existence of the devil are all thrown aside?
+
+Of course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being
+good, forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not Christianity.
+Orthodox Christians say that a man must believe on Christ, must have
+faith, and that to act as Christ did, is not enough; that a man who acts
+exactly as Christ did, dying without faith, would go to hell. So when
+Mr. Campbell speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox
+Christian.
+
+Now, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he knows
+a good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every conceivable
+disguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring lion; that at
+another time he is a god of this world; on another occasion a dragon,
+and in the afternoon of the same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light,
+and all the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often assumes the
+disguise of the serpent.
+
+So the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the
+wilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made him
+more than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ could
+not see through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil with a mask
+to fool God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ
+by offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they already belonged to
+Christ, and when Christ knew that the devil had no title, and when the
+devil knew that Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil
+knew that Christ knew that he was the devil, and when the devil knew
+that he was Christ? Does the reverend gentleman still think that it was
+the disguise of the devil that tempted Christ?
+
+I would like some of these questions answered, because I have a very
+inquiring mind.
+
+So Mr. Campbell tells us--and it is very good and comforting of
+him--that there is a time coming when the devil shall deceive the
+nations no more. He also tells us that God is more powerful than the
+devil, and that he is going to put an end to him.
+
+Will Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the devil?
+If he is going to put an end to him why did he start him? Was it not a
+waste of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair to let this devil,
+so powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put
+Adam and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his power, and not
+only Adam and Eve within his power, but their descendants, so that the
+slime of the serpent has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence
+of what happened in the Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless
+millions in the presence of the most merciful God?
+
+Now, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these things.
+He may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think of his own
+congregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves of doubt and
+thought.
+
+The Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good sense; one
+who thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of
+course I am sorry that he does not agree with me, but I have become used
+to that, and so I thank him for the truths he utters.
+
+He does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I guess by
+following him up we would find that he did not believe in the existence
+of a personal God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In fact,
+he tells us that he has given up the infallibility of the Bible. At the
+same time, he says it is the most perfect compendium of religious and
+moral thought. In that I think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast
+deal of irreligion in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral
+thought in the Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired
+nor infallible.
+
+The Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church, declares
+that those who do not believe in a personal God do not believe in a
+personal Satan, and _vice versa_. The one, he says, necessitates the
+other. In this I do not think he is quite correct. I think many people
+believe in a personal God who do not believe in a personal devil, but I
+know of none who do believe in a personal devil who do not also believe
+in a personal God. The orthodox generally believe in both of them, and
+for many centuries Christians spoke with great respect of the devil.
+They were afraid of him.
+
+But I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny a
+personal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I agree with
+this because I suppose by "God's word" he means the Bible.
+
+He further says, and I agree with him, that a "Christian" needs no
+scientific argument on which to base his belief in the personality of
+Satan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a scientific
+argument it is equally true that he never will have one.
+
+You see this word "Science" means something that somebody knows; not
+something that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but
+something that somebody knows.
+
+Of course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the existence
+of the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says,
+and I thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove the existence
+of the devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse, and I do agree with him
+that the "revealed word" teaches the existence of a personal devil,
+and that all truly orthodox Christians believe that there is a personal
+devil, and the Rev. Mr. Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he
+proves that without this devil there could be no redemption for the
+evil spirits; so he brings forward the temptation of Christ in the
+wilderness. At the same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what
+the Bible says, he insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme,
+and then he drops into humor and says that if any further arguments are
+needed to prove the existence of the devil, that I furnish them.
+
+How a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can have
+anything like a sense of humor is beyond even my imagination.
+
+Now, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask him
+the same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture on
+"Superstition."
+
+Now, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a being of
+infinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he created has
+been governed by him.
+
+Now, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions, with
+the request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr.
+Kraeling, had the power to make a world, would you make an exact copy of
+this? Would you make a man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing that
+they would be deceived, knowing that they would fall? Knowing that all
+the consequences believed in by orthodox Christians would follow from
+that fall? Would you do it? And would you make your world so as to
+provide for earthquakes and cyclones? Would you create the seeds of
+disease and scatter them in the air and water? Would you so arrange
+matters as to produce cancers? Would you provide for plague and
+pestilence? Would you so make your world that life should feed on life,
+that the quivering flesh should be torn by tooth and beak and claw?
+Would you?
+
+Now, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be honest.
+
+Would you make different races of men? Would you make them of different
+colors, and would you so make them that they would persecute and enslave
+each other? Would you so arrange matters that millions and millions
+should toil through many generations, paid only by the lash on the back?
+Would you have it so that millions and millions of babes would be sold
+from the breasts of mothers? Be honest, would you provide for religious
+persecution? For the invention and use of instruments of torture? Would
+you see to it that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was
+not overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong
+would triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not be
+a shield? Would you make a world where the best would be loaded with
+chains? Where the best would die in the darkness of dungeons? Where the
+best would make scaffolds sacred with their blood?
+
+Would you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud should
+represent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of honest
+credulity?
+
+Would you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war? Would
+you so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens, so that
+woman would be a slave, so that children would be trampled upon as
+though they were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the woods with wild
+beasts? Would you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm your children? Would
+you provide for earthquakes that would swallow them? Would you make them
+ignorant, savage, and fill their minds with all the phantoms of horror?
+Would you?
+
+Now, it will only take you a few moments to answer these questions, and
+if you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the
+orthodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If you say you would not, I
+will admit that there is a little dawn of intelligence in your brain.
+
+At the same time I want it understood with regard to all these
+ministers that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize their
+congregations, so that the congregations may allow the ministers to
+develop, to grow, to become really and truly intelligent. The process is
+slow, but it is sure.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol.
+7 (of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
+
+***** This file should be named 38807.txt or 38807.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/8/0/38807/
+
+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.
diff --git a/38807.zip b/38807.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4c69f82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38807.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..865a84f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #38807 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38807)
diff --git a/old/orig38807-h/images/portrait.jpg b/old/orig38807-h/images/portrait.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1fa6bd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/orig38807-h/images/portrait.jpg
diff --git a/old/orig38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a90d6e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/orig38807-h/images/titlepage.jpg
diff --git a/old/orig38807-h/main.htm b/old/orig38807-h/main.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..754e5ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/orig38807-h/main.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,11445 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
+<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta name="generator" content="HTML-Kit Tools HTML Tidy plugin" />
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content=
+"text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
+<title>The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, by Robert G.
+Ingersoll</title>
+
+<style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[*/
+    <!--
+                body { text-align:justify}
+    P { margin:15%;
+        margin-top:    .75em;
+        margin-bottom: .75em; }
+    H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; }
+                hr  { width: 50%; text-align: center;}
+    hr.full { width: 100%; }
+    .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; }
+                .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; }
+                img {border: 0;}
+                blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 30%; margin-right: 20%;}
+                .pagenum  { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+            /*  visibility: hidden;  */
+                position: absolute;
+                left: 1%;
+                font-size: smaller;
+                text-align: left;
+                color: gray;
+              } /* page numbers */
+                .figleft   {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;}
+    .figright  {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;}
+                .mynote    {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em;
+                margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
+                .toc       { margin-left: 35%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;}
+    .toc2      { margin-left: 5%;}
+                .indent    {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    CENTER { padding: 10px;}
+                PRE    { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;}
+    -->
+/*]]>*/
+</style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<div style="height: 8em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<a name="title" id="title"></a>
+<h1>THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h1>
+<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2>
+<br />
+<center>"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF
+THOUGHT,<br />
+AND THE CROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL."</center>
+<br />
+<h3>In Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.</h3>
+<h3>DISCUSSIONS</h3>
+<br />
+<h4>Dresden Edition</h4>
+<h3>1900</h3>
+<br />
+<center><img alt="titlepage (62K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg"
+height="1109" width="721" /></center>
+<br />
+<br />
+<center><img alt="portrait (64K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" height=
+"1201" width="582" /></center>
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+<br />
+<h2>Contents</h2>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC">CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS
+CLERGY.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF
+TOLERATION.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE
+NORMILE.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI
+GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE
+COMEGYS.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND
+LORIMER.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND
+WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR.
+PLUMB.</a></p>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY
+ON SUPERSTITION.</a></p>
+<a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a><br />
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+<br />
+<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.</h2>
+<blockquote>
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a></p>
+MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.<br />
+(1877.)<br />
+Answer to San Francisco Clergymen&mdash;Definition of Liberty,
+Physical<br />
+and Mental&mdash;The Right to Compel Belief&mdash;Woman the Equal
+of Man&mdash;The<br />
+Ghosts&mdash;Immortality&mdash;Slavery&mdash;Witchcraft&mdash;Aristocracy
+of the<br />
+Air&mdash;Unfairness of Clerical Critics&mdash;Force and
+Matter&mdash;Doctrine of<br />
+Negation&mdash;Confident Deaths of Murderers&mdash;Childhood Scenes
+returned to<br />
+by the Dying&mdash;Death-bed of Voltaire&mdash;Thomas
+Paine&mdash;The First<br />
+Sectarians Were Heretics&mdash;Reply to Rev. Mr.
+Guard&mdash;Slaughter of<br />
+the Canaanites&mdash;Reply to Rev. Samuel
+Robinson&mdash;Protestant<br />
+Persecutions&mdash;Toleration&mdash;Infidelity and
+Progress&mdash;The<br />
+Occident&mdash;Calvinism&mdash;Religious Editors&mdash;Reply to the
+Rev. Mr.<br />
+Ijams&mdash;Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his
+Brothers?&mdash;Reply to<br />
+California <i>Christian Advocate</i>&mdash;Self-Government of
+French People at<br />
+and Since the Revolution&mdash;On the Site of the
+Bastile&mdash;French<br />
+Peasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ&mdash;Was the World created in
+Six<br />
+Days&mdash;Geology&mdash;What is the Astronomy of the
+Bible?&mdash;The Earth the Centre<br />
+of the Universe&mdash;Joshua's Miracle&mdash;Change of Motion into
+Heat&mdash;Geography<br />
+and Astronomy of Cosmas&mdash;Does the Bible teach the Existence
+of<br />
+that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?&mdash;Saul and the Woman
+of<br />
+Endor&mdash;Familiar Spirits&mdash;Demonology of the New
+Testament&mdash;Temptation of<br />
+Jesus&mdash;Possession by Devils&mdash;Gadarene Swine
+Story&mdash;Test of Belief&mdash;Bible<br />
+Idea of the Rights of Children&mdash;Punishment of the
+Rebellious<br />
+Son&mdash;Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice&mdash;Persecution of
+Job&mdash;The Gallantry<br />
+of God&mdash;Bible Idea of the Rights of Women&mdash;Paul's
+Instructions to<br />
+Wives&mdash;Permission given to Steal Wives&mdash;Does the Bible
+Sanction<br />
+Polygamy and Concubinage?&mdash;Does the Bible Uphold and Justify
+Political<br />
+Tyranny?&mdash;Powers that be Ordained of God&mdash;Religious
+Liberty of<br />
+God&mdash;Sun-Worship punishable with Death&mdash;Unbelievers to be
+damned&mdash;Does<br />
+the Bible describe a God of Mercy?&mdash;Massacre
+Commanded&mdash;Eternal<br />
+Punishment Taught in the New Testament&mdash;The Plan of
+Salvation&mdash;Fall<br />
+and Atonement Moral Bankruptcy&mdash;Other
+Religions&mdash;Parsee<br />
+Sect&mdash;Brahmins&mdash;Confucians&mdash;Heretics and
+Orthodox.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a></p>
+MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.<br />
+(1879.)<br />
+Rev. Robert Collyer&mdash;Inspiration of the Scriptures&mdash;Rev.
+Dr.<br />
+Thomas&mdash;Formation of the Old Testament&mdash;Rev. Dr.
+Kohler&mdash;Rev. Mr.<br />
+Herford&mdash;Prof. Swing&mdash;Rev. Dr. Ryder.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS
+CLERGY.</a></p>
+TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.<br />
+(1882.)<br />
+Rev. David Walk&mdash;Character of Jesus&mdash;Two or Three Christs
+Described<br />
+in the Gospels&mdash;Christ's Change of Opinions&mdash;Gospels
+Later than the<br />
+Epistles&mdash;Divine Parentage of Christ a Late Belief&mdash;The
+Man Christ<br />
+probably a Historical Character&mdash;Jesus Belittled by his
+Worshipers&mdash;He<br />
+never Claimed to be Divine&mdash;Christ's
+Omissions&mdash;Difference between<br />
+Christian and other Modern Civilizations&mdash;Civilization not
+Promoted<br />
+by Religion&mdash;Inventors&mdash;French and American Civilization:
+How<br />
+Produced&mdash;Intemperance and Slavery in Christian
+Nations&mdash;Advance due to<br />
+Inventions and Discoveries&mdash;Missionaries&mdash;Christian
+Nations Preserved by<br />
+Bayonet and Ball&mdash;Dr. T. B. Taylor&mdash;Origin of Life on
+this Planet&mdash;Sir<br />
+William Thomson&mdash;Origin of Things
+Undiscoverable&mdash;Existence after<br />
+Death&mdash;Spiritualists&mdash;If the Dead Return&mdash;Our
+Calendar&mdash;Christ and<br />
+Christmas-The Existence of Pain&mdash;Plato's Theory of
+Evil&mdash;Will God do<br />
+Better in Another World than he does in
+this?&mdash;Consolation&mdash;Life Not a<br />
+Probationary Stage&mdash;Rev. D.O'Donaghue&mdash;The Case of
+Archibald Armstrong<br />
+and Jonathan Newgate&mdash;Inequalities of Life&mdash;Can Criminals
+live a<br />
+Contented Life?&mdash;Justice of the Orthodox God
+Illustrated.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a></p>
+THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.<br />
+(1883.)<br />
+Are the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively<br />
+Read?&mdash;Increase in the Number of Infidels&mdash;Spread of
+Scientific<br />
+Literature&mdash;Rev. Dr. Eddy&mdash;Rev. Dr. Hawkins&mdash;Rev.
+Dr. Haynes&mdash;Rev.<br />
+Mr. Pullman&mdash;Rev. Mr. Foote&mdash;Rev. Mr. Wells&mdash;Rev.
+Dr. Van Dyke&mdash;Rev.<br />
+Carpenter&mdash;Rev. Mr. Reed&mdash;Rev. Dr.
+McClelland&mdash;Ministers Opposed to<br />
+Discussion&mdash;Whipping Children&mdash;Worldliness as a Foe of
+the Church&mdash;The<br />
+Drama&mdash;Human Love&mdash;Fires, Cyclones, and Other Afflictions
+as Promoters<br />
+of Spirituality&mdash;Class Distinctions&mdash;Rich and
+Poor&mdash;Aristocracies&mdash;The<br />
+Right to Choose One's Associates&mdash;Churches Social
+Affairs&mdash;Progress<br />
+of the Roman Catholic Church&mdash;Substitutes for the
+Churches&mdash;Henry<br />
+Ward Beecher&mdash;How far Education is Favored by the
+Sects&mdash;Rivals of the<br />
+Pulpit&mdash;Christianity Now and One Hundred Years
+Ago&mdash;French Revolution<br />
+produced by the Priests&mdash;Why the Revolution was a
+Failure&mdash;Infidelity<br />
+of One Hundred Years Ago&mdash;Ministers not more Intellectual than
+a Century<br />
+Ago&mdash;Great Preachers of the Past&mdash;New Readings of Old
+Texts&mdash;Clerical<br />
+Answerers of Infidelity&mdash;Rev. Dr. Baker&mdash;Father
+Fransiola&mdash;Faith and<br />
+Reason&mdash;Democracy of Kindness&mdash;Moral
+Instruction&mdash;Morality Born of Human<br />
+Needs&mdash;The Conditions of Happiness&mdash;The Chief End of
+Man.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF
+TOLERATION.</a></p>
+THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.<br />
+(1888.)<br />
+Discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R.
+Coudert,<br />
+and ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club
+of<br />
+New York&mdash;Propositions&mdash;Toleration not a Disclaimer but a
+Waiver of the<br />
+Right to Persecute&mdash;Remarks of Courtlandt Palmer&mdash;No
+Responsibility for<br />
+Thought&mdash;Intellectual Hospitality&mdash;Right of Free
+Speech&mdash;Origin of the<br />
+term "Toleration"&mdash;Slander and False Witness&mdash;Nobody can
+Control his own<br />
+Mind: Anecdote&mdash;Remarks of Mr. Coudert&mdash;Voltaire,
+Rousseau, Hugo, and<br />
+Ingersoll&mdash;General Woodford's Speech&mdash;Reply by Colonel
+Ingersoll&mdash;A<br />
+Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment to
+Voltaire&mdash;Responsibility for<br />
+Thoughts&mdash;The Mexican Unbeliever and his Reception in the
+Other Country.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a></p>
+A CHRISTMAS SERMON.<br />
+(1891.)<br />
+Christianity's Message of Grief&mdash;Christmas a Pagan
+Festival&mdash;Reply<br />
+to Dr. Buckley&mdash;Charges by the Editor of the Christian
+Advocate&mdash;The<br />
+Tidings of Christianity&mdash;In what the Message of Grief
+Consists&mdash;Fear<br />
+and Flame&mdash;An Everlasting Siberia&mdash;Dr. Buckley's Proposal
+to Boycott the<br />
+Telegram&mdash;Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr.
+Cana Day<br />
+be Blasphemed?&mdash;Hurting Christian feelings&mdash;For Revenue
+only What is<br />
+Blasphemy?&mdash;Balaam's Ass wiser than the Prophet&mdash;The
+Universalists&mdash;Can<br />
+God do Nothing for this World?&mdash;The Universe a Blunder if
+Christianity<br />
+is true&mdash;The Duty of a Newspaper&mdash;Facts Not
+Sectarian&mdash;The Rev.<br />
+Mr. Peters&mdash;What Infidelity Has Done&mdash;Public School
+System not<br />
+Christian&mdash;Orthodox Universities&mdash;Bruno on
+Oxford&mdash;As to Public<br />
+Morals&mdash;No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe&mdash;The
+Atonement<br />
+Immoral&mdash;As to Sciences and Art&mdash;Bruno, Humboldt,
+Darwin&mdash;Scientific<br />
+Writers Opposed by the Church&mdash;As to the Liberation of
+Slaves&mdash;As to<br />
+the Reclamation of Inebriates&mdash;Rum and Religion&mdash;The
+Humanity<br />
+of Infidelity&mdash;What Infidelity says to the Dying&mdash;The
+Battle<br />
+Continued&mdash;Morality not Assailed by an Attack on
+Christianity&mdash;The<br />
+Inquisition and Religious Persecution&mdash;Human Nature Derided
+by<br />
+Christianity&mdash;Dr. DaCosta&mdash;"Human Brotherhood" as
+exemplified by<br />
+the History of the Church&mdash;The Church and Science, Art
+and<br />
+Learning&mdash;&mdash;Astronomy's Revenge&mdash;Galileo and
+Kepler&mdash;Mrs. Browning:<br />
+Science Thrust into the Brain of Europe&mdash;Our
+Numerals&mdash;Christianity and<br />
+Literature&mdash;Institution's of Learning&mdash;Stephen
+Girard&mdash;James Lick&mdash;Our<br />
+Chronology&mdash;Historians&mdash;Natural
+Philosophy&mdash;Philology&mdash;Metaphysical<br />
+Research&mdash;Intelligence, Hindoo,
+Egyptian&mdash;Inventions&mdash;John<br />
+Ericsson&mdash;Emancipators&mdash;Rev. Mr. Ballou&mdash;The Right
+of Goa to<br />
+Punish&mdash;Rev. Dr. Hillier&mdash;Rev. Mr. Haldeman&mdash;George
+A. Locey&mdash;The "Great<br />
+Physician"&mdash;Rev. Mr. Talmage&mdash;Rev. J. Benson
+Hamilton&mdash;How Voltaire<br />
+Died&mdash;The Death-bed of Thomas Paine&mdash;Rev. Mr.
+Holloway&mdash;Original<br />
+Sin&mdash;Rev. Dr. Tyler&mdash;The Good Samaritan a
+Heathen&mdash;Hospitals and<br />
+Asylums&mdash;Christian Treatment of the Insane&mdash;Rev. Dr.
+Buckley&mdash;The<br />
+North American Review Discussion&mdash;Judge Black, Dr.
+Field,<br />
+Mr. Gladstone&mdash;Circulation of Obscene Literature&mdash;Eulogy
+of<br />
+Whiskey&mdash;Eulogy of Tobacco&mdash;Human Stupidity that Defies
+the Gods&mdash;Rev.<br />
+Charles Deems&mdash;Jesus a Believer in a Personal Devil&mdash;The
+Man Christ.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE
+NORMILE.</a></p>
+SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.<br />
+(1892.)<br />
+Reply to the <i>Western Watchman</i>&mdash;Henry
+D'Arcy&mdash;Peter's<br />
+Prevarication-Some Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a<br />
+Catholic&mdash;Wishes do not Affect the Judgment&mdash;Devout
+Robbers&mdash;Penitent<br />
+Murderers&mdash;Reverential Drunkards&mdash;Luther's
+Distich&mdash;Judge<br />
+Normile&mdash;Self-destruction.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a></p>
+IS SUICIDE A SIN?<br />
+(1894.)<br />
+Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in <i>The New York
+World</i>&mdash;Under what<br />
+Circumstances a Man has the Right to take his Own
+Life&mdash;Medicine and the<br />
+Decrees of God&mdash;Case of the Betrayed Girl&mdash;Suicides not
+Cowards&mdash;Suicide<br />
+under Roman Law&mdash;Many Suicides Insane&mdash;Insanity Caused by
+Religion&mdash;The<br />
+Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic&mdash;Natural and Sufficient
+Cause for<br />
+Self-destruction&mdash;Christ's Death a Suicide&mdash;Col.
+Ingersoll's Reply to his<br />
+Critics&mdash;Is Suffering the Work of God?&mdash;It is not Man's
+Duty to<br />
+Endure Hopeless Suffering&mdash;When Suicide is
+Justifiable&mdash;The<br />
+Inquisition&mdash;Alleged Cowardice of
+Suicides&mdash;Propositions<br />
+Demonstrated&mdash;Suicide the Foundation of the Christian<br />
+Religion&mdash;Redemption and Atonement&mdash;The Clergy on
+Infidelity<br />
+and Suicide&mdash;Morality and Unbelief&mdash;Better injure
+yourself than<br />
+Another&mdash;Misquotation by Opponents&mdash;Cheerful View the
+Best&mdash;The<br />
+Wonder is that Men endure&mdash;Suicide a Sin (Interview in The
+New<br />
+York Journal)&mdash;Causes of Suicide&mdash;Col. Ingersoll Does Not
+Advise<br />
+Suicide&mdash;Suicides with Tracts or Bibles in their
+Pockets&mdash;Suicide a Sin<br />
+(Interview in The New York Herald)&mdash;Comments on Rev. Alerle
+St. Croix<br />
+Wright's Sermon&mdash;Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The York
+World)&mdash;As to<br />
+the Cowardice of Suicide&mdash;Germany and the Prevalence of
+Suicide&mdash;Killing<br />
+of Idiots and Defective Infants&mdash;Virtue, Morality, and
+Religion.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a></p>
+IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?<br />
+(1891.)<br />
+Reply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, "Brutality and
+Avarice<br />
+Triumphant"&mdash;Croakers and Prophets of Evil&mdash;Medical
+Treatment<br />
+for Believers in Universal Evil&mdash;Alleged Fraud in Army<br />
+Contracts&mdash;Congressional Extravagance&mdash;Railroad
+"Wreckers"&mdash;How<br />
+Stockholders in Some Roads Lost Their Money&mdash;The
+Star-Route<br />
+Trials&mdash;Timber and Public Lands&mdash;Watering Stock&mdash;The
+Formation<br />
+of Trusts&mdash;Unsafe Hotels: European Game and Singing
+Birds&mdash;Seal<br />
+Fisheries&mdash;Cruelty to Animals&mdash;Our Indians&mdash;Sensible
+and Manly<br />
+Patriotism&mdash;Days of Brutality&mdash;Defence of Slavery by the
+Websters,<br />
+Bentons, and Clays&mdash;Thirty Years'
+Accomplishment&mdash;Ennobling Influence of<br />
+War for the Right&mdash;The Lady ana the Brakeman&mdash;American
+Esteem of Honesty<br />
+in Business&mdash;Republics do not Tend to Official
+Corruption&mdash;This the Best<br />
+Country in the World.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI
+GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</a></p>
+A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.<br />
+(1878.)<br />
+Defence of the Lecture on Moses&mdash;How Biblical Miracles are
+sought to<br />
+be Proved&mdash;Some <i>Non Sequiturs</i>&mdash;A Grammatical
+Criticism&mdash;Christianity<br />
+Destructive of Manners&mdash;Cuvier and Agassiz on Mosaic
+Cosmogony&mdash;Clerical<br />
+Advance agents&mdash;Christian Threats and
+Warnings&mdash;Catholicism the Upas<br />
+Tree&mdash;Hebrew Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding
+Probababilities<br />
+&mdash;Contradictions and Mistranslations of the Bible&mdash;Number
+of Errors in<br />
+the Scriptures&mdash;The Sunday Question.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE
+COMEGYS.</a></p>
+AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.<br />
+(1881.)<br />
+Charged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware&mdash;Can a
+Conditionless<br />
+Deity be Injured?&mdash;Injustice the only Blasphemy&mdash;The
+Lecture<br />
+in Delaware&mdash;Laws of that State&mdash;All Sects in turn
+Charged with<br />
+Blasphemy&mdash;Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is
+Thought<br />
+to Be&mdash;A Fatal Biblical Passage&mdash;Judge
+Comegys&mdash;Wilmington<br />
+Preachers&mdash;States with Laws against Blasphemy&mdash;No Danger
+of Infidel<br />
+Mobs&mdash;No Attack on the State of Delaware
+Contemplated&mdash;Comegys a<br />
+Resurrection&mdash;Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict&mdash;Advice
+about the Cutting<br />
+out of Heretics' Tongues&mdash;Objections to the
+Whipping-post&mdash;Mr. Bergh's<br />
+Bill&mdash;One Remedy for Wife-beating.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND
+LORIMER.</a></p>
+A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.<br />
+(1882.)<br />
+Solemnity&mdash;Charged with Being
+Insincere&mdash;Irreverence&mdash;Old Testament<br />
+Better than the New&mdash;"Why Hurt our
+Feelings?"&mdash;Involuntary Action of<br />
+the Brain&mdash;Source of our Conceptions of Space&mdash;Good and
+Bad&mdash;Right and<br />
+Wrong&mdash;The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer&mdash;Men
+Responsible<br />
+for their Actions&mdash;The "Gradual" Theory Not Applicable
+to<br />
+the Omniscient&mdash;Prayer Powerless to Alter
+Results&mdash;Religious<br />
+Persecution&mdash;Orthodox Ministers Made Ashamed of their<br />
+Creed&mdash;Purgatory&mdash;Infidelity and Baptism
+Contrasted&mdash;Modern Conception<br />
+of the Universe&mdash;The Golden Bridge of Life&mdash;"The Only
+Salutation"&mdash;The<br />
+Test for Admission to Heaven&mdash;"Scurrility."<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND
+WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a></p>
+A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.<br />
+(1892.)<br />
+Dr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving<br />
+Workers&mdash;Cloakmakers' Strike&mdash;Warner Van Norden of the
+Church Extension<br />
+Society&mdash;The Uncharitableness of Organized
+Charity&mdash;Defence of the<br />
+Cloakmakers&mdash;Life of the Underpaid&mdash;On the Assertion that
+Assistance<br />
+encourages Idleness and Crime&mdash;The Man without Pity an
+Intellectual<br />
+Beast&mdash;Tendency of Prosperity to Breed
+Selfishness&mdash;Thousands Idle<br />
+without Fault&mdash;Egotism of Riches&mdash;Van Norden's Idea of
+Happiness&mdash;The<br />
+Worthy Poor.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR.
+PLUMB.</a></p>
+A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.<br />
+(1898.)<br />
+Interview in a Boston Paper&mdash;Why should a Minister call this a
+"Poor"<br />
+World?&mdash;Would an Infinite God make People who Need a
+Redeemer?&mdash;Gospel<br />
+Gossip&mdash;Christ's Sayings Repetitions&mdash;The Philosophy of
+Confucius&mdash;Rev.<br />
+Mr. Mills&mdash;The Charge of "Robbery"&mdash;The Divine
+Plan.<br />
+<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY
+ON SUPERSTITION.</a></p>
+(1898.)<br />
+Interview in the New York Journal&mdash;Rev. Roberts.
+MacArthur&mdash;A<br />
+Personal Devil&mdash;Devils who held Conversations with Christ not
+simply<br />
+personifications of Evil&mdash;The Temptation&mdash;The "Man of
+Straw"&mdash;Christ's<br />
+Mission authenticated by the Casting Out of
+Devils&mdash;Spain&mdash;God<br />
+Responsible for the Actions of Man&mdash;Rev. Dr. J. Lewis
+Parks&mdash;Rev. Dr. E.<br />
+F. Moldehnke&mdash;Patience amidst the Misfortunes of
+Others&mdash;Yellow Fever<br />
+as a Divine Agent&mdash;The Doctrine that All is for the
+Best&mdash;Rev. Mr.<br />
+Hamlin&mdash;Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?&mdash;A
+Compliment by the<br />
+Rev. Mr. Belcher&mdash;Rev. W. C. Buchanan&mdash;No Argument Old
+until it is<br />
+Answered&mdash;Why should God Create sentient Beings to be
+Damned?&mdash;Rev. J.<br />
+W. Campbell&mdash;Rev. Henry Frank&mdash;Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on
+Christ and the<br />
+Devil&mdash;Would he make a World like This?<br /></blockquote>
+<br />
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="link0001" id="link0001"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San
+     Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various
+     clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon
+     him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man,
+     Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts."
+</pre>
+<center>I.</center>
+<p>AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I
+offer in evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent
+but a small part of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even
+that part shall not be defiled or smirched by a single personality.
+Whatever I say, I shall say because I believe it will tend to make
+this world grander, man nearer just, the father kinder, the mother
+more loving, the children more affectionate, and because I believe
+it will make an additional flower bloom in the pathway of every one
+who hears me.</p>
+<p>In the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence?
+What have I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a
+wolf that in the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his
+innocent flock. What have I said?</p>
+<p>I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and
+Child." In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical
+and intellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the
+right to do right; the right to do anything that did not interfere
+with the real happiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty
+to be the right to think right, and the right to think
+wrong&mdash;provided you did your best to think right.</p>
+<p>This must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by
+which we seek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to
+think, whether his thought is in reality right or wrong; and he
+cannot be accountable to any being for thinking wrong. There is
+upon man, so far as thought is concerned, the obligation to think
+the best he can, and to honestly express his best thought. Whenever
+he finds what is right, or what he honestly believes to be the
+right, he is less than a man if he fears to express his conviction
+before an assembled world.</p>
+<p>The right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. "The
+right of one human being ceases where the right of another
+commences." My definition of intellectual liberty is, the right to
+think, whether you think right or wrong, provided you do your best
+to think right.</p>
+<p>I believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality&mdash;the Blessed
+Trinity of Humanity.</p>
+<p>I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience&mdash;the
+Blessed Trinity of Science.</p>
+<p>I believe in Man, Woman and Child&mdash;the Blessed Trinity of
+Life and Joy.</p>
+<p>I have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor
+by force to compel another to think your way&mdash;that man has no
+right to compel his fellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or
+social ostracism. I have said, and still say, that even an infinite
+God has and can have no right to compel by force or threats even
+the meanest of mankind to accept a dogma abhorrent to his mind. As
+a matter of fact such a power is incapable of being exercised. You
+may compel a man to say that he has changed his mind. You may force
+him to say that he agrees with you. In this way, however, you make
+hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible that a god wishes the
+worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage of a coward? Does
+he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is it possible
+that he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I were a
+god it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of
+one grand, brave man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain,
+than the blind worship, the ignorant adoration, the trembling
+homage of a universe of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned
+by the orthodox guardians of this great city not to think. I am
+told that I am in danger of hell; that for me to express my honest
+convictions is to excite the wrath of God. They inform me that
+unless I believe in a certain way, meaning their way, I am in
+danger of everlasting fire.</p>
+<p>There was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men
+with fear. That time has substantially passed away. For a hundred
+years hell has been gradually growing cool, the flames have been
+slowly dying out, the brimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have
+been burning lower and lower, and the climate gradually changing.
+To such an extent has the change already been effected that if I
+were going there to-night I would take an overcoat and a box of
+matches.</p>
+<p>They say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief.
+I deny it. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot
+possibly be a crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so.
+The god who punishes it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As
+for me, I would a thousand times rather go to perdition and suffer
+its torments with the brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go
+to heaven and keep the company of a god who would damn his children
+for an honest belief.</p>
+<p>The next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man;
+that she has every right that man has, and one more&mdash;the right
+to be protected, because she is the weaker. I have said that
+marriage should be an absolutely perfect partnership of body and
+soul; that a man should treat his wife like a splendid flower, and
+that she should fill his life with perfume and with joy. I have
+said that a husband had no right to be morose; that he had no right
+to assassinate the sunshine and murder the joy of life.</p>
+<p>I have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of
+light, and fill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of
+the doors and windows and illumine even the darkness of night. I
+said that marriage was the holiest, highest, the most sacred
+institution among men; that it took millions of years for woman to
+advance from the condition of absolute servitude, from the absolute
+slavery where the Bible found her and left her, up to the position
+she occupies at present. I have pleaded for the rights of woman,
+for the rights of wives, and what is more, for the rights of little
+children. I have said that they could be governed by affection, by
+love, and that my heart went out to all the children of poverty and
+of crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets and in
+the sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear
+the footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when
+they hear their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the
+little children, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of
+life. I have said that my heart goes out to them one and all; I
+have asked fathers and mothers to cease beating their own flesh and
+blood. I have said to them, When your child does wrong, put your
+arms around him; let him feel your heart beat against his. It is
+easier to control your child with a kiss than with a club.</p>
+<p>For expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the
+religious press and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an
+enemy of order, as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I
+make no complaint. A few years ago they would have burned me at the
+stake and I should have been compelled to look upon their
+hypocritical faces through flame and smoke. They cannot do it now
+or they would. One hundred years ago I would have been burned,
+simply for pleading for the rights of men. Fifty years ago I would
+have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife and my children would
+have been torn from my arms in the name of the most merciful God.
+Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living in the United
+States at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not then have
+been allowed to express my thought; but I can now, and I will. And
+when I think about the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is
+illuminated with glory and the air is filled with wings.</p>
+<p>I then delivered another lecture entitled "Ghosts," in which I
+sought to show that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own
+imagination; in which I sought to show these imps of darkness,
+these devils, had all been produced by superstition; in which I
+endeavored to prove that man had groveled in the dust before
+monsters of his own creation; in which I endeavored to demonstrate
+that the many had delved in the soil that the few might live in
+idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens that the few
+might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to show that
+man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred, except
+ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms man
+had covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have
+been assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So
+far as any argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any
+way make the slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man.
+It cannot in any way make the slightest difference whether my
+personal character is good or bad. That is not the question,
+though, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to stake the whole
+question upon that issue. That is not, however, the thing to be
+discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The question is, whether
+what I said is true.</p>
+<p>I did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain
+things&mdash;among other things a book known as the Bible. From the
+ghosts we received that book; and the believers in ghosts pretend
+that upon that book rests the doctrine of the immortality of the
+human soul. This I deny.</p>
+<p>Whether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and
+cannot be changed by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If
+am not, no book can render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I
+should live again than that I do live.</p>
+<p>The doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The
+foundation of that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality,
+which, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating
+with its countless waves of hope and fear against the shores and
+rocks of fate and time, was not born of any book, was not born of a
+creed. It is not the child 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. It is the eternal bow&mdash;Hope shining upon the tears of
+Grief.</p>
+<p>I did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right.
+If there is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of
+enslaving a human being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but
+the master as well. When you put a chain upon the limbs of another,
+you put a fetter also upon your own brain. I had rather be a slave
+than a slaveholder. The slave can at least be just&mdash;the
+slaveholder cannot. I had rather be robbed than be a robber. I had
+rather be stolen from than to be a thief. I have said, and I do
+say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and sanctioned the
+institution of human slavery; and before I get through I will prove
+it.</p>
+<p>I said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree,
+for the doctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred
+texts, people were hanged and their bodies burned for getting up
+storms at sea with the intent of drowning royal vermin. Every
+possible offence was punished under the name of witchcraft, from
+souring beer to high treason.</p>
+<p>I also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the
+ghosts, for the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies,
+called polygamy; and I will also prove that. And the same book
+teaches, not political liberty, but political tyranny.</p>
+<p>I also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts
+knew nothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less,
+if possible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.</p>
+<p>This is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air.
+I am well aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the
+truth of my words. I have said these things. No one ever said them
+in better nature than I have. I have not the slightest
+malice&mdash;a victor never felt malice. As soon as I had said
+these things, various gentlemen felt called upon to answer me. I
+want to say that if there is anything I like in the world it is
+fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that I have had so
+little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean and hateful
+things. I have read a great many religious papers and discussions
+and think that I now know all the infamous words in our language. I
+know how to account for every noble action by a mean and wretched
+motive, and that, in my judgment, embraces nearly the entire
+science of modern theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon
+"The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," I was charged with having
+said that there is nothing back of nature, and that nature with its
+infinite arms embraces everything; and thereupon I was informed
+that I believed in nothing but matter and force, that I believed
+only in earth, that I did not believe in spirit. If by spirit you
+mean that which thinks, then I am a believer in spirit. If you mean
+by spirit the something that says "I," the something that reasons,
+hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a believer in spirit. Whatever
+spirit there is in the universe must be a natural thing, and not
+superimposed upon nature. All that I can say is, that whatever is,
+is natural. And there is as much goodness, in my judgment, as much
+spirit in this world as in any other; and you are just as near the
+heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere. One of your
+clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me, that there is
+matter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without force?
+What would keep it together? What would keep the finest possible
+conceivable atom together unless there was force? Can you imagine
+such a thing as matter without force? Can you conceive of force
+without matter? Can you conceive of force floating about attached
+to nothing? Can you possibly conceive of this? No human being can
+conceive of force without matter. "You cannot conceive of force
+being harnessed or hitched to matter as you would hitch horses to a
+carriage." You cannot. Now, what is spirit? They say spirit is the
+first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as though spirit was
+the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement. They say it
+was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without any
+matter&mdash;what would that spirit do? No force, no
+matter!&mdash;a spirit living in an infinite vacuum. What would
+such a spirit turn its particular attention to? This spirit,
+according to these theologians, created the world, the universe;
+and if it did, there must have been a time when it commenced to
+create; and back of that there must have been an eternity spent in
+absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that a spirit existed during
+an eternity without any force and without any matter? Is it
+possible that force could exist without matter or spirit? Is it
+possible that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean
+something without force? The only answer I can give to all these
+questions is, I do not know. For my part, I do not know what spirit
+is, if there is any. I do not know what matter is, neither am I
+acquainted with the elements of force. If you mean by matter that
+which I can touch, that which occupies space, then I believe in
+matter. If you mean by force anything that can overcome weight,
+that can overcome what we call gravity or inertia; if you mean by
+force that which moves the molecules of matter, or the movement
+itself, then I believe in force. If you mean by spirit that which
+thinks and loves, then I believe in spirit. There is, however, no
+propriety in wasting any time about the science of metaphysics. I
+will give you my definition of metaphysics: Two fools get together;
+each admits what neither can prove, and thereupon both of them say,
+"hence we infer." That is all there is of metaphysics.</p>
+<p>These gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about
+the treatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of
+man, all these are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my
+notion 01 spirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an
+eternity before there was any force or any matter. Exactly how
+spirit could act without force we do not understand. That we must
+take upon credit. How spirit could create matter without force is a
+serious question, and we are too reverent to press such an inquiry.
+We are bound to be satisfied, however, that spirit is entirely
+independent of force and matter, and any man who denies this must
+be "a malevolent and infamous wretch."</p>
+<p>Another reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said
+as the doctrine of negation. And we are informed by
+him&mdash;speaking I presume from experience&mdash;that negation is
+a poor thing to die by. He tells us that the last hours are the
+grand testing hours. They are the hours when atheists disown their
+principles and infidels bewail their folly&mdash;"that Voltaire and
+Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their
+death-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital"&mdash;He also
+states that "another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to
+fortify Voltaire, but that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken
+possession of him, and he cried 'Retire! it is you that have
+brought me to my present state&mdash;Begone! what a rich glory you
+have brought me.'" This, my friends, is the same old, old falsehood
+that has been repeated again and again by the lips of hatred and
+hypocrisy. There is not in one of these stories a solitary word of
+truth; and every intelligent man knows all these death-bed accounts
+to be entirely and utterly false. They are taken, however, by the
+mass of the church as evidence that all opposition to Christianity,
+so-called, fills the bed of the dying infidel and scoffer with
+serpents and scorpions. So far as my experience goes, the bad die
+in many instances as placidly as the good. I have sometimes thought
+that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is engraved the record of
+nearly every possible crime, dies without a shudder, without a
+tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering during his last
+moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in the heat
+of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every
+murderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I
+never thought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life.
+Neither have I imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he
+suffered death. The fact is, that when man approaches natural
+death, his powers, his intellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He
+becomes a child. He has less and less sense. And just in proportion
+as he loses his reasoning powers, he goes back to the superstitions
+of his childhood. The scenes of youth cluster about him and he is
+again in the lap of his mother. Of this very fact, there is not a
+more beautiful description than that given by Shakespeare when he
+takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack Falstaff, in his arms,
+and Mrs Quickly says: "A' made a finer end, and went away, an it
+had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between twelve and
+one, ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him fumble
+with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his fingers'
+end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp as a
+pen, and a' babbled of green fields." As the genius of Shakespeare
+makes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes, decked with
+daisies, so death takes the dying back to the scenes of their
+childhood, and they are clasped once more to the breasts of
+mothers. They go back, for the reason that nearly every
+superstition in the world has been sanctified by some sweet and
+placid mother. Remember, the superstition has never sanctified the
+mother, but the mother has sanctified the superstition. The young
+Mohammedan, who now lies dying upon some field of battle, thinks
+sweet and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will, as the
+blood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy verse from the blessed
+Koran. Every superstition in the world that is now held sacred has
+been made so by mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home.
+I know what it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender, to throw
+away every superstition, although sanctified by the memory of those
+they loved. Whoever has thrown away these superstitions has been
+pursued by his fellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire
+the church has pursued him as though he had been the vilest
+criminal. A little over one hundred years ago, Catholicism, the
+inventor of instruments of torture, red with the innocent blood of
+millions, felt in its heartless breast the dagger of Voltaire. From
+that blow the Catholic Church never can recover. Livid with hatred
+she launched at her assassin the curse of Rome, and ignorant
+Protestants have echoed that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire,
+and whenever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume floating
+above some grand knight&mdash;a knight who rides to a walled city
+and demands an unconditional surrender. I like him. He was once
+imprisoned in the Bastile, and while in that frightful
+fortress&mdash;and I like to tell it&mdash;he changed his name. His
+name was Francois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell he changed this
+name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years afterward the Bastile
+was torn down to the very dust, "Voltaire" was the battle cry of
+the destroyers who did it. I like him because he did more for
+religious toleration than any other man who ever lived or died. I
+admire him because he did more to do away with torture in civil
+proceedings than any other man. I like him because he was always
+upon the side of justice, upon the side of progress. I like him in
+spite of his faults, because he had many and splendid virtues. I
+like him because his doctrines have never brought unhappiness to
+any country. I like him because he hated tyranny; and when he died
+he died as serenely as ever mortal died; he spoke to his servant
+recognizing him as a man. He said to him, calling him by name: "My
+friend, farewell." These were the last words of Voltaire. And this
+was the only frightful scene enacted at his bed of death. I like
+Voltaire, because for half a century he was the intellectual
+emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at the foot
+of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in
+Christendom.</p>
+<p>I will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a
+thousand dollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death
+of Voltaire was not as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same
+absurd story is told of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a
+patriot&mdash;he was the first man in the world to write these
+words: "The Free and Independent States of America." He was the
+first man to convince the American people that they ought to
+separate themselves from Great Britain. "His pen did as much, to
+say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of
+Washington." The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic
+services repay them with slander and calumny. If there is in this
+world a crime, ingratitude is a crime. And as for myself, I am not
+willing to receive anything from any man without making at least an
+acknowledgment of my obligation. Y et these clergymen, whose very
+right to stand in their pulpits and preach, was secured to them by
+such men as Thomas Paine, delight in slandering the reputation of
+that great man. They tell their hearers that he died in
+fear,&mdash;that he died in agony, hearing devils rattle chains,
+and that the infinite God condescended to frighten a dying man. I
+will give one thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman in San
+Francisco who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories
+concerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is not one word of
+truth in these accounts; not one word.</p>
+<p>Let me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what
+is called a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas
+Paine, and Volney and Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying "My
+God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" what would the clergymen
+of this city then have said?</p>
+<p>To resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who
+have opposed the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment,
+unbecoming any intelligent man. The real question is not, who is
+afraid to die? The question is, who is right? The great question is
+not, who died right, but who lived right? There is infinitely more
+responsibility in living than in dying. The moment of death is the
+most unimportant moment of life. Nothing can be done then. You
+cannot even do a favor for a friend, except to remember him in your
+will. It is a moment when life ceases to be of value. While living,
+while you have health and strength, you can augment the happiness
+of your fellow-men; and the man who has made others happy need not
+be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they call themselves,
+these believers who hope for immortality&mdash;thousands of them,
+will rob their neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless acts
+of injustice, when, according to their belief, the witnesses of
+their infamy will live forever; and the men whom they have injured
+and outraged, will meet them in every glittering star through all
+the ages yet to be.</p>
+<p>As for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the
+record in the grateful faces of my fellow-men.</p>
+<p>These gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who
+started their churches were heretics.</p>
+<p>The first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a
+heretic. The first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first
+Christian was denounced as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics,
+the moment they get numerous enough to be in the majority in some
+locality, begin to call themselves orthodox. Can there be any
+impudence beyond this?</p>
+<p>The first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was
+the best Baptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always
+liked him. He was a good man&mdash;Roger Williams. He was the first
+man, so far as I know, in this country, who publicly said that the
+soul of man should be free. And it was a wonder to me that a man
+who had sense enough to say that, could think that any particular
+form of baptism was necessary to salvation. It does strike me that
+a man of great brain and thought could not possibly think the
+eternal welfare of a human being, the question whether he should
+dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves of fire, should
+be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized. That seems,
+to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is a
+matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the
+ordinance of baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at
+the judgment seat to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing,
+should ask a man:</p>
+<p>"Have you been a good man?" and the man replied:</p>
+<p>"Tolerably good."</p>
+<p>"Did you love your wife and children?"</p>
+<p>"Yes."</p>
+<p>"Did you try and make them happy?"</p>
+<p>"Yes."</p>
+<p>"Did you try and make your neighbors happy?" "Yes, I paid my
+debts: I gave heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was
+thanked for it or not."</p>
+<p>Suppose the Supreme Being then should say:</p>
+<p>"Were you ever baptized?" and the man should reply:</p>
+<p>"I am sorry to say I never was."</p>
+<p>Could a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by
+the Supreme Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own
+case was to be called next?</p>
+<p>I happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist
+elders&mdash;how I ever got into such bad company, I don't
+know,&mdash;and one of them asked what I thought about baptism.
+Well, I never thought much about it; did not know much about it;
+didn't want to say anything, but they insisted upon it. I said,
+"Well, I'll give you my opinion&mdash;with soap, baptism is a good
+thing."</p>
+<p>The Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon
+several occasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have
+boiled them down. He said some things about me not entirely
+pleasant, which I do not wish to repeat. In his reply he takes the
+ground:</p>
+<p><i>First</i>. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he
+swore upon it or by it when he joined the Masons.</p>
+<p><i>Second</i>. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the
+supposition that he had softening of the brain, or a fatty
+degeneration of the heart.</p>
+<p><i>Third.</i> That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the
+inhabitants of Canaan, according to the doctrine of the "survival
+of the fittest." He takes the ground that the destruction of these
+Canaanites, the ripping open of women with child by the sword of
+war, was an act of sublime mercy. He justifies a war of
+extermination; he applauds every act of cruelty and murder. He says
+that the Canaanites ought to have been turned from their homes;
+that men guilty of no crime except fighting for their country, old
+men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled, prattling
+children, ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war; that
+it was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious
+persecution into the bodies of all, old and young. This is what the
+reverend gentleman is pleased to call mercy. If this is mercy let
+us have injustice. If there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry
+that man exists. All this, however, is justified upon the ground
+that God has the right to do as he pleases with the being he has
+created. This I deny. Such a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose
+I could take a stone and in one moment change it into a sentient,
+hoping, loving human being, would I have the right to torture it?
+Would I have the right to give it pain? No one but a fiend would
+either exercise or justify such a right. Even if there is a God who
+created us all he has no such right. Above any God that can exist,
+in the infinite serenity forever sits the figure of justice; and
+this God, no matter how great and infinite he may be, is bound to
+do justice.</p>
+<p><i>Fourth.</i> That God chose the Jews and governed them
+personally for thousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in
+order that his peculiar people might not be corrupted by the
+example of idolaters; that he wished to make of the Hebrews a great
+nation, and that, consequently, he was justified in destroying the
+original inhabitants of that country. It seems to me that the end
+hardly justified the means. According to the account, God governed
+the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded in civilizing them
+to that degree, that they crucified him the first opportunity they
+had. Such an administration can hardly be called a success.</p>
+<p><i>Fifth.</i> The reverend gentleman seems to think that the
+practice of polygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared
+with the crime of exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra.
+Upon the corrupting influence of such pictures he descants at great
+length, and attacks with all the bitterness of the narrow
+theologian the masterpieces of art. Allow me to say one word about
+art. That is one of the most beautiful words in our
+language&mdash;Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for art to
+go in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of
+Raffaelle. I like the productions of those splendid souls that put
+their ideas of beauty upon the canvas uncovered.</p>
+<pre>
+     "There are brave souls in every land
+     Who worship nature, grand and nude,
+     And who with swift indignant hand
+     Tear off the fig leaves of the prude."
+</pre>
+<p><i>Sixth</i>. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions
+slavery, but that it is not an immoral book even if it does.</p>
+<p>I can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as
+the reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of
+Solomon&mdash;"by a softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration
+of the heart."</p>
+<p>It does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really
+thought my fellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he
+was going to misery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I
+would try and save him. It does seem to me, that instead of having
+my mouth filled with epithets and invectives; instead of drawing
+the lips of malice back from the teeth of hatred, it seems to me
+that my eyes would be filled with tears. It seems to me that I
+would do what little I could to reclaim him. I would talk to him
+and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms of affection about
+him. I would not speak of him as though he were a wild beast. I
+would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would think of
+him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the damned,
+and my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred&mdash;my
+eyes with tears, not scorn.</p>
+<p>If there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed
+and withered by the blight and breath of superstition, as
+cheerfully to defend the most frightful crimes of which we have a
+record&mdash;a man so hardened and petrified by creed and dogma
+that he hesitates not to defend even the institution of human
+slavery&mdash;so lost to all sense of pity that he applauds murder
+and rapine as though they were acts of the loftiest
+self-denial.</p>
+<p>The next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have
+said, is the Rev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon
+entitled "Ghosts against God or Ingersoll against Honesty." I
+presume he imagines himself to be the defendant in both cases.</p>
+<p>This gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon
+the ground that he had to contribute to the support of a
+"materialistic demon." To say the least, this is not charitable.
+But I am satisfied. I am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I
+fare so much better than did the infidels in the olden time that I
+am more than satisfied. It is a little thing that I bear.</p>
+<p>The brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture.
+They were stretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron
+boots; they stood upon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful
+eyes toward home and native land. They were taken from their
+firesides, from their wives, from their children; they were taken
+to the public square; they were chained to stakes, and their ashes
+were scattered by the countless hands of hatred. I am satisfied.
+The disciples of fear cannot touch me.</p>
+<p>This gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a
+"materialistic demon." When I saw that statement I will tell you
+what I did. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his
+bosom to think that he had contributed a dollar toward my support,
+toward the support of a "materialistic demon." I wrote him a letter
+and I said:</p>
+<p>"My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime
+of having contributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I
+hereby enclose the amount you paid to attend my lecture." I then
+gave him a little good advice. I advised him to be charitable, to
+be kind, and regretted exceedingly that any man could listen to one
+of my talks for an hour and a half and not go away satisfied that
+all men had the same right to think.</p>
+<p>This man denied having received the money, but it was traced to
+him through a blot on the envelope.</p>
+<p>This gentleman avers that everything that I said about
+persecution is applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what
+he says. The Catholics have probably persecuted more than any other
+church, simply because that church has had more power, simply
+because it has been more of a church. It has to-day a better
+organization, and as a rule, the Catholics come nearer believing
+what they say about their church than other Christians do. Was it a
+Catholic persecution that drove the Puritan fathers from England?
+Was it not the storm of Episcopal persecution that filled the sails
+of the Mayflower? Was it not a Protestant persecution that drove
+the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be honest. Who went to Scotland
+and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was it that chained to the
+stake that splendid girl by the sands of the sea for not saying
+"God save the king"? She was worthy to have been the mother of
+C&aelig;sar. She would not say "God save the king," but she would
+say "God save the king, if it be God's will." Protestants ordered
+her to say "God save the king," and no more. She said, "I will
+not," and they chained her to a stake in the sand and allowed her
+to be drowned by the rising of the inexorable tide. Who did this?
+Protestants. Who drove Roger Williams from Massachusetts?
+Protestants. Who sold white Quaker children into slavery?
+Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers? Who burned and
+destroyed men and women and children charged with impossible
+crimes? Protestants. The Protestants have persecuted exactly to the
+extent of their power. The Catholics have done the same.</p>
+<p>I want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of
+religious toleration in the New World were the Catholics of
+Maryland. The next were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger
+Williams. The Catholics passed the act of religious toleration, and
+after the Protestants got into power again in England, and also in
+the colony of Maryland, they repealed the law of toleration and
+passed another law declaring the Catholics from under the
+protection of all law. Afterward, the Catholics again got into
+power and had the generosity and magnanimity to re-enact the old
+law. And, so far as I know, it is the only good record upon the
+subject of religious toleration the Catholics have in this world,
+and I am always willing to give them credit for it.</p>
+<p>This gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for
+the world in the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not
+know that nearly every man who took a forward step was denounced by
+the church as a heretic and infidel? Does he not know that the
+church has in all ages persecuted the astronomers, the geologists,
+the logicians? Does he not know that even to-day the church
+slanders and maligns the foremost men? Has he ever heard of
+Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John W. Draper, one of
+the leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of Auguste Comte,
+the great Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of Laplace, of
+Spinoza? In short, has he ever heard of a man who took a step in
+advance of his time?</p>
+<p>Orthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be
+orthodoxy and becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is
+intellectual cloaca; it cannot advance. What the church calls
+infidelity is simply free thought. Every man who really owns his
+own brain is, in the estimation of the church, an infidel.</p>
+<p>There is a paper published in this city called <i>The
+Occident</i>. The Editor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the
+people who have assembled to hear me, in the lowest, vilest and
+most scurrilous terms possible. I cannot afford to reply in the
+same spirit. He alleges that the people who assemble to hear me are
+the low, the debauched and the infamous. The man who reads that
+paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a Presbyterian sheet; and
+would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated Castalio. Castalio was
+the first minister in the history of Christendom who acknowledged
+the innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed him like a
+sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a "dog of Satan;" said
+that he had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very
+grave. The editor of this paper is still warming his hands at the
+fire that burned Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce
+hatred of everything that is free. But what right have we to expect
+anything good of a man who believes in the eternal damnation of
+infants?</p>
+<p>There may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse
+religion than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was,
+from cannibalism to civilization, I have never heard of it.</p>
+<p>I make a distinction between the members and the creed of that
+church. I know many who are a thousand times better than the
+creed&mdash;good, warm and splendid friends of mine. I would do
+anything in the world for them. And I have said to them a hundred
+times, "You are a thousand times better than your creed." But when
+you come down to the doctrine of the damnation of infants, it is
+the deformity of deformities. The editor of this paper is engaged
+in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of fore-ordination and
+damnation&mdash;those twin comforts of the Presbyterian creed, and
+warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in any
+manner for themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the
+lowest, the vilest and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men
+who are longing to commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off
+all restraint.</p>
+<p>My friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional
+obligation upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a
+responsibility upon his brain and upon his heart. You, who never
+want responsibility, give your souls to some church. You, who never
+want the feeling that you are under obligation to yourselves, give
+your souls away. But if you are willing to feel and meet
+responsibility; if you feel that you must give an account not only
+to yourselves but to every human being whom you injure, then you
+must be free. Where there is no freedom, there can be no
+responsibility.</p>
+<p>It is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so
+malicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it
+because they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is
+it the result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being
+written upon every orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual
+inferiority?</p>
+<p>This same editor assures his readers that what I say is not
+worth answering, and yet he devotes column after column of his
+journal to that very purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no
+orator; and upon the same page admits that he did not hear me,
+giving as a reason that he does not think it right to pay money for
+such a purpose. Recollect, that in a religious paper, a man who
+professes honesty, criticises a statue or a painting, condemns it,
+and at the end of the criticism says that he never saw it. He
+criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at the end says,
+"I never heard him, and I never saw him."</p>
+<p>As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these
+gentlemen who thought it necessary to hear what any man said in
+order to answer him.</p>
+<p>The next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I
+must say, so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of
+treatment, he is a kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several
+mistakes as to what I really said, but the fault I suppose must
+have been in the report. I am made to say in the report of his
+sermon, "There is no sacred place in all the universe." What I did
+say was, "There is no sacred place in all the universe of thought.
+There is nothing too holy to be investigated, nothing too divine to
+be understood. The fields of thought are fenceless, and without a
+wall." I say this to-night.</p>
+<p>Mr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only
+the right to do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I
+really said was, man has the right to do right, and the right to
+think right, and the right to think wrong. Thought is a means of
+ascertaining truth, a mode by which we arrive at conclusions. And
+if no one has a right to think, unless he thinks right, he would
+only have the right to think upon self-evident propositions. In all
+respects, with the exception of these misstatements to which I have
+called your attention, so far as I can see, Mr. Ijams was perfectly
+fair, and treated me as though I had the ordinary rights of a human
+being. I take this occasion to thank him.</p>
+<p>A great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers
+and a multitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed
+themselves with the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I
+can only reply to those who have made a parade of answering me.
+Many have said it is not worth answering, and then proceeded to
+answer. They have said, he has produced no argument, and then have
+endeavored to refute it. They have said it is simply the old straw
+that has been thrashed over and over again for years and years. If
+all I have said is nothing, if it is all idle and foolish, why do
+they take up the time of their fellow-men replying to me? Why do
+they fill their religious papers with criticisms, if all I have
+said and done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr. Guard, of
+"some little dog barking at a railway train"? Why stop the train,
+why send for the directors, why hold a consultation and finally
+say, we must settle with that dog or stop running these cars?</p>
+<p>Probably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond
+cavil the truth of what I have said.</p>
+<center>DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER?</center>
+<center>II.</center>
+<p>IF this "sacred" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is
+not inspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and
+heartless as any devil could be.</p>
+<p>"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
+among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
+with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your
+possession.</p>
+<p>"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
+after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your
+bondmen forever.</p>
+<p>"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have,
+<i>shall be</i> of the heathen that are round about you; of them
+shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."&mdash;Leviticus xxv.</p>
+<p>This is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another,
+to buy a woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child.
+This makes the whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal
+tender for labor performed. This is the kind of slavery established
+by the most merciful God. The reason given for all this, is, that
+the persons whom they enslaved were heathen. You may enslave them
+because they are not orthodox. If you can find anybody who does not
+believe in me, the God of the Jews, you may steal his wife from his
+arms, and her babe from the cradle. If you can find a woman that
+does not believe in the Hebrew Jehovah, you may steal her prattling
+child from her breast. Can any one conceive of anything more
+infamous? Can any one find in the literature of this world more
+frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all this is found in
+that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the 25th of
+Leviticus&mdash;from the Bible&mdash;from this sacred gift of
+God&mdash;this "Magna Charta of human freedom."</p>
+<p>2. "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and
+in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.</p>
+<p>3. "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he
+were married, then his wife shall go out with him.</p>
+<p>4. "If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him
+sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's,
+and he shall go out by himself.</p>
+<p>5. "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my
+wife, and children; I w ill not go out free:</p>
+<p>6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall
+also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master
+shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him
+forever."&mdash;<i>Exodus, xxi.</i></p>
+<p>The slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his
+wife and children. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife
+and child. This is another of the laws of the most merciful God.
+This God changes even love into a chain. Children are used by him
+as manacles and fetters, and wives become the keepers of prisons.
+Any man who believes that such hideous laws were made by an
+infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in my judgment, insane or
+totally depraved.</p>
+<p>These are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the
+doctrine of the New? What message had he who came from heaven's
+throne for the oppressed of earth? What words of sympathy, what
+words of cheer, for those who labored and toiled without reward?
+Let us see:</p>
+<p>"Servants, be obedient to them that are <i>your</i> masters,
+according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of
+your heart, as unto Christ."&mdash;<i>Ephesians, vi.</i></p>
+<p>This is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a
+woman who has been robbed of her child&mdash;to a man tracked by
+hounds through lonely swamps&mdash;to a girl with flesh torn and
+bleeding&mdash;to a mother weeping above an empty cradle.</p>
+<p>"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to
+the good and gentle, but also to the fro ward."&mdash;<i>I Peter
+ii., 18</i>.</p>
+<p>"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God
+endure grief, suffering wrongfully."&mdash;<i>I Peter ii.,
+19</i>.</p>
+<p>It certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man
+work patiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a
+slave with his wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this
+slave escapes from slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying
+of the bloodhound must be to the ears of this most merciful God.
+All this is simply infamous. On the throne of this universe there
+sits no such monster.</p>
+<p>"Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the
+flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of
+heart, fearing God."&mdash;<i>Col. iii., 22</i>.</p>
+<p>The apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work
+every moment that his strength permitted. He really seems to have
+feared that he might not at all times do the very best he could to
+promote the interests of the thief who claimed to own him. And
+speaking to all slaves, in the name of the Father of All, this
+apostle says: "Obey in all things your masters, not with
+eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God." He says to
+them in substance, There is no way you can so well please God as to
+work honestly for a thief.</p>
+<p>1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own
+masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and <i>his</i>
+doctrine be not blasphemed."</p>
+<p>Think of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the
+name and doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own
+yourself!</p>
+<p>2. "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise
+them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service,
+because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.
+These things teach and exhort."</p>
+<p>That is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of
+others. Do not hold in contempt the "faithful and beloved,
+partakers of the benefit," who turn the cross of Christ into a
+whipping post.</p>
+<p>3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
+words <i>even</i> to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
+doctrine which is according to godliness.</p>
+<p>4. "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and
+strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil
+surmisings,</p>
+<p>5. "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute
+of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw
+thyself."</p>
+<p>This seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the
+early abolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights,
+seeking to give labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men
+with that divine garment of the soul, Liberty,&mdash;all this was
+denounced by the apostle as a simple strife of words, whereof
+cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings and perverse disputing,
+destitute of truth.</p>
+<p>6. "But godliness with contentment is great gain.</p>
+<p>7. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we
+can carry nothing out.</p>
+<p>8. "And having food and raiment let us be therewith
+content."&mdash;<i>I Tim., vi.</i></p>
+<p>This was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking
+of his chains. This is the reason he should never try to better his
+condition. He should be contented simply with the right to work for
+nothing. If he only had food and raiment, and a thief to work for,
+he should be contented. He should solace himself with the apostolic
+reflection, that as he brought nothing into the world, he could
+carry nothing out, and that when dead he would be as happily
+situated as his master.</p>
+<p>In order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word
+<i>servant</i>, I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses
+20 and 21:</p>
+<p>"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he
+die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.</p>
+<p>"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
+punished: for he <i>is</i> his money."</p>
+<p>Yet, notwithstanding these passages the <i>Christian
+Advocate</i> says, "the Bible is the Magna Charta of our
+liberty."</p>
+<p>After reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the
+same paper:</p>
+<p>"We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of
+infidelity and atheism, not less offensive to good morals than have
+been the teachings of infidelity during the last century. France
+has been cursed with such teachings for a hundred years, and
+because of it, to-day her citizens are incapable of
+self-government."</p>
+<p>What was the condition of France a century ago? Were they
+capable of self-government then? For fourteen hundred years the
+common people of France had suffered. For fourteen hundred years
+they had been robbed by the altar and by the throne. They had been
+the prey of priests and nobles. All were exempt from taxation,
+except the common people. The cup of their suffering was full, and
+the French people arose in fury and frenzy, and tore the drapery
+from the altars of God, and filled the air with the dust of
+thrones.</p>
+<p>Surely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced
+by the teachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at
+the place where once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw
+that prison standing as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked
+by the populace. I could see their stormy faces and hear their
+cries. And I saw that ancient fortification of tyranny go down
+forever. And now where once stood the Bastile stands the Column of
+July. Upon its summit is a magnificent statue of Liberty, holding
+in one hand a banner, in the other a broken chain, and upon its
+shining forehead is the star of progress. There it stands where
+once stood the Bastile. And France is as much superior to what it
+was when Voltaire was born, as that statue, surmounting the Column
+of July, is more beautiful than the Bastile that stood there once
+with its cells of darkness, and its dungeons of horror.</p>
+<p>And yet we are now told that the French people have rendered
+themselves incapable of government, simply because they have
+listened to the voice of progress. There are magnificent men in
+France. From that country have come to the human race some of the
+grandest and holiest messages the ear of man has ever heard. The
+French people have given to history some of the most touching acts
+of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the amazed stars.</p>
+<p>For my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue
+San Antoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to
+remember that the tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe
+was in chains, and while liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in
+the Inquisition of Spain. And yet we are now told by a religious
+paper, that France is not capable of self-government. I suppose it
+was capable of self-government under the old r&eacute;gime, at the
+time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I suppose it was capable
+of self-government when women were seen yoked with cattle pulling
+plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government when all who
+labored were in a condition of slavery.</p>
+<p>In the old times, even among the priests, there were some good,
+some sincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a
+sermon preached by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
+This old priest, among other things, said that the soul of a beggar
+was as dear to God as the soul of the richest of his people, and
+that Jesus Christ died as much for a beggar as for a prince. One
+French peasant, rough with labor, cried out: "I propose three
+cheers for Jesus Christ." I like such things. I like to hear of
+them. I like to repeat them. Paris has been a kind of volcano, and
+has made the heavens lurid with its lava of hatred, but it has also
+contributed more than any other city to the intellectual
+development of man. France has produced some infamous men, among
+others John Calvin, but for one Calvin, she has produced a thousand
+benefactors of the human race.</p>
+<p>The moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the
+church, they will be in the highest sense capable of
+self-government. The moment France succeeds in releasing herself
+from the coils of Catholicism&mdash;from the shadows of
+superstition&mdash;from the foolish forms and mummeries of the
+church&mdash;from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand
+years&mdash;she will not only be capable of self-government, but
+will govern herself. Let the priests be usefully employed. We want
+no overseers of the mind; no slave-drivers for the soul. We cannot
+afford to pay hypocrites for depriving us of liberty. It is a waste
+of money to pay priests to frighten our children, and paralyze the
+intellect of women.</p>
+<center>WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?</center>
+<center>III.</center>
+<p>FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that
+the earth was made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours
+each, and that on the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor.
+Geologists have driven the church from this position, and it is now
+claimed that the days mentioned in the Bible are periods of time.
+This is a simple evasion, not in any way supported by the
+Scriptures. The Bible distinctly and clearly says that the world
+was created in six days. There is not within its lids a clearer
+statement. It does not say six periods. It was made according to
+that book in six days:</p>
+<p>31. "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it
+was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth
+day."&mdash;<i>Genesis i</i>.</p>
+<p>1. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
+host of them.</p>
+<p>2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
+and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had
+made.</p>
+<p>3. "And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and
+sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work
+which God created and made."&mdash;<i>Genesis ii</i>.</p>
+<p>From the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the
+word days:</p>
+<p>15. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
+Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the
+Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."&mdash;Served him
+right!</p>
+<p>16. "Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,
+to observe the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a
+perpetual covenant.</p>
+<p>17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever;
+for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh
+day he rested and was refreshed.</p>
+<p>18. "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of
+communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony,
+tables of stone, written with the finger of God."&mdash;<i>Exodus
+xxxi</i>.</p>
+<p>12. "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord
+delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he
+said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and
+thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.</p>
+<p>13. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the
+people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this
+written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst
+of heaven; and hasted not to go down about a whole day.</p>
+<p>14. "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that
+the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for
+Israel."&mdash;<i>Josh. x</i>.</p>
+<p>These passages must certainly convey the idea that this world
+was made in six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were
+to keep the Sabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh
+day&mdash;not period. If you say six periods, instead of six days,
+what becomes of your Sabbath? The only reason given in the Bible
+for observing the Sabbath is that God observed it&mdash;that he
+rested from his work that day and was refreshed. Take this reason
+away and the sacredness of that day has no foundation in the
+Scriptures.</p>
+<center>WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?</center>
+<center>IV.</center>
+<p>WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was
+understood by those who read it the same as by those who wrote it.
+From time to time discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent
+with the Scriptures. At first, theologians denounced the
+discoverers of all facts inconsistent with the Bible, as atheists
+and scoffers.</p>
+<p>The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the
+universe; that the sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck
+called the earth. The men who discovered that all this was a
+mistake were denounced by the ignorant clergy of that day,
+precisely as the ignorant clergy of our time denounce the advocates
+of free thought. When the doctrine of the earth's place in the
+solar system was demonstrated; when persecution could no longer
+conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church made an
+effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of science.
+When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation became
+apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of
+the Bible. Then it was pretended that the "days" of creation were
+vast periods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible
+that the sun revolved around the earth, then the account given by
+Joshua of the sun standing still for the space of a whole day, was
+changed into a figure of speech. It was said that Joshua merely
+conformed to the mode of speech common in his day; and that when he
+said the sun stood still, he merely intended to convey the idea
+that the earth ceased turning upon its axis. They admitted that
+stopping the sun could not lengthen the day, and for that reason it
+must have been the earth that stopped. But you will remember that
+the moon stood still in the valley of Ajalon&mdash;that the moon
+stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their
+enemies.</p>
+<p>One would naturally suppose that the sun would have given
+sufficient light to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their
+enemies without any assistance from the moon. Of course, if the
+moon had not stopped, the relations between the earth and moon
+would have been changed.</p>
+<p>Is there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched
+piece of ignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this
+nineteenth century has for its basis such childish absurdities?
+According to this account, what was the sun, or rather the earth,
+stopped for? It was stopped in order that the Hebrews might avenge
+themselves upon the Amorites. For the accomplishment of such a
+purpose the earth was made to pause. Why should an almost infinite
+force be expended simply for the purpose of destroying a handful of
+men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain. I strike my hands
+together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat come from?
+Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that there can
+be no destruction of force. It disappears in one form only to
+reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one
+thousand miles an hour, was stopped. The motion of this vast globe
+would have instantly been changed into heat. It has been calculated
+by one of the greatest scientists of the present day that to stop
+the earth would generate as much heat as could be produced by
+burning a world as large as this of solid coal. And yet, all this
+force was expended for the paltry purpose of defeating a few poor
+barbarians. The employment of so much force for the accomplishment
+of so insignificant an object would be as useless as bringing all
+the intellect of a great man to bear in answering the arguments of
+the clergymen of San Francisco.</p>
+<p>The waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their
+grand courses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp
+gun to destroy an insect to which a single drop of water is "an
+unbounded world." How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect,
+not only to endorse such ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those
+who do not? Can anything be more debasing to the intellect of man
+than a belief in the astronomy of the Bible? According to the
+Scriptures, the world was made out of nothing, and the sun, moon,
+and stars, of the nothing that happened to be left. To the writers
+of the Bible the firmament was solid, and in it were grooves along
+which the stars were pushed by angels. From the Bible Cosmas
+constructed his geography and astronomy. His book was passed upon
+by the church, and was declared to be the truth concerning the
+subjects upon which he treated.</p>
+<p>This eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his
+guide, found and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second,
+that it was a vast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there
+was a vast body of land, then a strip of water all around it, then
+a strip of land. He thought that on the outer strip of land people
+lived before the flood&mdash;that at the time of the flood, Noah in
+his Ark crossed the strip of water and landed on the shore of the
+country, in the middle of the world, where we now are. This great
+biblical scholar informed the true believers of his day that in the
+outer strip of land were mountains, around which the sun and moon
+revolved; that when the sun was on the side of the mountain next
+the land occupied by man, it was day, and when on the other side,
+it was night.</p>
+<p>Mr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most
+eminent astronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament
+was solid, and that the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells
+us that these angels attended strictly to their business, that each
+one watched the motions of all the others so that proper distances
+might always be maintained, and all confusion avoided. All this was
+believed by the gentlemen who made most of our religion. The great
+argument made by Cosmas to show that the earth must be flat, was
+the fact that the Bible stated that when Christ should come the
+second time, in glory, the whole world should see him. "Now," said
+Cosmas, "if the world is round, how could the people on the other
+side see the Lord when he comes?" This settled the question.</p>
+<p>These were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men
+have been for centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long
+after they had become dust they governed the world. The
+superstitions they planted, their descendants watered with the best
+and bravest blood. To maintain their ignorant theories, the brain
+of the world was dwarfed for a thousand years, and the infamous
+work is still being prosecuted.</p>
+<p>The Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all
+truth. Any new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the
+light, or rather in the darkness, of revelation, and if according
+to that test it was false, it was denounced, and the person
+bringing it forward forced to recant. It would have been a far
+better course to have discovered every theory found to be in
+harmony with the Scriptures.</p>
+<p>And yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this
+city, that the Bible is the foundation of all science.</p>
+<p>DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
+CALLED WITCHCRAFT?</p>
+<center>V.</center>
+<p>IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to
+give up the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all
+the eminent theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment,
+they were right. To give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great
+degree at least, the supernatural. To throw away the little ghosts
+simply prepares the mind of man to give up the great ones. The
+founders of nearly all creeds, and of all religions properly so
+called, have taught the existence of good and evil spirits. They
+have peopled the dark with devils and the light with angels. They
+have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs. The moment
+these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends, disappear
+from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted for by
+natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been
+taken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While
+the church believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified
+form. The evil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and
+more phenomena are accounted for by natural means. Just to the
+extent that belief has been lost in spirits, just to that extent
+the church has lost its power and authority. When men ceased to
+account for the happening of any event by ascribing it to the
+direct action of good or evil spirits, and began to reason from
+known premises, the chains of superstition began to grow weak. Into
+such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many Christians
+not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take the
+ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us
+see:</p>
+<p>"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."&mdash;<i>Exodus xxii.,
+18</i>.</p>
+<p>7. "Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath
+a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And
+his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a
+spirit at Endor.</p>
+<p>8. "And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he
+went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night;
+and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit,
+and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.</p>
+<p>9. "And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul
+hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits,
+and the wizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a
+snare for my life, to cause me to die?</p>
+<p>10. "And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord
+liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this
+thing.</p>
+<p>11. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And
+he said, Bring me up Samuel.</p>
+<p>12. "And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice:
+and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for
+thou art Saul.</p>
+<p>13. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest
+thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the
+earth.</p>
+<p>14. "And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An
+old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul
+perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the
+ground, and bowed himself.</p>
+<p>15. "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to
+bring me up?"&mdash;2 Samuels xxviii.</p>
+<p>This reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual
+seance. Is it not one of the wonderful things of the world that men
+and women who believe this account of the witch of Endor, who
+believe all the miracles and all the ghost stories of the Bible,
+deny with all their force the truth of modern Spiritualism. So far
+as I am concerned, I would rather believe some one who has heard
+what he relates, who has seen what he tells, or at least thinks he
+has seen what he tells. I would rather believe somebody I know,
+whose reputation for truth is good among those who know him. I
+would rather believe these people than to take the words of those
+who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and about
+whom I know nothing.</p>
+<p>31 "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek
+after wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your
+God."&mdash;<i>Leviticus xix</i>.</p>
+<p>6 "And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar
+spirits, and after wizards, I will even set my face against that
+soul, and will cut him off from among his
+people."&mdash;<i>Leviticus xx.</i></p>
+<p>10. "There shall not be found among you any one that useth
+divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a
+witch,</p>
+<p>11. "Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
+wizard, or a necromancer.</p>
+<p>12. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the
+Lord."&mdash;<i>Deut. xviii</i>.</p>
+<p>I have given you a few of the passages found in the Old
+Testament upon this subject, showing conclusively that the Bible
+teaches the existence of witches, wizards and those who have
+familiar spirits. In the New Testament there are passages equally
+strong, showing that the Savior himself was a believer in the
+existence of evil spirits, and in the existence of a personal
+devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching of the
+following:</p>
+<p>1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to
+be tempted of the devil.</p>
+<p>2. "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was
+afterward an hungered.</p>
+<p>3. "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the
+Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.</p>
+<p>4. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
+by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
+of God.</p>
+<p>5. "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth
+him on a pinnacle of the temple.</p>
+<p>6. "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself
+down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning
+thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time
+thou dash thy foot against a stone.</p>
+<p>7. "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not
+tempt the Lord, thy God.</p>
+<p>8. "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
+mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the
+glory of them.</p>
+<p>9. "And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if
+thou wilt fall down and worship me.</p>
+<p>10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
+written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
+thou serve.</p>
+<p>11. "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and
+ministered unto him."&mdash;<i>Matt. iv.</i></p>
+<p>If this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there
+is nothing within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence
+of a personal God. If this does not teach the existence of evil
+spirits, there is nothing in the Bible going to show that good
+spirits exist either in this world or the next.</p>
+<p>16. "When the even was come they brought unto him many that were
+possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word,
+and healed all that were sick."&mdash;<i>Matt. vii.</i></p>
+<p>1. "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the
+country of the Gadarenes.</p>
+<p>2. "And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met
+him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,</p>
+<p>3. "Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind
+him, no, not with chains:</p>
+<p>4. "Because that he had been often bound with fetters and
+chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the
+fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.</p>
+<p>5. "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in
+the tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.</p>
+<p>6. "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped
+him,</p>
+<p>7. "And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do
+with thee, Jesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by
+God, that thou torment me not.</p>
+<p>8. "For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean
+spirit.</p>
+<p>9. "And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying,
+My name is Legion, for we are many.</p>
+<p>11. "Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of
+swine feeding.</p>
+<p>12. "And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the
+swine, that we may enter into them.</p>
+<p>13. "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean
+spirits went out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran
+violently down a steep place into the sea, and they were about two
+thousand; and were choked in the sea."&mdash;<i>Mark v</i>.</p>
+<p>The doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of
+casting out devils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and
+followers, and to all who might believe in him throughout all the
+coming time:</p>
+<p>17. "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name
+shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.</p>
+<p>18. "And 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."&mdash;<i>Mark xvi.</i></p>
+<p>I would like to see the clergy who have been answering me,
+tested in this way: Let them drink poison, let them take up
+serpents, let them cure the sick by the laying on of hands, and I
+will then believe that they believe.</p>
+<p>I deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in
+the ignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them.
+"They are tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
+signifying nothing." These devils have covered the world with blood
+and tears. They have filled the earth with fear. They have filled
+the lives of children with darkness and horror. They have peopled
+the sweet world of imagination with monsters. They have made
+religion a strange mingling of fear and ferocity. I am doing what I
+can to reave the heavens of these monsters. For my part, I laugh at
+them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient and modern, great
+and small.</p>
+<center>THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.</center>
+<center>VI.</center>
+<p>ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the
+slavery of man.</p>
+<p>18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not
+obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that,
+when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.</p>
+<p>19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and
+bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of
+his place.</p>
+<p>20. "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our
+son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a
+glutton and a drunkard.</p>
+<p>21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones,
+that he die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all
+Israel shall hear, and fear."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxi.</i></p>
+<p>Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He
+proceeded to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of
+age, was not consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a
+man was willing to offer upon the altar his only son. And such was
+the slavery of children, that the only son had not the spirit to
+resist.</p>
+<p>Have you ever read the story of Jephthah?</p>
+<p>30 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou
+shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine
+hands,</p>
+<p>31. "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 for a
+burnt offering.</p>
+<p>32. "So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight
+against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.</p>
+<p>33. "And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to
+Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards,
+with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were
+subdued before the children of Israel.</p>
+<p>34."And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his
+daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and
+she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor
+daughter.</p>
+<p>35. "And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his
+clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very
+low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my
+mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back....</p>
+<p>39. "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she
+returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow
+which he had vowed."&mdash;<i>Judges xi.</i></p>
+<p>Is there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this?
+What can we think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a
+demon God? And what can we think of a God who would accept such a
+sacrifice? Can such a God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead
+for the rights of children. I plead for the government of kindness
+and love. I plead for the republic of home, the democracy of the
+fireside. I plead for affection. And for this I am pursued by
+invective. For this I am called a fiend, a devil, a monster, by
+Christian editors and clergymen, by those who pretend to love their
+enemies and pray for those that despitefully use them.</p>
+<p>Allow me to give you another instance of affection related in
+the Scriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the
+name of Job. The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to
+meet Satan, said to him: "Are you acquainted with my servant Job?
+Have you noticed what an excellent man he is?" And Satan replied to
+him and said: "Why should he not be an excellent man&mdash;you have
+given him everything he wants? Take from him what he has and he
+will curse you." And thereupon the Lord gave Satan the power to
+destroy the property and children of Job. In a little while these
+high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed somewhat
+elated with his success, and called again the attention of Satan to
+the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body and
+he would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the
+body of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this,
+Job did not sin with his lips.</p>
+<p>This book seems to have been written to show the excellence of
+patience, and to prove that at last God will reward all who will
+bear the afflictions of heaven with fortitude and without
+complaint. The sons and daughters of Job had been slain, and then
+the Lord, in order to reward Job, gave him other children, other
+sons and other daughters&mdash;not the same ones he had lost; but
+others. And this, according to the writer, made ample amends. Is
+that the idea we now have of love? If I have a child, no matter how
+deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody can make the
+loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want the one
+I loved and the one I lost.</p>
+<center>THE GALLANTRY OF GOD.</center>
+<center>VII.</center>
+<p>I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no
+respect for the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It
+takes something besides epithets and invectives to prove or
+disprove anything. Let us see what the sacred volume says
+concerning the mothers and daughters of the human race.</p>
+<p>A man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has
+not there an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is
+less than a man.</p>
+<p>11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.</p>
+<p>12. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
+over the man, but to be in silence."</p>
+<p>The reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to
+the sacred writer, was:</p>
+<p>13. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.</p>
+<p>14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
+in the transgression.</p>
+<p>15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if
+they continue in faith and charity and holiness with
+sobriety."&mdash;<i>1 Tim. ii.</i></p>
+<p>3. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
+Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
+Christ is God."</p>
+<p>That is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man
+that man does to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to
+Christ that Christ does to God.</p>
+<p>This places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this
+barbarous idiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any
+woman look other than with contempt upon such passages? How can any
+woman believe that this is the will of a most merciful God?</p>
+<p>7. "For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as
+he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of
+man."</p>
+<p>And this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the
+next verse:</p>
+<p>8. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
+man."</p>
+<p>This same chivalric gentleman also says:</p>
+<p>9. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for
+the man."&mdash;<i>1 Cor. xi.</i></p>
+<p>22. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
+the Lord."</p>
+<p>Is it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?</p>
+<p>23. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
+the head of the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.</p>
+<p>24. "Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the
+wives be to their own husbands in everything."&mdash;<i>Eph.
+v.</i></p>
+<p>Even the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A
+man could divorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her
+husband.</p>
+<p>Every noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in
+contempt. According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon
+and had to be purified from the crime of having born sons and
+daughters. To make love and maternity crimes is infamous.</p>
+<p>10. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the
+Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast
+taken them captive,</p>
+<p>11. "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a
+desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,</p>
+<p>12. "Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall
+shave her head, and pare her nails."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxi</i>.</p>
+<p>This is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from
+hell, from a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the
+New Jerusalem or from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism
+complete and utter.</p>
+<center>DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE?</center>
+<center>VIII.</center>
+<p>READ the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of
+Numbers&mdash;an order unfit to be reproduced in print&mdash;an
+order which I am unwilling to repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of
+Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of Deuteronomy. Read the-life of
+Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of Jacob, and then tell me the
+sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and concubinage. All the
+languages of the world are insufficient to express the filth of
+polygamy. It makes man a beast&mdash;woman a slave. It destroys the
+fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild
+beasts. It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of
+the Bible&mdash;a doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon.
+It is by the Bible that Brigham Young justifies the practice of
+this beastly horror. It takes from language those sweetest words,
+husband, wife, father mother, child and lover. It takes us back to
+the barbarism of animals, and leaves the heart a den in which crawl
+and hiss the slimy serpents of loathsome lust. Yet the book
+justifying this infamy is the book upon which rests the
+civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I denounce this
+frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and the
+infamous <i>Christian Advocate</i> says that the moral sentiment of
+this State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline for his
+blasphemous utterances and for his base and debasing
+scurrility.</p>
+<center>DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL
+TYRANNY?</center>
+<center>IX.</center>
+<p>FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but
+the right to govern himself. All political authority is vested in
+the people themselves, They have the right to select their officers
+and agents, and these officers and agents are responsible to the
+people. Political authority does not come from the clouds. Man
+should not be governed by the aristocracy of the air. The Bible is
+not a Republican or Democratic book. Exactly the opposite doctrine
+is taught. From that volume we learn that the people have no power
+whatever; that all power and political authority comes from on
+high, and that all the kings, all the potentates and powers, have
+been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel kings have
+been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of Deity.
+The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one
+duty&mdash;the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some of the
+political ideas in the great "Magna Charta" of human liberty.</p>
+<p>1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there
+is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.</p>
+<p>2. "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the
+ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
+damnation."</p>
+<p>According to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King
+of Great Britian by divine right, and by divine right was the
+lawful King of the American Colonies. The leaders in the
+Revolutionary struggle resisted the power, and according to these
+passages, resisted the ordinances of God; and for that resistance
+they are promised the eternal recompense of damnation.</p>
+<p>3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
+Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good,
+and thou shalt have praise of the same....</p>
+<p>5. "Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but
+also for conscience sake.</p>
+<p>6. "For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's
+ministers, attending continually upon this very
+thing."&mdash;<i>Romans, xiii.</i></p>
+<p>13. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
+sake; whether it be to the king as supreme.</p>
+<p>14. "Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for
+the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do
+well.</p>
+<p>15. "For so is the will of God."&mdash;<i>1 Pet. ii.</i></p>
+<p>Had these ideas been carried out, political progress in the
+world would have been impossible. Upon the necks of the people
+still would have been the feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this
+infamous doctrine. Whether higher powers are ordained of God or
+not, if those higher powers endeavor to destroy the rights of man,
+I for one shall resist. Whenever and wherever the sword of
+rebellion is drawn in support of a human right, I am a rebel. The
+despicable doctrine of submission to titled wrong and robed
+injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man. The real rulers
+are the people, and the rulers so-called are but the servants of
+the people. They are not ordained of any God. All political power
+comes from and belongs to man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest
+the thrones of Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses have
+been repeated by brainless kings and heardess priests. For fifteen
+hundred years each one of these texts has been a bastile in which
+has been imprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of these
+texts has been an obstruction on the highway of humanity. Each one
+has been a fortification behind which have crouched the sainted
+hypocrites and the titled robbers. According to these texts, a
+robber gets his right to rob from God. And it is the duty of the
+robbed to submit. The thief gets his right to steal from God. The
+king gets his right to trample upon human liberty from God. I say,
+fight the king&mdash;fight the priest.</p>
+<center>THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.</center>
+<center>X.</center>
+<p>THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world
+with blood, after having made it almost hollow with graves,
+Christians are beginning to say that men have a right to differ
+upon religious questions provided the questions about which they
+differ are not considered of great importance. The motto of the
+Evangelical Alliance is: "In non-essentials, Liberty; in
+essentials, Unity."</p>
+<p>The Christian world have condescended to say that upon all
+non-essential points we shall have the right to think for
+ourselves; but upon matters of the least importance, they will
+think and speak for us. In this they are consistent. They but
+follow the teachings of the God they worship. They but adhere to
+the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures. Within that
+volume there is no such thing as religious toleration. Within that
+volume there is not one particle of mercy for an unbeliever. For
+all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners of their
+own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any
+Christian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that
+extent false to his religion. Let us see what the "Magna Charta" of
+liberty says upon this subject:</p>
+<p>6. "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.</p>
+<p>7. "Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you,
+nigh unto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the
+earth even unto the other end of the earth.</p>
+<p>8. "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.</p>
+<p>9. "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.</p>
+<p>10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because
+he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which
+brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of
+bondage."&mdash;<i>Deut. xiii.</i></p>
+<p>That is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your
+bosom had said, "I like the religion of India better than the
+religion of Palestine," it was then your duty to kill her, and the
+merciful Most High&mdash;understand me, I do not believe in any
+merciful Most High&mdash;said:</p>
+<p>"Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand
+shall be the first upon her to put her to death."</p>
+<p>This I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to
+believe in such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in
+order to be saved, I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let
+me read you a few more extracts from the "Magna Charta" of human
+liberty.</p>
+<p>2. "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which
+the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought
+wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his
+covenant,</p>
+<p>3. "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them,
+either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have
+not commanded.</p>
+<p>4. "And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired
+diligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that
+such abomination is wrought in Israel.</p>
+<p>5. "Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which
+have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or
+that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."</p>
+<p>Under this law if the woman you loved had said: "Let us worship
+the sun; I am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let
+us worship the sun; let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills,
+filling the world with light and love, when the dawn stands jocund
+on the mountain's misty top; it is the sun whose beams illumine and
+cover the earth with verdure and with beauty; it is the sun that
+covers the trees with leaves, that carpets the earth with grass and
+adorns the world with flowers; I adore the sun because in its light
+I have seen your eyes; it has given to me the face of my babe; it
+has clothed my life with joy; let us in gratitude fall down and
+worship the glorious beams of the sun."</p>
+<p>For this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your
+hands:</p>
+<p>"Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither
+shalt thou conceal her.</p>
+<p>"But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first
+upon her to put her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the
+people.</p>
+<p>"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die."</p>
+<p>For my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a
+God who would make such a law or give such a command. This you may
+say is the doctrine of the Old Testament&mdash;what is the doctrine
+of the New?</p>
+<p>"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that
+believeth not shall be damned."</p>
+<p>That is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the
+"tidings of great joy."</p>
+<p>Every one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip
+upon the backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has
+been a sword. Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack.
+Every one has been a fountain of tears. These words have filled the
+hearts of men with hatred. These words invented all the instruments
+of torture. These words covered the earth with blood.</p>
+<p>For the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired
+book. If then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws
+commanding religious intolerance to his chosen people, and
+afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came among the
+Jews and taught a different religion, and they crucified him, did
+he not reap what he had sown?</p>
+<center>DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY?</center>
+<center>XI.</center>
+<p>IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful,
+changeable, unjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of
+the Hebrews? Is it possible to read the words said to have been
+spoken by this Deity, without a shudder? Is it possible to
+contemplate his character without hatred?</p>
+<p>"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall
+devour flesh."&mdash;<i>Deut. xxxii.</i></p>
+<p>Is this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to
+his weak, his wandering and suffering children?</p>
+<p>"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the
+tongue of thy dogs in the same." <i>Psalms, lxviii.</i></p>
+<p>Is it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the
+blood of his children?</p>
+<p>22. "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee
+by little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest
+the beasts of the field increase upon thee.</p>
+<p>23. "But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and
+shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be
+destroyed.</p>
+<p>24. "And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou
+shalt destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be
+able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed
+them."&mdash;<i>Deut. vii.</i></p>
+<p>If these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they
+had been spoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I
+should not have been surprised. But these things are attributed to
+a God of infinite mercy.</p>
+<p>40. "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the
+south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he
+left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as
+the Lord God of Israel commanded."&mdash;<i>Josh, x.</i></p>
+<p>14. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the
+children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man
+they smote with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed
+them, neither left they any to breathe."&mdash;<i>Josh. xi.</i></p>
+<p>19. "There was not a city that made peace with the children of
+Israel, save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they
+took in battle.</p>
+<p>20. "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they
+should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them
+utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might
+destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses."&mdash;<i>Josh.
+xi.</i></p>
+<p>There are no words in our language with which to express the
+indignation I feel when reading these cruel and heartless
+words.</p>
+<p>"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
+proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of
+peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people
+therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
+And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against
+thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath
+delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof
+with the sword. But the women, <i>and the little ones</i>, and the
+cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt
+thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine
+enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.</p>
+<p>"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off
+from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the
+cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an
+inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."</p>
+<p>These terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion.
+The men who were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their
+homes, their firesides, for their wives and for their little
+children. Yet these things, by the clergy of San Francisco, are
+called acts of sublime mercy.</p>
+<p>All this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the
+fittest. The Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses,
+with words of vengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of
+almost infinite brutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart
+the sweet flower of pity and trample it in the bloody dust of
+superstition. Do not, I beseech you, justify the murder of women,
+the assassination of dimpled babes. Do not let the gaze of the
+gorgon of superstition turn your hearts to stone.</p>
+<p>Is there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not
+with joy and gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect
+that all the passages in the Bible upholding and sustaining
+polygamy and concubinage, political tyranny, the subjection of
+woman, the enslavement of children, establishing domestic and
+political tyranny, and that all the commands to destroy men, women
+and children, are but interpolations of kings and priests, made for
+the purpose of subjugating mankind through the instrumentality of
+fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would not think vastly
+more of the Bible if all these infamous things were eliminated from
+it?</p>
+<p>Surely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred
+from the fact that in the same volume are found the frightful
+passages I have quoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and
+studied precisely as we read and study any book whatever. The good
+in it should be preserved and cherished, and that which shocks the
+human heart should be cast aside forever.</p>
+<p>While the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with
+disease, famine, war, pestilence and death, there are no
+threatenings of punishment beyond this life. The doctrine of
+eternal punishment is a dogma of the New Testament. This doctrine,
+the most cruel, the most infamous of which the human mind can
+conceive, is taught, if taught at all, in the Bible&mdash;in the
+New Testament. One cannot imagine what the human heart has suffered
+by reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal damnation. It is a
+doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so infinitely
+cruel, that it is impossible for me to respect either the head or
+heart of any human being who teaches or fears it. This doctrine
+necessarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite
+punishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes committed by
+finite beings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am astonished
+it ever found lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we
+can be happy in heaven while those we loved on earth are suffering
+infinite torments in eternal fire, defames and calumniates the
+human heart.</p>
+<center>THE PLAN OF SALVATION.</center>
+<center>XII.</center>
+<p>WE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the
+salvation of all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of
+God is made manifest to the children of men. According to the great
+scheme of the atonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in
+order to satisfy a law. What kind of law must it be that is
+satisfied with the agony of innocence? Who made this law? If God
+made it he must have known that the innocent would have to suffer
+as a consequence. The whole scheme is to me a medley of
+contradictions, impossibilities and theological conclusions. We are
+told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden
+death never would have entered the world. We are further informed
+that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not have
+been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death never
+would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first
+parents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world,
+you and I never would have existed. The earth would have been
+filled thousands of generations before you and I were born. At the
+feast of life, death made seats vacant for us. According to this
+doctrine, we are indebted to the devil for our existence. Had he
+not tempted Eve&mdash;no sin. If there had been no sin&mdash;no
+death. If there had been no death the world would have been filled
+ages before you and I were born. Therefore, we owe our existence to
+the devil. We are further informed that as a consequence of
+original sin the scheme called the atonement became necessary; and
+that if the Savior had not taken upon himself flesh and come to
+this atom called the earth, and if he had not been crucified for
+us, we should all have been cast forever into hell. Had it not been
+for the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery of Judas Iscariot,
+Christ would not have been crucified; and if he had not been
+crucified, all of us would have had our portion in the lake that
+burneth with eternal fire.</p>
+<p>According to this great doctrine, according to this vast and
+most wonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to
+the devil, our salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the
+Jews.</p>
+<p>So far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of
+salvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of
+believing a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his
+mind, ample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal
+fire simply because there is not testimony enough to satisfy his
+mind? Can there be such a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?</p>
+<p>And yet this same Deity says to me, "resist not evil; pray for
+those that despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will
+eternally damn mine." It seems to me that even gods should practice
+what they preach.</p>
+<p>All atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under
+its provisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit.
+Whenever he is guilty of a wicked action he says, "charge it." This
+kind of bookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in
+sin.</p>
+<p>The truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most
+creeds are better than the Bible, and most men are better than
+their God.</p>
+<center>OTHER RELIGIONS.</center>
+<center>XIII.</center>
+<p>WE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in
+all ages endeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and
+Whither? He has endeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to
+pluck the secret of his existence from the night. He has questioned
+the spectres of his own imagination. He has explored the mysterious
+avenues of dreams. He has peopled the heavens with spirits. He has
+mistaken his visions for realities. In the twilight of ignorance he
+has mistaken shadows for gods. In all ages he has been the slave of
+misery, the dupe of superstition and the fool of hope. He has
+suffered and aspired.</p>
+<p>Religion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we
+throw aside the grosser and absurder forms of
+faith&mdash;practically at first by ceasing to observe them, and
+lastly, by denying them altogether. Every church necessarily by its
+constitution endeavors to prevent this natural growth or
+development. What has happened to other religions must happen to
+ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing
+away. Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as
+noble as ours can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say
+the least, been as reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as
+ours.</p>
+<p>Man has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these
+questions in all the countries of the world, and I respect all such
+men and women; but let me tell you one little thing. I want to show
+you that in other countries there is something.</p>
+<p>The Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the
+three stairs that lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said:
+"Who is there?" "Thy servant, O God!" But the gates would not open.
+For seven years he did every act of kindness; again he came, and
+the voice said: "Who is there?" And he replied: "Thy slave, O God!"
+Yet the gates were shut. Yet seven other years of kindness, and the
+man again knocked; and the voice cried and said: "Who is there?"
+"Thyself, O God!" And the gates wide open flew.</p>
+<p>I say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.</p>
+<p>A Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful
+descriptions of perdition, wrote these words: "Two angels flying
+out from the blissful city of God&mdash;the angel of love and the
+angel of pity&mdash;hovered over the eternal pit where suffered the
+captives of hell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and one
+tear of pity extinguished all the fires." Has orthodoxy produced
+anything as generously beautiful as this? Let me read you this:
+Sectarians, hear this: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this:
+Clergy of America who expect to have your happiness in heaven
+increased by seeing me burning in hell, hear this:</p>
+<p>This is the prayer of the Brahmins&mdash;a prayer that has
+trembled from human lips toward heaven for more than four thousand
+years:</p>
+<p>"Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation.
+Never will I enter into final bliss alone. But forever and
+everywhere will I labor and strive for the final redemption of
+every creature throughout all worlds, and until all are redeemed.
+Never will I wrongly leave this world to sin, sorrow and struggle,
+but will remain and work and suffer where I am."</p>
+<p>Has the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the
+infinite charity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all
+the shining worlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who
+imagine that a large majority are going to eternal ruin.</p>
+<p>Compare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it
+with the imprecation of Christ: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting
+fire prepared for the devil and his angels;" with the ideas of
+Jeremy Taylor, with the creeds of Christendom, with all the prayers
+of all the saints, and in no church except the Universalist will
+you hear a prayer like this.</p>
+<p>"When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad,
+abstain from it."</p>
+<p>Since the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human
+conduct given superior to this?</p>
+<p>Are the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius?
+He was asked if there was any single word comprising the duties of
+man. He replied: "Reciprocity." Upon being asked what he thought of
+the doctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: "That
+is not my doctrine. If you return benefits for injuries what do you
+propose for benefits? My doctrine is; For benefits return benefits;
+for injuries return justice without any admixture of revenge."</p>
+<p>To return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I
+cannot put a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an
+injury.</p>
+<p>Now, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it
+doing, I ask you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of
+the nineteenth century? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this
+except from the honesty of my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a
+consolation to us now? Is it even a consolation when those we love
+die? The dead are so near and the promises are so far away. It is
+covered with the rubbish of the past. I ask you, is it all that is
+demanded by the brain and heart of the nineteenth century?</p>
+<p>We want something better; we want something grander; we want
+something that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want
+to advance&mdash;that is what we want; and you cannot advance
+without being a heretic&mdash;you cannot do it.</p>
+<p>Nearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and
+bloodshed. They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon
+the human brain. They have all, however, been perfectly natural
+productions, and under similar circumstances would all be
+reproduced. Only by intellectual development are the old
+superstitions outgrown. As only the few intellectually advance, the
+majority is left on the side of superstition, and remains there
+until the advanced ideas of the few thinkers become general; and by
+that time there are other thinkers still in advance.</p>
+<p>And so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully
+proceeds from age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics,
+and the heretics denounce their denouncers as the disciples of
+superstition and ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod was
+orthodox. Socrates was a blasphemer. Anytus worshiped all the gods.
+Luther was a skeptic, while the sellers of indulgences were the
+best of Catholics. Roger Williams was a heretic, while the Puritans
+who drove him from Massachusetts were all orthodox. Every step in
+advance in the religious history of the world has been taken by
+heretics. No superstition has been destroyed except by a heretic.
+No creed has been bettered except by a heretic. Heretic is the name
+that the orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing pioneer. It is
+shouted by the dwellers in swamps to the people upon the hills. It
+is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn. It is what the
+rotting says of the growing. Heretic is the name that a stench
+gives to a perfume.</p>
+<p>With this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from
+the lips of the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud&mdash;heresy is a
+banner. Orthodoxy is an epitaph&mdash;heresy is a prophecy.
+Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a mist&mdash;heresy the star shining
+forever above the child of truth.</p>
+<p>I am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe
+that Want will forever extend its withered hand, its wan and
+shriveled palms, for charity. I do not believe that the children
+will forever be governed by cruelty and brute force. I do not
+believe that poverty will dwell with man forever. I do not believe
+that prisons will forever cover the earth, or that the shadow of
+the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I do not believe
+that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that malice and
+superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.</p>
+<p>I believe the time will come when there will be charity in every
+heart, when there will be love in every family, and when law and
+liberty and justice, like the atmosphere, will surround this
+world.</p>
+<p>We have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated
+ourselves before the ignorance of the past.</p>
+<p>Let us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the
+brightening future. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not
+throw away our idea of justice for the sake of any book or of any
+religion whatever. Let us live according to our highest and noblest
+and purest ideal.</p>
+<p>By this time we should know that the real Bible has not been
+written.</p>
+<p>The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or
+apostles, or evangelists, or of Christs.</p>
+<p>Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this
+great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs.
+It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It
+has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It
+appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to
+conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of
+being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy,
+or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny
+of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself.
+It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the
+surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies to its
+perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow;
+with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every
+wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower, confirms
+its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite
+abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.</p>
+<p>Ladies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this
+evening; you cannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual
+hospitality of this great city by the Pacific sea. Ladies and
+gentlemen, I thank you&mdash;I thank you again and again, a
+thousand times.</p>
+<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * Chicago Times, 1879.
+</pre>
+<p>To the Editor:&mdash;</p>
+<p>NOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received
+with scorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval. Only a few
+weeks ago, I stated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was
+mistaken; that the "flood" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of
+Babel existed only in credulity; that God did not create the
+universe from nothing, that he did not start the first woman with a
+rib; that he never upheld slavery; that he was not a polygamist;
+that he did not kill people for making hair-oil; that he did not
+order his generals to kill the dimpled babes; that he did not allow
+the roses of love and the violets of modesty to be trodden under
+the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew language was written
+without vowels; that the Bible was composed of many books, written
+by unknown men; that all translations differed from each other; and
+that this book had filled the world with agony and crime.</p>
+<p>At that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned
+clergymen in Chicago would substantially agree with me&mdash;in
+public. I have read the replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr.
+Thomas, Rabbi Kohler, Rev. Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr.
+Ryder, and will now ask them a few questions, answering them in
+their own words.</p>
+<p>First. Rev. Robert Collyer.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Bible? Answer. "It
+is a splendid book. It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the
+meanest bigots. Through this book men give their hearts for good to
+God, or for evil to the devil. The best argument for the intrinsic
+greatness of the book is that it can touch such wide extremes, and
+seem to maintain us in the most unparalleled cruelty, as well as
+the most tender mercy; that it can inspire purity like that of the
+great saints, and afford arguments in favor of polygamy. The Bible
+is the text book of ironclad Calvinism and sunny Universalism. It
+makes the Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy. It inspired the
+Union soldier to live and grandly die for the right, and Stonewall
+Jackson to live nobly, and die grandly for the wrong."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a
+book with as many passages in favor of wrong as right, is
+inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I look upon the Old Testament as a rotting tree.
+When it falls it will fertilize a bank of violets."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that God upheld slavery and
+polygamy? Do you believe that he ordered the killing of babes and
+the violation of maidens?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "There is threefold inspiration in the Bible, the
+first, peerless and perfect, the word of God to man; <i>the second,
+simply and purely human, and then below this again, there is an
+inspiration born of an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and
+then as anything well can be</i>. A threefold inspiration, of
+heaven first, then of the earth, and then of hell, all in the same
+book, all sometimes in the same chapter, and then, besides, a great
+many things that need no inspiration."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Then after all you do not pretend that the
+Scriptures are really inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves
+as the church makes for them. They leave me free to say this is
+false, or this is true. The truth even within the Bible, dies and
+lives, makes on this side and loses on that."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you say to the last verse in the Bible,
+where a curse is threatened to any man who takes from or adds to
+the book?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I have but one answer to this question, and it
+is: Let who will have written this, I cannot for an instant believe
+that it was written by a divine inspiration. Such dogmas and
+threats as these are not of God, but of man, and not of any man of
+a free spirit and heart eager for the truth, but a narrow man who
+would cripple and confine the human soul in its quest after the
+whole truth of God, and back those who have done the shameful
+things in the name of the most high."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you not regard such talk as "slang"?</p>
+<p>(Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the writer of
+Revelation was narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his
+discourse as "slang," but I think that Unitarian ministers can do
+so with the greatest propriety.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the stories of the Bible,
+about Jael, and the sun standing still, and the walls falling at
+the blowing of horns?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they
+will, but they are not the word of God. So I say again, it was not
+the God and Father of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that
+nail crashing through the king's temple after she had given him
+that bowl of milk and bid him sleep in safety, but a very mean
+devil of hatred and revenge, that I should hardly expect to find in
+a squaw on the plains. It was not the ram's horns and the shouting
+before which the walls fell flat. If they went down at all, it was
+through good solid pounding. And not for an instant did the steady
+sun stand still or let his planet stand still while barbarian
+fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he keeps now. They
+might believe it who made the record. I do not. And since the whole
+Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather in
+this church. A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way.
+Newton might believe it as a Christian, and disbelieve it as a
+philosopher. We stand then with the philosopher against the
+Christian, for we must believe what is true to us in the last test,
+and these things are not true."</p>
+<p>Second. Rev. Dr. Thomas.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Old Testament?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "My opinion is that it is not one book, but
+many&mdash;thirty-nine books bound up in one. The date and
+authorship of most of these books are wholly unknown. The Hebrews
+wrote without vowels, and without dividing the letters into
+syllables, words, or sentences. The books were gathered up by Ezra.
+At that time only two of the Jewish tribes remained. All progress
+has ceased. In gathering up the sacred book, copyists exercised
+great liberty in making changes and additions."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament
+inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "There maybe the inspiration of art, of poetry,
+or oratory; of patriotism&mdash;and there are such inspirations.
+There are moments when great truths and principles come to men.
+They seek the man, and not the man them."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible
+inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "But still I know of no way to convince anyone of
+spirit, and inspiration, and God, only as his reason may take hold
+of these things."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the Old Testament true?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "The story of Eden may be an allegory. The
+history of the children of Israel may have mistakes."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Must inspiration claim infallibility? Answer.
+"It is a mistake to say that if you believe one part of the Bible
+you must believe all. Some of the thirty-nine books may be
+inspired, others not; or there may be degrees of inspiration."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers
+to kill the children and the married women, and save for
+themselves, the maidens, as recorded in <i>Numbers xxxi, 2</i>,</p>
+<p>Do you believe that God upheld slavery?</p>
+<p>Do you believe that God upheld polygamy?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "The Bible may be wrong in some statements. God
+and right cannot be wrong. We must not exalt the Bible above God.
+It may be that we have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby
+given not a little occasion for such men as Mr. Ingersoll to appear
+at the other extreme, denying too much."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What then shall be done?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "We must take a middle ground. It is not
+necessary to believe that the bears devoured the forty-two
+children, nor that Jonah was swallowed by the whale."</p>
+<p>Third. Rev. Dr. Kohler.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion about the Old
+Testament?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I will not make futile attempts of artificially
+interpreting the letter of the Bible so as to make it reflect the
+philosophical, moral and scientific views of our time. The Bible is
+a sacred record of humanity's childhood."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Are you an orthodox Christian?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned backward to
+a ruined temple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming like Lot's
+wife, a pillar of salt."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you really believe the Old Testament was
+inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men
+like Voltaire and Thomas Paine, whose bold denial and cutting wit
+were so instrumental in bringing about this glorious era of
+freedom, so congenial and blissful, particularly to the long-abused
+Jewish race."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe in the inspiration of the
+Bible?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "Of course there is a destructive axe needed to
+strike down the old building in order to make room for the grander
+new. The divine origin claimed by the Hebrews for their national
+literature, was claimed by all nations for their old records and
+laws as preserved by the priesthood. As Moses, the Hebrew
+law-giver, is represented as having received the law from God on
+the holy mountain, so is Zoroaster the Persian, Manu the Hindoo,
+Minos the Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and Numa the Roman."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe all the stories in the
+Bible?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "All that can and must be said against them is
+that they have been too long retained around the arms and limbs of
+grown-up manhood, to check the spiritual progress of religion; that
+by Jewish ritualism and Christian dogmatism they became fetters
+unto the soul, turning the light of heaven into a misty haze to
+blind the eye, and even into a hell-fire of fanaticism to consume
+souls."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Bible inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "True, the Bible is not free from errors, nor is
+any work of man and time. It abounds in childish views and
+offensive matter. I trust that it will in a time not far off be
+presented for common use in families, schools, synagogues and
+churches, in a refined shape, cleansed from all dross and chaff,
+and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer delights to dwell."</p>
+<p>Fourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Bible true?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The question
+is not, is the Bible inspired, but is it true?' That sounds very
+plausible, but you know as applied to <i>any ancient book</i> it is
+simply nonsense."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think the stories in the Bible
+exaggerated?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I dare say the numbers are immensely
+exaggerated."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that God upheld polygamy?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "The truth of which simply is, that four thousand
+years ago polygamy existed among the Jews, as everywhere else on
+earth then, and even their prophets did not come to the idea of its
+being wrong. <i>But what is there to be indignant</i> about in
+that?"</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. And so you really wonder why any man should be
+indignant at the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that
+beastliness called polygamy?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "What is there to be indignant about in
+that?"</p>
+<p>Fifth. Prof. Swing.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your idea of the Bible?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "I think it is a poem."</p>
+<p>Sixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. And what is your idea of the sacred
+Scriptures?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "Like other nations, the Hebrews had their
+patriotic, descriptive, didactic and lyrical poems in the same
+varieties as other nations; but with them, unlike other nations,
+whatever may be the form of their poetry, it always possesses the
+characteristic of religion."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. I suppose you fully appreciate the religious
+characteristics of the Song of Solomon.</p>
+<p>No answer.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Does the Bible uphold polygamy?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> "The law of Moses did not forbid it, but
+contained many provisions against its worst abuses, and such as
+were intended to restrict it within narrow limits."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. So you think God corrected some of the worst
+abuses of polygamy, but preserved the institution itself?</p>
+<p>I might question many others, but have concluded not to consider
+those as members of my Bible Class who deal in calumnies and
+epithets. From the so-called "replies" of such ministers, it
+appears that while Christianity changes the heart, it does not
+improve the manners, and that one can get into heaven in the next
+world without having been a gentleman in this.</p>
+<p>It is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling
+satisfaction I have experienced in reading the admissions of the
+clergy of Chicago. Surely, the battle of intellectual liberty is
+almost won, when ministers admit that the Bible is filled with
+ignorant and cruel mistakes; that each man has the right to think
+for himself, and that it is not necessary to believe the Scriptures
+in order to be saved. From the bottom of my heart I congratulate my
+pupils on the advance they have made, and hope soon to meet them on
+the serene heights of perfect freedom.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<p>Washington, D. C., May 7, 1879.</p>
+<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.
+</pre>
+<p>THE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev.
+David Walk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev.
+D. O'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as
+described in the Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?&mdash;Rev. David
+Walk.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> In all probability, there was a man by the name
+of Jesus Christ, who was, in his day and generation, a
+reformer&mdash;a man who was infinitely shocked at the religion of
+Jehovah&mdash;who became almost insane with pity as he contemplated
+the sufferings of the weak, the poor, and the ignorant at the hands
+of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and bloodthirsty church. It
+is no wonder that such a man predicted the downfall of the temple.
+In all probability, he hated, at last, every pillar and stone in
+it, and despised even the "Holy of Holies." This man, of course,
+like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion he held in
+his youth. He changed his views from time to time&mdash;fanned the
+spark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon
+extended and widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and
+better man.</p>
+<p>I find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In
+some portions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious
+Jew. When he says that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because
+it is God's holy city, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond
+that expression. So, too, when it is recorded that he drove the
+money changers from the temple. This, had it happened, would have
+been the act simply of one who had respect for this temple and not
+for the religion taught in it.</p>
+<p>It would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in
+the religion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he
+wished to reform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its
+enormity, he devoted his life to its destruction. This view shows
+that he "increased in stature and grew in knowledge."</p>
+<p>This view is also supported by the fact that, at first,
+according to the account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel
+was not for the Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more
+patriotism than philosophy. In my own opinion, he was driven to
+like the Gentiles by the persecution he endured at home. He found,
+as every Freethinker now finds, that there are many saints not in
+churches and many devils not out.</p>
+<p>The character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in
+the Gospels, depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one
+endeavored to make a Christ to suit himself. So that Christ, after
+all, is a growth; and since the Gospels were finished, millions of
+men have been adding to and changing the character of Christ.</p>
+<p>There is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is
+that the Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take
+it for granted that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the
+reason that he quotes none of them. There is also this remarkable
+fact: Paul quotes none of the miracles of the New Testament. He
+says not one word about the multitude being fed miraculously, not
+one word about the resurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son.
+He had never heard of the lame, the halt, and the blind that had
+been cured; or if he had, he did not think these incidents of
+enough importance to be embalmed in an epistle.</p>
+<p>So we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the
+four Gospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four
+Gospels were not written until after the Epistles, and nothing can
+be more certain than that the early Christians knew nothing of what
+we call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these
+things have been growths. At first it was believed that Christ was
+a direct descendant from David. At that time the disciples of
+Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was expected through the
+blood of David.&mdash;For that reason, the genealogy of Joseph, a
+descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after, that
+the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the son
+of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given,
+believed that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did
+they give the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related
+to David? In other words, why should the son of God attempt to get
+glory out of the fact that he had in his veins the blood of a
+barbarian king? There is only one answer to this. The Jews expected
+the Messiah through David, and in order to prove that Christ was
+the Messiah, they gave the genealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea
+became popularized that Christ was the son of God, and then were
+interpolated the words "as was supposed" in the genealogy of
+Christ. It was a long time before the disciples became great enough
+to include the world in their scheme, and before they thought it
+proper to tell the "glad tidings of great joy" beyond the limits of
+Judea.</p>
+<p>My own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether
+he lived in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is
+worth its example, its moral force, its benevolence, its
+self-denial and heroism. It is of no earthly importance whether he
+changed water into wine or not. All his miracles are simply dust
+and darkness compared with what he actually said and actually did.
+We should be kind to each other whether Lazarus was raised or not.
+We should be just and forgiving whether Christ lived or not. All
+the miracles in the world are of no use to virtue, morality, or
+justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to ignorance, to fear and
+folly.</p>
+<p>Neither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They
+are worth the truth that is in them and no more.</p>
+<p>The words of Paul are often quoted, that "all scripture is given
+by inspiration of God." Of course that could not have applied to
+anything written after that time. It could have applied only to the
+Scriptures then written and then known. It is perfectly clear that
+the four Gospels were not at that time written, and therefore this
+statement of Paul's does not apply to the four Gospels. Neither
+does it apply to anything written after that statement was written.
+Neither does it apply to that statement. If it applied to anything
+it was the Old Testament, and not the New.</p>
+<p>Christ has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of
+the miraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human,
+he will have gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I
+think of him as I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus,
+of Bruno. I place him with the great, the generous, the
+self-denying of the earth, and for the man Christ, I feel only
+admiration and respect. I think he was in many things mistaken. His
+reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect. He seemed to believe
+that his father in heaven would protect him. He thought that if God
+clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he provided for the
+sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just and loving man.
+In this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death, overwhelmed,
+he cried out: "Why hast thou forsaken me?"</p>
+<p>I do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever
+claimed to be inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I
+believe that he was an honest man. These claims were all put in his
+mouth by others&mdash;by mistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers,
+by zealous and credulous followers, and sometimes by dishonest and
+designing priests. This has happened to all the great men of the
+world. All historical characters are, in part, deformed or reformed
+by fiction. There was a man by the name of George Washington, but
+no such George Washington ever existed as we find portrayed in
+history. The historical C&aelig;sar never lived. The historical
+Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism to
+rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish
+to find the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the
+Olympian gods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far
+greater than Christ the god.</p>
+<p>To me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said
+nothing as to the obligation man is under to his country, nothing
+as to the rights of the people as against the wish and will of
+kings, nothing against the frightful system of human
+slavery&mdash;almost universal in his time. What he did not say is
+altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is marvelous
+that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing
+about education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature,
+nothing about art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to
+offer a reward to those who would desert their wives and families.
+Of course, I do not believe that he said the words that were
+attributed to him, in which a reward is offered to any man who will
+desert his kindred. But if we take the account given in the four
+Gospels as the true account, then Christ did offer a reward to a
+father who would desert his children. It has always been contended
+that he was a perfect example of mankind, and yet he never married.
+As a result of what he did not teach in connection with what he did
+teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm in polygamy.
+They belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of the
+next. They consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while
+he would exchange his chains for wings. They comforted the captive
+by saying that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for the
+bowers of Paradise. His followers believed that he had said that
+"Whosoever believeth not shall be damned." This passage was the
+cross upon which intellectual liberty was crucified.</p>
+<p>If Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how
+to cure disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free;
+if he had crowned the people with their rightful power; if he had
+placed the home above the church; if he had broken all the mental
+chains; if he had flooded all the caves and dens of fear with
+light, and filled the future with a common joy, he would in truth
+have been the Savior of this world.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the difference between
+the Christian and other modern civilizations?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I account for the difference between men by the
+difference in their ancestry and surroundings&mdash;the difference
+in soil, climate, food, and employment. There would be no
+civilization in England were it not for the Gulf Stream. There
+would have been very little here had it not been for the discovery
+of Columbus. And even now on this continent there would be but
+little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask: How do you
+account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was the
+greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the
+Egyptian religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time
+when the civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that
+prove that Vishnu was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual
+world for centuries. Does that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was
+the creator of heaven and earth? The same may be said of Rome.
+There was a time when Rome governed the world, and yet I have
+always had my doubts as to the truth of the Roman mythology. As a
+matter of fact, Rome was far better than any Christian nation ever
+was to the end of the seventeenth century. A thousand years of
+Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest of Rome. There
+were no poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no philosophers as
+great as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors like Marcus
+Aurelius, no women like the mothers of Rome.</p>
+<p>The civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but
+it has never been increased by any form of superstition. When
+America was discovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it
+would have, for instance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake
+Michigan put the other side of it. The Mediterranean lost its
+trade. The centers of commerce became deserted. The prow of the
+world turned westward, and, as a result, France, England, and all
+countries bordering on the Atlantic became prosperous. The world
+has really been civilized by discoverers&mdash;by thinkers. The man
+who invented powder, and by that means released hundreds of
+thousands of men from the occupations of war, did more for mankind
+than religion. The inventor of paper&mdash;and he was not a
+Christian&mdash;did more than all the early fathers for mankind.
+The inventors of plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the
+inventors of wagons, coaches, locomotives; the inventors of skiffs,
+sail-vessels, steamships; the men who have made looms&mdash;in
+short, the inventors of all useful things&mdash;they are the
+civilizers taken in connection with the great thinkers, the poets,
+the musicians, the actors, the painters, the sculptors. The men who
+have invented the useful, and the men who have made the useful
+beautiful, are the real civilizers of mankind.</p>
+<p>The priests, in all ages, have been
+hindrances&mdash;stumbling-blocks. They have prevented man from
+using his reason. They have told ghost stories to courage until
+courage became fear. They have done all in their power to keep men
+from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a state of
+childhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good and
+wise. They have always known that their reputation for wisdom
+depended upon the ignorance of the people.</p>
+<p>I account for the civilization of France by such men as
+Voltaire. He did good by assisting to destroy the church. Luther
+did good exactly in the same way. He did harm in building another
+church. I account, in part, for the civilization of England by the
+fact that she had interests greater than the church could control;
+and by the further fact that her greatest men cared nothing for the
+church. I account in part for the civilization of America by the
+fact that our fathers were wise enough, and jealous of each other
+enough, to absolutely divorce church and state. They regarded the
+church as a dangerous mistress&mdash;one not fit to govern a
+president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson and
+Paine were at that time prominent in the councils of the people.
+There is this peculiarity in our country&mdash;the only men who can
+be trusted with human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels
+hereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners have an
+opportunity to be heard.</p>
+<p>Neither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in
+the world. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country
+was visited by Christians, and they are now used only in those
+ports where Christians are allowed to enter. It has often been
+claimed that there is but one way to make a man temperate, and that
+is by making him a Christian; and this is claimed in face of the
+fact that Christian nations are the most intemperate in the world.
+For nearly thirteen centuries the followers of Mohammed have been
+absolute teetotalers&mdash;not one drunkard under the flag of the
+star and crescent. Wherever, in Turkey, a man is seen under the
+influence of liquor, they call him a Christian. You must also
+remember that almost every Christian nation has held slaves. Only a
+few years ago England was engaged in the slave trade. A little
+while before that our Puritan ancestors sold white Quaker children
+in the Barbadoes, and traded them for rum, sugar, and negro slaves.
+Even now the latest champion of Christianity upholds slavery,
+polygamy, and wars of extermination.</p>
+<p>Sometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether
+perfect. When I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation,
+and of the many who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the
+depravity of the great cities; of the starvation in the
+manufacturing centers of Great Britain, and, in fact, of all
+Europe; when I see women working like beasts of burden, and little
+children deprived, not simply of education, but of air, light and
+food, there is a suspicion in my mind that Christian civilization
+is not a complete and overwhelming success.</p>
+<p>After all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we
+have made, by the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For
+the future I rely upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the
+intellect. I rely upon labor; upon human interests in this world;
+upon the love of wife and children and home. I do not rely upon
+sacred books, but upon good men and women. I do not rely upon
+superstition, but upon knowledge; not upon miracles, but upon
+facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living; and when we become
+absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the superstitions of
+the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.</p>
+<p>Neither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are
+pleased to call "the heathen." Honest commerce is the great
+civilizer. We exchange ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort
+to force a religion upon the people always ends in war. Commerce,
+founded upon mutual advantage, makes peace. An honest merchant is
+better than a missionary.</p>
+<p>Spain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization,
+and yet, for hundreds of years, that government was simply an
+organized crime. When one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks
+of the invasion of the New World, the persecution in the
+Netherlands, the expulsion of the Jews, and the Inquisition. Even
+to-day, the Christian nations of Europe preserve themselves from
+each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a standing army of six
+hundred thousand men, France a half million, and all their
+neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized. They
+are in the enjoyment of Christian governments&mdash;have their
+hundreds of a thousands of ministers, and the land covered with
+cathedrals and churches&mdash;and yet every nation is nearly
+beggared by keeping armies in the field. Christian kings have no
+confidence in the promises of each other. What they call peace is
+the little time necessarily spent in reloading their guns. England
+has hundreds of ships of war to protect her commerce from other
+Christians, and to force China to open her ports to the opium
+trade. Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in one of
+his dispatches to the English government, used substantially the
+following language: "England regards the opium question simply as
+one of trade, but to China, it has a moral aspect." Think of
+Christian England carrying death and desolation to hundreds of
+thousands in the name of trade. Then think of heathen China
+protesting in the name of morality. At the same time England has
+the impudence to send missionaries to China.</p>
+<p>What has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the
+public peace in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so
+alienated nations, nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of
+mankind, as what has been known as religion. The idea that all men
+must worship the same God, believe the same dogmas, has for
+thousands of years plucked with bloody hands the flower of pity
+from the human heart.</p>
+<p>Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the
+skies. It is not a result of "inspiration." It is the child of
+invention, of discovery, of applied knowledge&mdash;that is to say,
+of science. When man becomes great and grand enough to admit that
+all have equal rights; when thought is untrammeled; when worship
+shall consist in doing useful things; when religion means the
+discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then, and not until
+then, will the world be civilized.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Since Laplace and other most distinguished
+astronomers hold to the theory that the earth was originally in a
+gaseous state, and then a molten mass in which the germs, even, of
+vegetable or animal life, could not exist, how do you account for
+the origin of life on this planet without a "Creator"?&mdash;Dr. T.
+B. Taylor.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Whether or not "the earth was originally in a
+gaseous state and afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of
+vegetable and animal life could not exist," I do not know. My
+belief is that the earth as it is, and as it was, taken in
+connection with the influence of the sun, and of other planets,
+produced whatever has existed or does exist on the earth. I do not
+see why gas would not need a "creator" as much as a vegetable.
+Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for some one
+to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now
+portions of the world in which there is not one particle of
+vegetable life. It may be that on the wide waste fields of the
+Arctic zone there are places where no vegetable life exists, and
+there may be many thousand miles where no animal life can be found.
+But if the poles of the earth could be changed, and if the Arctic
+zone could be placed in a different relative position to the sun,
+the snows would melt, the hills would appear, and in a little while
+even the rocks would be clothed with vegetation. After a time
+vegetation would produce more soil, and in a few thousand years
+forests would be filled with beasts and birds.</p>
+<p>I think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account
+for the origin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have
+come from some meteoric stone falling from some other planet having
+in it the germs of life. What would you think of a farmer who would
+prepare his land and wait to have it planted by meteoric stones?
+So, what would you think of a Deity who would make a world like
+this, and allow it to whirl thousands and millions of years, barren
+as a gravestone, waiting for some vagrant comet to sow the seeds of
+life?</p>
+<p>I believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of
+the vegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that
+crystallization is the first step toward what we call life, and yet
+I believe life is back of that. In my judgment, if the earth ever
+was in a gaseous state, it was filled with life. These are subjects
+about which we know but little. How do you account for chemistry?
+How do you account for the fact that just so many particles of one
+kind seek the society of just so many particles of another, and
+when they meet they instantly form a glad and lasting union? How do
+you know but atoms have love and hatred? How do you know that the
+vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that crystallization itself
+is not an expression of delight? How do you know that a vine
+bursting into flower does not feel a thrill? We find sex in the
+meanest weeds&mdash;how can you say they have no loves?</p>
+<p>After all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The
+difficulty is not thus solved. You leave your creator as much in
+need of a creator as anything your creator is supposed to have
+created. The bottom of your stairs rests on nothing, and the top of
+your stairs leans upon nothing. You have reached no solution.</p>
+<p>The word "God" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as
+we can, and we say the rest of the way is "God." We look as far as
+we can, and beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we
+know but blindness, we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal
+segment of a circle, and we say the rest is "God."</p>
+<p>Man must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one
+knows the origin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind.
+The whence and the whither are questions that no man can answer. In
+the presence of these questions all intellects are upon a level.
+The barbarian knows exactly the same as the scientist, the fool as
+the philosopher. Only those who think that they have had some
+supernatural information pretend to answer these questions, and the
+unknowable, the impossible, the unfathomable, is the realm wholly
+occupied by the "inspired."</p>
+<p>We are satisfied that all organized things must have had a
+beginning, but we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be.
+Forms change, but substance remains eternally the same. A beginning
+of substance is unthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of
+anything commencing to exist <i>without</i> a cause as <i>with</i>
+a cause. There must be something for cause to operate upon. Cause
+operating upon nothing&mdash;were such a thing possible&mdash;would
+produce nothing. There can be no relation between cause and
+nothing. We can understand how things can be arranged, joined or
+separated&mdash;and how relations can be changed or destroyed, but
+we cannot conceive of creation&mdash;of nothing being changed into
+something, nor of something being made&mdash;except from
+preexisting materials.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in
+the affirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of
+man after death&mdash;which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained
+by the phenomena of the nineteenth century&mdash;what further
+evidence should thoughtful people require in order to settle the
+question, "Does death end all?"</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I admit that in all ages men have believed in
+spooks and ghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves
+nothing. Men have for thousands of ages believed the impossible,
+and worshiped the absurd. Our ancestors have worshiped snakes and
+birds and beasts. I do not admit that any ghost ever existed. I
+know that no miracle was ever performed except in imagination; and
+what you are pleased to call the "phenomena of the nineteenth
+century," I fear are on an exact equality with the phenomena of the
+Dark Ages.</p>
+<p>We do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows
+the origin of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he
+thinks, any more than one knows why or how his heart beats. People,
+I imagine, have always had dreams. In dreams they often met persons
+whom they knew to be dead, and it may be that much of the
+philosophy of the present was born of dreams. I cannot admit that
+anything supernatural ever has happened or ever will happen. I
+cannot admit the truth of what you call the "phenomena of the
+nineteenth century," if by such "phenomena" you mean the
+reappearance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future
+state, because I do not know. Neither do I aver that there is one,
+because I do not know. Upon this question I am simply honest. I
+find that people who believe in immortality&mdash;or at least those
+who say they do&mdash;are just as afraid of death as anybody else.
+I find that the most devout Christian weeps as bitterly above his
+dead, as the man who says that death ends all. You see the promises
+are so far away, and the dead are so near. Still, I do not say that
+man is not immortal; but I do say that there is nothing in the
+Bible to show that he is. The Old Testament has not a word upon the
+subject&mdash;except to show us how we lost immortality. According
+to that book, man was driven from the Garden of Eden, lest he
+should put forth his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree of life
+and live forever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us how we
+lost immortality. In the New Testament we are told to seek for
+immortality, and it is also stated that "God alone hath
+immortality."</p>
+<p>There is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists:
+The Spiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the
+miracles of the New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the
+story about the witch of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at
+the Spiritualists for believing that the same kind of things happen
+now. As a matter of fact, the Spiritualists have the best of it,
+because their witnesses are now living, whereas the Christians take
+simply the word of the dead&mdash;of men they never saw and of men
+about whom they know nothing. The Spiritualist, at least, takes the
+testimony of men and women that he can cross-examine. It would seem
+as if these gentlemen ought to make common cause. Then the
+Christians could prove their miracles by the Spiritualists, and the
+Spiritualists could prove their "phenomena" by the Christians.</p>
+<p>I believe that thoughtful people require some additional
+testimony in order to settle the question, "Does death end all?" If
+the dead return to this world they should bring us information of
+value.</p>
+<p>There are thousands of questions that studious historians and
+savants are endeavoring to settle&mdash;questions of history, of
+philosophy, of law, of art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought
+to be able to shed a flood of light. All the questions of the past
+ought to be settled. Some modern ghosts ought to get acquainted
+with some of the Pharaohs, and give us an outline of the history of
+Egypt. They ought to be able to read the arrow-headed writing and
+all the records of the past. The hieroglyphics of all ancient
+peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts and facts that have been
+imprisoned for so many thousand years should be released and once
+again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought to be able
+to give us the history of buried cities. They should clothe with
+life the dust of all the past. If they could only bring us valuable
+information; if they could only tell us about some steamer in
+distress so that succor could be sent; if they could only do
+something useful, the world would cheerfully accept their theories
+and admit their "facts." I think that thoughtful people have the
+right to demand such evidence. I would like to have the spirits
+give us the history of all the books of the New Testament and tell
+us who first told of the miracles. If they could give us the
+history of any religion, or nation, or anything, I should have far
+more confidence in the "phenomena of the nineteenth century."</p>
+<p>There is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is,
+they are liberal. They give to others the rights they claim for
+themselves. They do not pollute their souls with the dogma of
+eternal pain. They do not slander and persecute even those who deny
+their "phenomena." But I cannot admit that they have furnished
+conclusive evidence that death does not end all. Beyond the horizon
+of this life we have not seen. From the mysterious beyond no
+messenger has come to me.</p>
+<p>For the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future
+a single star. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How, when, where, and by whom was our present
+calendar originated,&mdash;that is "Anno Domini,"&mdash;and what
+event in the history of the nations does it establish as a fact, if
+not the birth of Jesus of Nazareth?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I have already said, in answer to a question by
+another gentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and
+we now date from somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about
+his having been born on Christmas, because in reading other
+religions, I find that that time has been celebrated for thousands
+of years, and the cause of it is this:</p>
+<p>About the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After
+that the days begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for
+many centuries in most nations they had a festival in commemoration
+of that event. The Christians, I presume, adopted this day, and
+made the birth of Christ fit it. Three months afterward&mdash;the
+21st of March&mdash;the days and nights again become equal, and the
+day then begins to lengthen. For centuries the nations living in
+the temperate zones have held festivals to commemorate the coming
+of spring&mdash;the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud and flower. This
+is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians adopted that
+in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a matter of
+fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend to
+show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth
+or resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly
+the other way.</p>
+<p>While we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to
+say that we get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we
+obtained our ideas of algebra. The higher mathematics came to us
+from the same source. So from the Arabs we receive chemistry, and
+our first true notions of geography. They gave us also paper and
+cotton.</p>
+<p>Owing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in
+the exact time of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter,
+and owing to the fact that it was a long time before any near
+approach was made to the actual time, all calendars after awhile
+became too inaccurate for general use, and they were from time to
+time changed.</p>
+<p>Right here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the
+monuments and festivals in the world are not sufficient to
+establish an impossible event. No amount of monumental testimony,
+no amount of living evidence, can substantiate a miracle. The
+monument only proves the <i>belief</i> of the builders.</p>
+<p>If we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and
+festivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated.
+Turkey is filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in
+such festivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such
+celebration does not even tend to prove that God, by his special
+providence, protected Washington from the arrows of an Indian. The
+Hebrews celebrate what is called the Passover, but this celebration
+does not even tend to prove that the angel of the Lord put blood on
+the door-posts in Egypt. The Mohammedans celebrate to-day the
+flight of Mohammed, but that does not tend to prove that Mohammed
+was inspired and was a prophet of God.</p>
+<p>Nobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a
+monument. Monuments simply prove that people endeavor to
+substantiate truths and falsehoods by the same means.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest
+for the present, how do you account for the hell here&mdash;namely,
+the existence of pain? There are people who, by no fault of their
+own, are at this present time in misery. If for these there is no
+life to come, their existence is a mistake; but if there is a life
+to come, it may be that the sequel to the acts of the play to come
+will justify the pain and misery of this present time?&mdash;Rev.
+Myron W. Reed.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> There are four principal theories:</p>
+<p><i>First</i>&mdash;That there is behind the universe a being of
+infinite power and wisdom, kindness, and justice.</p>
+<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;That the universe has existed from eternity,
+and that it is the only eternal existence, and that behind it is no
+creator.</p>
+<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;That there is a God who made the universe,
+but who is not all-powerful and who is, under the circumstances,
+doing the best he can.</p>
+<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;That there is an all-powerful God who made
+the universe, and that there is also a nearly all-powerful devil,
+and this devil ravels about as fast as this God knits.</p>
+<p>By the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to
+account for the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a
+malevolent being with power enough, and with cunning enough, to
+frequently circumvent God, the problem of evil becomes solved so
+far as this world is concerned. But why this being was evil is
+still unsolved; why the devil is malevolent is still a mystery.
+Consequently you will have to go back of this world, on that
+theory, to account for the origin of evil. If this devil always
+existed, then, of course, the universe at one time was inhabited
+only by this God and this devil.</p>
+<p>If the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that
+God does not see to it that justice is always done.</p>
+<p>If the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from
+eternity, and is without a creator, then we must account for the
+existence of evil and good, not by personalities behind the
+universe, but by the nature of things.</p>
+<p>If there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all,
+it seems to me that he should have made a world in which innocence
+should be a sufficient shield. He should have made a world where
+the just man should have nothing to fear.</p>
+<p>My belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled
+with wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must
+protect ourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our
+conflict with these obstacles, with each other, and with what may
+be called the forces of nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in
+nature that like begets like; that man gives his constitution, at
+least in part, to his children; that weakness and strength are in
+some degree both hereditary. This is a fact in nature. I do not
+hold any god responsible for this fact&mdash;filled as it is with
+pain and joy. But it seems to me that an infinite God should so
+have arranged matters that the bad would not pass&mdash;that it
+would die with its possessor&mdash;that the good should survive,
+and that the man should give to his son, not the result of his
+vices, but the fruit of his virtues.</p>
+<p>I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better
+in another world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to
+prevail here, why will he not allow the same thing in the world to
+come? If there is any being with power to prevent it, why is crime
+permitted? If a man standing upon the railway should ascertain that
+a bridge had been carried off by a flood, and if he also knew that
+the train was coming filled with men, women, and children; with
+husbands going to their wives, and wives rejoining their families;
+if he made no effort to stop that train; if he simply sat down by
+the roadside to witness the catastrophe, and so remained until the
+train dashed off the precipice, and its load of life became a mass
+of quivering flesh, he would be denounced by every good man as the
+most monstrous of human beings. And yet this is exactly what the
+supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees the train rushing to the
+gulf. He gives no notice. He sees the ship rushing for the hidden
+rock. He makes no sign. And he so constructed the world that
+assassins lurk in the air&mdash;hide even in the sunshine&mdash;and
+when we imagine that we are breathing the breath of life, we are
+taking into ourselves the seeds of death.</p>
+<p>There are two facts inconsistent in my mind&mdash;a martyr and a
+God. Injustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven
+impossible.</p>
+<p>I would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of
+happiness hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from
+them the fear of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible
+for me to explain the facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit
+the existence of an infinite Being. I find in this world that
+physical and mental evils afflict the good. It seems to me that I
+have the same reason to expect the bad to be rewarded hereafter. I
+have no right to suppose that infinite wisdom will ever know any
+more, or that infinite benevolence will increase in kindness, or
+that the justice of the eternal can change. If, then, this eternal
+being allows the good to suffer pain here, what right have we to
+say that he will not allow them to suffer forever?</p>
+<p>Some people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for
+the production of self-denying men and women&mdash;that is, for the
+production of character. The statistics show that a large majority
+die under five years of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster
+who killed the most of his pupils the first day? If this doctrine
+is true, and if manhood cannot be produced in heaven, those who die
+in childhood are infinitely unfortunate.</p>
+<p>I admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still,
+all pain, all misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there
+is an infinitely wise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then
+everything that happens must be for the best. That philosophy of
+special providence, going to the extreme, is infinitely better than
+most of the Christian creeds. There seems to be no half-way house
+between special providence and atheism. You know some of the
+Buddhists say that when a man commits murder, that is the best
+thing he could have done, and that to be murdered was the best
+thing that could have happened to the killed. They insist that
+every step taken is the necessary step and the best step; that
+crimes are as necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and
+virtue is finally the same.</p>
+<p>But whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by
+the facts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and
+disease are hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn
+truth rises the religion of the body. Every man should refuse to
+increase the misery of this world. And it may be that the time will
+come when man will be great enough and grand enough utterly to
+refrain from the propagation of disease and deformity, and when
+only the healthy will be fathers and mothers. We do know that the
+misery in this world can be lessened; consequently I believe in the
+religion of this world. And whether there is a heaven or hell here,
+or hereafter, every good man has enough to do to make this world a
+little better than it is. Millions of lives are wasted in the vain
+effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny of man. This
+world has been neglected. We have been taught that life should be
+merely a preparation for death.</p>
+<p>To avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the
+accomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead
+of faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by
+ignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. State with what words you can comfort those who
+have, by their own fault, or by the fault of others, found this
+life not worth living?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> If there is no life beyond this, and so believing
+I come to the bedside of the dying&mdash;of one whose life has been
+a failure&mdash;a "life not worth living," I could at least say to
+such an one, "Your failure ends with your death. Beyond the tomb
+there is nothing for you&mdash;neither pain nor misery, neither
+grief nor joy." But if I were a good orthodox Christen, then I
+would have to say to this man, "Your life has been a failure; you
+have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended
+eternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you
+will be a failure forever."</p>
+<p>Admitting that there is another world, and that the man's life
+had been a failure in this, then I should say to him, "If you live
+again, you will have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will
+be no time, no date, no matter how many millions and billions of
+ages may have passed away, at which you will not have the
+opportunity of doing right."</p>
+<p>Under no circumstances could I consistently say to this man:
+"Although your life has been a failure; although you have made
+hundreds and thousands of others suffer; although you have deceived
+and betrayed the woman who loved you; although you have murdered
+your benefactor; still, if you will now repent and believe a
+something that is unreasonable or reasonable to your mind, you
+will, at the moment of death, be transferred to a world of eternal
+joy." This I could not say. I would tell him, "If you die a bad man
+here, you will commence the life to come with the same character
+you leave this. Character cannot be made by another for you. You
+must be the architect of your own." There is to me unspeakably more
+comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than that it is
+to be perpetuated forever.</p>
+<p>How can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died
+without believing in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity
+to wipe away her tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the
+mother whose brave boy fell in defence of his country, she knowing
+and you knowing, that the boy was not a Christian, that he did not
+believe in the Bible, and had no faith in the blood of the
+atonement? What words of comfort have you for such fathers and for
+such mothers?</p>
+<p>To me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea
+that this life is a probationary state&mdash;that the few moments
+spent here decide the fate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be
+conceived more merciless, more unjust. I am doing all I can to
+destroy that doctrine. I want, if possible, to get the shadow of
+hell from the human heart.</p>
+<p>Why has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of
+infinite wisdom and kindness, why does he make failures? What
+excuse has infinite wisdom for peopling the world with savages? Why
+should one feel grateful to God for having made him with a poor,
+weak and diseased brain; for having allowed him to be the heir of
+consumption, of scrofula, or of insanity? Why should one thank God,
+who lived and died a slave?</p>
+<p>After all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute
+truth? Is it not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to
+convey comfort through falsehood? People must reap not only what
+they sow, but what others have sown. The people of the whole world
+are united in spite of themselves.</p>
+<p>Next to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is
+to enjoy an immortality of delight&mdash;next to that, is to assure
+him that a place of eternal punishment does not exist.</p>
+<p>After all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and
+splendid sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made
+no exception in favor of man. To the greatest, to the most
+successful, there comes a time when the fevered lips of life long
+for the cool, delicious kiss of death&mdash;when, tired of the dust
+and glare of day, they hear with joy the rustling garments of the
+night.</p>
+<p>Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends.
+Their views in regard to the question of a future life, and the
+existence of a God, were in perfect accord. They said:</p>
+<p>"'We know so little about these matters that we are not
+justified in giving them any serious consideration. Our motto and
+rule of life shall be for each one to make himself as comfortable
+as he can, and enjoy every pleasure within his reach, not allowing
+himself to be influenced at all by thoughts of a future life.'</p>
+<p>"Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a
+time when no human eye saw him&mdash;and he had no belief in a
+God&mdash;Jonathan stole every dollar of his friend's wealth,
+leaving him penniless. He had no fear, no remorse; no one saw him
+do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed life immensely, lived in
+contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old age he went the way
+of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were against him.</p>
+<p>"His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent,
+dissatisfied with mankind and with himself, until at last, overcome
+by misfortune, and depressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest
+in painless suicide."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What are we to think of the rule of life laid
+down by these men? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is
+there no remedy to correct such irregularities?&mdash;Rev. D.
+O'Donaghue.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain
+strange ideas as to right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald
+Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate concluded to make themselves as
+comfortable as they could and enjoy every pleasure within their
+reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue states that one of the pleasures
+within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to steal what little money Mr.
+Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman think that Mr. Newgate
+made or could make himself comfortable in that way? He tells us
+that Mr. Newgate "had no remorse,"&mdash;that he "became rich and
+enjoyed life immensely,"&mdash;that he "lived in contentment and
+pleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all
+flesh."</p>
+<p>Does the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal
+without fear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can
+enjoy the fruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and
+happy life, that one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow
+and delightful old age? Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr.
+O'Donaghue?</p>
+<p>And right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.
+O'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without
+remorse, to enjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And
+why did he allow Mr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in
+penury and discontent, until at last, overcome by misfortune, he
+sought rest in suicide? Does the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say
+that if there is no future life it is wise to steal in this? If the
+grave is the eternal home, would the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise
+people to commit crimes in order that they may enjoy this life?
+Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God or not, truth is
+better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or hell, honesty
+is always the best policy. There is no world, and can be none,
+where vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of
+joy.</p>
+<p>According to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more
+fortunate than Mr. Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a
+robber, and I had rather be of such a disposition that I would be
+driven to suicide by misfortune than to live in contentment upon
+the misfortunes of others. The reverend gentleman, however, should
+have made his question complete&mdash;he should have gone the
+entire distance. He should have added that Mr. Newgate, after
+having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly converted, joined the
+church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the very day that his
+victim committed suicide.</p>
+<p>But I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a
+fact.</p>
+<p>A young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful,
+and trustful. She belonged to no church&mdash;knew nothing about a
+future world&mdash;basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had
+been filled with gentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her
+cheeks. She believed in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no
+Bible, but loved everything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage
+murdered her. He was tried; convicted; a motion for a new trial
+overruled and a pardon refused. In his cell, in the shadow of
+death, he was converted&mdash;he became a Catholic. With the white
+lips of fear he confessed to a priest. He received the
+sacrament.</p>
+<p>He was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the
+realms of bliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the
+pains and pangs of hell.</p>
+<p>The poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while
+her murderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is
+the justice of the orthodox God.</p>
+<p>Allow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: "Is
+there no remedy to correct such irregularities?"</p>
+<p>As long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the
+Christian system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart
+and brain. Of all religious dogmas it is the most shocking,
+infamous, and absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the
+enemies of human happiness; they are the assassins of natural joy.
+Every father, every mother, every good man, every loving woman,
+should hold this doctrine in abhorrence; they should refuse to pay
+men for preaching it; they should not build churches in which this
+infamy is taught; they should teach their little children that it
+is a lie; they should take this horror from childhood's
+heart&mdash;a horror that makes the cradle as terrible as the
+coffin.</p>
+<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * Brooklyn Union, 1883.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost
+unanimously have declared that the church is suffering very little
+from the skepticism of the day, and that the influence of the
+scientific writers, whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or
+infidel, is not great; and that the books of such writers are not
+read as much as some people think they are. What is your opinion
+with regard to that subject?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> It is natural for a man to defend his business,
+to stand by his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this
+accounts for the ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the
+increase. By comparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see
+the progress that has been made. Only a few years ago men who are
+now considered quite orthodox would have been imprisoned, or at
+least mobbed, for heresy. Only a few years ago men like Huxley and
+Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would have been
+considered as the most infamous of monsters.</p>
+<p>Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The
+scientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find.
+With hat in hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a
+fossil, and asked the forgiveness of God for making any discovery
+in nature. At that time every scientific discovery was something to
+be pardoned. Moses was authority in geology, and Joshua was
+considered the first astronomer of the world. Now everything has
+changed, and everybody knows it except the clergy. Now religion is
+taking off its hat to science. Religion is finding out new meanings
+for old texts. We are told that God spoke in the language of the
+common people; that he was not teaching any science; that he
+allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them
+there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any
+question of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a
+spiritual way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the
+Bible has ceased to be regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a
+passage to settle a dispute of fact. The most intellectual men of
+the world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men of the greatest
+reputations hold all supernaturalism in contempt. Millions of
+people are reading the opinions of men who combat and deny the
+foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher than
+all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought than
+all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel
+twenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember
+when I would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick
+as autumn leaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions,
+trades, and employments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are
+not simply disbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not
+with indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and
+hundreds of thousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox
+Christianity. Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable
+contempt the doctrine of eternal punishment. The doctrine of
+atonement is regarded as absurd by millions. So with the dogma of
+imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that the
+Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the arguments of
+infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful reason: That the
+hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from reading the
+original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he cannot
+defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more
+infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the
+theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister
+who feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his
+congregation is concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He
+declares that the young people in his church don't know enough to
+have intelligent doubts, and that the old people are substantially
+in the same condition. Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a
+breastwork so strong that other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev.
+Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity should never be refuted in the
+pulpit. I admit that it never has been successfully done, but I did
+not suppose so many ministers admitted the impossibility. Mr. Foote
+is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells tells us that
+scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not be spoken
+of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling of
+security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great
+majority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about
+current infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in
+ignorance; that it would be dangerous for the Christian minister
+even to state the position of the infidel; that, after stating it,
+he might not, even with the help of God, successfully combat the
+theory. These ministers do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for
+infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke.</p>
+<p>He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He
+thinks that the church is safe because the Christians read. He
+differs with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George
+E. Reed believes that infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit.
+He has more confidence in his general and in the weapons of his
+warfare than some of his brethren. His confidence may arise from
+the fact that he has never had a discussion. The Rev. Dr.
+McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the catechism; that
+there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the brute
+force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to
+use the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the
+rod is a divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for
+their children; that mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the
+religion of universal love. The man who cannot raise children
+without whipping them ought not to have them. The man who would mar
+the flesh of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human
+being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps a relic of
+barbarism in his heart. There is nothing reformatory in punishment;
+nothing reformatory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is
+the only reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an
+abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and child upon a
+savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father
+prompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in
+the victim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is
+infamous. All this is passing away, however, with orthodox
+Christianity. That children are treated better than formerly shows
+conclusively the increase of what is called infidelity. Infidelity
+has always been a protest against tyranny in the state, against
+intolerance in the church, against barbarism in the family. It has
+always been an appeal for light, for justice, for universal
+kindness and tenderness.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that
+worldliness is the greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is
+on the increase?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I see that all the ministers you have interviewed
+regard worldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is
+worldliness? I suppose worldliness consists in paying attention to
+the affairs of this world; getting enjoyment out of this life;
+gratifying the senses, giving the ears music, the eyes painting and
+sculpture, the palate good food; cultivating the imagination;
+playing games of chance; adorning the person; developing the body;
+enriching the mind; investigating the facts by which we are
+surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking; working;
+inventing; buying; selling; hoping&mdash;all this, I suppose, is
+worldliness. These "worldly" people have cleared the forests,
+plowed the land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs,
+and have produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world.
+Yet the preachers denounce them. Were it not for "worldly" people
+how would the preachers get along? Who would build the churches?
+Who would fill the contribution boxes and plates, and who (most
+serious of all questions) would pay the salaries? It is the habit
+of the ministers to belittle men who support them&mdash;to slander
+the spirit by which they live. "It is as though the mouth should
+tear the hand that feeds it." The nobility of the Old World hold
+the honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so contemptible
+themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor. And so the
+minister pretending to be spiritual&mdash;pretending to be a
+spiritual guide&mdash;looks with contempt upon the men who make it
+possible for him to live. It may be said by "worldliness" they only
+mean enjoyment&mdash;that is, hearing music, going to the theater
+and the opera, taking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of
+the sea. Of course, ministers look upon theaters as rival
+attractions, and most of their hatred is born of business views.
+They think people ought to be driven to church by having all other
+places closed. In my judgment the theater has done good, while the
+church has done harm. The drama never has insisted upon burning
+anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On the contrary,
+upon the stage have forever been found impersonations of
+patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and these
+impersonations have always been applauded, and have been
+represented that they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites
+have been worshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to
+derision and execration. Shakespeare has done far more for the
+world than the Bible. The ministers keep talking about spirituality
+as opposed to worldliness. Nothing can be more absurd than this
+talk of spirituality. As though readers of the Bible, repeaters of
+texts, and sayers of prayers were engaged in a higher work than
+honest industry. Is there anything higher than human love? A man is
+in love with a girl, and he has determined to work for her and to
+give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is there anything
+more spiritual than that&mdash;anything higher? They marry. He
+clears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of
+this hovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few
+simple things of beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers
+call "worldliness." Is there anything more spiritual? In a little
+while, in this cabin, in this home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of
+the cradle's rock, while softly floats the lullaby upon the
+twilight air. Is there anything more spiritual, is there anything
+more infinitely tender than to see husband and wife bending, with
+clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the dimpled miracle of
+love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you love; spiritual
+to improve the physical condition of mankind&mdash;for he who
+improves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in
+the plowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of
+"Health &amp; Heresy" rather than the old partnership of "Disease
+&amp; Divinity," doing business at the old sign of the "Skull &amp;
+Crossbones." Some of the ministers that you have interviewed, or at
+least one of them, tells us the cure for worldliness. He says that
+God is sending fires, and cyclones, and things of that character
+for the purpose of making people spiritual; of calling their
+attention to the fact that everything in this world is of a
+transitory nature. The clergy have always had great faith in
+famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is a
+thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than
+for a banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the
+average Christian that thick soup has, according to Bumble, on the
+English pauper: "It makes 'em impudent." The devil made a mistake
+in not doubling Job's property instead of leaving him a pauper. In
+prosperity the ministers think that we forget death and are too
+happy. In the arms of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is
+for the moment forgotten. According to the ministers, God kills our
+children in order that we may not forget him. They imagine that the
+man who goes into Dakota, cultivates the soil and rears him a
+little home, is getting too "worldly." And so God starts a cyclone
+to scatter his home and the limbs of wife and children upon the
+desolate plains, and the ministers in Brooklyn say this is done
+because we are getting too "worldly." They think we should be more
+"spiritual;" that is to say, willing to live upon the labor of
+others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime, "It is more
+blessed to give than to receive." If this is so, why not give the
+money back? "Spiritual" people are those who eat oatmeal and
+prunes, have great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's "Task"
+and Pollok's "Course of Time," laugh at the jokes in <i>Harper's
+Monthly</i>, wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call
+all that has elevated the world "beggarly elements."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed
+admit that the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate
+the establishment of mission chapels in connection with the large
+and fashionable churches.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> The early Christians supposed that the end of the
+world was at hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for
+the ship. In the presence of such a belief what are known as class
+distinctions could not easily exist. Most of them were exceedingly
+poor, and poverty is a bond of union. As a rule, people are
+hospitable in the proportion that they lack wealth. In old times,
+in the West, a stranger was always welcome. He took in part the
+place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the older parts of
+the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the traveler
+gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As they
+become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is
+the same in the church. The church no longer believes the creed, no
+longer acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded
+the sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the
+minister to a man just above the falls; if he regarded it as a
+lifeboat, or as a lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to
+remain outside. If he really believed that the coachman had an
+immortal soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain,
+he would do his utmost to make the calling and election of the said
+coachman sure. As a matter of fact the rich man now cares but
+little for servants. They are not included in the scheme of
+salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The church has become a
+club. It is a social affair, and the rich do not care to associate
+in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at church.
+As they expect to be in heaven together forever, they can afford to
+be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to get
+acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The
+church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of
+place in such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest
+seat; like poor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the
+chair. At the table of Christ they are below the salt.</p>
+<p>They are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for
+they feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands
+given by the millionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with
+the silver in the contribution plate. The result is that most of
+them avoid the church. It costs too much to worship God in public.
+Good clothes are necessary, fashionably cut. The poor come in
+contact with too much silk, too many jewels, too many evidences of
+what is generally assumed to be superiority.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Would this state of affairs be remedied if,
+instead of churches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not
+the rich there predominate and the poor be just as much out of
+place?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I think the effect would be precisely the same,
+no matter what the society is, what object it has, if composed of
+rich and poor. Class distinctions, to a greater or less extent,
+will creep in&mdash;in fact, they do not have to creep in. They are
+there at the commencement, and they are born of the different
+conditions of the members.</p>
+<p>These class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth.
+For instance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs.
+Others obtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet
+men according to the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on
+intellectual grounds, for instance.</p>
+<p>There is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power,
+but there are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of
+character, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
+mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can
+any one blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with
+arrogant wealth. The right to make the distinction is with all
+classes, and with the individuals of all classes. It is impossible
+to have any society for any purpose&mdash;that is, where they meet
+together&mdash;without certain embarrassments being produced by
+these distinctions. Nowt for instance, suppose there should be a
+society simply of intelligent and cultured people. There, wealth,
+to a great degree, would be disregarded. But, after all, the
+distinction that intelligence draws between talent and genius is as
+marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and wealth.
+Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such vast
+importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are
+forgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant
+and intelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political
+parties, in time of war, and it has also happened whenever a new
+religion has been founded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of
+the poor, distinctions are forgotten. It is upon the same principle
+that we gave liberty to the slave during the Civil war, and clad
+him in the uniform of the nation; we wanted him, we needed him;
+and, for the time, we were perfectly willing to forget the
+distinction of color. Common peril produces pure democracy. It is
+with societies as with individuals. A poor young man coming to New
+York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about the old
+fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of the
+trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;
+shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed;
+let him have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons
+and coaches; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call
+for more police. He will then say: "We want protection; the rabble
+must be put down." We have an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts
+of our country an aristocracy of literature&mdash;men and women who
+imagine themselves writers and who hold in contempt all people who
+cannot express commonplaces in the most elegant
+diction&mdash;people who look upon a mistake in grammar as far
+worse than a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy
+of muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of
+kindness. Intellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel
+as wealth without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle without
+mercy. So that, after all, the real aristocracy must be that of
+goodness where the intellect is directed by the heart.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is
+quite as cruel as the aristocracy of wealth&mdash;what do you mean
+by that?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to
+say, the aristocracy of education&mdash;of simple
+brain&mdash;expressed in innumerable ways&mdash;in invention,
+painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say that that
+aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth. After
+all, why should a man be proud of something given him by
+nature&mdash;something that he did not earn, did not
+produce&mdash;something that he could not help? Is it not more
+reasonable to be proud of wealth which you have accumulated than of
+brain which nature gave you? And, to carry this idea clearly out,
+why should we be proud of anything? Is there any proper occasion on
+which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows for you; if you
+fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And why should
+a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition or
+of good acts?</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and
+yet, of course, you must recognize the right of every one to select
+his own companions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man
+to prefer the companionship of people of his own class in
+preference to commonplace and unintelligent persons?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> All men should have the same rights, and one
+right that every man should have is to associate with congenial
+people. There are thousands of good men whose society I do not
+covet. They may be stupid, or they may be stupid only in the
+direction in which I am interested, and may be exceedingly
+intelligent as to matters about which I care nothing. In either
+case they are not congenial. They have the right to select
+congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus made,
+they are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the good
+of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and are
+consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these
+distinctions in the church more than we do in the club is that the
+church talks one way and acts another; because the church insists
+that a certain line of conduct is essential to salvation, and that
+every human being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were
+true, then, in the presence of such an infinite verity, all earthly
+distinctions should instantly vanish. Every Christian should exert
+himself for the salvation of the soul of a beggar with the same
+degree of earnestness that he would show to save a king. The
+accidents of wealth, education, social position, should be esteemed
+as naught, and the richest should gladly work side by side with the
+poorest. The churches will never reach the poor as long as they
+sell pews; as long as the rich members wear their best clothes on
+Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-room are taken to
+the table of the last supper, the poor will remain in the highways
+and hedges. Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So long as
+the ministers shut up their churches, and allow the poor to go to
+hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil without a
+competitor for three months in the year, the churches will not
+materially impede the march of human progress. People often,
+unconsciously and without any malice, say something or do something
+that throws an unexpected light upon a question. The other day, in
+one of the New York comic papers, there was a picture representing
+the foremost preachers of the country at the seaside together. It
+was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy each others society.
+These ministers are supposed to be the apostles of the religion of
+kindness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and yet the idea
+that they could associate happily together is regarded as a joke!
+After all, churches are like other institutions, they have to be
+managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather
+than upon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are
+giving up the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently
+lost their hold. The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to
+be a fire, and they offered to insure; and as long as the fire was
+expected the premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then
+came the Universalist Church, saying that there would be no fire,
+and yet asking the people to insure. For such a church there is no
+basis. It undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other
+churches. So with the Unitarian. That church has no basis for
+organization; no reason, because no hell is threatened, and heaven
+is but faintly promised. Just as the churches have lost their
+belief in eternal fire, they have lost their influence, and the
+reason they have lost their belief is on account of the diffusion
+of knowledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and infamous.
+Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelligent people can
+no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the churches
+must finally abandon it, and when they do, that is the end of the
+church militant.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you say to the progress of the Roman
+Catholic Church, in view of the fact that they have not changed
+their belief, in any particular, in regard to future
+punishment?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever
+win another battle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in
+Holland. Nations have not been converted since then. The time has
+passed to preach with sword and gun, and for that reason
+Catholicism can win no more victories. That church increases in
+this country mostly from immigration. Catholicism does not belong
+to the New World. It is at war with the idea of our Government,
+antagonistic to true republicanism, and is in every sense
+anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control its members.
+That church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of education. It
+is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used as a
+political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are
+thousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably believe the
+creed of the church. That church has lost the power to
+anathematize. It can no longer burn. It must now depend upon other
+forces&mdash;upon persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and
+heredity.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You have stated your objections to the
+churches, what would you have to take their place?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> There was a time when men had to meet together
+for the purpose of being told the law. This was before printing,
+and for hundreds and hundreds of years most people depended for
+their information on what they heard. The ear was the avenue to the
+brain. There was a time, of course, when Freemasonry was necessary,
+so that a man could carry, not only all over his own country, but
+to another, a certificate that he was a gentleman; that he was an
+honest man. There was a time, and it was necessary, for the people
+to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no way of reaching each
+other. But now all that is changed. The daily press gives you the
+happenings of the world. The libraries give you the thoughts of the
+greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can command the
+principal sources of information. There is no necessity for going
+to the church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister
+write what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth
+buying, people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a
+church in the name of duty and there inflict upon them a sermon
+that under no circumstances they would read. Of course, there will
+always be meetings, occasions when people come together to exchange
+ideas, to hear what a man has to say upon some questions, but the
+idea of going fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody on the same
+subject is absurd.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher
+in that statement?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he
+is not orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking
+against his creed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago,
+in which he takes the ground that Christianity is kindness, and
+that, consequently, no one could be an infidel. Every one believes
+in kindness, at least theoretically. In that sermon he throws away
+all creed, and comes to the conclusion that Christianity is a life,
+not an aggregation of intellectual convictions upon certain
+subjects. The more sermons like that are preached, probably the
+better. What I intended was the eternal repetition of the old
+story: That God made the world and a man, and then allowed the
+devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme of salvation, of
+vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned everybody
+except Noah and his family, and afterward, when he failed to
+civilize the Jewish people, came in person and suffered death, and
+announced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved,
+and those who did not, eternally lost. Now, this story, with
+occasional references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and
+the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of
+Paradise, is the average sermon, and this story is told again,
+again, and again, by the same men, listened to by the same people
+without any effect except to tire the speaker and the hearer. If
+all the ministers would take their texts from Shakespeare; if they
+would read every Sunday a selection from some of the great plays,
+the result would be infinitely better. They would all learn
+something; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear
+short. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness
+of the pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The
+dignified dullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has
+never been excelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for
+the ministry were given no new weapons. Armed with the theological
+flintlock of a century ago, they were ordered to do battle for
+doctrines older than their weapons. They were told to rely on
+prayer, to answer all arguments by keeping out of discussions, and
+to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring the facts. There was a time
+when the Protestant clergy were in favor of education; that is to
+say, education enough to make a Catholic a Protestant, but not
+enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The Catholics are also
+in favor of education enough to make a savage a Catholic, and there
+they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his belief. If he
+studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a doubt; a
+doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are
+warned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow
+whatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes
+no difference, and they are expected to get their revenge by
+treating their flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The
+creeds of the churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men
+say nothing, because they do not wish to hurt the feelings of
+mothers and maiden aunts.</p>
+<p>Thousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere
+with trade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence.
+But when you get at the real opinions of people, a vast majority
+have outgrown the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people
+think these things good for women and children, and use the Lord as
+an immense policeman to keep order. Every day ministers are
+uttering a declaration of independence. They are being examined by
+synods and committees of ministers, and they are beginning
+everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a
+probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too
+bad; that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and
+infamous; that it must have been written by men. And the people at
+large are beginning to find that the ministers have kept back the
+facts; have not told the history of the Bible; have not given to
+their congregations the latest advices, and so the feeling is
+becoming almost general that orthodox Christianity has outlived its
+usefulness. The church has a great deal to contend with. The
+scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at Genesis, and
+astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of the
+motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws of
+Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is
+something besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival
+of the pulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day.
+Steamers take hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who
+has been at work all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this
+has become so universal that the preacher is following his example.
+The flock has ceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd
+deserts the sheep. In a little while all the libraries will be
+open&mdash;all the museums. There will be music in the public
+parks; the opera, the theater. And what will churches do then? The
+cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty pews, unless the
+church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands of the
+present.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You speak as if the influences working against
+Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you
+think that Christianity is any worse off now than it was during the
+French Revolution, when the priests were banished from the country
+and reason was worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when
+Hume, Bolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> You must remember that the French Revolution was
+produced by Catholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to
+infinite extremes; that it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is
+not hard to understand those times, provided you know the history
+of the Catholic Church. The seeds of the French Revolution were
+sown by priests and kings. The people had suffered the miseries of
+slavery for a thousand years, and the French Revolution came
+because human nature could bear the wrongs no longer. It was
+something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted from
+intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were
+carried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood,
+to tear down palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the
+wrongs of all the centuries. Catholicism has never
+recovered&mdash;it never will. The dagger of Voltaire struck the
+heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism has staggered from that
+day to this.</p>
+<p>It has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire
+there were twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In
+the French Revolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated
+reason. There was destruction without the genius of construction.
+They had to use materials that had been rendered worthless by ages
+of Catholicism.</p>
+<p>The French Revolution was a failure because the French people
+were a failure, and the French people were a failure because
+Catholicism had made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without
+reading him. Probably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in
+the world who have read the works of Voltaire. I know of no one who
+has. Only a little while ago, a minister told me he had read
+Voltaire. I offered him one hundred dollars to repeat a paragraph,
+or to give the title, even, of one of Voltaire's volumes. Most
+ministers think he was an atheist. The trouble with the infidels in
+England a hundred years ago was that they did not go far enough. It
+may be that they could not have gone further and been allowed to
+live. Most of them took the ground that there was an infinite,
+all-wise, beneficent God, creator of the universe, and that this
+all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of
+the Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the
+author of nature, and the theologians completely turned the tables
+by showing that this god of nature was in the pestilence and plague
+business, manufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities,
+and was, of necessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my
+judgment, the Deists were all successfully answered. The god of
+nature is certainly as bad as the God of the Old Testament. It is
+only when we discard the idea of a deity, the idea of cruelty or
+goodness in nature, that we are able ever to bear with patience the
+ills of life. I feel that I am neither a favorite nor a victim.
+Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not believe in the
+existence of any personal god. I regard the universe as the one
+fact, as the one existence&mdash;that is, as the absolute thing. I
+am a part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply say
+that I do not believe there is. There may be millions of them.
+Neither do I say that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit
+that I do not know, and the declarations of all the priests in the
+world upon that subject give me no light, and do not even tend to
+add to my information on the subject, because I know that they know
+that they do not know. The infidelity of a hundred years ago knew
+nothing, comparatively speaking, of geology; nothing of astronomy;
+nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin; nothing of evolution;
+nothing, comparatively speaking, of other religions; nothing of
+India, that womb of metaphysics; in other words, the infidels of a
+hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox Christianity to be
+false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The infidels of
+to-day have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred years ago
+it was a guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and fulfillment.
+Everything in nature is working against superstition to-day.
+Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from
+dust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The
+smallest pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of grass,
+rightly understood, destroys the orthodox creed.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You say that the pews will be empty in the
+future unless the church meets the intellectual demands of the
+present. Are not the ministers of to-day, generally speaking, much
+more intellectual than those of a hundred years ago, and are not
+the "liberal" views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible, the
+atonement, future punishment, the fall of man, and the personal
+divinity of Christ which openly prevail in many churches, an
+indication that the church is meeting the demands of many people
+who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in
+Christianity, but who have advanced views on those and other
+questions?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> As to the first part of this question, I do not
+think the ministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were
+a hundred years ago; that is, I do not think they have greater
+brain capacity, but I think on the average, the congregations have
+a higher amount. The amelioration of orthodox Christianity is not
+by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by the brain in the pews.
+Another thing: One hundred years ago the church had intellectual
+honors to bestow. The pulpit opened a career. Not so now. There are
+too many avenues to distinction and wealth&mdash;too much
+worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit. Martyrs had
+rather be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day are not
+naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence. There
+are some great exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers
+nearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward
+Beecher is a great man&mdash;not the most consistent man in the
+world&mdash;but he is certainly a man of mark, a remarkable genius.
+If he could only get rid of the idea that Plymouth Church is
+necessary to him&mdash;after that time he would not utter an
+orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might mention some
+others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable for
+intelligence. The intelligent men of the world do not believe in
+orthodox Christianity. It is to-day a symptom of intellectual
+decay. The conservative ministers are the stupid ones. The
+conservative professors are those upon whose ideas will be found
+the centuries' moss, old red sandstone theories, pre-historic
+silurian. Now, as to the second part of the question: The views of
+the church are changing, the clergy of Brooklyn to the contrary,
+notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind of boa-constrictor;
+anything it can not dodge it will swallow. The church is bound to
+have something for sale that somebody wants to buy. According to
+the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the pulpit
+dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on
+business principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories
+insists on having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual
+gardeners, and they must supply the market with such religious
+vegetables as the congregations desire. Thousands have given up
+belief in the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the
+atonement idea and original sin. Millions believe now, that this is
+not a state of probation; that a man, provided he is well off and
+has given liberally to the church, or whose wife has been a regular
+attendant, will, in the next world, have another chance; that he
+will be permitted to file a motion for a new trial. Others think
+that hell is not as warm as it used to be supposed; that, while it
+is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are cool; and
+that, after all, there is not so much to fear from the future. They
+regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give
+them the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their
+old clothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees,
+buttons off, somewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for
+paupers. There is a great trade of this kind going on
+now&mdash;selling old theological clothes to the colored people in
+the South. All I have said applies to all churches. The Catholic
+Church changes every day. It does not change its ceremonies; but
+the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that clothed the
+skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and throb of life and
+love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the spirit
+that emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has
+turned in another direction. Of course, the churches are all going
+to endeavor to meet the demands of the hour. They will find new
+readings for old texts. They will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old
+Testament. They will find that "flat" meant "a little rounding;"
+that "six days" meant "six long times;" that the word "flood"
+should have been translated "dampness," "dew," or "threatened
+rain;" that Daniel in the lion's den was an historical myth; that
+Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with this world. All these
+things will be gradually explained and made to harmonize with the
+facts of modern science. They will not change the words of the
+creed; they will simply give "new meanings and the highest
+criticism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other
+words, the churches will change as the people change. They will
+keep for sale that which can be sold. Already the old goods are
+being "marked down." If, however, the church should fail, why then
+it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its existence. It
+apparently does no good; it devours without producing; it eats
+without planting, and is a perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of
+value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens
+without knowledge and promises without power. In my judgment, the
+quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it does not go
+in name, it must go in fact, because it must change; and,
+therefore, it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert
+from useful channels the blood and muscle of the world.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons
+delivered lately the theological students were told to answer
+arguments by keeping out of discussion. Is it not the fact that
+ministers have of late years preached very largely on scientific
+disbelief, agnosticism, and infidelity, so much so as to lead to
+their being reprimanded by some of their more conservative
+brethren?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Of course there are hundreds of thousands of
+ministers perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their
+answers have done so much harm that the more conservative among the
+clergy have advised them to stop. Thousands have answered me, and
+their answers, for the most part, are like this: Paine was a
+blackguard, therefore the geology of Genesis is on a scientific
+basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement is true, because in
+the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And we know, too, all
+about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because Voltaire was
+nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are the usual
+arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself. And, in
+my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer a
+man's argument, the next best thing is to attack his character.
+"You have no case," said an attorney to the plaintiff. "No matter,"
+said the plaintiff, "I want you to give the defendant the
+devil."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's
+statement that he generally buys five or six tickets for your
+lectures and gives them to young men, who are shocked at the
+flippant way in which you are said to speak of the Bible?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I
+had such immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to
+clear away the mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr.
+Baker, that accounts for the number seeking admission. Of course,
+Dr. Baker would not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall
+always feel greatly indebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as
+one of my agents, and take this occasion to return my thanks. He is
+certainly welcome to all the converts to Christianity made by
+hearing me. Still, I hardly think it honest in young men to play a
+game like that on the doctor.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old
+story of Christianity and say that the more sermons like the one
+Mr. Beecher preached lately the better. Is it not the fact that
+ministers, at the present time, do preach very largely on questions
+of purely moral, social, and humanitarian interest, so much so,
+indeed, as to provoke criticism on the part of the secular
+newspaper press?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I admit that there is a general tendency in the
+pulpit to preach about things happening in this world; in other
+words, that the preachers themselves are beginning to be touched
+with worldliness. They find that the New Jerusalem has no
+particular interest for persons dealing in real estate in this
+world. And thousands of people are losing interest in Abraham, in
+David, Haggai, and take more interest in gentlemen who have the
+cheerful habit of living. They also find that their readers do not
+wish to be reminded perpetually of death and coffins; and worms and
+dust and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs and hearses, biers,
+and cheerful subjects of that character. That they prefer to hear
+the minister speak about a topic in which they have a present
+interest, and about which something cheerful can be said. In fact,
+it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art,
+something about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it
+necessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something
+that has happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that,
+for the time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in
+the furnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably
+honest. Maybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly
+they are endeavoring to make the world better, and most of the
+church members think that they are doing the best that can be done.
+I am not criticising their motives, but their methods. I am not
+attacking the character or reputation of ministers, but simply
+giving my ideas, avoiding anything personal. I do not pretend to be
+very good, nor very bad&mdash;-just fair to middling.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You say that Christians will not read for fear
+that they will unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman
+Catholic) said in the interview I had with him: "If you do not
+allow man to reason you crush his manhood. Therefore, he has to
+reason upon the credibility of his faith, and through reason,
+guided by faith, he discovers the truth, and so satisfies his
+wants."</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Without calling in question the perfect sincerity
+of Father Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end
+to. I do not think that reason should be guided by faith; I think
+that faith should be guided by reason. After all, the highest
+possible conception of faith would be the science of probabilities,
+and the probable must not be based on what has not happened, but
+upon what has; not upon something we know nothing about, but the
+nature of the things with which we are acquainted. The foundation
+we must know something about, and whenever we reason, we must have
+something as a basis, something secular, something that we think we
+know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by analogy, and we say
+thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may happen. We do
+not say thus and so <i>may</i> happen, therefore something else
+<i>has</i> happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown,
+not from the unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you
+do not allow a man to reason you crush his manhood. At the same
+time he says faith must govern reason. Who makes the faith? The
+church. And the church tells the man that he must take the faith,
+reason or no reason, and that he may afterward reason, taking the
+faith as a fact. This makes him an intellectual slave, and the poor
+devil mistakes for liberty the right to examine his own chains.
+These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their prisoners by insisting
+that there is nothing beyond the walls.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. You criticise the church for not encouring the
+poor to mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man
+to choose his own company. Are not these same distinctions made by
+non-confessing Christians in real life, and will not there always
+be some greater, richer, wiser, than the rest?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not blame the church because there are these
+distinctions based on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I
+blame the church for is pretending to do away with these
+distinctions. These distinctions in men are inherent; differences
+in brain, in race, in blood, in education, and they are differences
+that will eternally exist&mdash;that is, as long as the human race
+exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some generous,
+some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with is
+the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich and poor. I
+want the democracy of kindness&mdash;what you might call the
+republicanism of justice. I do not have to associate with a man to
+keep from robbing him. I can give him his rights without enjoying
+his company, and he can give me my rights without inviting me to
+dinner. Why should not poverty have rights? And has not honest
+poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in contempt, and will it
+not do it, whether it belongs to the same church or not? We cannot
+judge men by their wealth, or by the position they hold in society.
+I like every kind man; I hate every cruel one. I like the generous,
+whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I like men
+that love their families, that are kind to their wives, gentle with
+their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or
+mendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is
+the fairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a
+hovel, or bursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a
+palace. I respect no man because he is rich; I hold in contempt no
+man because he is poor.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of
+infidelity is greatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and
+creates more notice than conservative Christianity simply on
+account of its being outside of the accepted line of thought.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> There was a time when an unbeliever, open and
+pronounced, was a wonder. At that time the church had great power;
+it could retaliate; it could destroy. The church abandoned the
+stake only when too many men objected to being burned. At that time
+infidelity was clad not simply in novelty, but often in fire. Of
+late years the thoughts of men have been turned, by virtue of
+modern discoveries, as the result of countless influences, to an
+investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion. Other
+religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was
+found but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine
+our own religion, and this examination has excited great interest
+and great comment. People want to hear, and they want to hear
+because they have already about concluded themselves that the
+creeds are founded in error.</p>
+<p>Thousands come to hear me because they are interested in the
+question, because they want to hear a man say what they think. They
+want to hear their own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has
+turned, and the spirit of investigation, the intelligence, the
+intellectual courage of the world is on the other side. A real good
+old-fashioned orthodox minister who believes the Thirty-nine
+articles with all his might, is regarded to-day as a theological
+mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic battery of
+faith, making strange motions, almost like those of life&mdash;not
+quite.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How would you convey moral instruction from
+youth up, and what kind of instruction would you give?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then,
+what is Christianity? I do not include in the word "Christianity"
+the average morality of the world or the morality taught in all
+systems of religion; that is, as distinctive Christianity.
+Christianity is this: A belief in the inspiration of the
+Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and resurrection of
+Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ, and eternal
+punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity its
+miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and the
+inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I
+understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I
+suppose Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness,
+forgiveness. I do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard
+work to love my friends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man
+can afford to keep the viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe
+in justice, in self-defence. Christianity&mdash;that is, the
+miraculous part&mdash;must be abandoned. As to
+morality&mdash;morality is born, is born of the instinct of
+self-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word "conscience"
+never would have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a
+crime. Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority
+object to being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds;
+it is born of human want and human experience. We need no
+inspiration, no inspired work. The industrious man knows that the
+idle has no right to rob him of the product of his labor, and the
+idle man knows that he has no right to do it. It is not wrong
+because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was put in the
+Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible other things
+upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of the Bible
+were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a mixture
+of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without
+miracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it?
+Credulity is not a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily
+charitable. Wonder is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children
+should be taught to investigate and to reason for themselves, and
+that there are facts enough to furnish a foundation for all human
+virtue. We will take two families; in the one, the father and
+mother are both Christians, and they teach their children their
+creed; teach them that they are naturally totally depraved; that
+they can only hope for happiness in a future life by pleading the
+virtues of another, and that a certain belief is necessary to
+salvation; that God punishes his children forever. Such a home has
+a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the father and mother
+teach their children that they should be kind to each other because
+kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle; that they
+should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And suppose
+this father and mother say to their children: "If you are happy it
+must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must
+suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can
+suffer for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own
+misdeeds. If you plant you must reap, and you must reap what you
+plant." And suppose these parents also say: "You must find out the
+conditions of happiness. You must investigate the circumstances by
+which you are surrounded. You must ascertain the nature and
+relation of things so that you can act in accordance with known
+facts, to the end that you may have health and peace." In such a
+family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my judgment, a
+thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the other. The
+church generally teaches that rascality pays in this world, but not
+in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the dividends
+will be large in another world. They tell the people that they must
+serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my
+doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in
+the highest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a
+thing is wrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has
+its reward here and now. It means health; it means intelligence,
+contentment, success. Vice means exactly the opposite. Most of us
+have more passion than judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and
+by the tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are wrecked
+and lost. We cannot be saved by faith or by belief. It is a slower
+process: We must be saved by knowledge, by intelligence&mdash;the
+only lever capable of raising mankind.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may
+remember says "that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him
+forever." What is your idea of the chief end of man?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> It has always seemed a little curious to me that
+joy should be held in such contempt here, and yet promised
+hereafter as an eternal reward. Why not be happy here, as well as
+in heaven. Why not have joy here? Why not go to heaven
+now&mdash;that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the sunshine of this
+world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad enough; so bad
+that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent deity;
+but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do I
+believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the
+Infinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no
+equals, no superiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How
+can he achieve what we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery
+of the average Presbyterian? What good will it do him to know that
+his course has been approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church?
+What does he care, even, for the religious weeklies, or the
+presidents of religious colleges? I do not see how we can help God,
+or hurt him. If there be an infinite Being, certainly nothing we
+can do can in any way affect him. We can affect each other, and
+therefore man should be careful not to sin against man. For that
+reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is the only
+blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with the
+ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the
+angels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care
+to associate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such
+society. I suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat
+touched with worldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be
+honest enough to say about the Infinite "I know nothing of eternal
+joy, I have no conception about another world, I know nothing." At
+the same time, I am not attacking anybody for believing in
+immortality. The more a man can hope, and the less he can fear, the
+better. I have done what I could to drive from the human heart the
+shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out the fires of an ignorant
+and revengeful hell.</p>
+<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon.
+     Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the
+     Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan
+     Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as
+     submitted in advance, were the following propositions:
+</pre>
+<p>Colonel Ingersoll's Opening.</p>
+<p>Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:</p>
+<p>I AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to
+differ with me. I want to convince you that you are under no
+compulsion to accept my creed; that you are, so far as I am
+concerned, absolutely free to follow the torch of your reason
+according to your conscience; and I believe that you are civilized
+to that degree that you will extend to me the right that you claim
+for yourselves.</p>
+<p>First. Thought is a necessary natural product&mdash;the result
+of what is called impressions made through the medium of the senses
+upon the brain, not forgetting the Fact of heredity.</p>
+<p>Second. No human being is accountable to any being-human or
+divine&mdash;for his thoughts.</p>
+<p>Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of
+each other, and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be
+honest.</p>
+<p>Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon
+all subjects.</p>
+<p>Fifth. For one man to say to another, "I tolerate you," is an
+assumption of authority&mdash;not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of
+the right to persecute.</p>
+<p>Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world
+his ideas, that the rest of the world have to express their
+thoughts to him.</p>
+<p>Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing
+Mr. Ingersoll, among other things said:</p>
+<p>"The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that
+of the great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august saying, 'There
+shall be no slavery of the mind.'</p>
+<p>"When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the tomb of
+Victor Hugo. It was placed in a recess in the crypt of the
+Pantheon. Opposite it was the tomb of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near
+by, in another recess, was the memorial statue of Voltaire; and I
+felt, as I looked at these three monuments, that had Colonel
+Ingersoll been born in France, and had he passed in his long life
+account, the acclaim of the liberal culture of France would have
+enlarged that trio into a quartette.</p>
+<p>"Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in
+print, notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black formerly
+Attorney-General of the United States: lately in the pages of The
+North American Review with the Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and last
+but not least the Right Hon. William E Gladstone, England's
+greatest citizen, has taken up the cudgel against him in behalf of
+his view of Orthodoxy To-night, I believe-for the first time, the
+colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial discussion. I have
+now the honor to introduce this distinguished orator."</p>
+<p>I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being thinks as
+he must; and the first proposition really is, whether man has the
+right to think. It will bear but little discussion, for the reason
+that no man can control his thought. If you think you can, what are
+you going to think to-morrow? What are you going to think next
+year? If you can absolutely control your thought, can you stop
+thinking?</p>
+<p>The question is, Has the will any power over the thought? What
+is thought? It is the result of nature&mdash;of the outer
+world&mdash;first upon the senses&mdash;those impressions left upon
+the brain as pictures of things in the outward world, and these
+pictures are transformed into, or produce, thought; and as long as
+the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will be produced.
+Whoever looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears any
+sound&mdash;or any symphony&mdash;no matter what&mdash;thinks.
+Whoever looks upon the sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the
+face of a fellow-man, thinks, and the result of that look is an
+absolute necessity. The thought produced will depend upon your
+brain, upon your experience, upon the history of your life.</p>
+<p>One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one he loved the
+best had been devoured by its hungry waves, will have certain
+thoughts; and he who sees it for the first time, will have
+different thoughts. In other words, no two brains are alike; no two
+lives have been or are or ever will be the same. Consequently,
+nature cannot produce the same effect upon any two brains, or upon
+any two hearts.</p>
+<p>The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is that we are
+different. If we were all the same, we would die dumb. No thought
+would be expressed after we found that our thoughts were precisely
+alike. We differ&mdash;our thoughts are different. Therefore the
+commerce that we call conversation.</p>
+<p>Back of language is thought. Back of language is the desire to
+express our thought to another. This desire not only gave us
+language&mdash;this desire has given us the libraries of the world.
+And not only the libraries; this desire to express thought, to show
+to others the splendid children of the brain, has written every
+book, formed every language, painted every picture, and chiseled
+every statue&mdash;this desire to express our thought to others, to
+reap the harvest of the brain.</p>
+<p>If, then, thought is a necessity, "it follows as the night the
+day" that there is, there can be, no responsibility for thought to
+any being, human or divine.</p>
+<p>A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes upon it,
+and the sensitive plate receives a picture. Is it in fault, is it
+responsible, for the picture? So with the brain. An image is left
+on it, a picture is imprinted there. The plate may not be perfectly
+level&mdash;it may be too concave, or too convex, and the picture
+may be a deformity; so with the brain. But the man does not make
+his own brain, and the consequence is, if the picture is distorted
+it is not the fault of the brain.</p>
+<p>We take then these two steps: first, thought is a necessity; and
+second, the thought depends upon the brain.</p>
+<p>Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with careless
+hands the seeds of thought. Some brains are poor and barren fields,
+producing weeds and thorns, and some are like the tropic world
+where grow the palm and pine&mdash;children of the sun and
+soil.</p>
+<p>You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of Shakespeare? All
+that your brain is able to hold. It depends upon your brain. If you
+are great&mdash;if you have been cultivated&mdash;if the wings of
+your imagination have been spread&mdash;if you have had great,
+free, and splendid thoughts&mdash;'r you have stood upon the edge
+of things&mdash;if you have had the courage to meet all that can
+come&mdash;you get an immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived
+nobly&mdash;if you have loved with every drop of your blood and
+every fibre of your being&mdash;if you have suffered&mdash;if you
+have enjoyed&mdash;then you get an immensity from Shakespeare. But
+if you have lived a poor, little, mean, wasted, barren, weedy
+life&mdash;you get very little from that immortal man.</p>
+<p>So it is from every source in nature&mdash;what you get depends
+upon what you are.</p>
+<p>Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity, there can
+be no responsibility for thought. And why has man ever believed
+that his fellow-man was responsible for his thought?</p>
+<p>Everything that is, everything that has been, has been naturally
+produced. Man has acted as, under the same circumstances, we would
+have acted; because when you say "under the circumstances," it is
+the same as to say that you would do exactly as they have done.</p>
+<p>There has always been in men the instinct of self-preservation.
+There was a time when men believed, and honestly believed, that
+there was above them a God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it
+will be sufficient for my illustration to say, one. Man believed
+that there was in the sky above him a God who attended to the
+affairs of men. He believed that that God, sitting upon his throne,
+rewarded virtue and punished vice. He believed also, that that God
+held the community responsible for the sins of individuals. He
+honestly believed it. When the flood came, or when the earthquake
+devoured, he really believed that some God was filled with
+anger&mdash;with holy indignation&mdash;at his children. He
+believed it, and so he looked about among his neighbors to see who
+was in fault, and if there was any man who had failed to bring his
+sacrifice to the altar, had failed to kneel, it may be to the
+priest, failed to be present in the temple, or had given it as his
+opinion that the God of that tribe or of that nation was of no use,
+then, in order to placate the God, they seized the neighbor and
+sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance and of their
+fear.</p>
+<p>They believed when the lightning leaped from the cloud and left
+its blackened mark upon the man, that he had done
+something&mdash;that he had excited the wrath of the gods.</p>
+<p>And while man so believed, while he believed that it was
+necessary, in order to defend himself, to kill his
+neighbor&mdash;he acted simply according to the dictates of his
+nature.</p>
+<p>What I claim is that we have nov-advanced far enough not only to
+think, but to know, that the conduct of man has nothing to do with
+the phenomena of nature. We are now advanced far enough to
+absolutely know that no man can be bad enough and no nation
+infamous enough to cause an earthquake. I think we have got to that
+point that we absolutely know that no man can be wicked enough to
+entice one of the bolts from heaven&mdash;that no man can be cruel
+enough to cause a drought&mdash;and that you could not have
+infidels enough on the earth to cause another flood. I think we
+have advanced far enough not only to say that, but to absolutely
+know it&mdash;I mean people who have thought, and in whose minds
+there is something like reasoning.</p>
+<p>We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is just as apt
+to hit a good man as a bad man. We know it. We know that the
+earthquake is just as liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice.
+And you know just as well as I do that a ship loaded with pirates
+is just as apt to outride the storm as one crowded with
+missionaries. You know it.</p>
+<p>I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I believe, as much
+as I believe that I live, that the reason a thing is right is
+because it tends to the happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as
+I be-believe that I live, that on the average the good man is not
+only the happier man, but that no man is happy who is not good.</p>
+<p>If then we have gotten over that frightful, that awful
+superstition&mdash;we are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts of
+each other.</p>
+<p>I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as saying,
+that there is no God. All I intend to say is, that so far as we can
+see, no man is punished, no nation is punished by lightning, or
+famine, or storm. Everything happens to the one as to the
+other.</p>
+<p>Now, let us admit that there is an infinite God. That has
+nothing to do with the sinlessness of thought&mdash;nothing to do
+with the fact that no man is accountable to any being, human or
+divine, for what he thinks. And let me tell you why.</p>
+<p>If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men who sin
+against him. You can trust him, if you believe in him. He has the
+power. He has a heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you
+are satisfied that the earthquake will not swallow you, or the
+lightning strike you, simply because you tell your thoughts, if one
+of your neighbors differs with you, and acts improperly or thinks
+or speaks improperly of your God, leave him with your God&mdash;he
+can attend to him a thousand times better than you can, He has the
+time. He lives from eternity to eternity. More than that, he has
+the means. So that, whether there be this Being or not, you have no
+right to interfere with your neighbor.</p>
+<p>The next proposition is, that I have the same right to express
+my thought to the whole world, that the whole world has to express
+its thought to me.</p>
+<p>I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy, where
+the majority rule; it is not a republic. It is a country with one
+inhabitant. This brain is the world in which my mind lives, and my
+mind is the sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and one man
+balances the rest of the world as one drop of water balances the
+sea. Each soul is crowned. Each soul wears the purple and the
+tiara; and only those are good citizens of the intellectual world
+who give to every other human being every right that they claim for
+themselves, and only those are traitors in the great realm of
+thought who abandon reason and appeal to force.</p>
+<p>If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you must abuse
+your neighbors to keep on good terms with God, then the question of
+religion is exactly like every question&mdash;I mean of thought, of
+mind&mdash;I have nothing to say now about action.</p>
+<p>Is there authority in the world of art? Can a legislature pass a
+law that a certain picture is beautiful, and can it pass a law
+putting in the penitentiary any impudent artistic wretch who says
+that to him it is not beautiful? Precisely the same with music. Our
+ears are not all the same; we are not touched by the same
+sounds&mdash;the same beautiful memories* do not arise. Suppose you
+have an authority in music? You may make men, it may be, by
+offering them office or by threatening them with punishment, swear
+that they all like that tune&mdash;but you never will know till the
+day of your death whether they do or not. The moment you introduce
+a despotism in the world of thought, you succeed in making
+hypocrites&mdash;and you get in such a position that you never know
+what your neighbor thinks.</p>
+<p>So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force. No one
+can be compelled to pray. No matter how you tie him down, or crush
+him down on his face or on his knees, it is above the power of the
+human race to put in that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You
+cannot do it. Neither can you compel anybody to worship a God.
+Worship rises from the heart like perfume from a flower. It cannot
+obey; it cannot do that which some one else commands. It must be
+absolutely true to the law of its own nature. And do you think any
+God would be satisfied with compulsory worship? Would he like to
+see long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on their terrified knees
+repeating words without a soul&mdash;giving him what you might call
+the shucks of sound? Will any God be satisfied with that? And so I
+say, we must be as free in one department of thought as
+another.</p>
+<p>Now, I take the next step, and that is, that the rights of all
+are absolutely equal.</p>
+<p>I have the same right to give you my opinion that you have to
+give me yours. I have no right to compel you to hear, if you do not
+want to. I have no right to compel you to speak if you do not want
+to. If you do not wish to know my thought, I have no right to force
+it upon you.</p>
+<p>The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this liberty of
+expression, is of more value than any other thing beneath the
+stars. Of more value than any religion, of more value than any
+government, of more value than all the constitutions that man has
+written and all the laws that he has passed, is this
+liberty&mdash;the absolute liberty of the human mind. Take away
+that word from language, and all other words become meaningless
+sounds, and there is then no reason for a man being and living upon
+the earth.</p>
+<p>So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual
+hospitality&mdash;that is all. You come to me with a new idea. I
+invite you into the house. Let us see what you have. Let us talk it
+over. If I do not like your thought, I will bid it a polite "good
+day." If I do like it, I will say: "Sit down; stay with me, and
+become a part of the intellectual wealth of my world." That is
+all.</p>
+<p>And how any human being ever has had the impudence to speak
+against the right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination.
+Here is a man who speaks&mdash;who exercises a right that he, by
+his speech, denies. Can liberty go further than that? Is there any
+toleration possible beyond the liberty to speak against
+liberty&mdash;the real believer in free speech allowing others to
+speak against the right to speak? Is there any limitation beyond
+that?</p>
+<p>So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has admitted
+that he violated his own doctrine. No man can open his mouth
+against the freedom of speech without denying every argument he may
+put forward. Why? He is exercising the right that he denies. How
+did he get it? Suppose there is one man on an island. You will all
+admit now that he would have the right to do his own thinking. You
+will all admit that he has the right to express his thought. Now,
+will somebody tell me how many men would have to emigrate to that
+island before the original settler would lose his right to think
+and his right to express himself?</p>
+<p>If there be an infinite Being&mdash;and it is a question that I
+know nothing about&mdash;you would be perfectly astonished to know
+how little I do know on that subject, and yet I know as much as the
+aggregated world knows, and as little as the smallest insect that
+ever fanned with happy wings the summer air&mdash;if there be such
+a Being, I have the same right to think that he has simply because
+it is a necessity of my nature&mdash;because I cannot help it. And
+the Infinite would be just as responsible to the smallest
+intelligence living in the infinite spaces&mdash;he would be just
+as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can be to
+him, provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity of his
+nature.</p>
+<p>There is another phrase to which I object&mdash;"toleration."
+"The limits of toleration." Why say "toleration"? I will tell you
+why. When the thinkers were in the minority&mdash;when the
+philosophers were vagabonds&mdash;when the men with brains
+furnished fuel for bonfires&mdash;when the majority were ignorantly
+orthodox&mdash;when they hated the heretic as a last year's leaf
+hates a this year's bud&mdash;in that delightful time these poor
+people in the minority had to say to ignorant power, to
+conscientious rascality, to cruelty born of universal love: "Don't
+kill us; don't be so arrogantly meek as to burn us; tolerate us."
+At that time the minority was too small to talk about rights, and
+the great big ignorant majority when tired of shedding blood, said:
+"Well, we will tolerate you; we can afford to wait; you will not
+live long, and when the Being of infinite compassion gets hold of
+you we will glut our revenge through an eternity of joy; we will
+ask you every now and then, 'What is your opinion now?'"</p>
+<p>Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness would have
+his revenge, they "tolerated" these thinkers, and that word finally
+took the place almost of liberty. But I do not like it. When you
+say "I tolerate," you do not say you have no right to punish, no
+right to persecute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and
+for a few years, but you retain the right. I deny it.</p>
+<p>And let me say here to-night&mdash;it is your experience, it is
+mine&mdash;that the bigger a man is the more charitable he is; you
+know it. The more brain he has, the more excuses he finds for all
+the world; you know it. And if there be in heaven an infinite
+Being, he must be grander than any man; he must have a thousand
+times more charity than the human heart can hold, and is it
+possible that he is going to hold his ignorant children responsible
+for the impressions made by nature upon their brain? Let us have
+some sense.</p>
+<p>There is another side to this question, and that is with regard
+to the freedom of thought and expression in matters pertaining to
+this world.</p>
+<p>No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor. He has
+no right to utter slander. He has no right to bear false witness.
+He has no right to be actuated by any motive except for the general
+good&mdash;but the things he does here to his neighbor&mdash;these
+are easily defined and easily punished. All that I object to is
+setting up a standard of authority in the world of art, the world
+of beauty, the world of poetry, the world of worship, the world of
+religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is what I object to;
+and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every human being
+that has benefited this world would have been destroyed. If the
+people who believe that a certain belief is necessary to insure
+salvation had had control of this world, we would have been as
+ignorant to-night as wild beasts. Every step in advance has been
+made in spite of them. There has not been a book of any value
+printed since the invention of that art&mdash;and when I say "of
+value," I mean that contained new and splendid truths&mdash;that
+was not anathematized by the gentlemen who believed that man is
+responsible for his thought. Every step has been taken in spite of
+that doctrine.</p>
+<p>Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of mind. And I
+have no fear about any other world&mdash;not the slightest. When I
+get there, I will give my honest opinion of that country; I will
+give my honest thought there; and if for that I lose my soul, I
+will keep at least my self-respect.</p>
+<p>A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it. I cannot
+help it. I read a story&mdash;no matter whether in the original
+Hebrew, or whether it has been translated. I believe it or I
+disbelieve it. No matter whether it is written in a very solemn or
+a very flippant manner&mdash;I have my idea about its truth. And I
+insist that each man has the right to judge that for himself, and
+for that reason, as I have already said, I am defending your right
+to differ with me&mdash;that is all. And if you do differ with me,
+all that it proves is that I do not agree with you. There is no man
+that lives to-night beneath the stars&mdash;there is no
+being&mdash;that can force my soul upon its knees, unless the
+reason is given. I will be no slave. I do not care how big my
+master is, I am just as small, if a slave, as though the master
+were small. It is not the greatness of the master that can honor
+the slave. In other words, I am going to act according to my right,
+as I understand it, without interfering with any other human being.
+And now, if you think&mdash;any of you, that you can control your
+thought, I want you to try it. There is not one here who can by any
+possibility think, only as he must.</p>
+<p>You remember the story of the Methodist minister who insisted
+that he could control his thoughts. A man said to him, "Nobody can
+control his own mind." "Oh, yes, he can," the preacher replied. "My
+dear sir," said the man, "you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer
+without thinking of something else." "Oh, yes, I can." "Well, if
+you will do it, I will give you that horse, the best riding horse
+in this county." "Well, who is to judge?" said the preacher. "I
+will take your own word for it, and if you say the Lord's Prayer
+through without thinking of anything else, I will give you that
+horse." So the minister shut his eyes and began: "Our Father which
+art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be
+done,"&mdash;"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and
+bridle?"</p>
+<p>I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel more
+interest in the freedom of thought and speech than in all other
+questions, knowing, as I do, that it is the condition of great and
+splendid progress for the race; remembering, as I do, that the
+opposite idea has covered the cheek of the world with tears;
+remembering, and knowing, as I do, that the enemies of free thought
+and free speech have covered this world with blood. These men have
+filled the heavens with an infinite monster; they have filled the
+future with fire and flame, and they have made the present, when
+they have had the power, a perdition. These men, these doctrines,
+have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. These men, these
+doctrines, have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day. These
+men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced and
+killed every philosopher they could lay their bloody, cruel,
+ignorant hands upon.</p>
+<p>And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought,
+everywhere, in every department, domain, and realm of the human
+mind.</p>
+<center>REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.</center>
+<p><i>Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President</i>: It is not only
+"the sense of the church" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is
+any sense at all; and I am only wondering how a reasonably
+intelligent being&mdash;meaning myself&mdash;could in view of the
+misfortune that befell Mr. Kernan, have undertaken to speak
+to-night.</p>
+<p>This is a new experience. I have never sung in any of Verdi's
+operas&mdash;I have never listened to one through&mdash;but I think
+I would prefer to try all three of these performances rather than
+go on with this duty which, in a vain moment of deluded vanity, I
+heedlessly undertook.</p>
+<p>I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the master of a
+ship who thinks that he can safely guide his bark. (I am not
+alluding to the traditional bark of St. Peter, in which I hope that
+I am and will always be, but the ordinary bark that requires a
+compass and a rudder and a guide.) And I find that all these
+ordinary things, which we generally take for granted, and which are
+as necessary to our safety as the air which we breathe, or the
+sunshine that we enjoy, have been quietly, pleasantly, and
+smilingly thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just preceded
+me.</p>
+<p>Carlyle once said&mdash;and the thought came to me as the
+gentleman was speaking&mdash;"A Comic History of
+England!"&mdash;for some wretch had just written such a
+book&mdash;(talk of free thought and free speech when men do such
+things!)&mdash;"A Comic History of England!" The next thing we
+shall hear of will be "A Comic History of the Bible!" I think we
+have heard the first chapter of that comic history to-night; and
+the only comfort that I have&mdash;and possibly some other
+antiquated and superannuated persons of either sex, if such there
+be within my hearing&mdash;is that such things as have seemed to me
+charmingly to partake of the order of blasphemy, have been uttered
+with such charming bonhomie, and received with such enthusiastic
+admiration, that I have wondered whether we are in a Christian
+audience of the nineteenth century, or in a possible Ingersollian
+audience of the twenty-third.</p>
+<p>And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and desultory
+remarks, which are the only ones that I can make now and with which
+I may claim your polite attention&mdash;let me say a word about the
+comparison with which your worthy President opened these
+proceedings.</p>
+<p>There are two or three things upon which I am a little
+sensitive: One, aspersions upon the land of my birth&mdash;the city
+of New York; the next, the land of my fathers; and the next, the
+bark that I was just speaking of.</p>
+<p>Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to exhibit
+in the best possible style the new actor upon his stage, said that
+he had seen Victor Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques
+Rousseau's, and that he thought the niche might well be filled by
+Colonel Ingersoll. If that had been merely the expression of a
+natural desire to see him speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in
+the interests of the Christian community have thought, but not
+said, "Amen!" (Here you will at once observe the distinction I make
+between free thought and free speech!)</p>
+<p>I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and particularly the
+eloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will think, that in anything
+I may say I intend any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to
+some extent in freedom of speech upon a platform like this. Such a
+debate as this rises entirely above and beyond the plane of
+personalities.</p>
+<p>I suppose that your President intended to compare Colonel
+Ingersoll to Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau. I have no retainer
+from either of those gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave
+you, I wish to defend their memory from what I consider a great
+wrong. And so I do not think&mdash;with all respect to the eloquent
+and learned gentleman&mdash;that he is entitled to a place in that
+niche. Voltaire did many wrong things. He did them for many
+reasons, and chiefly because he was human. But Voltaire did a great
+deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble tragedies, which charmed
+and delighted his audiences, and dignified the stage, throughout
+his work was some effort to ameliorate the condition of the human
+race. He fought against torture; he fought against persecution; he
+fought against bigotry; he clamored and wrote against littleness
+and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed when he entered
+upon his domains at Fernay, to erect a church to the God of whom
+the most our friend can say is, "I do not know whether he exists or
+not."</p>
+<p>Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman, and in our
+day would probably have been locked up in an asylum and treated by
+intelligent doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a
+religious education, and if there be in his works or sayings
+anything to parallel what we have heard tonight&mdash;whether a
+parody on divine revelation, or a parody upon the prayer of
+prayers&mdash;I have not seen it.</p>
+<p>Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with prose
+and poetry that have made him the Shakespeare of the nineteenth
+century&mdash;poems as deeply imbued with a devout sense of
+responsibility to the Almighty as the writings of an archbishop or
+a cardinal. He has left the traces of his beneficent action all
+over the literature of his day, of his country, and of his
+race.</p>
+<p>All these men, then, have built up something. Will anyone, the
+most ardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell me what he has built
+up?</p>
+<p>To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman says that
+freedom of thought is a grand thing. Unfortunately, freedom of
+thought exists. What one of us would not put manacles and fetters
+upon his thoughts, if he only could? What persecution have any of
+us suffered to compare with the involuntary recurrence of these
+demons that enter our brain&mdash;that bring back past events that
+we would wipe out with our tears, or even with our blood&mdash;and
+make us slaves of a power unseen but uncontrollable and
+uncontrolled? Is it not unworthy of so eloquent and intelligent a
+man to preach before you here to-night that thought must always be
+free?</p>
+<p>When in the history of the world has thought ever been fettered?
+If there be a page in history upon which such an absurdity is
+written, I have failed to find it.</p>
+<p>Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most cruel and
+arbitrary ruler can no more penetrate into your bosom and mine and
+extract the inner workings of our brain, than he can scale the
+stars or pull down the sun from its seat. Thought must be free.
+Thought is unseen, unhandled and untouched, and no despot has yet
+been able to reach it, except when the thoughts burst into words.
+And therefore, may we not consider now, and say, that liberty of
+word is what he wants, and not liberty of thought, which no one has
+ever gainsaid, or disputed?</p>
+<p>Liberty of speech!&mdash;and the gentleman generously tells us,
+"Why, I only ask for myself what I would cheerfully extend to you.
+I wish you to be free; and you can even entertain those old
+delusions which your mothers taught, and look with envious
+admiration upon me while I scale the giddy heights of Olympus,
+gather the honey and approach the stars and tell you how pure the
+air is in those upper regions which you are unable to reach."</p>
+<p>Thanks for his kindness! But I think that it is one thing for us
+to extend to him that liberty that he asks for&mdash;the liberty to
+destroy&mdash;and another thing for him to give us the liberty
+which we claim&mdash;the liberty to conserve.</p>
+<p>Oh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so pleasant! It marks
+the footsteps all through our life. The baby begins by destroying
+his bib; the older child by destroying his horse, and when the man
+is grown up and he joins the regiment with the latent instinct that
+when he gets a chance he will destroy human life.</p>
+<p>This building cost many thousand days' work. It was planned by
+more or less skillful architects (ignorant of ventilation, but
+well-meaning). Men lavished their thought, and men lavished their
+sweat for a pittance, upon this building. It took months and
+possibly years to build it and to adorn it and to beautify it. And
+yet, as it stands complete tonight with all of you here in the
+vigor of your life and in the enjoyment of such entertainment as
+you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen men who with a
+few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all of us to instant
+destruction.</p>
+<p>The dynamite man may say to me, "I give you full liberty to
+build and occupy and insure, if you will give me liberty to blow
+up." Is that a fair bargain? Am I bound in conscience and in good
+sense to accept it? Liberty of speech! Tell me where liberty of
+speech has ever existed. There have been free societies, England
+was a free country. France has struggled through crisis after
+crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We think we have liberty of
+speech, as we understand it, and yet who would undertake to say
+that our society could live with liberty of speech? We have gone
+through many crises in our short history, and we know that thought
+is nothing before the law, but the word is an act&mdash;as guilty
+at times as the act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent
+crimes that disgrace humanity and require the police.</p>
+<p>A word is an act&mdash;an act of the tongue; and why should my
+tongue go unpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those
+who are weaker than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I
+use it tyrannously? Whom would you punish for the murder of
+Desdemona&mdash;is it Iago, or Othello? Who was the villain, who
+was the criminal, who deserved the scaffold&mdash;who but free
+speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of Othello
+and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer&mdash;but Iago went
+scot free. That was a word.</p>
+<p>"Oh," says the counsel, "but that does not apply to individuals;
+be tender and charitable to individuals." Tender and charitable to
+men if they endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate and
+respect!</p>
+<p>Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my house, my
+castle, and debauch my children from the faith that they have been
+taught? Are you tender and charitable to them and to me when you
+teach them that I have instructed them in falsehood, that their
+mother has rocked them in blasphemy, and that they are now among
+the fools and the witlings of the world because they believe in my
+precepts? Is that the charity that you speak of? Heaven forbid that
+liberty of speech such as that, should ever invade my home or
+yours!</p>
+<p>We all understand, and the learned gentleman will admit, that
+his discourse is but an eloquent apology for blasphemy. And when I
+say this, I beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the
+cheap artifice of strong words to give point to a pointless
+argument, or to offend a courteous adversary. I think if I put it
+to him he would, with characteristic candor, say, "Yes, that is
+what I claim&mdash;the liberty to blaspheme; the world has outgrown
+these things; and I claim to-day, as I claimed a few months ago in
+the neighboring gallant little State of New Jersey, that while you
+cannot slander man, your tongue is free to revile and insult man's
+maker." New Jersey was behind in the race for progress, and did not
+accept his argument. His unfortunate client was convicted and had
+to pay the fine which the press&mdash;which is seldom
+mistaken&mdash;says came from the pocket of his generous
+counsel.</p>
+<p>The argument was a strong one; the argument was brilliant, and
+was able; and I say now, with all my predilections for the church
+of my fathers, and for your church (because it is not a question of
+our differences, but it is a question whether the tree shall be
+torn up by the roots, not what branches may bear richer fruit or
+deserve to be lopped off)&mdash;I say, why has every Christian
+State passed these statutes against blasphemy? Turning into
+ridicule sacred things&mdash;firing off the Lord's Prayer as you
+would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem&mdash;that is what I
+mean by blasphemy. If there is any other or better definition, give
+it me, and I will use it.</p>
+<p>Now understand. All these States of ours care not one fig what
+our religion is. Behave yourselves properly, obey the laws, do not
+require the intervention of the police, and the majesty of your
+conscience will be as exalted as the sun. But the wisest men and
+the best men&mdash;possibly not so eloquent as the orator, but I
+may say it without offence to him&mdash;other names that shine
+brightly in the galaxy of our best men, have insisted and
+maintained that the Christian faith was the ligament that kept our
+modern society together, and our laws have said, and the laws of
+most of our States say, to this day, "Think what you like, but do
+not, like Samson, pull the pillars down upon us all."</p>
+<p>If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that
+I should say it now. My exordium has been very long, but it was no
+longer than the dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.</p>
+<p>Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech we never
+had. Did we have it before the war? Many of us here remember that
+if you crossed an imaginary line and went among some of the noblest
+and best men that ever adorned this continent, one word against
+slavery meant death. And if you say that that was the influence of
+slavery, I will carry you to Boston, that city which numbers within
+its walls as many intelligent people to the acre as any city on the
+globe&mdash;was it different there?</p>
+<p>Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he got
+there, was seized and turned back; and when a few good and brave
+men, in defence of free speech, undertook to defend the slave and
+to try and give him liberty, they were mobbed and pelted and driven
+through the city. You may say, "That proves there was no liberty of
+speech." No; it proves this: that wherever, and wheresoever, and
+whenever, liberty of speech is incompatible with the safety of the
+State, liberty of speech must fall back and give way, in order that
+the State may be preserved.</p>
+<p>First, above everything, above all things, the safety of the
+people is the supreme law. And if rhetoricians, anxious to tear
+down, anxious to pluck the faith from the young ones who are unable
+to defend it, come forward with nickel-plated platitudes and
+commonplaces clothed in second-hand purple and tinsel, and try to
+tear down the temple, then it is time, I shall not say for good
+men&mdash;for I know so few they make a small battalion&mdash;but
+for good women, to come to the rescue.</p>
+<center>GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.</center>
+<p>Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen&gt;: At this late hour, I
+could not attempt&mdash;even if I would&mdash;the eloquence of my
+friend Colonel Ingersoll; nor the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my
+other valued friend Mr. Coudert. But there are some things so
+serious about this subject that we discuss to-night, that I crave
+your pardon if, without preface, and without rhetoric, I get at
+once to what from my Protestant standpoint seems the fatal logical
+error of Mr. Inger-soll's position.</p>
+<p>Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement&mdash;and that I may
+not, for I could not, do him injustice, nor myself injustice, in
+the quotation, I will give it as he stated it&mdash;he starts with
+this statement: that thought is a necessary natural product, the
+result of what we call impressions made through the medium of the
+senses upon the brain.</p>
+<p>Do you think that is thought? Now stop&mdash;turn right into
+your own minds&mdash;is that thought? Does not will power take
+hold? Does not reason take hold? Does not memory take hold, and is
+not thought the action of the brain based upon the impression and
+assisted or directed by manifold and varying influences?</p>
+<p>Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human being is
+accountable to any being, human or divine, for his thought.</p>
+<p>He starts with the assumption that thought is the inevitable
+impression burnt upon the mind at once, and then jumps to the
+conclusion that there is no responsibility. Now, is not that a fair
+logical analysis of what he has said?</p>
+<p>My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then my mind,
+out of that impression, works good or evil. The glass of brandy,
+being presented to my physical sense, inspires
+thirst&mdash;inspires the thought of thirst&mdash;inspires the
+instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for the result of the
+mind given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise to the
+dignity of self-control?</p>
+<p>Every thing of sense leaves its impression upon the mind. If
+there be no responsibility anywhere, then is this world blind
+chance. If there be no responsibility anywhere, then my friend
+deserves no credit if he be guiding you in the path of truth, and I
+deserve no censure if I be carrying you back into the path of
+superstition. Why, admit for a moment that a man has no control
+over his thought, and you destroy absolutely the power of
+regenerating the world, the power of improving the world. The world
+swings one way, or it swings the other. If it be true that in all
+these ages we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty,
+that is true simply and alone because the mind of man through
+reason, through memory, through a thousand inspirations and desires
+and hopes, has ever tended toward better results and higher
+achievements.</p>
+<p>No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I recognize
+that I am accountable to myself; I recognize that whether I rise or
+fall, that whether my life goes upward or downward, I am
+responsible to myself. And so, in spite of all sophistry, so in
+spite of all dream, so in spite of all eloquence, each woman, each
+man within this audience is responsible&mdash;first of all to
+herself and himself&mdash;whether when bad thoughts, when passion,
+when murder, when evil come into the heart or brain he harbors them
+there or he casts them out.</p>
+<p>I am responsible further&mdash;I am responsible to my neighbor.
+I know that I am my neighbor's keeper, I know that as I touch your
+life, as you touch mine, I am responsible every moment, every hour,
+every day, for my influence upon you. I am either helping you up,
+or I am dragging you down; you are either helping me up or you are
+dragging me down&mdash;and you know it. Sophistry cannot get away
+from this; eloquence cannot seduce us from it. You know that if you
+look back through the record of your life, there are lives that you
+have helped and lives that you have hurt. You know that there are
+lives on the downward plane that went down because in an evil hour
+you pushed them; you know, perhaps with blessing, lives that have
+gone up because you have reached out to them a helping hand. That
+responsibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an
+accountability that you and I cannot avoid or evade.</p>
+<p>I believe one thing further: that because there is a creation
+there is a Creator. I believe that because there is force, there is
+a Projector of force; because there is matter, there is spirit. I
+reverently believe these things. I am not angry with my neighbor
+because he does not; it may be that he is right, that I am wrong;
+but if there be a Power that sent me into this world, so far as
+that Power has given me wrong direction, or permitted wrong
+direction, that Power will judge me justly. So far as I disregard
+the light that I have, whatever it may be&mdash;whether it br light
+of reason, light of conscience, light of history&mdash;so far as I
+do that which my judgment tells me is wrong, I am responsible and I
+am accountable.</p>
+<p>Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply this:
+It would vary from the theory as taught by the mother
+church&mdash;it certainly swings far away from the theory as
+suggested by my friend; I understand the Protestant theory to be
+this: That every man is responsible to himself, to his neighbor,
+and to his God, for his thought. Not for the first
+impression&mdash;but for that impression, for that direction and
+result which he intelligently gives to the first impression or
+deduces from it. I understand that the Protestant idea is this:
+that man may think&mdash;we know he will think&mdash;for himself;
+but that he is responsible for it. That a man may speak his
+thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He must use his
+own liberty so that he shall not injure the well-being of any other
+one&mdash;so that when using this liberty, when exercising this
+freedom, he is accountable at the last to his God. And so
+Protestantism sends me into the world with this terrible and solemn
+responsibility.</p>
+<p>It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the bar of
+his conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man, but it holds him
+in the inevitable grip of absolute responsibility for every light
+word idly spoken.</p>
+<p>God grant that he may use that power so that he can face that
+responsibility at the last!</p>
+<p>It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and stand by his
+church according to his own conviction.</p>
+<p>It stands for this; the absolute liberty of each individual man
+to think, to write, to speak, to act, according to the best light
+within him; limited as to his fellows, by the condition that he
+shall not use that liberty so as to injure them; limited in the
+other direction, by those tremendous laws which are laws in spite
+of all rhetoric, and in spite of all logic.</p>
+<p>If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a
+wrong, that wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts
+upon myself. If I would try to escape what you call judgment, what
+you call penalty, I cannot escape the working of the inevitable-law
+that follows a cause by effect; I cannot escape that inevitable
+law&mdash;not the creation of some dark monster flashing through
+the skies&mdash;but, as I believe, the beneficent creation which
+puts into the spiritual life the same control of law that guides
+the material life, which wisely makes me responsible, that in the
+solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my brother up
+and never to drag my brother down.</p>
+<center>REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.</center>
+<p>The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground boldly
+that expression is not free&mdash;that no man has the right to
+express his real thoughts&mdash;and I suppose that he acted in
+accordance with that idea. How are you to know whether he thought a
+solitary thing that he said, or not? How is it possible for us to
+ascertain whether he is simply the mouthpiece of some other?
+Whether he is a free man, or whether he says that which he does not
+believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.</p>
+<p>He tells you that I am about to take away the religion of your
+mothers. I have heard that said a great many times. No doubt Mr.
+Coudert has the religion of his mother, and judging from the
+argument he made, his mother knew at least as much about these
+questions as her son. I believe that every good father and good
+mother wants to see the son and the daughter climb higher upon the
+great and splendid mount of thought than they reached.</p>
+<p>You never can honor your father by going around swearing to his
+mistakes. You never can honor your mother by saying that ignorance
+is blessed because she did not know everything. I want to honor my
+parents by finding out more than they did.</p>
+<p>There is another thing that I was a little astonished
+at&mdash;that Mr. Coudert, knowing that he would be in eternal
+felicity with his harp in his hand, seeing me in the world of the
+damned, could yet grow envious here to-night at my imaginary
+monument.</p>
+<p>And he tells you&mdash;this Catholic&mdash;that Voltaire was an
+exceedingly good Christian compared with me. Do you know I am glad
+that I have compelled a Catholic&mdash;one who does not believe he
+has the right to express his honest thoughts&mdash;to pay a
+compliment to Voltaire simply because he thought it was at my
+expense?</p>
+<p>I have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and when I
+hear that name pronounced, I think of a plume floating over a
+mailed knight&mdash;I think of a man that rode to the beleaguered
+City of Catholicism and demanded a surrender&mdash;I think of a
+great man who thrust the dagger of assassination into your Mother
+Church, and from that wound she never will recover.</p>
+<p>One word more. This gentleman says that children are
+destructive&mdash;that the first thing they do is to destroy their
+bibs. The gentleman, I should think from his talk, has preserved
+his!</p>
+<p>They talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy? Let us be honest
+with each other. Whoever lives upon the unpaid labor of others is a
+blasphemer. Whoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer.
+Whoever denies to others the rights that he claims for himself is a
+blasphemer.</p>
+<p>Who is a worshiper? One who makes a happy home&mdash;one who
+fills the lives of wife and children with sunlight&mdash;one who
+has a heart where the flowers of kindness burst into blossom and
+fill the air with perfume&mdash;the man who sits beside his wife,
+prematurely old and wasted, and holds her thin hands in his and
+kisses them as passionately and loves her as truly and as
+rapturously as when she was a bride&mdash;he is a
+worshiper&mdash;that is worship.</p>
+<p>And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why we should not
+have free speech, that only a few years ago some of the best men in
+the world, if you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you
+down. What an argument was that! They were not good men. They were
+the whippers of women and the stealers of babes&mdash;robbers of
+the trundlebed&mdash;assassins of human liberty. They knew no
+better, but I do not propose to follow the example of a barbarian
+because he was honestly a barbarian.</p>
+<p>So much for debauching his family by telling them that his
+precepts are false. If he has taught them as he has taught us
+to-night, he has debauched their minds. I would be honest at the
+cradle. I would not tell a child anything as a certainty that I did
+not know. I would be absolutely honest.</p>
+<p>But he says that thought is absolutely free&mdash;nobody can
+control thought. Let me tell him: Superstition is the jailer of the
+mind. You can so stuff a child with superstition that its poor
+little brain is a bastile and its poor little soul a convict. Fear
+is the jailer of the mind, and superstition is the assassin of
+liberty.</p>
+<p>So when anybody goes into his family and tells these great and
+shining truths, instead of debauching his children they will kill
+the snakes that crawl in their cradles. Let us be honest and
+free.</p>
+<p>And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a Protestant. The
+Catholic Church says: "Don't think; pay your fare; this is a
+through ticket, and we will look out for your baggage." The
+Protestant Church says: "Read that Bible for yourselves; think for
+yourselves; but if you do not come to a right conclusion you will
+be eternally damned." Any sensible man will say, "Then I won't read
+it&mdash;I'll believe it without reading it." And that is the only
+way you can be sure you will believe it; don't read it.</p>
+<p>Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our thoughts.
+Why? Could you help thinking as you did on this subject? No, Could
+you help believing the Bible? I suppose not. Could you help
+believing that story of Jonah? Certainly not&mdash;it looks
+reasonable in Brooklyn.</p>
+<p>I stated that thought was the result of the impressions of
+nature upon the mind through the medium of the senses. He says you
+cannot have thought without memory. How did you get the first
+one?</p>
+<p>Of course I intended to be understood&mdash;and the language is
+clear&mdash;that there could be no thought except through the
+impressions made upon the brain by nature through the avenues
+called the senses. Take away the senses, how would you think then?
+If you thought at all, I think you would agree with Mr.
+Coudert.</p>
+<p>Now, I admit&mdash;so we need never have a contradiction about
+it&mdash;I admit that every human being is responsible to the
+person he injures. If he injures any man, woman, or child, or any
+dog, or the lowest animal that crawls, he is responsible to that
+animal, to that being&mdash;in other words, he is responsible to
+any being that he has injured.</p>
+<p>But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one. I will
+tell you why. You cannot help him, and you cannot hurt him. If
+there be an infinite Being, he is conditionless&mdash;he does not
+want anything&mdash;he has it. You cannot help anybody that does
+not want something&mdash;you cannot help him. You cannot hurt
+anybody unless he is a conditioned being and you change his
+condition so as to inflict a harm. But if God be conditionless, you
+cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do not trouble
+yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within
+reach&mdash;all our duties are right here; and my religion is
+simply this:</p>
+<p><i>First</i>. Give to every other human being every right that
+you claim for yourself.</p>
+<p><i>Second</i>. If you tell your thought at all, tell your honest
+thought. Do not be a parrot&mdash;do not be an instrumentality for
+an organization. Tell your own thought, honor bright, what you
+think.</p>
+<p>My next idea is, that the only possible good in the universe is
+happiness. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is
+here. The way to be happy is to try and make somebody else so.</p>
+<p>My good friend General Woodford&mdash;and he is a good man
+telling the best he knows&mdash;says that I will be accountable at
+the bar up yonder. I am ready to settle that account now, and
+expect to be, every moment of my life&mdash;and when that
+settlement comes, if it does come, I do not believe that a solitary
+being can rise and say that I ever injured him or her.</p>
+<p>But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story, how we
+will settle if we do get there.</p>
+<p>You remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that
+his country was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest
+told him that there was another country where a man lived who was
+eleven or twelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he
+denied it, when that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole
+bone in his body. But he denied it. He was one of those men who
+would not believe further than his vision extended.</p>
+<p>So one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind
+suddenly arose and he was blown out of sight of his home. After
+several days he was blown so far that he saw the shores of another
+country. Then he said, "My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing
+all my life that there was no other country, and here it is!" So he
+did his best&mdash;paddled with what little strength he had left,
+reached the shore, and got out of his boat. Sure enough, there came
+down a man to meet him about twelve feet high. The poor little
+wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the tall man
+as he saw him coming down: "Mister, whoever you are, I denied your
+existence&mdash;I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no
+such country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You
+are going to kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get
+me out of my misery. Do it now!"</p>
+<p>The great man just looked at the little fellow, and said
+nothing, till he asked, "What are you going to do with me, because
+over in that other country I denied your existence?" "What am I
+going to do with you?" said the supposed God. "Now that you have
+got here, if you behave yourself I am going to treat you well."</p>
+<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel
+     Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December
+     19,1891.
+</pre>
+<center>I.</center>
+<p>THE good part of Christmas is not always Christian&mdash;it is
+generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.</p>
+<p>Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a
+message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting
+torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition
+hereafter.</p>
+<p>It taught some good things&mdash;the beauty of love and kindness
+in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a
+failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite
+beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for
+mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and
+made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the
+home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has
+deprived God of the pardoning power.</p>
+<p>In answer to this "Christmas Sermon" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley,
+editor of the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the
+Methodist Church, wrote an article, calling upon the public to
+boycott the Evening Telegram for publishing such a "sermon."</p>
+<p>This attack was headed "Lies That Are Mountainous." The Telegram
+promptly accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to
+do his utmost. On the very same day it published an answer from
+Colonel Ingersoll that echoed throughout America.'</p>
+<p>And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan
+world the old festival called Christmas.</p>
+<p>Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the
+powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days
+begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were
+worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the
+hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most
+natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity
+adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it
+has.</p>
+<p>I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart
+for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We
+are too much like the English.</p>
+<p>I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a
+blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a
+praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of
+all the good free days&mdash;the more the better.</p>
+<p>Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget&mdash;a good day
+to throw away prejudices and hatreds&mdash;a good day to fill your
+heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with
+sunshine.</p>
+<p>R. G Ingersoll.</p>
+<p>COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.</p>
+<center>II.</center>
+<p>WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for
+kindness, charity and love.</p>
+<p>The gentle editor of the <i>Christian Advocate</i> charges me
+with having written three "gigantic falsehoods," and he points them
+out as follows: <i>First</i>&mdash;"Christianity did not come with
+tidings of great joy? but with a message of eternal grief."</p>
+<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;"It [Christianity] has filled the future
+with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of
+men."</p>
+<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity]
+has deprived God of the pardoning power."</p>
+<p>Now, let us take up these "gigantic falsehoods" in their order
+and see whether they are in accord with the New Testament or
+not&mdash;whether they are supported by the creed of the Methodist
+Church.</p>
+<p>I insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great
+joy, but with a message of eternal grief.</p>
+<p>According to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the
+tidings that the human race was totally depraved, and that all men
+were in a lost condition, and that all who rejected or failed to
+believe the new religion, would be tormented in eternal fire.</p>
+<p>These were not "tidings of great joy."</p>
+<p>If the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was
+to be wrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would
+go to the bottom, would they talk about "tidings of great joy"? It
+is to be presumed that Christ knew what his mission was, and what
+he came for. He says: "Think not that I am come to send peace on
+earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set
+a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
+mother." In my judgment, these are not "tidings of great joy."</p>
+<p>Now, as to the message of eternal grief:</p>
+<p>"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
+me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
+angels."</p>
+<p>"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the
+righteous [meaning the Methodists] into life eternal."</p>
+<p>"He that believeth not shall be damned."</p>
+<p>"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
+of God abideth on him."</p>
+<p>"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
+soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
+body in hell."</p>
+<p>"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and
+ever."</p>
+<p>Knowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that
+during the last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has
+died in the faith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in
+hell, it can truthfully be said that Christianity came with a
+message of eternal grief.</p>
+<p>Now, as to the second "gigantic falsehood," to the effect that
+Christianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God
+the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of
+nearly all the sons of men.</p>
+<p>In the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some
+other world, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When
+Jehovah killed one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was
+glutted when the victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future
+to sleep and oblivion. But in the New Testament we are told that
+the punishment in another world is everlasting, and that "the smoke
+of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever."</p>
+<p>This awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future
+with fear and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox
+churches have constructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the
+sons of men are to be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this
+prison God is the keeper. The doors are opened only to receive.</p>
+<p>The doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As
+I have often said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the
+justice of endless pain, is suffering from at least two
+diseases&mdash;petrifaction of the heart and putrefaction of the
+brain.</p>
+<p>The next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of
+the pardoning power.</p>
+<p>The Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this
+life is a period of probation; that there is no chance given for
+reformation after death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in
+another world.</p>
+<p>This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be
+true, then God will never release a soul from hell&mdash;the
+pardoning power will never be exercised.</p>
+<p>How happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be,
+knowing that billions and billions of his children, of their
+fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, and children are
+convicts in the eternal dungeons, and that the words of pardon will
+never be spoken!</p>
+<p>Yet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New
+Testament, of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those
+who would desert brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife
+or children.</p>
+<p>It seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring "tidings of
+great joy," but that it came with a "message of eternal
+grief"&mdash;that it did "fill the future with fear and flame,"
+that it did make God "the keeper of an eternal penitentiary," that
+the penitentiary "was destined to be the home of nearly all the
+sons of men," and that "it deprived God of the pardoning
+power."</p>
+<p>Of course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible,
+others of war&mdash;some filled with mercy, and others cruel as the
+fangs of a wild beast.</p>
+<p>According to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison&mdash;an
+everlasting Siberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony
+and shame.</p>
+<p>What do I think of what the Doctor says about the
+<i>Telegram</i> for having published my Christmas sermon?</p>
+<p>The editor of the <i>Christian Advocate</i> has no idea of what
+intellectual liberty means. He ought to know that a man should not
+be insulted because another man disagrees with him.</p>
+<p>What right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons,
+and what right has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley?
+The same right that I have to disagree with them both.</p>
+<p>I do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist
+papers or books. But I do tell them to investigate for
+themselves&mdash;to stand by what they believe to be true, to deny
+the false, and, above all things, to preserve their mental manhood.
+The good Doctor wants the <i>Telegram</i> destroyed&mdash;wants all
+religious people to unite for the purpose of punishing the
+<i>Telegram</i>&mdash;because it published something with which the
+reverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree with
+the Doctor.</p>
+<p>It is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The
+doctor of theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost
+its lightning&mdash;it is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who
+make it and amusing those who hear.</p>
+<p>The <i>Telegram</i> has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest
+sense, a newspaper&mdash;wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to
+its friends, fair with its enemies, and true to the public.</p>
+<p>What have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?</p>
+<p>Nothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say
+that I am incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and
+yet all this proves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.</p>
+<p>I cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental
+manners. The cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred,
+to be stained by an ignorant or a malicious personality.</p>
+<p>I know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so
+I say&mdash;More light!</p>
+<center>III.</center>
+<p>THE Rev. James M. King&mdash;who seems to have taken this
+occasion to become known&mdash;finds fault because "blasphemous
+utterances concerning Christmas" were published in the
+<i>Telegram</i>, and were allowed "to greet the eyes of innocent
+children and pure women."</p>
+<p>How is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of
+itself, holier than another&mdash;that is to say, two equal spaces
+of time are substantially alike. We call a day "good" or "bad"
+according to what happens in the day. A day filled with happiness,
+with kind words, with noble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with
+misfortunes and anger and misery we call a bad day. But how is it
+possible to blaspheme a day?</p>
+<p>A man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th
+of December, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is
+concerned, with good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may
+really believe that Christ was born on that day, and yet do his
+worst to make all his friends unhappy. But how can the rights of
+what are called "clean families" be violated by reading the honest
+opinions of others as to whether Christmas is kept in honor of the
+birth of Christ, or in honor of the triumph of the sun over the
+hosts of darkness? Are Christian families so weak intellectually
+that they cannot bear to hear the other side? Or is their case so
+weak that the slightest evidence overthrows it? Why do all these
+ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise a question as to
+the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability of the
+impossible?</p>
+<p>A minister says to me that I am going to hell&mdash;that I am
+bound to be punished forever and ever&mdash;and thereupon I say to
+him: "There is no hell you are mistaken; your Bible is not
+inspired; no human being is to suffer agony forever;" and
+thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me this question: "Why do
+you hurt my feelings?" It does not occur to him that I have the
+slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal grief.</p>
+<p>Does the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot
+differ with him? There are many thousands of people who love and
+honor the memory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest
+belief in his divine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine
+that he was other than a good and heroic man. And there are
+thousands of people who admire the character of Jesus Christ who do
+not believe that he ever existed&mdash;who admire the character of
+Christ as they admire Imogen, or Per-dita, not believing that any
+of the characters mentioned actually lived.</p>
+<p>And it may be well enough here to state that no human being
+hates any really good man or good woman&mdash;that is, no human
+being hates a man known to be good&mdash;a woman known to be pure
+and good. No human being hates a lovable character.</p>
+<p>It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination
+to understand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute
+a bad motive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not
+say that a man is a Christian or a Mohammedan "for revenue only." I
+do not say that a man joins the Democratic party simply for office,
+or that he marches with the Republicans simply for position. I am
+willing to hear his reasons&mdash;with his motives I have nothing
+to do.</p>
+<p>Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity "for
+revenue only." Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far
+from orthodox religion that the way to make money is to denounce
+Christianity? I can hardly believe, for joy, that liberty of
+thought has advanced so far. I regret exceedingly that there is not
+an absolute foundation for his remark. I am indeed sorry that it is
+possible in this world of ours for any human being to make a living
+out of the ignorance and fear of his fellow-men. Still, it gives me
+great hope for the future to read, even in this ignorant present,
+that there is one man, and that man myself, who advocates human
+liberty&mdash;the absolute enfranchisement of the soul&mdash;and
+does it "for revenue"&mdash;because this charge is such a splendid
+compliment to my fellow-men.</p>
+<p>Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to
+the <i>Telegram</i> and will satisfy that brave and progressive
+sheet that it is in harmony with the intelligence of the age.</p>
+<p>My opinion is that the <i>Telegram</i> will receive the praise
+of enlightened and generous people.</p>
+<p>Personally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his
+practice, and I would much rather meet on the desert&mdash;were I
+about to perish for want of water&mdash;a Mohammedan who would give
+me a drink than a Christian who would not; because, after all is
+said and done, we are compelled to judge people by their
+actions.</p>
+<p>I do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the
+brain, inhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All
+that takes place there is invisible and soundless. This mind,
+hidden in this brain, masked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and
+the only evidence we can possibly have as to what occurs in that
+world, we obtain from the actions of the man, of the woman. By
+these actions we judge of the character, of the soul. So I make up
+my mind as to whether a man is good or bad, not by his theories,
+but by his actions.</p>
+<p>Under no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion,
+couched in becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here
+it may be well enough to inquire: What is blasphemy?</p>
+<p>A man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors
+to stain the pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a
+blasphemer. A man who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is
+a blasphemer. He who runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is
+in the right is a blasphemer.</p>
+<p>In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the
+soul, there is one niche in which can be found the statue of the
+ideal. In the presence of this statue the good man
+worships&mdash;the bad man blasphemes&mdash;that is to say, he is
+not true to the ideal.</p>
+<p>A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a
+blasphemer. So, too, a man who does not give the honest transcript
+of his mind is a blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character
+of Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he
+denounces Jehovah as bad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes
+that the character of Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament,
+is bad, and he pronounces it good, he is a blasphemer and a
+coward.</p>
+<p>All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed by the numerically
+strong and intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by
+those who, finding no help in logic, appealed to the
+legislature.</p>
+<p>Back of all these superstitions you will find some
+self-interest. I do not say that this is true in every case, but I
+do say that if priests had not been fond of mutton, lambs never
+would have been sacrificed to God. Nothing was ever carried to the
+temple that the priest could not use, and it always so happened
+that God wanted what his agents liked.</p>
+<p>Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests "for
+revenue only," but I must say that the history of the world tends
+to show that the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion
+to religion without revenue.</p>
+<p>I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an
+infidel has a right to publish his views at his own expense, and
+with the utmost cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian.
+The only thing I have ever objected to is the publication of his
+views at the expense of others.</p>
+<p>I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is
+known as the Christmas Sermon are "revolting to a vast majority of
+the people who give character to the community in which we live." I
+suppose that a very large majority of men and women who disagree
+with me are perfectly satisfied that I have the right to disagree
+with them, and that I do not disagree with them to any greater
+degree than they disagree with me. And I also imagine that a very
+large majority of intelligent people are perfectly willing to hear
+the other side.</p>
+<p>I do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as
+exotics that have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts
+of common sense or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants
+are hardly worth preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy
+enough to stand the climate of free discussion, and if they cannot,
+the sooner they die the better.</p>
+<p>I do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the
+words published by, the <i>Telegram</i>. The most that can possibly
+be said against them, calculated to excite the prejudice of
+Christians, is that they were true&mdash;that they cannot be
+answered except by abuse.</p>
+<p>It is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the
+rising flood of intellectual freedom by keeping the names of
+thinkers out of print. The church has had the field for eighteen
+hundred years. For most of this time it has held the sword and
+purse of the world. For many centuries it controlled colleges and
+universities and schools. It had within its gift wealth and honor.
+It held the keys, so far as this world is concerned, of heaven and
+hell&mdash;that is to say, of prosperity and misfortune. It pursued
+its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the scaffold with the
+best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet for many
+centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.
+Millions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has
+made millions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this
+world, but it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under
+this pretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal
+flames.</p>
+<p>At last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous
+assumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for
+many years gradually losing its power. The sword of the state
+belongs now to the people. The partnership between altar and throne
+has in many countries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of
+church and state has ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express
+their honest thoughts. In the arena where speech is free,
+superstition is driven to the wall. Man relies more and more on the
+facts in nature, and the real priest is the interpreter of nature.
+The pulpit is losing its power. In a little while religion will
+take its place with astrology, with the black art, and its
+ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand
+performers.</p>
+<p>With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have
+but little to say.</p>
+<p>I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free
+press&mdash;that he, like Lucretia Mott, believes in "truth for
+authority, and not authority for truth." At the same time I do not
+see how the fact that I am not a scientist has the slightest
+bearing upon the question; but if there is any fact that I have
+avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be pointed out. I
+admit also, that I am a "sentimentalist"&mdash;that is, that I am
+governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment&mdash;that my mind is
+so that cruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and
+admiration. I admit that I am so much of "a sentimentalist" that I
+have no love for the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is
+impossible for me to believe a creed that fills the prison house of
+hell with countless billions of men, women and children.</p>
+<p>I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have
+"stabbed to the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies," and I
+hope to stab many, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies
+to the heart there will be no foundation left for what I called
+"orthodox" Christianity&mdash;but goodness will survive, justice
+will live, and the flower of mercy will shed its perfume
+forever.</p>
+<p>When we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon
+is a minister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the
+people a divine message, I do not wonder that he makes the
+following assertion: "If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a
+divine message, I do not see why he could not utilize the Colonel."
+It is natural for a man to justify himself and to defend his own
+occupation. Mr. Dixon, however, will remember that the ass was much
+superior to the prophet of God, and that the argument was all on
+the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that the spiritual
+discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet. It was the
+ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I suggest to
+the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he will
+find:&mdash;</p>
+<p><i>First</i>, that the ass <i>first</i> saw the angel of the
+Lord; <i>second</i>, that the prophet Balaam was cruel,
+unreasonable, and brutal; <i>third</i>, that the prophet so lost
+his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent ass, and the ass,
+not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and demonstrated
+not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In addition to
+all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the
+prophet&mdash;in other words, had to work a miracle&mdash;in order
+to make the prophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked
+him for his cruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any
+miracle whatever the ass saw him&mdash;the angel&mdash;showing that
+the spiritual discernment of the ass in those days was far superior
+to that of the prophet.</p>
+<p>I regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the
+Rev. Mr. Dixon is not quite polite.</p>
+<p>All of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and
+that he who seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.</p>
+<p>And there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in
+the justice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength
+is the foundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and
+when argument fails passion comes to the rescue.</p>
+<p>Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of
+each other.</p>
+<p>The course pursued by the <i>Telegram</i> is worthy of all
+praise. It has not only been just to both sides, but it has
+been&mdash;as is its custom&mdash;true to the public.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<center>INGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.</center>
+<center>IV.</center>
+<p><i>To the Editor of the Evening Telegram</i> :</p>
+<p>SOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the
+columns of the <i>Telegram</i> have wandered from the questions
+under discussion. It may be well enough to state what is really in
+dispute.</p>
+<p>I was called to account for having stated that Christianity did
+not bring "tidings of great joy," but a message of eternal
+grief&mdash;that it filled the future with fear and
+flame&mdash;made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in
+which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned forever,
+and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the
+pardoning power.</p>
+<p>These statements were called "mountainous lies" by the Rev. Dr.
+Buckley, and because the <i>Telegram</i> had published the
+"Christmas Sermon" containing these statements, he insisted that
+such a paper should not be allowed in the families of Christians or
+of Jews&mdash;in other words, that the <i>Telegram</i> should be
+punished, and that good people should refuse to allow that sheet to
+come into their homes.</p>
+<p>It will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if
+the orthodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the
+bearer of a message of eternal grief, and a large majority of the
+human race are to become eternal convicts, and God has deprived
+himself of the pardoning power. According to those creeds, no word
+of mercy to any of the lost can ever fall from the lips of the
+Infinite.</p>
+<p>The Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of
+Christianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that
+doctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with "tidings
+of great joy."</p>
+<p>Personally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I
+have no quarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the
+human race. I find fault with no one for filling the future with
+joy&mdash;for dreaming splendid dreams and for uttering splendid
+prophecies. I do not object to Christianity because it promises
+heaven to a few, but because it threatens the many with
+perdition.</p>
+<p>It does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that
+degree that he died that they might be saved, abandons his children
+the moment they are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might
+do something for a soul after it has reached the other world.</p>
+<p>Is it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done
+for a majority of souls in this world?</p>
+<p>Think of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in
+poverty and crime. Think of the millions who are only partially
+developed in this world. Think of the weakness of the will, of the
+power of passion. Think of the temptations innumerable. Think, too,
+of the tyranny of man, of the arrogance of wealth and position, of
+the sufferings of the weak&mdash;and can we then say that an
+infinite God has done, in this world, all that could be done for
+the salvation of his children? Is it not barely possible that
+something may be done in another world? Is there nothing left for
+God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it leaves
+this world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence of
+eternal pain?</p>
+<p>I insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did
+not come with "tidings of great joy," but that its message was and
+is one of eternal grief.</p>
+<p>If the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast
+blunder&mdash;an infinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that
+every pulse of life should cease&mdash;better that all the gods
+should fall palsied from their thrones, than that the creed of
+Christendom should be true.</p>
+<p>There is another question and that involves the freedom of the
+press.</p>
+<p>The <i>Telegram</i> has acted with the utmost fairness and with
+the highest courage. After all, the American people admire the man
+who takes his stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an
+instrumentality of progress, the press must be free. Only the free
+can carry a torch. Liberty sheds light.</p>
+<p>The editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position,
+and he must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and
+ignorant children. He must not, in the supposed interest of any
+ism, suppress the truth&mdash;neither must he be dictated to by any
+church or any society of believers or unbelievers. The
+<i>Telegram</i>, by its course, has given a certificate of its
+manliness, and the public, by its course, has certified that it
+appreciates true courage.</p>
+<p>All Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and
+that the sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember
+that there are no such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist
+botany, or Catholic chemistry. The sciences are secular. .</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues&mdash;and
+yet, in some things, I agree with him. He is certainly right when
+he says that "Mr. Buckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly
+and un-American," but I am not certain that he is right when he
+says that it is un-Christian.</p>
+<p>The church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with
+kind words and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always
+been rather relentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has
+never forgiven. There is in the history of Christendom no instance
+where the church has extended the hand of friendship to a man who
+denied the truth of its creed.</p>
+<p>There is in the church no spirit&mdash;no climate&mdash;of
+compromise. In the nature of things there can be none, because the
+church claims that it is absolutely right&mdash;that there is only
+one road leading to heaven. It demands unconditional surrender. It
+will not bear contradiction. It claims to have the absolute truth.
+For these reasons it cannot consistently compromise, any more than
+a mathematician could change the multiplication table to meet the
+view of some one who should deny that five times five are
+twenty-five.</p>
+<p>The church does not give its opinion&mdash;it claims to
+know&mdash;it demands belief. Honesty, industry, generosity count
+for nothing in the absence of belief. It has taught and still
+teaches that no man can reach heaven simply through good and honest
+deeds. It believes and teaches that the man who relies upon himself
+will be eternally punished&mdash;and why should the church forgive
+a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat impatiently to
+damn?</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Peters asks&mdash;and probably honestly thinks that
+the questions are pertinent to the issues involved&mdash;"What has
+infidelity done for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and
+schools has it founded? What has it done for the elevation of
+public morals?" And he inquires what science or art has been
+originated by infidelity. He asks how many slaves it has liberated,
+how many inebriates it has reclaimed, how many fallen women it has
+restored, and what it did for the relief of the wounded and dying
+soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it ever assisted to
+higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.</p>
+<p>Although these questions have nothing whatever to do with the
+matters under discussion, still it may be well enough to answer
+them.</p>
+<p>It is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been
+built by Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted
+that hospitals and asylums have been built in countries not
+Christian; that there were such institutions in China thousands of
+years before Christ was born, and that many centuries before the
+establishment of any orthodox church there were asylums on the
+banks of the Nile&mdash;asylums for the old, the poor, the
+infirm&mdash;asylums for the blind and for the insane, and that the
+Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity with
+kindness and affection. The same is true of India and probably of
+most ancient nations.</p>
+<p>There has always been more or less humanity in man&mdash;more or
+less goodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have
+always loved their children. There must always have been more good
+than evil, otherwise the human race would have perished. The best
+things in the Christian religion came from the heart of man. Pagan
+lips uttered the sublimest of truths, and all ages have been
+redeemed by honesty, heroism, and love.</p>
+<p>But let me answer these questions in their order.</p>
+<p><i>First</i>&mdash;As to the schools.</p>
+<p>It is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always
+been in favor of education&mdash;that is to say, of education
+enough to make a Catholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted
+that Protestants have always been in favor of enough education to
+make a Protestant out of a Catholic. Many schools and many colleges
+have been established for the spread of what is called the Gospel
+and for the education of the clergy. Presbyterians have founded
+schools for the benefit of their creed. The Methodists have
+established colleges for the purpose of making Methodists. The same
+is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of fact, these schools
+have in many important directions hindered rather than helped the
+cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to investigate
+for themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were told that
+thought is dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with
+creeds&mdash;with the ideas of others. Their credulity was
+applauded and their curiosity condemned. If all the people had been
+educated in these sectarian schools, all the people would have been
+far more ignorant than they are. These schools have been, and most
+of them still are, the enemies of higher education, and just to the
+extent that they are under the control of theologians they are
+hindrances, and just to the extent that they have become
+secularized they have been and are a benefit.</p>
+<p>Our public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I
+admit that it never could have been established without the
+assistance of Christians&mdash;neither could it have been supported
+without the assistance of others. But such is the value placed upon
+education that people of nearly all denominations, and of nearly
+all religions, and of nearly all opinions, for the most part agree
+that the children of a nation should be educated by the nation.
+Some religious people are opposed to these schools because they are
+not religious&mdash;because they do not teach some creed&mdash;but
+a large majority of the people stand by the public schools as they
+are. These schools are growing better and better, simply because
+they are growing less and less theological, more and more
+secular.</p>
+<p>Infidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that
+only that should be taught in schools which somebody knows or has
+good reason to believe.</p>
+<p>The greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who
+have the least confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that
+stand highest in the estimation of the most intelligent are those
+that have drifted farthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought
+has always been and ever must be the friend of education. Without
+free thought there can be no such thing&mdash;in the highest
+sense&mdash;as a school. Unless the mind is free, there are no
+teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and splendid
+sense.</p>
+<p>The church has been and still is the enemy of education, because
+it has been in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological
+schools have been what might be called the deformatories of the
+human mind.</p>
+<p>For instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In
+this university he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that
+Joshua stopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts
+the truth of the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and
+yet believes that water was turned into wine. He has been taught
+the ordinary theory of cause and effect, and at the same time he
+thoroughly believes in the miraculous multiplication of loaves and
+fishes. Can such an institution, with any propriety, be called a
+seat of learning? Can we not say of such a university what Bruno
+said of Oxford: "Learning is dead and Oxford is its widow."</p>
+<p>Year after year the religious colleges are
+improving&mdash;simply because they are becoming more and more
+secular, less and less theological. Whether infidelity has founded
+universities or not, it can truthfully be said that the spirit of
+investigation, the spirit of free thought, the attitude of mental
+independence, contended for by those who are called infidels, have
+made schools useful instead of hurtful.</p>
+<p>Can it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice
+against education? Can there be found in the literature of free
+thought one line against the enlightenment of the human race? Has
+free thought ever endeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not
+always appealed to the senses&mdash;to demonstration? It has not
+said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," but it has said,
+"He that hath brains to think, let him think."</p>
+<p>The object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every
+direction, to the end that man may know the conditions of
+happiness&mdash;and every school should be absolutely free. No
+teacher should be bound by anything except a perceived fact. He
+should not be the slave of a creed, engaged in the business of
+enslaving others.</p>
+<p>So much for schools.</p>
+<p>Second&mdash;As to public morals.</p>
+<p>Christianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every
+church unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I
+do not mean by this that any church consciously advocates
+immorality. I most cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of
+ministers are endeavoring to do good&mdash;that they are pure,
+self-denying men, trying to make this world better. But there is a
+frightful defect in their philosophy. They say to the bank cashier:
+You must not steal, you must not take a dollar&mdash;larceny is
+wrong, it is contrary to all law, human and divine&mdash;but if you
+do steal every cent in the bank, God will as gladly, quickly
+forgive you in Canada as he will in the United States. On the other
+hand, what is called infidelity says: There is no being in the
+universe who rewards, and there is no being who
+punishes&mdash;every act has its consequences. If the act is good,
+the consequences are good; if the act is bad, the consequences are
+bad; and these consequences must be borne by the actor. It says to
+every human being: You must reap what you sow. There is no reward,
+there is no punishment, but there are consequences, and these
+consequences are the invisible and implacable police of nature.
+They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No power can awe
+them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make them pause.
+Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant their
+victim.</p>
+<p>This great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If
+all men knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of
+their own actions&mdash;if they absolutely knew that they could not
+injure another without injuring themselves, the world, in my
+judgment, would be far better than it is.</p>
+<p>Free thought has attacked the morality of what is called the
+atonement. The innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if
+the innocent does suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any
+possibility justify the guilty. The reason a thing is wrong is
+because it, in some way, causes the innocent to suffer. This being
+the very essence of wrong, how can the suffering of innocence
+justify the guilty? If there be a world of joy, he who is worthy to
+enter that world must be willing to carry his own burdens in
+this.</p>
+<p>So much for morality.</p>
+<p>Third&mdash;As to sciences and art.</p>
+<p>I do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any
+science. I do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New
+Testament. There is not one word, so far as I remember, about
+education&mdash;nothing about any science, nothing about art. The
+writers of the New Testament seem to have thought that the world
+was about coming to an end. This world was to be sacrificed
+absolutely to the next. The affairs of this life were not worth
+speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at once for the
+other life.</p>
+<p>The sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not
+interfere with orthodox theology. To the extent that they were
+supposed to interfere with theology they have been obstructed and
+denounced. Astronomy was found to be inconsistent with the
+Scriptures, and the astronomers were imprisoned and despised.
+Geology contradicted the Mosaic account, and the geologists were
+denounced and persecuted. Every step taken in astronomy was taken
+in spite of the church, and every fact in geology had to fight its
+way. The same is true as to the science of medicine. The church
+wished to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and prayer, and with
+the bones of the saints. The church wished man to rely entirely
+upon God&mdash;that is to say, upon the church&mdash;and not upon
+himself. The physician interfered with the power and prosperity of
+the priest, and those who appealed to physicians were denounced as
+lacking faith in God. This state of things existed even in the Old
+Testament times. A king failed to send for the prophets, but sent
+for a physician, and then comes this piece of grim humor: "And Asa
+slept with his fathers."</p>
+<p>The great names in science are not those of recognized
+saints.</p>
+<p>Bruno&mdash;one of the greatest and bravest of
+men&mdash;greatest of all martyrs&mdash;perished at the stake,
+because he insisted on the existence of other worlds and taught the
+astronomy of Galileo.</p>
+<p>Humboldt&mdash;in some respects the wisest man known to the
+scientific world&mdash;denied the existence of the supernatural and
+"the truths of revealed religion," and yet he revolutionized the
+thought of his day and left a legacy of intellectual glory to the
+race.</p>
+<p>Darwin&mdash;greatest of scientists&mdash;so great that our time
+will probably be known as "Darwin's Century"&mdash;had not the
+slightest confidence in any possible phase of the so-called
+supernatural. This great man left the creed of Christendom without
+a foundation. He brought as witnesses against the inspiration of
+the Scriptures such a multitude of facts, such an overwhelming
+amount of testimony, that it seems impossible to me that any
+unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain a
+believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the
+schools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded.
+He revolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.</p>
+<p>The writers who have done most for science have been the most
+bitterly opposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in
+the libraries of the world that cannot be found on the "Index
+Expurgatorius." Kant and Fichte and Spinoza were far above and
+beyond the orthodox-world. Voltaire did more for freedom than any
+other man, and yet the church denounced him with a fury amounting
+to insanity&mdash;called him an atheist, although he believed not
+only in God, but in special providence. He was opposed to the
+church&mdash;that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that
+reason he was despised.</p>
+<p>And what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of
+Draper, of Haeckel, of B&uuml;chner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of
+Auguste Comte, and hundreds and thousands of others who have filled
+the scientific world with light and the heart of man with love and
+kindness?</p>
+<p>It may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that
+Christianity is indebted to Greece and Rome for its highest
+conceptions, and it may be well to add that for many centuries
+Christianity did the best it could to destroy the priceless marbles
+of Greece and Rome. A few were buried, and in that way were saved
+from Christian fury.</p>
+<p>The same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few
+fragments were rescued, and these became the seeds of modern
+literature. A few statues were preserved, and they are to-day
+models for all the world.</p>
+<p>Of course it will be admitted that there is much art in
+Christian lands, because, in spite of the creeds, Christians,
+so-called, have turned their attention to this world. They have
+beautified their homes, they have endeavored to clothe themselves
+in purple and fine linen. They have been forced from banquets or
+from luxury by the difficulty of camels going through the eyes of
+needles or the impossibility of carrying water to the rich man.
+They have cultivated this world, and the arts have lived. Did they
+obey the precepts that they find in their sacred writings there
+would be no art, they would "take no thought for the morrow," they
+would "consider the lilies of the field."</p>
+<p>Fourth&mdash;As to the liberation of slaves.</p>
+<p>It was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he
+spoke of slavery. The Bible upholds human slavery&mdash;white
+slavery. The Bible was quoted by all slaveholders and
+slave-traders. The man who went to Africa to steal women and
+children took the Bible with him. He planted himself firmly on the
+Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:</p>
+<pre>
+     "He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,
+     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."
+</pre>
+<p>So when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the
+planters defended their action by reading the Bible. When a poor
+woman was sold, her children torn from her breast, the auction
+block on which she stood was the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her
+quoted the Scriptures; the man who bought her repeated the
+quotations, and the ministers from the pulpit said to the weeping
+woman, as her child was carried away: "Servants, be obedient unto
+your masters."</p>
+<p>Freethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas
+Paine did more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood
+upon the western world. The first article he ever wrote in this
+country was one against the institution of slavery. Freethinkers
+have also been in favor of free bodies. Freethinkers have always
+said "free hands," and the infidels, the wide world over, have been
+friends of freedom.</p>
+<p>Fifth&mdash;As to the reclamation of inebriates.</p>
+<p>Much has been said, and for many years, on the subject of
+temperance&mdash;much has been uttered by priests and
+laymen&mdash;and yet there seems to be a subtle relation between
+rum and religion. Scotland is extremely orthodox, yet it is not
+extremely temperate. England is nothing if not religious, and
+London is, par excellence, the Christian city of the world, and yet
+it is the most intemperate. The Mohammedans&mdash;followers of a
+false prophet&mdash;do not drink.</p>
+<p>Sixth&mdash;As to the humanity of infidelity.</p>
+<p>Can it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying
+only because they were orthodox?</p>
+<p>Is it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the
+creed of forgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more
+than one hundred and fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true
+that where the church has cared for one orphan it has created
+hundreds? Can Christianity afford to speak of war?</p>
+<p>The Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each
+other. In Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation&mdash;all
+that can be borrowed by pledging the prosperity of the
+future&mdash;the labor of those yet unborn&mdash;is used for the
+purpose of keeping Christians in the field, to the end that they
+may destroy other Christians, or at least prevent other Christians
+from destroying them. Europe is covered with churches and
+fortifications, with temples and with forts&mdash;hundreds of
+thousands of priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and
+countless bayonets&mdash;and that whole country is oppressed and
+impoverished for the purpose of carrying on war. The people have
+become deformed by labor, and yet Christianity boasts of peace.</p>
+<p>Seventh&mdash;"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?"</p>
+<p>Is it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying
+when the dying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and
+that he, unless he has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict?
+Will it cheer him to know that, even if he is to be saved,
+countless millions are to be lost? Is it possible for the Christian
+religion to put a smile upon the face of death?</p>
+<p>On the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying:
+What happens to you will happen to all. If there be another world
+of joy, it is for all. If there is another life, every human being
+will have the eternal opportunity of doing right&mdash;the eternal
+opportunity to live, to reform, to enjoy. There is no monster in
+the sky. There is no Moloch who delights in the agony of his
+children. These frightful things are savage dreams.</p>
+<p>Infidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of
+pity.</p>
+<p>Infidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every
+grave.</p>
+<p>Let us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under
+discussion. Let us not wander away.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<p>Jan'y 9, 1891.</p>
+<center>INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.</center>
+<center>V.</center>
+<p>NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.</p>
+<p>The industrious people of the world&mdash;those who have
+anything&mdash;are, as a rule, opposed to larceny; a very large
+majority of people object to being murdered, and so we have laws
+against larceny and murder. A large majority of people believe in
+what they call, or what they understand to be, justice&mdash;at
+least as between others. There is no very great difference of
+opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not moral.</p>
+<p>It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism
+attacks all morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy,
+or anything that tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind;
+but he attacks Buddhism. So one attacking what is called
+Christianity does not attack kindness, charity, or any virtue. He
+attacks something that has been added to the virtues. He does not
+attack the flower, but what he believes to be the parasite.</p>
+<p>If people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues
+common to all religions, they should not give Christianity credit
+for all the good that has been done. There were millions of
+virtuous men and women, millions of heroic and self-denying souls
+before Christianity was known.</p>
+<p>It does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or
+charity ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these
+virtues to persecute his fellow-man on account of a difference of
+belief. If Christianity has persecuted, some reason must exist
+outside of the virtues it has inculcated. If this reason&mdash;this
+cause&mdash;is inherent in that something else, which has been
+added to the ordinary virtues, then Christianity can properly be
+held accountable for the persecution. Of course back of
+Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may be
+responsible.</p>
+<p>Is there anything in Christianity that will account for such
+persecutions&mdash;for the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by
+the church that belief was necessary to salvation, and it was
+thought at the same time that the fate of man was eternal
+punishment; that the state of man was that of depravity, and that
+there was but one way by which he could be saved, and that was
+through belief&mdash;through faith. As long as this was honestly
+believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels to preach
+a doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves
+which, in their judgment, would result in the damnation of
+souls.</p>
+<p>The law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do
+great bodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to
+take the life of a man simply because he is attacking the body of
+his son, how much more would he have the right to take the life of
+one who was about to assassinate the soul of his son!</p>
+<p>Christians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt
+that God would hold the community responsible if the community
+allowed a blasphemer to attack the true religion. Therefore they
+killed the freethinker, or rather the free talker, in
+self-defence.</p>
+<p>At the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of
+self-defence; that is to say, the defence of the soul. If the
+founder of Christianity had plainly said: "It is not necessary to
+believe in order to be saved; it is only necessary to do, and he
+who really loves his fellow-men, who is kind, honest, just and
+charitable, is to be forever blest"&mdash;if he had only said that,
+there would probably have been but little persecution.</p>
+<p>If he had added to this: "You must not persecute in my name. The
+religion I teach is the Religion of Love&mdash;not the Religion of
+Force and Hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must
+not stretch them upon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots.
+You must not flay them alive. You must not cut off their eyelids,
+or pour molten lead into their ears. You must treat all with
+absolute kindness. If you cannot convert your neighbor by example,
+persuasion, argument, that is the end. You must never resort to
+force, and, whether he believes as you do or not, treat him always
+with kindness"&mdash;his followers then would not have murdered
+their fellows in his name.</p>
+<p>If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would
+be carried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer
+death through torture; and yet he died without saying one word to
+prevent what he must have known, if he were God, would happen.</p>
+<p>All that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and
+useless. Not only so&mdash;it has been hurtful. Take Christianity
+from morality and the useful is left, but take morality from
+Christianity and the useless remains.</p>
+<p>Now, falling back on the old assertion, "By its fruits we may
+know Christianity," then I think we are justified in saying that,
+as Christianity consists of a mixture of morality and <i>something
+else</i>, and as morality never has persecuted a human being, and
+as Christianity has persecuted millions, the cause of the
+persecution must be the <i>something else</i> that was added to
+morality.</p>
+<p>I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that
+"Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of
+human nature." On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the
+whole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act
+in accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would
+be doomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been
+held up to contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions
+denounced as wicked and filthy.</p>
+<p>Dr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the
+value of freedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free
+thought; and what is freedom worth if the mind is to be
+enslaved?</p>
+<p>Dr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their
+efforts to be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for
+exercising their freedom as against the church.</p>
+<p>It is not true that the church "has taught and established the
+fact of human brotherhood." This has been the result of a
+civilization to which Christianity itself has been hostile.</p>
+<p>Can we prove that "the church established human brotherhood" by
+banishing the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the
+tortures of the Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of
+Scotland; by the burning of Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution
+of the Irish; by whipping and hanging Quakers in New England; by
+the slave trade; and by the hundreds of wars waged in the name of
+Christ?</p>
+<p>We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and
+most cruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded
+upon a Bible that upholds the institution of slavery has taught and
+established the fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination
+to conceive.</p>
+<p>Neither do I think it true that "we are indebted to Christianity
+for the advancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and
+learning."</p>
+<p>I cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some
+learning, and that the human mind has been developed by the
+discussion of the absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions
+and millions have had what might be called mental exercise, and
+their minds may have been somewhat broadened by the examination,
+even, of these absurdities, contradictions, and impossibilities.
+The church was not the friend of science or learning when it burned
+Vanini for writing his "Dialogues Concerning Nature." What shall we
+say of the "Index Expurgatorius"? For hundreds of years all books
+of any particular value were placed on the "Index," and good
+Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of science and
+learning?</p>
+<p>That we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of
+science seems absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the
+enemy of astronomy, and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said
+that astronomy took her revenge, so that not a star that glitters
+in all the heavens bears a Christian name.</p>
+<p>Can it be said that the church has been the friend of geology,
+or of any true philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.</p>
+<p>The church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only
+object is to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to
+any result that the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands
+and the result reached by the mind must be abandoned.</p>
+<p>For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever
+anything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the
+church immediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard
+has been changed, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show
+that science does not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible
+agrees with science.</p>
+<p>Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The early
+Christians destroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which
+they could lay their violent hands; and nothing has been produced
+by the Christian world equal to the fragments that were
+accidentally preserved. There have been many artists who were
+Christians; but they were not artists because they were Christians;
+because there have been many Christians who were not artists. It
+cannot be said that art is born of any creed. The mode of
+expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain degree,
+by the belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and
+feeling.</p>
+<p>So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a
+Christian, but in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so
+was his creed. Consequently, they could not by any possibility have
+assisted him. Kepler did not discover or announce what are known as
+the "Three Laws" because he was a Christian; but, as I said about
+Galileo, in spite of his creed.</p>
+<p>Every Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and
+clung to a fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the
+Scriptures, has done so certainly without the assistance of his
+creed.</p>
+<p>Let me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each
+other to please God; when they were ready to destroy a man with
+sword and flame for teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors
+in Spain were teaching geography to their children with brass
+globes. So, too, they had observatories and knew something of the
+orbits of the stars.</p>
+<p>They did not find out these things because they were
+Mohammedans, or on account of their belief in the impossible. They
+were far beyond the Christians, intellectually, and it has been
+very poetically said by Mrs. Browning, that "Science was thrust
+into the brain of Europe on the point of a Moorish lance."</p>
+<p>From the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the
+higher branches practical. We also got from them the art of making
+cotton paper, which is almost at the foundation of modern
+intelligence. We learned from them to make cotton cloth, making
+cleanliness possible in Christendom.</p>
+<p>So from among people of different religions we have learned many
+useful things; but they did not discover them on account of their
+religion.</p>
+<p>It will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true
+because the Greeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an
+argument in favor of monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of
+men, was born and lived in a monarchy.</p>
+<p>Dr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of
+a vast number of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other
+effects, but of the general cause. He seems to think that all
+events for many centuries, and especially all the good ones, were
+caused by Christianity.</p>
+<p>As a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result
+of countless causes with which Christianity had little to do,
+except by way of hindrance.</p>
+<p>Does the Doctor think that the material progress of the world
+was caused by this passage: "Take no thought for the morrow"?</p>
+<p>Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on
+this inspired declaration: "It is easier for a camel to pass
+through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
+kingdom of heaven"?</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible
+has produced the richest and most varied literature the world has
+ever seen.</p>
+<p>This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature
+been produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many
+generations, take the ground that the Bible was the only important
+book, and that books differing from the Bible should be
+destroyed?</p>
+<p>If Christianity&mdash;Catholic and Protestant&mdash;could have
+had its way, the works of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt,
+Darwin, Haeckel, Spencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe,
+Gibbon, Buckle and B&uuml;chner would not have been published. In
+short, the philosophy that enlightens and the fiction that enriches
+the brain would not exist.</p>
+<p>The greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my
+judgment, the poetic&mdash;the dramatic; that is to say, the
+literature of fiction in its widest sense. Certainly if the church
+could have had control, the plays of Shakespeare never would have
+been written; the literature of the stage could not have existed;
+most works of fiction, and nearly all poetry, would have perished
+in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to say that "the Bible has
+produced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever
+seen."</p>
+<p>Thousands of theological books have been written on thousands of
+questions of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on
+subjects not worth discussing&mdash;not worth thinking
+about&mdash;and that will, in a few years, be regarded as puerile
+by the whole world.</p>
+<p>Mr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:</p>
+<p>"Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a
+stone of them!"</p>
+<p>Stephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the
+best charity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land;
+and under the roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many
+thousands of orphans have been reared, clothed, fed and educated,
+not only in books, but in avocations, and become happy and useful
+citizens. Under his will there has been distributed to the poor,
+fuel to the value of more than $500,000; and this distribution goes
+on year after year.</p>
+<p>One of the best observatories in the world was built by the
+generosity of James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two
+cases simply to show that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he
+was somewhat carried away by his zeal.</p>
+<p>So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that "we are indebted to
+Christianity for our chronology."</p>
+<p>According to Christianity this world has been peopled about six
+thousand years. Christian chronology gives the age of the first
+man, and then gives the line from father to son down to the flood,
+and from the flood down to the coming of Christ, showing that men
+have been upon the earth only about six thousand years. This
+chronology is infinitely absurd, and I do not believe that there is
+an intelligent, well-educated Christian in the world, having
+examined the subject, who will say that the Christian chronology is
+correct.</p>
+<p>Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that "we are
+indebted to Christianity for the continuation of history." The best
+modern historians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume,
+Gibbon, Buckle and Draper.</p>
+<p>Neither can I admit that "we are indebted to Christianity for
+natural philosophy."</p>
+<p>I do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been
+Christians, or, rather, that some Christians have been natural
+philosophers to the extent that their Christianity permitted. But
+Lamarck and Humboldt and Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley
+and Tyndall have done far more for natural philosophy than they
+have for orthodox religion.</p>
+<p>Whoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural
+philosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to
+interfere with nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his
+mind, each inconsistent with the other. To the extent that he
+believes in the supernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with
+the natural, and to that extent fails to be a philosopher.
+Philosophy does not include the caprice of the Infinite. It is
+founded on the absolute integrity and invariability of nature.</p>
+<p>Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that
+"we are indebted to Christianity for our knowledge of
+philology."</p>
+<p>The church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first
+language and that other languages had been derived from that; and
+for hundreds and hundreds of years the efforts of philologists were
+arrested simply because they started with that absurd assumption
+and believed in the Tower of Babel.</p>
+<p>Christianity cannot now take the credit for "metaphysical
+research." It has always been the enemy of metaphysical research.
+It never has said to any human being, "Think!" It has always said,
+"Hear!" It does not ask anybody to investigate. It lays down
+certain doctrines as absolutely true, and, instead of asking
+investigation, it threatens every investigator with eternal pain.
+Metaphysical research is destroying what has been called
+Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.</p>
+<p>This gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one.
+This is his argument: Christian countries are the most intelligent;
+therefore they owe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next
+step is taken. Christianity, being the best, having produced these
+results, must have been of divine origin.</p>
+<p>Let us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the
+first nation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have
+used the same arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the
+religion of Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: "Egypt
+is the most intelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all
+nations; it has been made so by its religion; its religion is,
+therefore, divine"?</p>
+<p>So there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same
+argument. Certainly this argument could have been made by a Greek.
+It could have been repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not
+admit that the religion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology
+of Greece was true, or that Jupiter was in fact a god.</p>
+<p>Is it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been
+institutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been
+observatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature,
+the world would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?</p>
+<p>Countries depend on something besides their religion for
+progress. Nations with a good soil can get along quite well with an
+exceedingly poor religion; and no religion yet has been good enough
+to give wealth or happiness to human beings where the climate and
+soil were bad and barren.</p>
+<p>Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no
+wheat, no corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a
+perpetual mendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has
+the arrogance to pretend that it supports the giver.</p>
+<p>Mr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: "Every
+discovery in science, invention and art has been the work of
+Christian men. Infidels have contributed their share, but never one
+of them has reached the grandeur of originality."</p>
+<p>This, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered
+with one name&mdash;John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics
+I ever met.</p>
+<p>I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original.
+Darwin was certainly regarded as such.</p>
+<p>I do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I
+have some doubts about Morse having been the inventor of the
+telegraph.</p>
+<p>Neither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of
+the abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were
+Christians. But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The
+Quakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the
+Christians of New England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them
+from town to town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their
+bodied, not only, but took their lives.</p>
+<p>Mr. Peters asks: "What name is there among the world's
+emancipators after which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'"
+Well, let me give him a few&mdash;Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine,
+Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.</p>
+<p>Mr. Peters asks: "Why is it that in Christian countries you find
+the greatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the
+greatest freedom of thought, speech, and action?"</p>
+<p>Is this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more
+infidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty
+in France than in Spain.</p>
+<p>There is far more infidelity in England than there was a century
+ago, and there is far more liberty than there was a century ago.
+There is far more infidelity in the United States than there was
+fifty years ago, and a hundred infidels to-day where there was one
+fifty years ago; and there is far more intellectual liberty, far
+greater freedom of speech and action, than ever before.</p>
+<p>A few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest
+extent. Now there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand
+times less religion.</p>
+<p>Orthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.</p>
+<p>Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems
+to have wandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that
+when one denies the religion of Christian parents he is an
+exceedingly bad man, but when he denies the religion of parents not
+Christians, and becomes a Christian, that he is a very faithful,
+good and loving son.</p>
+<p>Mr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that
+Nature has, or that the State has. I do not think he understands
+what I have said. The State ought not to punish for the sake of
+punishment. The State may imprison, or inflict what is called
+punishment, first, for its own protection, and, secondly, for the
+reformation of the punished. If no one could do the State any
+injury, certainly the State would have no right to punish under the
+plea of protection; and if no human being could by any possibility
+be reformed, then the excuse of reformation could not be given.</p>
+<p>Let us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him.
+Therefore he need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn
+anybody for his protection.</p>
+<p>Let us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two
+grounds&mdash;that is, the protection of society and the
+reformation of the punished&mdash;how can eternal punishment be
+justified? In the first place, God does not punish to protect
+himself, and, in the second place, if the punishment is to be
+forever, he does not punish to reform the punished. What excuse
+then is left?</p>
+<p>Let us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we
+say "consequences," and that every good man has the right to reap
+the good consequences of good actions, and that every bad man must
+bear the consequences of bad actions, then you must say to the
+good: If you stop doing good you will lose the harvest. You must
+say to the bad: If you stop doing bad you need not increase your
+burdens. And if it be a fact in Nature that all must reap what they
+sow, there is neither mercy nor cruelty in this fact, and I hold no
+God responsible for it. The trouble with the Christian creed is
+that God is described as the one who gives rewards and the one who
+inflicts eternal pain.</p>
+<p>There is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have
+known when he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned.
+What right had he to create men, knowing that they were to be
+damned?</p>
+<p>So much for Mr. Ballou.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He
+takes the ground, in the first place, that "infidelity,
+Christianity, science, and experience all agree, without the
+slightest tremor of uncertainty, in the inexorable law that
+whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap." He then takes the
+ground that, "if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we must not sow
+the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the cause;
+the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this,
+and this only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary."</p>
+<p>Very good; but that is not the point. The real thing under
+discussion is this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man
+fails to live a good life here, will he have no opportunity for
+reformation in another world, if there be one? Can he cease to do
+evil in the eternal penitentiary? and if he does, can he be
+pardoned&mdash;can he be released?</p>
+<p>It is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts.
+If the consequences are good, then the acts are good. If the
+consequences are bad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find
+that certain acts tend to unhappiness and others to happiness.</p>
+<p>Now, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live
+in harmony with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we
+have an opportunity of reforming in another world? If not, then the
+few years that we live here determine whether we shall be angels or
+devils forever.</p>
+<p>It seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men
+may do good, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems
+to me that they may reform.</p>
+<p>I do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest
+in his children, simply because they leave this world and go where
+he is. Is it possible that an infinite God does all for his
+children here, in this poor ignorant world, that it is possible for
+him to do, and that if he fails to reform them here, nothing is
+left to do except to make them eternal convicts?</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that
+"an infinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up
+under conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their
+concentrated agony and not break his heart."</p>
+<p>I do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an
+infinite God, without mercy. I do not admit that there is an
+infinite Being anywhere responsible for the agonies and tears, for
+the barbarities and horrors of this life. I cannot believe that
+there is in the universe a Being with power to prevent these
+things. I hold no God responsible. I attribute neither cruelty nor
+mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps nor rejoices. I cannot
+believe that this world, as it now is, as it has been, was created
+by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent God. But it is far
+better that we should all go down "with souls unsatisfied" to the
+dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the voiceless dust,
+than that countless millions of human souls should suffer
+forever.</p>
+<p>Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is
+eternal revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal
+monster.</p>
+<p>Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely
+small compass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and
+that is: "If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is
+assured that a physician can cure him, but refuses to take the
+medicine and dies, ought there to be any escape?"</p>
+<p>He concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the
+patient was obdurate and suffered the penalty.</p>
+<p>The application he makes is this:</p>
+<p>"The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the
+Great Physician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain,
+and a life of eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts,
+are they not tidings of great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it
+not unreasonable on the part of Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak
+out and throw the blame on God?"</p>
+<p>The answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an
+infinite God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If
+he gave us free will it does not change the result, because he knew
+how we would use the free will.</p>
+<p>Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take
+the remedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create
+them? There would have been much less misery in the world had he
+left them dust.</p>
+<p>What right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change
+dust into a sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the
+heir of endless agony?</p>
+<p>If the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to
+take the medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would
+refuse to take it, the cases might be parallel.</p>
+<p>According to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who
+never heard of the medicine or of the "Great Physician."</p>
+<p>There is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly
+think he could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint.
+It is the following paragraph:</p>
+<p>"Who" (speaking of Jesus) "has such an eye to our need; such a
+lip to kiss away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the
+fire; <i>such a foot to trample our enemies</i>; such a heart to
+embrace all our necessities?"</p>
+<p>What does the reverend gentleman mean by "<i>such a foot to
+trample our enemies</i>"?</p>
+<p>This, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with
+the history of the church. In the name of its founder it has
+"trampled on its enemies," and beneath its cruel feet have perished
+the noblest of the world.</p>
+<p>The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this
+discussion with a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He
+states that "Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, but when
+sickness or trouble or sorrow comes he" (meaning the infidel) "does
+not paw nor mock nor cry 'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a
+whipped cur, and trembles and whines and howls."</p>
+<p>The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems
+to think that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being
+brave, or demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of
+death.</p>
+<p>Thousands of people have died for false religions and in honor
+of false gods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the
+religion, but it did prove the sincerity of their convictions.</p>
+<p>A great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the
+scaffold the utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage
+exhibited by dying murderers has never been appealed to in
+justification of murder.</p>
+<p>The reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies
+endured by Thomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that
+he wished his work had been thrown into the fire, and that if the
+devil ever had any agency in any work he had in the writing of that
+book (meaning "The Age of Reason,") and that he frequently asked
+the Lord Jesus to have mercy upon him.</p>
+<p>Of course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its
+falsity has been demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and
+yet ministers of the Gospel go right on repeating it just the
+same.</p>
+<p>So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close
+his letters with the words, "Crush the wretch!" (meaning Christ).
+This is not so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to
+Christ.</p>
+<p>This gentleman also says that "Voltaire was the prey of anguish
+and dread, alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he
+complained that he was abandoned by God; that when he died his
+friends fled from the room, declaring the sight too terrible to be
+endured."</p>
+<p>There is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read
+the life of Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost
+serenity.</p>
+<p>Let me tell you how Voltaire died.</p>
+<p>He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the
+comforts of life. He was a man of wealth&mdash;of genius. Among the
+literary men of the world he stood first. God had allowed him to
+have the appearance of success. His last years were filled with the
+intoxication of flattery. He stood at the summit of his age. The
+priests became anxious. They began to fear that God would forget,
+in a multiplicity of business, to make a terrible example of
+Voltaire.</p>
+<p>Toward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that
+Voltaire was dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the
+unclean birds of superstition, impatiently waiting for their
+prey.</p>
+<p>"Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the
+Cur&eacute; of St. Sulpice and the Abb&eacute; Gautier, and brought
+them into his uncle's sick-chamber, who was informed that they were
+there.</p>
+<p>"'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my
+thanks.'</p>
+<p>"The abb&eacute; spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to
+patience. The Cur&eacute; of St. Sulpice then came forward, having
+announced himself, and asked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he
+acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man
+pushed one of his hands against the cur&eacute;'s coif shoving him
+back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side:</p>
+<p>"'Let me die in peace!'</p>
+<p>"The cur&eacute; seemingly considered his person soiled and his
+coif dishonored by the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse
+give him a little brushing and went out with the Abb&eacute;
+Gautier.</p>
+<p>"He expired," says Wagniere, "on the 30th of May, 1788, at about
+a quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect
+tranquillity.</p>
+<p>"Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand,
+his <i>valet-de-chambre</i>, who was watching by him, pressed it
+and said: 'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone!'</p>
+<p>"These were his last words."</p>
+<p>From this death, so simple and serene, so natural and
+peaceful&mdash;from these words so utterly destitute of cant or
+dramatic touch&mdash;all the frightful pictures, all the despairing
+utterances have been drawn and made. From these materials, and from
+these alone, have been constructed all the shameless calumnies
+about the death of this great and wonderful man.</p>
+<p>Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his
+throne at the foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at
+every hypocrite in Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He
+was the assassin of superstition. Through the shadows of faith and
+fable; through the darkness of myth and miracle; through the
+midnight of Christianity; through the blackness of bigotry; past
+cathedral and dungeon; past rack and stake; past altar and throne,
+he carried, with chivalric hands, the sacred torch of Reason.</p>
+<p>Let me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the
+publication of his "Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason", every
+falsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to
+the world. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson,
+another infidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to
+appear in the public streets.</p>
+<p>Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights
+were not respected. Under the Constitution that he had first
+suggested, his life was insecure. He had helped to give liberty to
+more than three millions of his fellow-citizens, and they were
+willing to deny it unto him.</p>
+<p>He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But
+he maintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his
+mind, and never for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died
+almost alone.</p>
+<p>The moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for
+his death-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling
+chains, and these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy
+even of the present day.</p>
+<p>The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some
+ministers were impolite enough to visit him against his will.
+Several of them he ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic
+priests, in all the meekness of arrogance, called that they might
+enjoy the agonies of the dying friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising
+in his bed, the few moments of expiring life fanned into flame by
+the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both.</p>
+<p>His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as
+the cold hand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered
+in the dulled ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish
+to believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"</p>
+<p>And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that
+subject."</p>
+<p>These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as
+serenely as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession
+of his mind, and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the
+doctrines of his life.</p>
+<p>Every philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every
+lover of the great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas
+Paine for the splendid services rendered by him in the darkest days
+of the American Revolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, "The
+Crisis" was the first star that glittered in the wide horizon of
+despair.</p>
+<p>We should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write
+these words: "The United States of America."</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining
+what infidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as
+though he would like to be present.</p>
+<p>For my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will
+die in peace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades
+to night.</p>
+<p>Of course when I said that "Christianity did not bring tidings
+of great joy, but a message of eternal grief," I meant orthodox
+Christianity; and when I said that "Christianity fills the future
+with fire and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
+penitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be
+imprisoned forever," I was giving what I understood to be the
+Evangelical belief on that subject.</p>
+<p>If the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal
+punishment, then for one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what
+little I have done toward that end has not been done in vain.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination,
+says: "Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when
+Death's icy fingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and,
+as most of his like who have gone before him have done, he will
+sing another strain."</p>
+<p>How shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the
+writing of such a sentence?</p>
+<p>The reverend gentleman "loves his enemies," and yet he is filled
+with glee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's
+icy fingers feel for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him
+no harm.</p>
+<p>He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the
+prophet Isaiah, commencing: "The vile person will speak
+villainy."</p>
+<p>Is this passage applicable only to me?</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the "Christmas
+Sermon." For his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the
+"Christmas Sermon" contains:</p>
+<p>If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of
+probation, that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all
+who have heard the Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to
+be eternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not "bring
+tidings of great joy," but a Message of Eternal Grief. And if the
+orthodox churches are still preaching the doctrine of Endless Pain,
+then I say it would be far better if every church crumbled into
+dust than that such preaching and such teaching should be
+continued.</p>
+<p>It would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be
+converted and their congregations enlightened.</p>
+<p>I admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside
+hell; but if they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they
+ought publicly to change their creeds.</p>
+<p>I admit, also, that the average minister advises his
+congregation to be honest and to treat all with kindness, and I
+admit that many of these ministers fail to follow their own advice
+when they make what they call "replies" to me.</p>
+<p>Of course there are many good things about the church. To the
+extent that it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it
+causes charity, it is good. To the extent that it causes men and
+women to lead moral lives it is good. But to the extent that it
+fills the future with fear it is bad. To the extent that it
+convinces any human being that there is any God who not only can,
+but will, inflict eternal torments on his own children, it is
+bad.</p>
+<p>And such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching
+does pollute the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does
+furrow the cheeks of the best and tenderest with tears..Such
+teaching does rob old age of all its joy, and covers every cradle
+with a curse!</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God.
+He says: "God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages
+to give unto the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the
+human mind could suggest for the weal of the race."</p>
+<p>According to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the
+purpose of seeing what the world would do, <i>knowing all the time
+exactly what would be done</i>.</p>
+<p>Let us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then
+all people became tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way
+spoiled by what is known as "Original Sin."</p>
+<p>According to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse
+and worse. It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve
+them, but he patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years
+without having established any church, without having given them a
+Bible, and then he drowned all but eight persons.</p>
+<p>Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of
+Original Sin was also in their blood.</p>
+<p>It seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have
+killed the remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out
+of his garden, and furnished the first pair with a Bible and the
+Presbyterian Confession of Faith.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and
+goodness are the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All
+the virtues were in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr.
+Tyler will be convinced by the words of Christ himself. He will
+probably remember the story of the Good Samaritan, and if he does
+he will see that it is exactly in point. The Good Samaritan was not
+a Hebrew. He was not one of "the chosen people." He was a poor,
+"miserable heathen," who knew nothing about the Jehovah of the Old
+Testament, and who had never heard of the "scheme of salvation."
+And yet, according to Christ, he was far more charitable than the
+Levites&mdash;the priests of Jehovah, the highest of "the chosen
+people." Is it not perfectly plain from this story that charity was
+in the world before Christianity was established?</p>
+<p>A great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as
+though the Christians are entitled to great credit on that score.
+If Dr. Tyler will read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia,
+under the head of "Mental Diseases," he will find that the
+Egyptians treated the insane with the utmost kindness, and that
+they called reason back to its throne by the voice of music; that
+the temples were resorted to by crowds of the insane; and that
+"whatever gifts of nature or productions of art were calculated to
+impress the imagination were there united. Games and recreations
+were instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens surrounded these
+holy retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes transported patients
+to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile."</p>
+<p>So in ancient Greece it is said that "from the hands of the
+priest the cure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain
+of medicine, with the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have
+employed music for the cure of mental diseases. The order of the
+day for his disciples exhibits a profound knowledge of the
+relations of body and mind. The early morning was divided between
+gentle exercise, conversation and music. Then came conversation,
+followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate diet. Afterward, a
+bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine; then reading,
+music and conversation concluded the day."</p>
+<p>So "Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental
+disorders. He recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided
+as much as possible." It is also stated that "the philosophy and
+arts of Greece spread to Rome, and the first special treatise on
+insanity is that of Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of
+insanity and their proper treatment."</p>
+<p>"Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and
+ignorance of the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped
+them in a cloud worse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again
+consigned to the miracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else
+totally neglected. Idiots and imbeciles were permitted to go
+clotheless and homeless. The frantic and furious were chained in
+lonesome dungeons and exhibited for money, like wild beasts. The
+monomaniacs became, according to circumstance, the objects of
+superstitious horror or reverence. They were regarded as possessed
+with demons and subjected either to priestly exorcism, or cruelly
+destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel treatment of the
+insane continued with little or no alleviation down to the end of
+the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe."</p>
+<p>Let me quote a description of these Christian asylums.</p>
+<p>"Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan
+cities of Europe, but the insane were more generally, if at all
+troublesome, confined in jails, where they were chained in the
+lowest dungeons or made the butts and menials of the most debased
+criminals. In public asylums the inmates were confined in cellars,
+isolated in cages, chained to floors or walls. These poor victims
+were exhibited to the public like wild beasts. They were often
+killed by the ignorance and brutality of their keepers."</p>
+<p>I call particular attention to the following paragraph: "Such
+was the state of the insane generally throughout Europe at the
+commencement of this century. Such it continued to be in England so
+late as 1815 and in Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries
+of parliamentary commissions in those years respectively."</p>
+<p>Dr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can
+give.</p>
+<p>Not only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance
+of the Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but
+even the Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700
+years, and in addition to this they treated their lunatics with
+great kindness.</p>
+<p>The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent
+debtors, and the Thesium was a refuge for slaves.</p>
+<p>Again, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of
+Christianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for
+people, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian
+clergy is that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They
+have always been engaged in maligning human nature&mdash;in
+attacking the human heart&mdash;in efforts to destroy all natural
+passions.</p>
+<p>Perfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated
+in India and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the
+Christian era. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced.
+All the good that Christianity has in it came from the human heart.
+Everything in that system of religion came from this world; and in
+it you will find not only the goodness of man, but the
+imperfections of man&mdash;not only the love of man, but the malice
+of man.</p>
+<p>Let me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries
+neglected or abused the insane. They believed the New Testament,
+and honestly supposed that the insane were filled with devils.</p>
+<p>In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I
+understand it, is a doctor of theology&mdash;and I should think
+such theology stood in need of a doctor&mdash;and the
+<i>Telegram</i>, I have nothing to say. There is only one side to
+that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore criticised what
+is known as the "Christmas Sermon," I have answered him, leaving
+but very little to which I care to reply in his last article.</p>
+<p>Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of
+reasons&mdash;instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry,
+John Howard, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only
+names; and, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give
+the reasons advanced by those whose names he pronounces.</p>
+<p>Jonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his
+theology was infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was
+impossible for him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the
+doctrine of the "Real Presence."</p>
+<p>Milton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of
+brigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular
+battles; but Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the
+truth of his poetical and absurd vagaries.</p>
+<p>All the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend
+to prove the existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous.
+Millions and millions of the most devoted men could not, by their
+devotion, substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.</p>
+<p>There are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article
+that ought not to be passed over in silence.</p>
+<p>The first is to the effect that I was invited to write an
+article for the <i>North American Review</i>, Judge Jeremiah Black
+to reply, and that Judge Black was improperly treated.</p>
+<p>Now, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did
+write one; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is
+also true that Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his
+reply appeared in the same number of the <i>Review.</i></p>
+<p>Dr. Buckley alleges that the <i>North American Review</i> gave
+me an opportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an
+opportunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in
+fact. Mr. Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the
+<i>Review</i>, is still living and will tell the facts. Personally
+I had nothing to do with it, one way or the other. I did not regard
+Judge Black's reply as formidable, and was not only willing that he
+should be heard again, but anxious that he should.</p>
+<p>So much for that.</p>
+<p>As to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them
+to say whether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by
+his candor, by his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited
+won my respect and love.</p>
+<p>Most ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a
+blasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips.
+They cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as much and with
+as sincere devotion as they love God. They cannot imagine that
+another prizes liberty above all gods, even if gods exist. They
+cannot imagine that any mind is so that it places Justice above all
+persons, a mind that cannot conceive even of a God who is not bound
+to do justice.</p>
+<p>If God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of
+Justice.</p>
+<p>Neither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah
+and Jupiter as substantially the same, with this
+exception&mdash;that he thinks far more of Jupiter, because Jupiter
+had at least some human feelings.</p>
+<p>I do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who
+states his honest thoughts in proper language, his object being,
+not to torture the feelings of others, but simply to give his
+thought&mdash;to find and establish the truth.</p>
+<p>Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be
+without foundation. Speaking of myself, he said: "In him the laws
+to prevent the circulation of obscene publications through the
+mails have found their most vigorous opponent."</p>
+<p>It is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The
+facts are that an effort was made to classify obscene literature
+with what the pious call "blasphemous and immoral works." A
+petition was forwarded to Congress to amend the law so that the
+literature of Freethought could not be thrown from the mails,
+asking that, if no separation could be made, the law should be
+repealed.</p>
+<p>It was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly
+should have done so had it been presented to me. The petition was
+absolutely proper.</p>
+<p>A few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while
+it bore my name it had never been signed by me. But for the
+purposes of this answer I am perfectly willing that the signature
+should be regarded as genuine, as there is nothing in the petition
+that should not have been granted.</p>
+<p>The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League&mdash;but
+not a member of that society was in favor of the circulation of
+obscene literature; but they did think that the privacy of the
+mails had been violated, and that it was of the utmost importance
+to maintain the inviolability of the postal service.</p>
+<p>I disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of
+obscene literature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence
+to send it through the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up
+resolutions to that effect that were passed. Afterward they were
+changed, or some others were passed, and I resigned from the League
+on that account.</p>
+<p>Nothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or
+indirectly, or could have been, interested in the circulation of
+obscene publications through the mails; and I will pay a premium of
+$1,000 a word for each and every word I ever said or wrote in favor
+of sending obscene publications through the mails.</p>
+<p>I might use much stronger language. I might follow the example
+of Dr. Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy
+all unprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.</p>
+<p>Now, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure
+to read that even now, and I believe the readers of the
+<i>Telegram</i> would like to read it once more; so here it is:</p>
+<p>"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove
+the skeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of
+man. It is the mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find
+the sunshine and the shadow that chased each other over the billowy
+fields; the breath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of
+night; the wealth of summer and autumn's rich content, all golden
+with imprisoned light. Drink it and you will hear the voices of men
+and maidens singing the 'Harvest Home,' mingled with the laughter
+of children. Drink it and you will feel within your blood the
+star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks of many perfect days. For
+forty years this liquid joy has been within the happy staves of
+oak, longing to touch the lips of men."</p>
+<p>I re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very
+accurate, made some mistakes in his version.</p>
+<p>Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have
+sunk in this direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy
+of tobacco, and here it is:</p>
+<p>"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the
+blessed island of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between
+their lips. Above their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their
+faces were serene, and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of
+content. These people were kind, innocent, gentle and loving.</p>
+<p>"The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and
+of this climate the sacred leaves were born&mdash;the leaves that
+breed in the mind of him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in
+which they grew.</p>
+<p>"These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the
+vows of peace. They have given consolation to the world. They are
+the companions of the lonely&mdash;the friends of the imprisoned,
+of the exile, of workers in mines, of fellers of forests, of
+sailors on the desolate seas. They are the givers of strength and
+calm to the vexed and wearied minds of those who build with thought
+and dream the temples of the soul.</p>
+<p>"They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of
+pain&mdash;drive fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the
+mind and fill the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic
+warp and woof some potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that,
+when released by fire, doth softly steal within the fortress of the
+brain and bind in sleep the captured sentinels of care and
+grief.</p>
+<p>"These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke,
+like incense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile
+of the sea."</p>
+<p>There are some people so constituted that there is no room in
+the heaven of their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to
+spread their wings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid
+earnest. Such men would hold Shakespeare responsible for what
+Falstaff said about "sack," and for Mrs. Quickly's notions of
+propriety.</p>
+<p>There is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: "In the
+presence of human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless."</p>
+<p>John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense
+of humor. He preached a sermon on "The Cause and Cure of
+Earthquakes." He insisted that they were caused by the wickedness
+of man, and that the only way to cure them was to believe on the
+Lord Jesus Christ.</p>
+<p>The man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in
+danger of falling into the pit of Absurdity.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,
+contributes his part to the discussion.</p>
+<p>He took a text from John, as follows: "He that committeth sin is
+of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this
+purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the
+works of the devil."</p>
+<p>According to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have
+committed sin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is
+not a metaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand
+with words. He stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is
+no Persian myth, but a personality, who works unhindered by the
+limitations of a physical body, and gets human personalities to aid
+him in his works.</p>
+<p>According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from
+the beginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from
+the beginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is
+the Creator of all things, and consequently must have been the
+Creator of the devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the
+father of lies, and Dr. Deems' God is the father of the
+devil&mdash;that is to say, the grandfather of lies. This strikes
+me as almost "blasphemous."</p>
+<p>The Doctor also tells us "that Jesus believed as much in the
+personality of the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or
+Peter."</p>
+<p>That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New
+Testament be true, that Christ believed in a personal devil&mdash;a
+devil with whom he had conversations; a devil who took him to the
+pinnacle of the Temple and endeavored to induce him to leap to the
+earth below.</p>
+<p>Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he
+believed in thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out
+of Mary Magdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the
+tombs, or, rather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils
+that they might go into a drove or herd of swine, if they would
+leave the man.</p>
+<p>I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed
+that some devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.</p>
+<p>Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers
+the integrity of the New Testament.</p>
+<p>The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in
+the New Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He
+says:</p>
+<p>"The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive,
+sharp, shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow
+the authority of God's law."</p>
+<p>How does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing,
+imperial intellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and
+sharp and shrewd and persevering?</p>
+<p>If the devil has an "imperial intellect," why does he attempt
+the impossible?</p>
+<p>Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or,
+rather, to the devil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would
+take a thought and mend.</p>
+<p>Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he
+seems to be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the "Arch Enemy of
+God"&mdash;of that "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking
+to undermine the church"&mdash;the Doctor says:</p>
+<p>"The devil may be conceded to be sincere."</p>
+<p>It has been said:</p>
+<p>"An honest God is the noblest work of man," and it may now be
+added: A sincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.</p>
+<p>But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness,
+the Doctor says that he "cannot write a book; that he cannot
+deliver lectures" (like myself, I suppose), "edit a newspaper"
+(like the editor of the <i>Telegram</i>), "or make after-dinner
+speeches; but he can get his servants to do these things for
+him."</p>
+<p>There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like
+correcting (I quote from the <i>Telegram's</i> report):</p>
+<p>"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of
+the Bible&mdash;<i>not the Christ of the lecture platform
+caricatures</i>&mdash;is operating to overcome all these
+works."</p>
+<p>I take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have
+said about Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I
+give it here:</p>
+<p>"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I
+have infinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place
+where man has died for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once
+for all, that to that great and serene man I gladly pay, the
+tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in his
+day. He was an infidel in his time. He was regarded as a
+blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites, who have, in
+all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and manhood out
+of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have been his
+friend, and should he come again he will not find a better friend
+than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation I
+have a different feeling."</p>
+<p>I have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither
+have I mentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this
+occasion to thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have
+manfully advocated the right of free speech, and who have upheld
+the <i>Telegram</i> in the course it has taken.</p>
+<p>I thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel
+quite grateful to those who have failed to say unkind words.
+Epithets are not arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is
+stupid and malice illogical.</p>
+<p>And, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist
+that orthodox Christianity did not come with "tidings of great
+joy," but with a message of eternal grief.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<p>New York, February 5, 1892.</p>
+<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.</h2>
+<pre>
+     *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis
+     Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read an article in the <i>Western
+Watchman</i>, entitled "Suicide of Judge Normile"? If so, what is
+your opinion of it?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read the article, and I think the spirit
+in which it is written is in exact accord with the creed, with the
+belief, that prompted it.</p>
+<p>In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but
+of Henry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had
+been shocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no
+right "to feel special concern in the life or death of either," for
+the reason, "that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as
+infidels and scoffers."</p>
+<p>According to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on
+the direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the <i>Watchman</i> is
+to be believed, Catholics have no right to have special concern for
+the fate of such people, even after their death.</p>
+<p>The church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the
+lost&mdash;that it was trying in every way to convert the infidels
+and save the scoffers&mdash;that it cared less for the ninety-nine
+sheep safe in the fold than for the one that had strayed. We have
+been told that God so loved infidels and scoffers, that he came to
+this poor world and gave his life that they might be saved. But now
+we are told by the <i>Western Watchman</i> that the church, said to
+have been founded by Christ, has no right to feel any special
+concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.</p>
+<p>Possibly the <i>Watchman</i> only refers to the infidels and
+scoffers who were once Catholics.</p>
+<p>If the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a
+Christian; that is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from
+grace and not only denied his Master, but went to the extent of
+swearing that he did not know him; that he never had made his
+acquaintance. And yet, this same Peter was taken back and became
+the rock on which the Catholic Church is supposed to rest.</p>
+<p>Are the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ,
+when they publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of
+one who left the church and who died in his sins?</p>
+<p>The <i>Watchman</i>, in order to show that it was simply doing
+its duty, and was not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as
+follows: "A warm personal friendship existed between D'Arcy and
+Normile and the managers of this paper." What would the
+<i>Watchman</i> have said if these men had been the personal
+enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm personal friends,
+once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers of the
+<i>Watchman</i>, "warm personal friends" of the dead, had no right
+to feel any special concern about these friends in the flames of
+perdition. One would think that pity had changed to piety.</p>
+<p>Another wonderful statement is that "both of these men
+determined to go to hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the
+joys of heaven, if there was a heaven."</p>
+<p>Admitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good
+place, and that hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be,
+unpleasant, why should any sane man unalterably determine to go to
+hell? It is hard to think of any reason, unless he was afraid of
+meeting those Catholics in heaven who had been his "warm personal
+friends" in this world. The truth is that no one wishes to be
+unhappy in this or any other country. The truth is that Henry
+D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that the Catholic
+Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that it is
+the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that they
+were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their "warm
+personal friends."</p>
+<p>It is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile
+"studied" to convince themselves "that there was no God, that they
+went back to Paganism and lived among the ancients," and "that they
+soon revelled in the grossness of Paganism." If they went back to
+Paganism, they certainly found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled
+heaven and earth with deities. The Catholics have only three, while
+the Pagans had hundreds. And yet there were some very good Pagans.
+By associating with Socrates and Plato one would not necessarily
+become a groveling wretch. Zeno was not altogether abominable. He
+would compare favorably, at least, with the average pope. Aristotle
+was not entirely despicable, although wrong, it may be, in many
+things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He perceived the
+beauty of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and joy. He
+did not teach his disciples to revel in grossness, although his
+maligners have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he
+uttered some very sublime and generous sentiments. Among other
+things, he said this: "When we say that we should love Romans, but
+not foreigners, we destroy the bond of universal brotherhood and
+drive from our hearts charity and justice."</p>
+<p>Suppose a Pagan had written about "two warm personal friends" of
+his, who had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said
+this: "Although our two warm personal friends have both died by
+their own hands, and although both have gone to the lowest hell,
+and are now suffering inconceivable agonies, we have no right to
+feel any special concern about them or about their sufferings; and,
+to speak frankly, we care nothing for their agonies, nothing for
+their tears, and we mention them only to keep other Pagans from
+joining that blasphemous and ignorant church. Both of our friends
+were raised as Pagans, both were educated in our holy religion, and
+both had read the works of our greatest and wisest authors, and yet
+they fell into apostasy, and studied day and night, in season and
+out of season, to convince themselves that a young carpenter of
+Palestine was in fact, Jupiter, whom we call Stator, the creator,
+the sustainer and governor of all."</p>
+<p>It is probable that the editor of the <i>Watchman</i> was
+perfectly conscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a
+sense of religious duty could induce any man to attack the
+character of a "warm personal friend," and to say that although the
+friend was in hell, he felt no special concern as to his fate.</p>
+<p>The <i>Watchman</i> seems to think that it is hardly probable or
+possible that a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of
+every religion feel substantially in this way. It is probable that
+the Mohammedan is of the opinion that no sane believer in the
+religion of Islam could possibly become a Catholic. Probably there
+are no sane Mohammedans. I do not know.</p>
+<p>Now, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history
+of his church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword,
+of philosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the
+"Bride of God," and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may
+reasonably come to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not
+the best possible church in this, the best possible of all
+worlds.</p>
+<p>It would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history
+of superstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to
+pope. The truth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly
+honest no matter whether they are for or against the Catholic
+creed. All intelligent people are intellectually hospitable. Every
+man who knows something of the operations of his own mind is
+absolutely certain that his wish has not, to his knowledge,
+influenced his judgment. He may admit that his wish has influenced
+his speech, but he must certainly know that it has not affected his
+judgment.</p>
+<p>In other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of
+solitaire and really believe that he has won the game. No matter
+what the appearance of the cards may be, he knows whether the game
+was lost or won. So, men may say that their judgment is a certain
+way, and they may so affirm in accordance with their wish, but
+neither the wish, nor the declaration can affect the real judgment.
+So, a man must know whether he believes a certain creed or not, or,
+at least, what the real state of his mind is. When a man tells me
+that he believes in the supernatural, in the miraculous, and in the
+inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for granted that he is
+telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me that the man
+could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he does not
+know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does not
+believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the
+Scriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly
+believe every word he says.</p>
+<p>I admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women
+who believe what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,
+undoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.</p>
+<p>Let us give to others the liberty which we claim for
+ourselves.</p>
+<p>The <i>Watchman</i> seems to think that unbelief, especially
+when coupled with what they call "the sins of the flesh," is the
+lowest possible depth, and tells us that "robbers may be devout,"
+"murderers penitent," and "drunkards reverential."</p>
+<p>In some of these statements the <i>Watchman</i> is probably
+correct. There have been "devout robbers." There have been
+gentlemen of the highway, agents of the road, who carried sacred
+images, who bowed, at holy shrines for the purpose of securing
+success. For many centuries the devout Catholics robbed the Jews.
+The devout Ferdinand and Isabella were great robbers. A great many
+popes have indulged in this theological pastime, not to speak of
+the rank and file. Yes, the <i>Watchman</i> is right. There is
+nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with devotion.</p>
+<p>There have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless
+impelled by a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent.
+David, with dying breath, advised his son to murder the old friends
+of his father. He certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly
+Torquemada murdered without remorse, and Calvin burned his "warm
+personal friend" to gain the applause of God. Philip the Second was
+a murderer, not penitent, because he deemed it his duty. The same
+may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of thousands of others.</p>
+<p>Robert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly
+virtuous, and yet I like him better than I do those who planned and
+carried into bloody execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.</p>
+<p>Undoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California
+cut the throat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at
+the same time that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing
+for her prayers. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He
+made a motion for a new trial. This was denied. He appealed to the
+governor, but the executive refused to interfere. Then he became
+penitent and experienced religion. On the scaffold he remarked that
+he was going to heaven; that his only regret was that he would not
+meet the woman he had murdered, as she was not a Christian when she
+died. Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.</p>
+<p>An old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer
+the last sacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must
+forgive all his enemies. "I have no enemies," said the dying man,
+"I killed the last one three weeks ago." Undoubtedly murderers can
+be penitent.</p>
+<p>So, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and
+I might add, honest and generous.</p>
+<p>Some good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a
+hospitable glass, and there have been priests who used the blood of
+the grape for other than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good
+Catholic in his day, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the
+world this couplet:</p>
+<pre>
+     "Who loves not woman, wine and song,
+     Will live a fool his whole life long."
+</pre>
+<p>The <i>Watchman</i>, in effect, says that a devout robber is
+better than an infidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a
+freethinker, in the sight of God.</p>
+<p>Another curious thing in this article is that after sending both
+men to hell, the <i>Watchman</i> says: "As to their moral habits we
+know nothing."</p>
+<p>It may then be taken for granted, if these "warm personal
+friends" knew nothing against the dead, that their lives were, at
+least, what the church calls moral. We know, if we know anything,
+that there is no necessary connection between what is called
+religion and morality. Certainly there were millions of moral
+people, those who loved mercy and dealt honestly, before the
+Catholic Church existed. The virtues were well known, and
+practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning brain of an
+Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the <i>Auto da
+f&eacute;</i> delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of
+people died for the right, before the wrong organized the
+infallible church.</p>
+<p>But why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to
+say harsh and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of
+death with the thorns of hatred? Suppose the editor of the
+<i>Watchman</i> had died, and Judge Normile had been the survivor,
+would the infidel and scoffer have attacked the unreplying
+dead?</p>
+<p>Henry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and
+I was his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my
+admiration and respect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly
+intelligent man, well informed on many subjects, of varied reading,
+possessed of a clear and logical mind, a poetic temperament,
+enjoying the beautiful things in literature and art, and the noble
+things in life. He gave his opinions freely, but without the least
+arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing that others should enjoy
+the privilege of differing with him. He was, so far as I could
+perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others, free and
+manly in his bearing, "of most excellent fancy," and a most
+charming and agreeable companion.</p>
+<p>According, however, to the <i>Watchman</i>, such a man is far
+below a "devout robber" or a "penitent murderer." Is it possible
+that an assassin like Ravillac is far better than a philosopher
+like Voltaire; and that all the Catholic robbers and murderers who
+retain their faith, give greater delight to God than the Humboldts,
+Haeckels and Darwins who have filled the world with intellectual
+light?</p>
+<p>Possibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the
+<i>Watchman</i> is in error, and possibly there may be for the
+erring, even in another world, some asylum besides hell.</p>
+<p>Judge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid
+of the future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own
+hand. Can anything be more pitiful&mdash;more terrible? How can a
+man in the flowing tide and noon of life destroy himself? What
+storms there must have been within the brain; what tempests must
+have raved and wrecked; what lightnings blinded and revealed; what
+hurrying clouds obscured and hid the stars; what monstrous shapes
+emerged from gloom; what darkness fell upon the day; what visions
+filled the night; how the light failed; how paths were lost; how
+highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one
+thought&mdash;the thought of death&mdash;swift, compassionate and
+endless&mdash;became the insane monarch of the mind.</p>
+<p>Standing by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it
+is far better to pity than to revile&mdash;to kiss the clay than
+curse the man.</p>
+<p>The editor of the <i>Watchman</i> has done himself injustice. He
+has not injured the dead, but the living.</p>
+<p>I am an infidel&mdash;an unbeliever&mdash;and yet I hope that
+all the children of men may find peace and joy. No matter how they
+leave this world, from altar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue
+or stained with crime, I hope that good may come to all.</p>
+<p>R. G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>IS SUICIDE A SIN?</h2>
+<pre>
+     * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.
+</pre>
+<p>Col. Ingersoll's First Letter.</p>
+<p>I DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If
+it is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more
+sorrow, more failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to
+despair. In civilized life there is a great struggle, great
+competition, and many fail. To fail in a great city is like being
+wrecked at sea. In the country a man has friends; he can get a
+little credit, a little help, but in the city it is different. The
+man is lost in the multitude. In the roar of the streets, his cry
+is not heard. Death becomes his only friend. Death promises release
+from want, from hunger and pain, and so the poor wretch lays down
+his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and falls asleep.</p>
+<p>To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many
+endure and suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark
+of life in huts and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of
+misery and want; support it by beggary, by eating the crust found
+in the gutter, and to whom it only gives days of weariness and
+nights of fear and dread. Why should the man, sitting amid the
+wreck of all he had, the loved ones dead, friends lost, seek to
+lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the future have for
+him?</p>
+<p>Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself.
+When life is of no value to him, when he can be of no real
+assistance to others, why should a man continue? When he is of no
+benefit, when he is a burden to those he loves, why should he
+remain? The old idea was that God made us and placed us here for a
+purpose and that it was our duty to remain until he called us. The
+world is outgrowing this absurdity. What pleasure can it give God
+to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the quivering flesh
+slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is this a
+festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A
+little morphine would give him sleep&mdash;the agony would be
+forgotten and he would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to
+painless death.</p>
+<p>If God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine
+and why should doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of
+God? No one, except a few insane, act now according to this
+childish superstition. Why should a man, surrounded by flames, in
+the midst of a burning building, from which there is no escape,
+hesitate to put a bullet through his brain or a dagger in his
+heart? Would it give God pleasure to see him burn? When did the man
+lose the right of self-defence?</p>
+<p>So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he
+stay and ruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the
+injury? Why should he live, filling his days and nights, and the
+days and nights of others, with grief and pain, with agony and
+tears?</p>
+<p>Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to
+still his heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is
+sweeter than the ache of toil. The dead have no masters.</p>
+<p>So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed
+against her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help,
+no eye that will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with
+monstrous shapes of dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of
+thoughts like clouds broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the
+serpents of remorse, flying from horrors too great to bear, rushes
+with joy through the welcome door of death.</p>
+<p>Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable
+suicide&mdash;cases in which not to end life would be a mistake,
+sometimes almost a crime.</p>
+<p>As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And
+if a man honestly decides that death is best&mdash;best for him and
+others&mdash;and acts upon the decision, why should he be
+blamed?</p>
+<p>Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He
+may have lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said
+that some men fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They
+are between two fires&mdash;the chance of death and the certainty
+of dishonor, and they take the chance of death. So the Christian
+martyrs were, according to their belief, between two
+fires&mdash;the flames of the fagot that could burn but for a few
+moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they chose
+the flames of the fagot.</p>
+<p>Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the
+pains and pangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot
+afford to call the suicide a coward. It does not seem to me that
+Brutus was a coward or that Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing
+left to live for. Cato was not a craven. He acted on his judgment.
+So with hundreds of others who felt that they had reached the
+end&mdash;-that the journey was done, the voyage was over, and, so
+feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man who commits
+suicide, who "does the thing that ends all other deeds, that
+shackles accident and bolts up change" is not lacking in physical
+courage.</p>
+<p>If men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in
+almshouses, in hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of
+incurable disease, the stains of dishonor; they would not live in
+filth and want, in poverty and hunger, neither would they wear the
+chain of slavery. All this can be accounted for only by the fear of
+death or "of something after."</p>
+<p>Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no
+fear. He knew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that "at
+the bottom of every river, in the coil of every rope, on the point
+of every dagger, Liberty sat and smiled." He knew that it was his
+own fault if he allowed himself to be tortured to death by his
+enemy. He said: "There is this blessing, that while life has but
+one entrance, it has exits innumerable, and as I choose the house
+in which I live, the ship in which I will sail, so will I choose
+the time and manner of my death."</p>
+<p>To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman
+law persons found guilty of certain offences were not only
+destroyed, but their blood was polluted and their children became
+outcasts. If, however, they died before conviction their children
+were saved. Many committed suicide to save their babes. Certainly
+they were not cowards. Although guilty of great crimes they had
+enough of honor, of manhood, left to save their innocent children.
+This was not cowardice.</p>
+<p>Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose
+their property. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose
+proportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of
+frenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in
+heart&mdash;the light fading from their lives&mdash;seek the refuge
+of death.</p>
+<p>Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways&mdash;who
+mangle their throats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers
+and roofs, take poisons that torture like the rack&mdash;such
+persons must be insane. But those who take the facts into account,
+who weigh the arguments for and against, and who decide that death
+is best&mdash;the only good&mdash;and then resort to reasonable
+means, may be, so far as I can see, in full possession of their
+minds.</p>
+<p>Life is not the same to all&mdash;to some a blessing, to some a
+curse, to some not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable
+regret, some with the keenest joy and some with indifference.</p>
+<p>Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the
+number of suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain
+will stay the hand, and people so believing will suffer here until
+relieved by natural death. A belief in eternal agony beyond the
+grave will cause such believers to suffer the pangs of this life.
+When there is no fear of the future, when death is believed to be a
+dreamless sleep, men have less hesitation about ending their lives.
+On the other hand, orthodox religion has driven millions to
+insanity. It has caused parents to murder their children and many
+thousands to destroy themselves and others.</p>
+<p>It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who
+kill themselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their
+belief is forgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.</p>
+<p>I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are
+in the twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly
+sane.</p>
+<p>The law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt
+suicide is cruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number
+of successful suicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he
+has been so persecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the
+rest and sleep of death, why should the State add to the sufferings
+of that man? A man seeking death, knowing that he will be punished
+if he fails, will take extra pains and precautions to make death
+certain.</p>
+<p>This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and
+enforced by ignorance and cruelty.</p>
+<p>When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has
+shrunk and narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the
+liberty of death, why should the effort to escape be regarded as a
+crime?</p>
+<p>Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not
+take gods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known,
+and my estimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in
+this world. People should not suffer for the sake of supernatural
+beings or for other worlds or the hopes and fears of some future
+state. Our joys, our sufferings and our duties are here.</p>
+<p>The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the
+law as to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot
+prevent suicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care
+nothing for law and its penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and
+eternal.</p>
+<p>We should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of
+every suicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural
+and efficient cause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the
+facts touch each other. There is no space between&mdash;no room for
+chance. Given a certain heart and brain, certain conditions, and
+suicide is the necessary result. If we wish to prevent suicide we
+must change conditions. We must by education, by invention, by art,
+by civilization, add to the value of the average life. We must
+cultivate the brain and heart&mdash;do away with false pride and
+false modesty. We must become generous enough to help our fellows
+without degrading them. We must make industry&mdash;useful work of
+all kinds&mdash;honorable. We must mingle a little affection with
+our charity&mdash;a little fellowship. We should allow those who
+have sinned to really reform. We should not think only of what the
+wicked have done, but we should think of what we have wanted to do.
+People do not hate the sick. Why should they despise the mentally
+weak&mdash;the diseased in brain?</p>
+<p>Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances&mdash;of
+conditions&mdash;and we do as we must.</p>
+<p>This great truth should fill the heart with pity for the
+failures of our race.</p>
+<p>Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide;
+that in olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove
+a stake through his body, and then took his property from his
+children and gave it to the State.</p>
+<p>If Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox
+religion rests upon suicide&mdash;that man was redeemed by suicide,
+and that without suicide the whole world would have been lost.</p>
+<p>If Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself
+from the Jews without hurting them. But instead of using his power
+he allowed them to take his life.</p>
+<p>If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him
+to death with knives when he could easily have brushed them aside,
+would we not say that he committed suicide?</p>
+<p>There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed
+the Jews to kill him, then he consented to his own
+death&mdash;refused, though perfectly able, to defend and protect
+himself, and was, in fact, a suicide.</p>
+<p>We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as
+there shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime,
+men and women will untie life's knot and seek the peace of
+death.</p>
+<p>To the hopelessly imprisoned&mdash;to the dishonored and
+despised&mdash;to those who have failed, who have no future, no
+hope&mdash;to the abandoned, the brokenhearted, to those who are
+only remnants and fragments of men and women&mdash;how consoling,
+how enchanting is the thought of death!</p>
+<p>And even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome
+deliverer. Death is as natural and as merciful as life. When we
+have journeyed long&mdash;when we are weary&mdash;when we wish for
+the twilight, for the dusk, for the cool kisses of the
+night&mdash;when the senses are dull&mdash;when the pulse is faint
+and low&mdash;when the mists gather on the mirror of
+memory&mdash;when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly
+perceived&mdash;when the future has but empty hands&mdash;death is
+as welcome as a strain of music.</p>
+<p>After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to
+eternal happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth,
+disturbed by no dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear,
+unconscious of all and forever.</p>
+<p>The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want,
+in spite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and
+stagger and crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The
+wonder is that so few of the miserable are brave enough to
+die&mdash;that so many are terrified by the "something after
+death"&mdash;by the spectres and phantoms of superstition.</p>
+<p>Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the
+arctic snows&mdash;how they struggle in the waves and currents of
+the sea&mdash;how they linger in famine&mdash;how they fight
+disaster and despair! On the crumbling edge of death they keep the
+flag flying and go down at last full of hope and courage.</p>
+<p>But many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They
+are disheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of
+conflict and give the earth their blood.</p>
+<p>They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not
+curse or blame&mdash;we should pity. On their pallid faces our
+tears should fall.</p>
+<p>One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a
+charming and loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of
+generous impulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was
+conscientious, and so sensitive that he blamed himself for having
+done what at the time he thought was wise and best. He was the
+victim of his virtues. Let us be merciful in our judgments.</p>
+<p>All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the
+malignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the
+ignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by
+circumstances and conditions&mdash;sometimes in the calm of
+judgment, sometimes in passion's storm and stress, sometimes in
+whirl and tempest of insanity&mdash;raise their hands against
+themselves and desperately put out the light of life.</p>
+<p>Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are
+insane they should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they
+should be reasoned with, calmed and assisted.</p>
+<p>R. G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<center>COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.</center>
+<p>IN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken
+that "under many circumstances a man has the right to kill
+himself."</p>
+<p>This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and
+the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of
+self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life
+is the gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days
+of men; that it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with
+grateful patience. Some have denounced suicide as the worst of
+crimes&mdash;worse than the murder of another.</p>
+<p>The first question, then, is:</p>
+<p>Has a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?</p>
+<p>A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer&mdash;his agony is
+intense&mdash;his suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is
+slowly being taken. Is this the work of the good God? Did the
+compassionate God create the cancer so that it might feed on the
+quiverering flesh of this victim?</p>
+<p>This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive,
+is of no use to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He
+is of no use to his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day
+after day he is rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves
+and put the brain to sleep.</p>
+<p>Has he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for
+him to take refuge in sleep?</p>
+<p>If there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure
+in the sufferings of men&mdash;that he gloats over the agonies of
+his children. If there be a good God, he will, to the extent of his
+power, lessen the evils of life.</p>
+<p>So I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer&mdash;a
+burden to himself and others, useless in every way&mdash;has the
+right to end his pain and pass through happy sleep to dreamless
+rest.</p>
+<p>But those who have answered me would say to this man: "It is
+your duty to be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your
+life is the gift of God. You hold it in trust and you have no right
+to end it. The cancer is the creation of God and it is your duty to
+furnish it with food."</p>
+<p>Take another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the
+rest of the passengers have escaped&mdash;gone in the
+lifeboats&mdash;and he is left alone. In the wide horizon there is
+no sail, no sign of help. He cannot swim. If he leaps into the sea
+he drowns, if he remains on the ship he burns. In any event he can
+live but a few moments.</p>
+<p>Those who have answered me, those who insist that under no
+circumstances a man has the right to take his life, would say to
+this man on the deck, "Remain where you are. It is the desire of
+your loving, heavenly Father that you be clothed in
+flame&mdash;that you slowly roast&mdash;that your eyes be scorched
+to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is not
+your own, only the agony is yours."</p>
+<p>I would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning
+to burning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have
+the right of choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing
+yourself to be burned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by
+choosing the easier death.</p>
+<p>Let us suppose another case:</p>
+<p>A man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is
+about to be tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust
+splinters of pine into his flesh and then set them on fire. He
+watches them as they make the preparations. He knows what they are
+about to do and what he is about to suffer. There is no hope of
+rescue, of help. He has a vial of poison. He knows that he can take
+it and in one moment pass beyond their power, leaving to them only
+the dead body.</p>
+<p>Is this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave
+it, until the savages by torture take it? Are the savages the
+agents of the good God? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is
+it the duty of this man to allow them to wrap his body in a garment
+of flame? Has he no right to defend himself? Is it the will of God
+that he die by torture? What would any man of ordinary intelligence
+do in a case like this? Is there room for discussion?</p>
+<p>If the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments,
+escaped the tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would
+in another world be tortured forever by an infinite savage?</p>
+<p>Suppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition
+flourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their
+friends, many frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch
+the nerves of pain.</p>
+<p>Those who loved God, who had been "born twice," would take a
+fellow-man who had been convicted of "heresy," lay him upon the
+floor of a dungeon, secure his arms and legs with chains, fasten
+him to the earth so that he could not move, put an iron vessel, the
+opening downward, on his stomach, place in the vessel several rats,
+then tie it securely to his body. Then these worshipers of God
+would wait until the rats, seeking food and liberty, would gnaw
+through the body of the victim.</p>
+<p>Now, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within
+his hand a dagger, would it excite the wrath of the "good God," if
+with one quick stroke he found the protection of death?</p>
+<p>To this question there can be but one answer.</p>
+<p>In the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person
+would have the right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible
+that the man was under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to
+remain upon the ship and perish in flame; to throw away the poison
+and be tortured to death by savages; to drop the dagger and endure
+the "mercies" of the church.</p>
+<p>If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to
+take their lives, then I was right when I said that "under many
+circumstances a man has a right to kill himself."</p>
+<p><i>Second</i>.&mdash;I denied that persons who killed themselves
+were physical cowards. They may lack moral courage; they may
+exaggerate their misfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the
+man who plunges the dagger in his heart, who sends the bullet
+through his brain, who leaps from some roof and dashes himself
+against the stones beneath, is not and cannot be a physical
+coward.</p>
+<p>The basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of
+death, and when that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the
+desire to die, no matter by what means, it is impossible that
+cowardice should exist. The suicide wants the very thing that a
+coward fears. He seeks the very thing that cowardice endeavors to
+escape.</p>
+<p>So, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is
+not a coward, but a reasonable man.</p>
+<p>It must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He
+is to bear the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no
+hypocrisy, and just as certainly there is no physical
+cowardice.</p>
+<p>Is the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a
+cancer a coward?</p>
+<p>Is the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a
+coward? Is the man that takes poison rather than be tortured to
+death by savages or "Christians" a coward?</p>
+<p><i>Third</i>.&mdash;I also took the position that some suicides
+were sane; that they acted on their best judgment, and that they
+were in full possession of their minds. Now, if under some
+circumstances, a man has the right to take his life, and, if, under
+such circumstances, he does take his life, then it cannot be said
+that he was insane.</p>
+<p>Most of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the
+ground that suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said
+that it is the greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the
+suicide must have been sane. So all persons who denounce the
+suicide as a criminal admit that he was sane. Under the law, an
+insane person is incapable of committing a crime. All the clergymen
+who have answered me, and who have passionately asserted that
+suicide is a crime, have by that assertion admitted that those who
+killed themselves were sane.</p>
+<p>They agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that "some
+who have committed suicide were sane and in the full possession of
+their minds."</p>
+<p>It seems to me that these three propositions have been
+demonstrated to be true: <i>First</i>, that under some
+circumstances a man has the right to take his life; <i>second</i>,
+that the man who commits suicide is not a physical coward, and,
+<i>third</i>, that some who have committed suicide were at the time
+sane and in full possession of their minds.</p>
+<p><i>Fourth</i>.&mdash;I insisted, and still insist, that suicide
+was and is the foundation of the Christian religion.</p>
+<p>I still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to
+protect himself without injuring his assailants&mdash;that having
+that power it was his duty to use it, and that failing to use it he
+consented to his own death and was guilty of suicide.</p>
+<p>To this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the
+redemption of man, that he made an atonement for the sins of
+believers. These ideas about redemption and atonement are born of a
+belief in the "fall of man," on account of the sins of our first
+"parents," and of the declaration that "without the shedding of
+blood there is no remission of sin." The foundation has crumbled.
+No intelligent person now believes in the "fall of man"&mdash;that
+our first parents were perfect, and that their descendants grew
+worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.</p>
+<p>Intelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn
+of history, man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded
+savage, whose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of
+hatred and delight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the
+vices, but not all the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from
+the den to the home, the palace, has been long and painful, through
+many centuries of suffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages
+of discovery, invention, self-sacrifice and thought.</p>
+<p>Redemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to
+rest. The idea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to
+this grain of sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed
+with Pharisees and scribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to
+put him to death that he might atone for the sins of men and redeem
+a few believers from the consequences of his own wrath, can find no
+lodgment in a good and natural brain.</p>
+<p>In no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be
+found.</p>
+<p>But if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times
+because it was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a
+religion of kindness, of good deeds, to take the place of
+heartlessness and ceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he
+believed to be right and true, he suffered death, then he was a
+noble man&mdash;a benefactor of his race. But if he were God there
+was no need of this. The Jews did not wish to kill God. If he had
+only made himself known all knees would have touched the ground. If
+he were God it required no heroism to die. He knew that what we
+call death is but the opening of the gates of eternal life. If he
+were God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need to suffer
+pain. He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.</p>
+<p>Even the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no
+escape from these conclusions&mdash;from these arguments&mdash;and
+so, instead of attacking the arguments, they attack the man who
+makes them.</p>
+<p><i>Fifth</i>.&mdash;I denounced the law of New York that makes
+an attempt to commit suicide a crime.</p>
+<p>It seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he
+passionately longs for death should be pitied, instead of
+punished&mdash;helped rather than imprisoned.</p>
+<p>A despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a
+woman without home, without friends, without bread, with clasped
+hands, with tear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the
+darkness of night leaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the
+tearless sleep of death. She is rescued by a kind, courageous man,
+handed over to the authorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed
+in a convict's garb and locked in a felon's cell.</p>
+<p>To me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only
+savages would enforce.</p>
+<p><i>Sixth</i>.&mdash;In this discussion a curious thing has
+happened. For several centuries the clergy have declared that while
+infidelity is a very good thing to live by, it is a bad support, a
+wretched consolation, in the hour of death. They have in spite of
+the truth, declared that all the great unbelievers died trembling
+with fear, asking God for mercy, surrounded by fiends, in the
+torments of despair. Think of the thousands and thousands of
+clergymen who have described the last agonies of Voltaire, who died
+as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from play to
+slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep as
+serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks,
+reaches the sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest,
+one of the noblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a
+star that meets the morning.</p>
+<p>At the same time these ministers admitted that the average
+murderer could meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity,
+and could smilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him
+killed to meet him in heaven.</p>
+<p>But the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against
+the creed of the church in power could not die in peace. God would
+see to it that his last moments should be filled with the insanity
+of fear&mdash;that with his last breath he should utter the shriek
+of remorse, the cry for pardon.</p>
+<p>This has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons
+answering me, declare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no
+fear of death&mdash;that to avoid some little annoyance, a passing
+inconvenience, they gladly and cheerfully put out the light of
+life. It is now said that infidels believe that death is the
+end&mdash;that it is a dreamless sleep&mdash;that it is without
+pain&mdash;that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for gods,
+or heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing
+for the day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they
+carelessly throw it down.</p>
+<p>The infidels are so afraid of death that they commit
+suicide.</p>
+<p>This certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on
+having forced the clergy to contradict themselves.</p>
+<p><i>Seventh</i>.&mdash;The clergy take the position that the
+atheist, the unbeliever, has no standard of morality&mdash;that he
+can have no real conception of right and wrong. They are of the
+opinion that it is impossible for one to be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being far above himself.</p>
+<p>In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good
+unless he believes in some Being superior to himself?</p>
+<p>What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the
+circumstances. What is the best thing to do under the
+circumstances? That which will increase the sum of human
+happiness&mdash;or lessen it the least. Happiness in its highest,
+noblest form, is the only good; that which increases or preserves
+or creates happiness is moral&mdash;that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.</p>
+<p>It is not hard for an atheist&mdash;for an unbeliever&mdash;to
+keep his hands out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands
+will not increase his well-being, and he is moral enough to keep
+them out of the flames.</p>
+<p>So it may be said that each man acts according to his
+intelligence&mdash;so far as what he considers his own good is
+concerned. Sometimes he is swayed by passion, by prejudice, by
+ignorance&mdash;but when he is really intelligent, master of
+himself, he does what he believes is best for him. If he is
+intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for him is
+good for others&mdash;for all the world.</p>
+<p>It is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the
+supernatural is necessary to have a keen perception of right and
+wrong. Every man who has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has
+imagination enough to give the same capacity to others, has within
+himself the natural basis of all morality. The idea of morality was
+born here, in this world, of the experience, the intelligence of
+mankind. Morality is not of supernatural origin. It did not fall
+from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the supernatural, no
+supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural heavens or hells
+to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed by the threats
+and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not governed by
+the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are obedient
+cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by
+rewards&mdash;by alms.</p>
+<p>Right and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just
+as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten
+Commandments.</p>
+<p><i>Eighth</i>.&mdash;The clergy take the position that the
+atheist, the unbeliever, has no standard of morality&mdash;that he
+can have no real conception of right and wrong. They are of the
+opinion that it is impossible for one to be moral or good unless he
+believes in some Being far above himself.</p>
+<p>In this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good
+unless he believes in some Being superior to himself?</p>
+<p>What is morality? It is the best thing to do under the
+circumstances. What is the best thing to do under the
+circumstances? That which will increase the sum of human
+happiness&mdash;or lessen it the least. Happiness in its highest,
+noblest form, is the only good; that which increases or preserves
+or creates happiness is moral&mdash;that which decreases it, or
+puts it in peril, is immoral.</p>
+<p>It is not hard for an atheist&mdash;for an unbeliever&mdash;to
+keep his hands out of the fire. He knows that burning his hands
+will not increase his well-being, and he is moral enough to keep
+them out of the flames.</p>
+<p>So it may be said that each man acts according to his
+intelligence&mdash;so far as what he Considers his own good is
+concerned. Sometimes he is swayed by passion, by prejudice, by
+ignorance&mdash;but when he is really intelligent, master of
+himself, he does what he believes is best for him. If he is
+intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for him is
+food for others&mdash;for all the world.</p>
+<p>It is impossible for me to see why any belief in the
+supernatural is necessary to have a keen perception of right and
+wrong. Every man who has the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has
+imagination enough to give the same capacity to others, has within
+himself the natural basis of all morality. The idea of morality was
+born here, in this world, of the experience, the intelligence of
+mankind. Morality is not of supernatural origin. It did not fall
+from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the supernatural, no
+supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural heavens or hells
+to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed by the threats
+and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not governed by
+the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are obedient
+cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by
+rewards&mdash;by alms.</p>
+<p>Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.</p>
+<p>Murder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of
+the Ten Commandments.</p>
+<p><i>Eighth</i>.&mdash;Many of the clergy, some editors and some
+writers of letters who have answered me, have said that suicide is
+the worst of crimes&mdash;that a man had better murder somebody
+else than himself. One clergyman gives as a reason for this
+statement that the suicide dies in an act of sin, and therefore he
+had better kill another person. Probably he would commit a less
+crime if he would murder his wife or mother.</p>
+<p>I do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To
+say that it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems
+absurd. The man about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it
+better for him to kill another man, who wishes to live?</p>
+<p>To my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself
+than another. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw
+away your own money than steal the money of another&mdash;better
+kill yourself if you wish to die than murder one whose life is full
+of joy.</p>
+<p>The clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of
+the greatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is
+wonderful how much they know about God and how little about their
+fellow-men. Wonderful the amount of their information about other
+worlds and how limited their knowledge is of this.</p>
+<p>There may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor
+deny. I am honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid
+enough to admit that the question is beyond the limitations of my
+mind. Yet I think I know as much on that subject as any human being
+knows or ever knew, and that is&mdash;nothing. I do not say that
+there is not another world, another life; neither do I say that
+there is. I say that I do not know. It seems to me that every sane
+and honest man must say the same. But if there is an infinitely
+good God and another world, then the infinitely good God will be
+just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If this
+infinitely good God loves his children in this world, he will love
+them in another. If he loves a man when he is alive, he will not
+hate him the instant he is dead.</p>
+<p>If we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God,
+he knew exactly what we would do&mdash;the temptations that we
+could and could not withstand&mdash;knew exactly the effect that
+everything would have upon us, knew under what circumstances we
+would take our lives&mdash;and produced such circumstances himself.
+It is perfectly apparent that there are many people incapable by
+nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable of preserving
+their mental poise in stress and strain of disaster, disease and
+loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to
+despair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes like a
+flash of lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so
+strong, so vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all
+duties, all obligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains
+except a fierce and wild desire to die. Thousands and thousands
+become moody, melancholy, brood upon loss of money, of position, of
+friends, until reason abdicates and frenzy takes possession of the
+soul. If there be an infinitely wise and powerful God, all this was
+known to him from the beginning, and he so created things,
+established relations, put in operation causes and effects, that
+all that has happened was the necessary result of his own acts.</p>
+<p><i>Ninth</i>.&mdash;Nearly all who have tried to answer what I
+said have been exceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer
+something that I never uttered. They have declared that I have
+advised people who were in trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill
+themselves; that I have told men who have lost their money, who had
+failed in business, who were not good in health, to kill themselves
+at once, without taking into consideration any duty that they owed
+to wives, children, friends, or society.</p>
+<p>No man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone
+if he is able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if
+he can possibly be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of
+those he loves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery,
+between child and want, as long as he can be of any use, it is his
+duty to remain.</p>
+<p>I believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of
+things, in bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling
+against adversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in
+disaster, in having confidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl
+of joy among the flints and shards, and in changing by the alchemy
+of patience even evil things to good. I believe in the gospel of
+cheerfulness, of courage and good nature.</p>
+<p>Of the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the
+world&mdash;of all that live. My anxieties are about this life,
+this world. About the phantoms called gods and their impossible
+hells, I have no care, no fear.</p>
+<p>The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The
+immortality of the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I
+hope&mdash;hope for all of the children of men. I have never denied
+the existence of another world, nor the immortality of the soul.
+For many years I have said that the idea of immortality, that like
+a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless
+waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time
+and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any
+religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to
+ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as
+long as love kisses the lips of death.</p>
+<p>What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of
+torture.</p>
+<p>After all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People
+do not kill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All
+wish to be happy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and
+raiment, for friends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of
+self-destruction never enters the human mind.</p>
+<p>The oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of
+others, the robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the
+living point, the ministers who make people insane by preaching the
+dogma of eternal pain; these are the men who drive the weak, the
+suffering and the helpless down to death.</p>
+<p>It will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to
+die. Of this there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no
+evidence that any god takes any interest in the affairs of
+men&mdash;that any sides with the right or helps the weak, protects
+the innocent or rescues the oppressed. Even the clergy admit that
+their God, through all ages, has allowed his friends, his
+worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and murdered by his enemies.
+Such is the protection of God. Billions of prayers have been
+uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague, pestilence and
+famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to
+overwhelm?</p>
+<p><i>Tenth</i>.&mdash;Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that
+so many men, so many women endure and carry their burdens to the
+natural end; that so many, in spite of "age, ache and penury,"
+guard with trembling hands the spark of life; that prisoners for
+life toil and suffer to the last; that the helpless wretches in
+poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that the exiles in Siberia,
+loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live on; that the
+incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the future
+has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of
+death.</p>
+<p>It is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a
+short journey. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the
+afternoon, the twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does
+not want, what he cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the
+blind fury of madness, or in the calm of thought and choice, the
+beleaguered soul finds the serenity of death.</p>
+<p>Let us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing
+of any realm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the
+end of life. Let us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us
+pity the suffering, the despairing, the men and women hunted and
+pursued by grief and shame, by misery and want, by chance and fate
+until their only friend is death.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<center>SUICIDE A SIN.</center>
+<pre>
+     * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that what you have written about
+suicide has caused people to take their lives?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I do not. People do not kill themselves
+because of the ideas of others. They are the victims of
+misfortune.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you consider the chief cause of
+suicide?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> There are many causes. Some individuals are
+crossed in love, others are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still
+others are diseased in body and frequently in mind. There are a
+thousand and one causes that lead up to the final act.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider that nationality plays a part
+in these tragedies?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No, it is a question of individuals. There are
+those whose sorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers
+seek the peace of death.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you, then, advise suicide?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I have never done so, but I have said, and
+still say, that there are circumstances under which it is
+justifiable for a person to take his life.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the law which prohibits
+self-destruction?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a
+man was tried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I
+think he pleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the
+terrible crime of the poor wretch, sentenced him to the
+penitentiary for two years. This was an outrage; infamous in every
+way, and a disgrace to our civilization.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the
+frequency of suicides?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> By no means. After this, persons in New York who
+have made up their minds to commit suicide will see to it that they
+succeed.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have your opinions been in any way modified
+since your first announcement of them?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No
+one can answer my articles on suicide, because no one can
+satisfactorily refute them. Every man of sense knows that a person
+being devoured by a cancer has the right to take morphine, and pass
+from agony to dreamless sleep. So, too, there are circumstances
+under which a man has the right to end his pain of mind.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen in the papers that many who have
+killed themselves have had on their persons some article of yours
+on suicide?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that
+I do not think these persons were led to kill themselves by reading
+the articles. Many people who have killed themselves were found to
+have Bibles or tracts in their pockets.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the presence of the
+latter?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> The reason of this is that the theologians know
+nothing. The pious imagine that their God has placed us here for
+some wise and inscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us
+when he wants us. All this is idiotic. When a man is of no use to
+himself or to others, when his days and nights are filled with pain
+and sorrow, why should he remain to endure them longer?</p>
+<center>SUICIDE A SIN.</center>
+<pre>
+     * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.
+</pre>
+<p>COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he
+had read the Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an
+interview had with the reverend gentleman.</p>
+<p>Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same
+views still. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion
+among the orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected
+when anything sensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a
+little common sense with his theology, and, of course this has
+displeased the truly orthodox.</p>
+<p>Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of
+supernatural religion can outlive a good dose of real good sense.
+The orthodox ministers take the ground that an infinite Being
+created man, put him on the earth and determined his days. They say
+that God desires every person to live until he, God, calls for his
+soul. They insist that we are all on guard and must remain so until
+relieved by a higher power&mdash;the superior officer.</p>
+<p>The trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It
+proves that God kills every person who dies as we say, "according
+to nature." It proves that we ought to say, "according to God." It
+proves that God sends the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence,
+for the purpose of killing people. It proves that all diseases and
+all accidents are his messengers, and that all who do not kill
+themselves, die by the act, and in accordance with the will of God.
+It also shows that when a man is murdered, it is in harmony with,
+and a part of the divine plan. When God created the man who was
+murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and when he made the
+man who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he would do. So
+that the murder was the act of God.</p>
+<p>Can it be said that God intended that thousands should die of
+famine and that he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain?
+Can we say that he intended that thousands of innocent men should
+die in dungeons and on scaffolds?</p>
+<p>Is it possible that a man, "slowly being devoured by a cancer,"
+whose days and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to
+himself and a burden to others, is carrying out the will of God?
+Does God enjoy his agony? Is God thrilled by the music of his
+moans&mdash;the melody of his shrieks?</p>
+<p>This frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every
+human being a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous
+but it is idiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the
+universe.</p>
+<p>Now, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our
+minds, and have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of
+the world's history, then we know&mdash;if we know
+anything&mdash;that man has taken his chances, precisely the same
+as other animals. He has been destroyed by heat and cold, by flood
+and fire, by storm and famine, by countless diseases, by numberless
+accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his strength, his
+foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He has
+defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has
+he been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever
+happened in nature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure
+the human race.</p>
+<p>Consequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is
+not in any way affected by a supposed obligation to the
+Infinite.</p>
+<p>All theological considerations must be thrown aside because we
+see and know that the laws of life are the same for all living
+things&mdash;that when the conditions are favorable, the living
+multiply and life lengthens, and when the conditions are
+unfavorable, the living decrease and life shortens. We have no
+evidence of any interference of any power superior to nature.
+Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and
+obligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here
+in this world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation
+to any phantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a
+man under certain circumstances has the right to end his life.</p>
+<p>If he can be of no use to others&mdash;if he is of no use to
+himself&mdash;if he is a burden to others&mdash;a curse to
+himself&mdash;why should he remain? By ending his life he ends his
+sufferings and adds to the well-being of others. He lessens misery
+and increases happiness. Under such circumstances undoubtedly a man
+has the right to stop the pulse of pain and woo the sleep that has
+no dream.</p>
+<p>I do not think that the discussion of this question is of much
+importance, but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and
+a sensible position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister,
+but like a man.</p>
+<p>When wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised.
+I feel then that there is a little light in the East, possibly the
+dawn of a better day.</p>
+<p>I congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave
+and philosophic words.</p>
+<p>There is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to
+avoid death, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has
+this right, then the theologians must admit that God, in making his
+decrees, took into consideration the result of such actions. Now,
+if God knew that while most men would avoid death, some would seek
+it, and if his decrees were so made that they would harmonize with
+the acts of those who would avoid death, can we say that he did
+not, in making his decrees, take into consideration the acts of
+those who would seek death? Let us remember that all actions, good,
+bad and indifferent, are the necessary children of
+conditions&mdash;that there is no chance in the natural world in
+which we live.</p>
+<p>So, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and
+that all have the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be
+charitable.</p>
+<p>When some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret,
+frenzied with fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life,
+let us have pity&mdash;Let us be generous.</p>
+<center>SUICIDE AND SANITY.</center>
+<pre>
+     * New York Press, 1897. An Interview.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first
+question, to which Colonel Ingersoll replied:</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No. At the same time I believe that a great
+majority of suicides are insane. There are circumstances under
+which suicide is natural, sensible and right. When a man is of no
+use to himself, when he can be of no use to others, when his life
+is filled with agony, when the future has no promise of relief,
+then I think he has the right to cast the burden of life away and
+seek the repose of death.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with
+suicide. Of nearly all things death is the most feared. And the man
+who voluntarily enters the realm of death cannot properly be called
+a coward. Many men who kill themselves forget the duties they owe
+to others&mdash;forget their wives and children. Such men are
+heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are not cowards.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. When is the suicide of the sane
+justifiable?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> To escape death by torture; to avoid being
+devoured by a cancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love;
+when you can be of no use to others or to yourself; when life is
+unbearable; when in all the horizon of the future there is no star
+of hope.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that any suicides have been
+caused or encouraged by your declaration three years ago that
+suicide sometimes was justifiable?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated,
+invented, suicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on
+suicide had ever taken his own life. Talk as long as language
+lasts, you cannot induce a man to kill himself. The man who takes
+his own life does not go to others to find reasons or excuses.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. On the whole is the world made better or worse
+by suicides?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Better by some and poorer by others.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most
+educated of civilized nations, leads the world in suicides?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not know that Germany is the most educated;
+neither do I know that suicide is more frequent there than in all
+other countries. I know that the struggle for life is severe in
+Germany, that the laws are unjust, that the government is
+oppressive, that the people are sentimental, that they brood over
+their troubles and easily become hopeless.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not
+killing of born idiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth
+equally so?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> There is no relation between the
+questions&mdash;between suicides and killing idiots. Suicide may,
+under certain circumstances, be right and killing idiots may be
+wrong; killing idiots may be right and suicide may be wrong. When
+we look about us, when we read interviews with preachers about
+Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Should suicide be forbidden by law?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No. A law that provides for the punishment of
+those who attempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are
+willing to meet death are not afraid of law. The only effect of
+such a law would be to make the person who had concluded to kill
+himself a little more careful to succeed.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your belief about virtue, morality and
+religion?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I believe that all actions that tend to the
+well-being of sentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe
+that real religion consists in doing good. I do not believe in
+phantoms. I believe in the uniformity of nature; that matter will
+forever attract matter in proportion to mass and distance; that,
+under the same circumstances, falling bodies will attain the same
+speed, increasing in exact proportion to distance; that light will
+always, under the same circumstances, be reflected at the same
+angle; that it will always travel with the same velocity; that air
+will forever be lighter than water, and gold heavier than iron;
+that all substances will be true to their natures; that a certain
+degree of heat will always expand the metals and change water into
+steam; that a certain degree of cold will cause the metals to
+shrink and change water into ice; that all atoms will forever be in
+motion; that like causes will forever produce like effects, that
+force will be overcome only by force; that no atom of matter will
+ever be created or destroyed; that the energy in the universe will
+forever remain the same, nothing lost, nothing gained; that all
+that has been possible has happened, and that all that will be
+possible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all thoughts,
+dreams, fancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of all
+successes and all failures, are in nature; that there is in the
+universe no power superior to nature; that man is under no
+obligation to the imaginary gods; that all his obligations and
+duties are to be discharged and done in this world; that right and
+wrong do not depend on the will of an infinite Being, but on the
+consequences of actions, and that these consequences necessarily
+flow from the nature of things. I believe that the universe is
+natural.</p>
+<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</h2>
+<pre>
+     *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and
+     Avarice Triumphant," published in the North American Review,
+     June, 1891.
+</pre>
+<p>THERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy
+individual and national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of
+evil. They mistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening
+of the world. To them everything has changed. Men are no longer
+honest or brave, and women have ceased to be beautiful. They are
+dyspeptic, and it gives them the greatest pleasure to say that the
+art of cooking has been lost.</p>
+<p>For many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits.
+They lifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step
+in advance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and
+goodness and self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth.
+They doubted the morality of well-dressed people&mdash;considered
+it impossible that the prosperous should be pious. Like owls
+sitting on the limbs of a dead tree, they hooted the obsequies of
+spring, believing it would come no more.</p>
+<p>There are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and
+slander the land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of
+Cassandra mission, and they really seem to enjoy their work. They
+honestly believe that every kind of crime is on the increase, that
+the courts are all corrupt, that the legislators are bribed, that
+the witnesses are suborned, that all holders of office are
+dishonest; and they feel like a modern Marius sitting amid the
+ruins of all the virtues.</p>
+<p>It is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are
+wrong. They do not want arguments, because they will not heed them.
+They need medicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a
+physician.</p>
+<p>General Hawkins is probably right when he says that some
+fraudulent shoes, some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels
+were sold to the Government during the war; but we must remember
+that there were millions and millions of as good shoes as art and
+honesty could make, millions of the best muskets ever constructed,
+and hundreds of the most magnificent ships ever built, sold to the
+Government during the same period. We must not mistake an eddy for
+the main stream. We must also remember another thing: there were
+millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the shoes, to
+use the muskets, and to man the ships.</p>
+<p>So it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land
+subsidies voted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured
+by bribery is preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon.
+There is not the slightest evidence tending to show that the
+general policy of hastening the construction of railways through
+the Territories of the United States was corruptly
+adopted&mdash;not the slightest. At the same time, it may be that
+some members of Congress were induced by personal considerations to
+vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the policy was wise,
+and through the granting of the subsidies thousands of miles of
+railways were built, and these railways have given to civilization
+vast territories which otherwise would have remained substantially
+useless to the world. Where at that time was a wilderness, now are
+some of the most thriving cities in the United States&mdash;a
+great, an industrious, and a happy population. The results have
+justified the action of Congress.</p>
+<p>It is also true that some railroads have been "wrecked" in the
+United States, but most of these wrecks have been the result of
+competition. It is the same with corporations as with
+individuals&mdash;the powerful combine against the weak. In the
+world of commerce and business is the great law of the survival of
+the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary institutions. They
+have but little regard for the rights of one another. Some fortunes
+have been made by the criminal "wrecking" of roads, but even in the
+business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the
+companies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard,
+other things being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.</p>
+<p>Many railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to
+develop the country through which they passed. While they waited
+for immigration, interest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took
+place; then reorganization. By that time the country had been
+populated; towns were springing up along the line; increased
+business was the result. On the new bonds and the new stock the
+company paid interest and dividends. Then the ones who first
+invested and lost their money felt that they had been
+defrauded.</p>
+<p>So it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of
+crimes&mdash;easy to indict the entire nation, and at the same time
+impossible to substantiate one of the charges. Everyone who knows
+the history of the Star-Route trials knows that nothing was
+established against the defendants, knows that every effort was
+made by the Government to convict them, and also knows that an
+unprejudiced jury of twelve men, never suspected of being
+improperly influenced, after having heard the entire case,
+pronounced the defendants not guilty. After this, of course, any
+one can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who cares
+nothing for the facts, that the defendants were all guilty.</p>
+<p>It may also be true that some settlers in the far West have
+taken timber from the public lands, and it may be that it was a
+necessity. Our laws and regulations were such that where a settler
+was entitled to take up a certain amount of land he had to take it
+all in one place; he could not take a certain number of acres on
+the plains and a certain number of acres in the timber. The
+consequence was that when he settled upon the land&mdash;the land
+that he could cultivate&mdash;he took the timber that he needed
+from the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I
+suppose it may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass
+and possibly drank the Government's water.</p>
+<p>It will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been
+"watered" in this country. And what is the crime or practice known
+as watering stock?</p>
+<p>For instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth,
+we will say, $3,000,000&mdash;able to pay interest on that sum at
+the rate of six per cent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock
+issued has nothing to do with the value of the thing represented by
+the stock. If there was one share of stock representing this
+railroad, it would be worth three million dollars, whether it said
+on its face it was one dollar or one hundred dollars. If there were
+three million shares of stock issued on this property, they would
+be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter whether it said on this
+stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars,
+the share would be worth one dollar&mdash;no more, no less. If any
+one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value of
+the thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if
+a pie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each
+piece is worth twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand
+pieces, you do not increase the value of the pie.</p>
+<p>If, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find
+its relation to the thing represented by all the stock.</p>
+<p>It can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The
+reason is perfectly clear. Corporations are like
+individuals&mdash;they combine. Unfortunate corporations become
+socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out against the abuses of trusts.
+It is natural for corporations to defend themselves&mdash;natural
+for them to stop ruinous competition by a profitable pool; and when
+strong corporations combine, little corporations suffer. It is with
+corporations as with fishes&mdash;the large eat the little; and it
+may be that this will prove a public benefit in the end. When the
+large corporations have taken possession of the little ones, it may
+be that the Government will take possession of them&mdash;the
+Government being the largest corporation of them all.</p>
+<p>It is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but
+certainly no one imagines that the people of this country build
+houses for the purpose of having them burned, or that they erect
+hotels having in view the broiling of guests. Men act as they must;
+that is to say, according to wants and necessities. In a new
+country the buildings are cheaper than in an old one, money is
+scarcer, interest higher, and consequently people build cheaply and
+take the risks of fire. They do not do this on account of the
+Constitution of the United States, or the action of political
+parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free. In
+the hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of
+fire as of famine.</p>
+<p>The destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be
+greatly regretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The
+people of America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing
+fields, and building houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree,
+the aesthetic side of their natures. Nature has been somewhat
+ruthless with us. The storms of winter breasted by the Western
+pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer, have tended, it may be, to
+harden somewhat the sensibilities; in consequence of which they
+have allowed their horses and cattle to bear the rigors of the same
+climate.</p>
+<p>It is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in
+the interest of the present, by those who care nothing for the
+future. All these things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken
+against; but we must not hint, provided we are lovers of the
+Republic, that such things are caused by free institutions.</p>
+<p>General Hawkins asserts that "Christianity has neither preached
+nor practiced humanity towards animals," while at the same time
+"Sunday school children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a
+terrible thing it is to break the Sabbath;" that "museum trustees
+tremble with pious horror at the suggestion of opening the doors
+leading to the collections on that day," and that no protests have
+come "from lawmakers or the Christian clergy." Few people will
+suspect me of going out of my way to take care of Christianity or
+of the clergy. At the same time, I can afford to state the truth.
+While there is not much in the Bible with regard to practicing
+humanity toward animals, there is at least this: "The merciful man
+is merciful to his beast." Of course, I am not alluding now to the
+example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle of the
+Egyptians with hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of
+their owners.</p>
+<p>In regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much
+like other people.</p>
+<p>So, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against
+cruelty to animals, but enough have protested against it to secure
+the enactment of laws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry
+Bergh, who did as much good as any man who has lived in the
+nineteenth century, was seconded in his efforts by many of the
+Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds and thousands of
+professing Christians&mdash;probably millions. Let us be
+honest.</p>
+<p>It is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction
+between offences and virtues, to regard the little as the
+important&mdash;that is to say, to invert the pyramid.</p>
+<p>It is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true
+that the fringe of civilization has been composed of many low and
+cruel men. It is true that the red man has been demoralized by the
+vices of the white. It is a frightful fact that, when a superior
+race meets an inferior, the inferior imitates only the vices of the
+superior, and the superior those of the inferior. They exchange
+faults and failings. This is one of the most terrible facts in the
+history of the human race.</p>
+<p>Nothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians.
+There is, however, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when
+we lived along the Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors
+that they could ever go beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with
+the Indians drove them back but a few miles. In a little while,
+through immigration, the white race passed the line, and another
+treaty was made, forcing the Indians still further west; yet the
+tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while again the line
+was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was made, pushing
+the Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the Illinois,
+across the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at every
+step some treaty made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of
+the white men who made it to foretell the growth of the
+Republic.</p>
+<p>But the author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" made a
+great mistake when he selected the last thirty years of our
+national life as the period within which the Americans have made a
+change of the national motto appropriate, and asserted that now
+there should be in place of the old motto the words, "Plundering
+Made Easy."</p>
+<p>Most men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one
+should be blind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his
+country. He should call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of
+bringing his country into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease
+and the defects be corrected. He should do what he can to make his
+country great, prosperous, just, and free. But it is hardly fair to
+exaggerate the faults of your country for the purpose of calling
+attention to your own virtues, or to earn the praise of a nation
+that hates your own. This is what might be called wallowing in the
+gutter of reform.</p>
+<p>The thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have
+passed from virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice
+are, in fact, the most glorious years in the life of this or of any
+other nation.</p>
+<p>In 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national
+institution. It was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution.
+The Fugitive Slave Law was in full force and effect. In all the
+Southern and in nearly all of the Northern States it was a crime to
+give food, shelter, or raiment to a man or woman seeking liberty by
+flight. Humanity was illegal, hospitality a misdemeanor, and
+charity a crime. Men and women were sold like beasts. Mothers were
+robbed of their babes while they stood under our flag. All the
+sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the bloody feet of
+brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery fixed in law
+and creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of honest men
+were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by
+Northern lovers of the "Union."</p>
+<p>Now, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto
+could properly have been, "Plundering Made Easy." Those were the
+days of brutality, and the brutality was practiced to the end that
+we might make money out of the unpaid labor of others.</p>
+<p>It is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the
+then condition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North
+and South, was responsible. There were many years of compromise,
+and thousands of statesmen, so-called, through conventions and
+platforms, did what they could to preserve slavery and keep the
+Union. These efforts corrupted politics, demoralized our statesmen,
+polluted our courts, and poisoned our literature. The Websters,
+Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary expedients for principles, and
+really thought that the progress of the world could be stopped by
+the resolutions of a packed political convention. Yet these men,
+mistaken as they really were, worked and wrought unconsciously in
+the cause of human freedom. They believed that the preservation of
+the Union was the one important thing, and that it could not be
+preserved unless slavery was protected&mdash;unless the North would
+be faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution. For the
+purpose of keeping the nation true to the Union and false to
+itself, these men exerted every faculty and all their strength.
+They exhausted their genius in showing that slavery was not, after
+all, very bad, and that disunion was the most terrible calamity
+that could by any possibility befall the nation, and that the
+Union, even at the price of slavery, was the greatest possible
+blessing. They did not suspect that slavery would finally strike
+the blow for disunion. But when the time came and the South
+unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as to the infinite
+value of the Union gave to our flag millions of brave
+defenders.</p>
+<p>Now, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty
+years of "Brutality and Avarice."</p>
+<p>The Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain
+one people for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's
+protest against disunion. The Constitution of the United States is
+now the charter of human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with
+the idea that all men are entitled to liberty have been repealed.
+The black man knows that the Constitution is his shield, that the
+laws protect him, that our flag is his, and the black mother feels
+that her babe belongs to her. Where the slave-pen used to be you
+will find the schoolhouse. The dealer in human flesh is now a
+teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a child, he develops and
+illumines the mind of a pupil.</p>
+<p>There is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their
+thoughts. Lips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the
+history of our world has so much been done for education.</p>
+<p>The amount of business done in a country on credit is the
+measure of confidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it
+may truthfully be said that, where a vast deal of business is done
+on credit, an exceedingly large per cent. of the people are
+regarded as honest. In our country a very large per cent. of
+contracts are faithfully fulfilled. Probably there is no nation in
+the world where so much business is done on credit as in the United
+States. The fact that the credit of the Republic is second to that
+of no other nation on the globe would seem to be at least an
+indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.</p>
+<p>The author of "Brutality and Avarice Triumphant" seems to be of
+the opinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who
+fight for the right are not degraded&mdash;they are ennobled. When
+men face death and march to the mouths of the guns for a principle,
+they grow great; and if they come out of the conflict, they come
+with added moral grandeur; they become better men, better citizens,
+and they love more intensely than ever the great cause for the
+success of which they put their lives in pawn.</p>
+<p>The period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great
+victory the sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the
+greatest principles involved in the Revolution were almost
+forgotten.</p>
+<p>During the Civil war the North grew great and the South was
+educated. Never before in the history of mankind was there such a
+period of moral exaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the
+whitest light on the pages of our history became famous then.
+Against the few who were actuated by base and unworthy motives let
+us set the great army that fought for the Republic, the millions
+who bared their breasts to the storm, the hundreds and hundreds of
+thousands who did their duty honestly, nobly, and went back to
+their wives and children with no thought except to preserve the
+liberties of themselves and their fellow-men.</p>
+<p>Of course there were some men who did not do their
+duty&mdash;some men false to themselves and to their country. No
+one expects to find sixty-five millions of saints in America. A few
+years ago a lady complained to the president of a Western railroad
+that a brakeman had spoken to her with great rudeness. The
+president expressed his regret at the incident, and said among
+other things: "Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is for us
+to get gentlemen to fill all those places."</p>
+<p>It is hardly to be expected that the American people should
+excel all others in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have
+been very busy taking possession of the Republic. It is hard to
+overestimate the courage, the industry, the self-denial it has
+required to fell the forests, to subdue the fields, to construct
+the roads, and to build the countless homes. What has been done is
+a certificate of the honesty and industry of our people.</p>
+<p>It is not true that "one of the unwritten mottoes of our
+business morals seem to say in the plainest phraseology possible:
+'Successful wrong is right.'" Men in this country are not esteemed
+simply because they are rich; inquiries are made as to how they
+made their money, as to how they use it. The American people do not
+fall upon their knees before the golden calf; the worst that can be
+said is that they think too much of the gold of the calf&mdash;and
+this distinction is seen by the calves themselves.</p>
+<p>Nowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly
+than here. There are millions of business men&mdash;merchants,
+bankers, and men engaged in all trades and professions&mdash;to
+whom reputation is as dear as life.</p>
+<p>There is one thing in the article "Brutality and Avarice
+Triumphant" that seems even more objectionable than the rest, and
+that is the statement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the
+crimes and the shortcomings of the American people can be accounted
+for by the fact that our Government is a Republic. We are told that
+not long ago a French official complained to a friend that he was
+compelled to employ twenty clerks to do the work done by four under
+the empire, and on being asked the reason answered: "It is the
+Republic." He was told that, as he was the head of the bureau, he
+could prevent the abuse, to which he replied: "I know I have the
+power; but I have been in this position for more than thirty years,
+and am now too old to learn another occupation, and I <i>must</i>
+make places for the friends of the deputies." And then it is added
+by General Hawkins: "<i>And so it is here</i>."</p>
+<p>It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have
+abused the Indians because we contend that all men have equal
+rights before the law, or because we insist that governments derive
+their just powers from the consent of the governed. The probability
+is that a careful reading of the history of the world will show
+that nations under the control of kings and emperors have been
+guilty of some cruelty. To account for the bad we do by the good we
+believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should not be made
+responsible for our vices.</p>
+<p>Is it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization
+of men? Is a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the
+rights of men? In order to be a moral nation must we be controlled
+by king or emperor? Is human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that
+a citizen of the great Republic attacks the liberty of his
+fellow-citizens? Is he willing to abdicate? Is he willing to admit
+that his rights are not equal to the rights of others? Is he, for
+the sake of what he calls morality, willing to become a serf, a
+servant or a slave?</p>
+<p>Is it possible that "high character is impracticable" in this
+Republic? Is this the experience of the author of "Brutality and
+Avarice Triumphant"? Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays
+no dividends"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best
+market in the world for books, for music, and for art?</p>
+<p>There is in our country no real foundation for these wide and
+sweeping slanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government,
+the best country, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are,
+on the average, better clothed and fed and educated than any other
+people. They are fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take
+advantage of the forces of nature, than any other of the children
+of men. Here the burdens of government are lightest, the
+responsibilities of the individual greatest, and here, in my
+judgment, are to be worked out the most important problems of
+social science.</p>
+<p>Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man
+than you will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom
+chance has crowned; we stand erect.</p>
+<p>Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a
+national failing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled.
+Great calamities open the hearts and hands of all.</p>
+<p>Here you will find democracy in the family&mdash;republicanism
+by the fireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be
+patterned after the government. If a king is at the head of the
+nation, the husband imagines himself the monarch of the home. In
+this country we have carried into the family the idea on which the
+Government is based. Here husbands and wives are beginning to be
+equals.</p>
+<p>The highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and
+children. By this standard America stands first among nations.</p>
+<p>There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this
+country&mdash;an amplitude&mdash;that satisfies the heart and the
+imagination. We have our faults, we have our virtues, but our
+country is the best.</p>
+<p>No American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly
+quoted by an enemy of the great Republic.</p>
+<p>Robert G. Ingersoll.</p>
+<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made
+on your lectures by the <i>Cincinnati Gazette</i> and the
+<i>Catholic Telegraph</i>?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read portions of the articles.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of them?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, they are hardly of importance enough to
+form a distinct subject of thought.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Well, what do you think of the attempted
+argument of the <i>Gazette</i> against your lecture on Moses?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> The writer endeavors to show that considering the
+ignorance prevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one
+could reasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the
+advantage of telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this
+reason a few mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also
+shows that, although God was in favor of slavery he introduced some
+reforms; but whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate
+slavery or to help the slave is not stated. The article has nothing
+to do with my position. I am perfectly willing to admit that there
+is a land called Egypt; that the Jews were once slaves; that they
+got away and started a little country of their own. All this may be
+true without proving that they were miraculously fed in the
+wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or that God went into
+partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have been a man by
+the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned into
+snakes.</p>
+<p>A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the
+course of his remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and
+had brought a stone from the mountain. He requested the children to
+pass in line before him so that they could all get a look at this
+wonderful stone. After they had all seen it he said: "You will as
+you grow up meet people who will deny that there ever was a flood,
+or that God saved Noah and the animals in the ark, and then you can
+tell them that you know better, because you saw a stone from the
+very mountain where the ark rested."</p>
+<p>That is precisely the kind of argument used in the
+<i>Gazette</i>. The article was written by some one who does not
+quite believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and
+were it not for the fear of hell, would probably say so.</p>
+<p>I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as
+Mecca, such a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made
+known his will to Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the
+<i>Gazette</i> would answer all this by saying that Mohammed did
+exist, and that therefore God must have talked with him. I admit
+that there was such a general as Washington, but I do not admit
+that God kept him from being shot. I admit that there is a portrait
+of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not admit that it shed tears.
+I admit that there was such a man as Moses, but I do not admit that
+God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I admit that there was
+such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit that he carried his
+head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the river, and put
+his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit that the
+article appeared in the <i>Gazette</i>, but I do not admit that it
+amounted to anything whatever.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Did you notice what the <i>Catholic
+Telegraph</i> said about your lecture being ungrammatical?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the <i>Catholic
+Telegraph</i> occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as
+brilliant as Ingersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After
+making this statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest,
+after finding fault with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes
+the following sentence: "It could not boast neither of novelty in
+argument or of attractive language." After this, nothing should be
+noticed that this gentleman says on the subject of grammar.</p>
+<p>In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing
+is more remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys
+manners. With one exception, no priest has ever written about me,
+so far as I know, except in an arrogant and insolent manner. They
+seem utterly devoid of the usual amenities of life. Every one who
+differs with them is vile, ignorant and malicious. But, after all,
+what can you expect of a gentleman who worships a God who will damn
+dimpled babes to an eternity of fire, simply because they were not
+baptized.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page
+of history and the newest page of science are nothing more than
+commentaries on the Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses
+has been believed in, and has been received as the highest truth by
+the very brightest names in science. What do you think of that
+statement?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I think it is without the least foundation in
+fact, and is substantially like the gentleman's theology, depending
+simply upon persistent assertion.</p>
+<p>I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that
+the fossil animals were in any way related to the animals now
+living, and believed that God had frequently destroyed all life
+upon the earth and then produced other forms. Agassiz was the last
+scientist of any standing who ventured to throw a crumb of comfort
+to this idea.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you mean to say that all the great living
+scientists regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do. I say this: All men of science and men of
+sense look upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who
+stands in the same relation to science that Shakespeare did to the
+drama, held this opinion. The same is held by the best minds in
+Germany, by Huxley, Tyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John
+W. Draper and others in the United States. Whoever agrees with
+Moses is some poor frightened orthodox gentleman afraid of losing
+his soul or his salary, and as a rule, both are exceedingly
+small.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Some people say that you slander the Bible in
+saying that God went into partnership with hornets, and declare
+that there is no such passage in the Bible.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of
+the twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before
+thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the
+Hittite from before thee."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you find in lecturing through the country
+that your ideas are generally received with favor?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many
+freethinkers as there were five years ago. In five years more we
+will be in the majority.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Is it true that the churches, as a general
+thing, make strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent
+people from going to hear you?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes; in many places ministers have advised their
+congregations to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly
+dangerous man. The result has generally been a full house, and I
+have hardly ever failed to publicly return my thanks to the clergy
+for acting as my advance agents.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to
+convert you?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Not often. But I do receive a great many
+anonymous letters, threatening me with the wrath of God, and
+calling my attention to the uncertainty of life and the certainty
+of damnation. These letters are nearly all written in the ordinary
+Christian spirit; that is to say, full of hatred and
+impertinence.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think it remarkable that the
+<i>Telegraph</i>, a Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant
+praise, an article from such an orthodox sheet as the
+<i>Gazette</i>?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not. All the churches must make common
+cause. All superstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science.
+In a few years all the churches will be united. This will unite all
+forms of liberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of
+arrogance, of theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to
+see a Catholic quoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the
+same men would have taken great pleasure in swearing that the
+Catholic Church was the worst possible organization. That church
+should forever hold its peace. Wherever it has had authority it has
+destroyed human liberty. It reduced Italy to a hand organ, Spain to
+a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to contempt. Catholicism is
+the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of man has withered. The
+recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew should make a
+priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre should
+make a Protestant careful.</p>
+<p>I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party
+denounces Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor
+Emmanuel. I could not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank
+him for his abuse.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the point that no one is
+able to judge of these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not think it is necessary to understand
+Hebrew to decide as to the probability of springs gushing out of
+dead bones, or of the dead getting out of their graves, or of the
+probability of ravens keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I
+hardly think it is necessary even to be a Greek scholar to make up
+my mind as to whether devils actually left a person and took refuge
+in the bodies of swine. Besides, if the Bible is not properly
+translated, the circulation ought to stop until the corrections are
+made. I am not accountable if God made a revelation to me in a
+language that he knew I never would understand. If he wishes to
+convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do it in
+English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to
+it.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible
+owing to mistranslations?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been
+made to help out the text. It would be much worse, much more
+contradictory had it been correctly translated. Nearly all of the
+<i>mistakes</i>, as Mr. Weller would say, have been made for the
+purposes of harmony.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How many errors do you suppose there are?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, I do not know. It has been reported that
+the American Bible Society appointed a committee to hunt for
+errors, and the said committee returned about twenty-four to
+twenty-five thousand. And thereupon the leading men said, to
+correct so many errors will destroy the confidence of the common
+people in the sacredness of the Scriptures. Thereupon it was
+decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other day that a
+very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that they knew
+they were publishing a book full of errors.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> My first objection is, it is not true.</p>
+<p>Second.&mdash;It is not inspired.</p>
+<p>Third.&mdash;It upholds human slavery.</p>
+<p>Fourth.&mdash;It sanctions concubinage.</p>
+<p>Fifth.&mdash;It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war,
+such as the utter destruction of old men and little children.</p>
+<p>Sixth.&mdash;After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it
+commands the generals to divide the girls among the soldiers and
+priests. Beyond this, infamy has never gone. If any God made this
+order I am opposed to him.</p>
+<p>Seventh.&mdash;It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems
+to, from the following:</p>
+<p>"Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto
+the Lord of all that he hath, both of <i>man</i> and <i>beast</i>,
+and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed;
+every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord."</p>
+<p>"None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be
+redeemed; but shall surely be put to death." (Twenty-seventh
+Chapter of Leviticus, 28th and 29th verses.)</p>
+<p>Eighth.&mdash;Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and
+unjust. Think of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of
+killing a man for picking up sticks on Sunday!</p>
+<p>Ninth.&mdash;It upholds polygamy.</p>
+<p>Tenth.&mdash;It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology,
+nothing of any science whatever.</p>
+<p>Eleventh.&mdash;It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches
+a man to kill his own wife if she differs with him on religion;
+that is to say, if he is orthodox. There is no book in the world in
+which can be found so much that is thoroughly despicable and
+infamous. Of course there are some good passages, some good
+sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old Testament, few and
+far between.</p>
+<p>Twelfth.&mdash;It treats woman like a beast, and man like a
+slave. It fills heaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and
+grief.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think any book inspired?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if
+it had been the intention of this God to give to man an inspired
+book, he should have waited until Shakespeare's time, and used
+Shakespeare as the instrument. Then there never would have been any
+doubt as to the inspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more
+goodness, more intelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred
+books of this world.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think as a freethinker of the
+Sunday question in Cincinnati?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I think that it is a good thing to have a day of
+recreation, a day of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and
+theology. I am in favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness
+on Sunday. I am opposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy
+will take half the pains to make the people intelligent that they
+do to make them superstitious, the world will soon have advanced so
+far that it can enjoy itself without excess. The ministers want
+Sunday for themselves. They want everybody to come to church
+because they can go no where else. It is like the story of a man
+coming home at three o'clock in the morning, who, upon being asked
+by his wife how he could come at such a time of night, replied,
+"The fact is, every other place is shut up." The orthodox clergy
+know that their churches will remain empty if any other place
+remains open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,
+orthodox clergy, because I have great respect for Unitarians and
+Universalists.</p>
+<a name="link0011" id="link0011"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have
+been indicted in the State of Delaware for the crime of
+blasphemy?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I
+believe, is the Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new
+court-house at Wilmington to the service of the Lord, by a charge
+to the grand jury, in which he almost commanded them to bring in a
+bill of indictment against me, for what he was pleased to call the
+crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter of fact, there can be no crime
+committed by man against God, provided always that a correct
+definition of the Deity has been given by the orthodox churches.
+They say that he is infinite. If so, he is conditionless. I can
+injure a man by changing his conditions. Take from a man water, and
+he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and he suffocates; he may
+die from too much, or too little heat. That is because he is a
+conditioned being. But if God is conditionless, he cannot in any
+way be affected by what anybody else may do; and, consequently, a
+sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the principle of
+the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy was
+invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able
+to take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork
+behind which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years.
+Injustice is the only blasphemy that can be committed, and justice
+is the only true worship. Man can sin against man, but not against
+God. But even if man could sin against God, it has always struck me
+that an infinite being would be entirely able to take care of
+himself without the assistance of a Chief Justice. Men have always
+been violating the rights of men, under the plea of defending the
+rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so perfectly delightful
+to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge, and get God in
+his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has taken this
+occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in heaven,
+and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified copy
+of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help
+satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little
+ahead.</p>
+<p>The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That
+lecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech;
+and, to tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what
+a Yankee would call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for
+me to tell whether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of
+course I have no personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In
+fact he has done me a favor. He has called the attention of the
+civilized world to certain barbarian laws that disfigure and
+disgrace the statute books of most of the States. These laws were
+passed when our honest ancestors were burning witches, trading
+Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and molasses, branding
+people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with hot irons,
+putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the name of
+God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We have
+outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter
+of fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the
+States, like Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though
+there might be trouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware,
+without getting one man broad enough, sensible enough, and honest
+enough, to do justice. I hardly think it would be possible in any
+State to select a jury in the ordinary way that would convict any
+person charged with what is commonly known as blasphemy.</p>
+<p>All the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of
+being blasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the
+Presbyterians as blasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the
+Baptists; the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Catholics all
+united in denouncing the Quakers, and they all together denounced
+the Unitarians&mdash;called them blasphemers because they did not
+acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ&mdash;the Unitarians only
+insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary, that one
+infinite being could do all the business, and that the other two
+were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.</p>
+<p>Then all the churches united to call the Universalists
+blasphemers. I can remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with
+a thousand times more horror than an infidel is to-day. There is
+this strange thing about the history of theology&mdash;nobody has
+ever been charged with blasphemy who thought God bad. For instance,
+it never would have excited any theological hatred if a man had
+insisted that God would finally damn everybody. Nearly all heresy
+has consisted in making God better than the majority in the
+churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never will
+forgive the Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn
+anybody eternally. Now, all these sects have charged each other
+with blasphemy, without anyone of them knowing really what
+blasphemy is. I suppose they have occasionally been honest, because
+they have mostly been ignorant. It is said that Torquemada used to
+shed tears over the agonies of his victims and that he recommended
+slow burning, not because he wished to inflict pain, but because he
+really desired to give the gentleman or lady he was burning a
+chance to repent of his or her sins, and make his or her peace with
+God previous to becoming a cinder.</p>
+<p>The root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious
+persecution is the idea that some certain belief is necessary to
+salvation. If orthodox Christians are right in this idea, then
+persecution of all heretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the
+right to defend my body from attack, surely I should have a like
+right to defend my soul. Under our laws I could kill any man who
+was endeavoring, for example, to take the life of my child. How
+much more would I be justified in killing any wretch who was
+endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a doctrine which,
+if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of that child's
+soul?</p>
+<p>If the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is
+true, no infidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be
+hunted from the wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They
+should not be allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to
+poison the minds of women and children; in other words, they should
+not be allowed to empty heaven and fill hell. The reason I have
+liberty in this country is because the Christians of this country
+do not believe their doctrine. The passage from the Bible, "Go ye
+into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,"
+coupled with the assurance that, "Whosoever believeth and is
+baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall be damned,"
+is the foundation of most religious persecution. Every word in that
+passage has been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain and dungeon.
+That one passage has probably caused more agony among men, women
+and children, than all the passages of all other books that were
+ever printed. Now, this passage was not in the book of Mark when
+originally written, but was put there many years after the
+gentleman who evolved the book of Mark from his inner
+consciousness, had passed away. It was put there by the
+church&mdash;that is to say, by hypocrisy and priestly craft, to
+bind the consciences of men and force them to come under
+ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that passage has been
+received and believed, and been made binding by law in most
+countries ever since.</p>
+<p>What would you think of a law compelling a man to admire
+Shakespeare, or calling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not
+a statute necessary to uphold the reputation of Raphael or of
+Michael Angelo? Is it possible that God cannot write a book good
+enough and great enough and grand enough not to excite the laughter
+of his children? Is it possible that he is compelled to have his
+literary reputation supported by the State of Delaware?</p>
+<p>There is another very strange thing about this business.
+Admitting that the Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his
+work than are the sun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if
+for disbelieving this Bible we are to be damned forever, we ought
+to be equally damned for a mistake in geology or astronomy. The
+idea of allowing a man to go to heaven who swears that the earth is
+flat, and damning a fellow who thinks it is round, but who-has his
+honest doubts about Joshua, seems to me to be perfectly absurd. It
+seems to me that in this view of it, it is just as necessary to be
+right on the subject of the equator as on the doctrine of infant
+baptism.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge
+Comegys? Is he a personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him?
+Have you any idea what reason he had for attacking you?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside
+of the political reason I have intimated, I do not know why he
+attacked me. I once delivered a lecture entitled "What must we do
+to be Saved?" in the city of Wilmington, and in that lecture I
+proceeded to show, or at least tried to show, that Matthew, Mark
+and Luke knew nothing about Christianity, as it is understood in
+Delaware; and I also endeavored to show that all men have an equal
+right to think, and that a man is only under obligations to be
+honest with himself, and with all men, and that he is not
+accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed
+with&mdash;otherwise it might be Judge Comegys himself would be
+damned&mdash;but that he is only accountable for the use he makes
+of what little mind he has received. I held that the safest thing
+for every man was to be absolutely honest, and to express his
+honest thought. After the delivery of this lecture various
+ministers in Wilmington began replying, and after the preaching of
+twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which, considered as a reply,
+was a success, I presume it occurred to these ministers that the
+shortest and easiest way would be to have me indicted and
+imprisoned.</p>
+<p>In this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and
+time-honored way. I believe it is, as it always has been, easier to
+kill two infidels than to answer one; and if Christianity expects
+to stem the tide that is now slowly rising over the intellectual
+world, it must be done by brute force, and by brute force alone.
+And it must be done pretty soon, or they will not have the brute
+force. It is doubtful if they have a majority of the civilized
+world on their side to-day. No heretic ever would have been burned
+if he could have been answered. No theologian ever called for the
+help of the law until his logic gave out.</p>
+<p>I suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get
+his right to be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to
+decide which creed is the correct one? How did he dare to pit his
+little brain against the word of God? He may say that his father
+was a Presbyterian. But what was his grandfather? If he will only
+go back far enough he will, in all probability, find that his
+ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go back a little farther
+still, that they were barbarians; that at one time they were naked,
+and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right had they to
+change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the same
+kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented
+any change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and
+they would have said: "Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed
+upon his body shall be held guilty of blasphemy;" and all the
+ancestors of this Judge, and of these ministers, would have said,
+Amen!</p>
+<p>What right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He
+must have been a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might
+have changed his religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is
+incapable of any improvement in a religious point of view? Does he
+think that the Presbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now,
+but that they will forever be the best that God can make? Is there
+to be no advancement? Has there been no advancement? Are the
+pillory and the whipping-post to be used to prevent an excess of
+thought in the county of New Castle? Has the county ever been
+troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms of any such
+disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge, and my
+principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his race.
+He will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no other
+Chief Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his
+illustrious example. The next Judge will say: "So far as I am
+concerned, the Lord may attend to his own business, and deal with
+infidels as he may see proper." Thus great good has been
+accomplished by this Judge, which shows, as Burns puts it, "that a
+pot can be boiled, even if the devil tries to prevent it."</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. How will this action of Delaware, in your
+opinion, affect the other States?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Probably a few other States needed an example
+exactly of this kind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say:
+"Delaware is perfectly ridiculous," and yet, had Delaware waited
+awhile, New Jersey might have done the same thing. Maryland will
+exclaim: "Did you ever see such a fool!" And yet I was threatened
+in that State. The average American citizen, taking into
+consideration the fact that we are blest, or cursed, with about one
+hundred thousand preachers, and that these preachers preach on the
+average one hundred thousand sermons a week&mdash;some of which are
+heard clear through&mdash;will unquestionably hold that a man who
+happens to differ with all these parsons, ought to have and shall
+have the privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one hundred
+thousand clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who
+happens to disagree with them, without calling on the army or navy
+to do it, especially when it is taken into consideration that an
+infinite God is already on their side. Under these circumstances,
+the average American will say: "Let him talk, and let the hundred
+thousand preachers answer him to their hearts' content." So that in
+my judgment the result of the action of Delaware will be: First, to
+liberalize all other States, and second, finally to liberalize
+Delaware itself. In many of the States they have the same idiotic
+kind of laws as those found in Delaware&mdash;with the exception of
+those blessed institutions for the spread of the Gospel, known as
+the pillory and the whipping-post. There is a law in Maine by which
+a man can be put into the penitentiary for denying the providence
+of God, and the day of judgment. There are similar laws in most of
+the New England States. One can be imprisoned in Maryland for a
+like offence.</p>
+<p>In North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain
+religious belief; and so in several other of the Southern States.
+In half the States of this Union, if my wife and children should be
+murdered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a court of
+justice to tell who the murderer was. You see that, for hundreds of
+years, Christianity has endeavored to put the brand of infamy on
+every intellectual brow.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. I see that one objection to your lectures urged
+by Judge Comegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach
+of the peace&mdash;to riot and bloodshed.</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people
+who love their enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that
+those disciples who, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be
+smitten also, will get up a riot. He seems to imagine that good
+Christians feel called upon to violate the commands of the Lord in
+defence of the Lord's reputation. If Christianity produces people
+who cannot hear their doctrines discussed without raising mobs, and
+shedding blood, the sooner it is stopped being preached the
+better.</p>
+<p>There is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a
+Christian for His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob
+for such a purpose. Christians can teach and preach their views to
+their hearts' content. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal
+hell, if it gives them the least pleasure, and they may bang their
+Bibles as long as their fists last, but no infidel will be in
+danger of raising a riot to stop them, or put them down by brute
+force, or even by an appeal to the law, and I would advise Judge
+Comegys, if he wishes to compliment Christianity, to change his
+language and say that he feared a breach of the peace might be
+committed by the infidels&mdash;not by the Christians. He may
+possibly have thought that it was my intention to attack his State.
+But I can assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,
+I shall take some State of my size. There is no glory to be won in
+wringing the neck of a "Blue Hen!"</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. I should judge, Colonel, that you are
+prejudiced against the State of Delaware?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many
+splendid people in Delaware, and since I have known more of their
+surroundings, my admiration for them has increased. They are, on
+the whole, a very good people in that State. I heard a story the
+other day: An old fellow in Delaware has been for the last twenty
+or thirty years gathering peaches there in their season&mdash;a
+kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just as the season closed,
+he was leaning sadly against a tree, "Boys!" said he, "I'd like to
+come back to Delaware a hundred years from now." The boys asked,
+"What for?" The old fellow replied: "Just to see how damned little
+they'd get the baskets by that time." And it occurred to me that
+people who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be
+as quiet as possible on the subject of blasphemy.</p>
+<center>AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</center>
+<pre>
+     * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys'
+compliments to you before the Delaware grand jury?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies
+upon the law passed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to
+me as though he had died about the date of the law, had risen from
+the dead, and had gone right on where he had left off. I presume he
+is a good man, but compared with other men, is something like his
+State when compared with other States.</p>
+<p>A great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge
+Comegys as unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of
+Delaware is in exact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory,
+the whip-ping-post, and the suppression of free speech are the
+natural fruit of the Old and New Testament.</p>
+<p>Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist,
+without the protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the
+protection of law, and all church property would be taxed like
+other property. The Sabbath would be no longer a day devoted to
+superstition. Everyone could express his honest thought upon every
+possible subject. Everyone, notwithstanding his belief, could
+testify in a court of justice. In other words, honesty would be on
+an equality with hypocrisy. Science would stand on a level, so far
+as the law is concerned, with superstition. Whenever this happens
+the end of orthodox Christianity will be near.</p>
+<p>By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness,
+forgiveness. I mean no natural virtue, because all the natural
+virtues existed and had been practiced by hundreds and thousands of
+millions before Christ was born. There certainly were some good men
+even in the days of Christ in Jerusalem, before his death.</p>
+<p>By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a
+good man dying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in
+full. By Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the
+next world a few will be forever happy, while the many will be
+eternally miserable. Christianity, as I have explained it, must be
+protected, guarded, and sustained by law. It was founded by the
+sword that is to say, by physical force,&mdash;and must be
+preserved by like means.</p>
+<p>In many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to
+testify. In the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were
+living, he could not be a witness, although he had more brains than
+the State of Delaware has ever produced, or is likely to produce as
+long as the laws of 1740 remain in force. Such men as Huxley,
+Tyndall and Haeckel could be fined and imprisoned in the State of
+Delaware, and, in fact, in many States of this Union.</p>
+<p>Christianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of
+infamy on the brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter
+"C," standing for "convict" every brain that is great enough to
+discover the frauds. I have no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good
+and sincere Christian. I believe that he, in his charge, gives an
+exact reflection of the Jewish Jehovah. I believe that every word
+he said was in exact accord with the spirit of orthodox
+Christianity. Against this man personally I have nothing to say. I
+know nothing of his character except as I gather it from this
+charge, and after reading the charge I am forced simply to say,
+Judge Comegys is a Christian.</p>
+<p>It seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,
+notwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge.
+Although the Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of
+blessed memory; although he had quoted to them the words of Lord
+Mansfield, who became a Judge simply because of his hatred of the
+English colonists, simply because he despised liberty in the new
+world; notwithstanding the fact that I could have been punished
+with insult, with imprisonment, and with stripes, and with every
+form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a few years ago I
+could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through the
+tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance
+even in the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to
+the one lecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely
+refused to indict me.</p>
+<p>The grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply
+by making a report in which they declared that my lecture had "no
+parallel in the habits of respectable vagabondism" that I was "an
+arch-blasphemer and reviler of God and religion," and recommended
+that should I ever attempt to lecture again I should be taught that
+in Delaware blasphemy is a crime punishable by fine and
+imprisonment. I have no doubt that every member of the grand jury
+signing this report was entirely honest; that he acted in exact
+accord with what he understood to be the demand of the Christian
+religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report is
+exceedingly mild and gentle.</p>
+<p>I have now in the house, letters that passed between certain
+bishops in the fifteenth century, in which they discussed the
+propriety of cutting out the tongues of heretics before they were
+burned. Some of the bishops were in favor of and some against it.
+One argument for cutting out their tongues which seemed to have
+settled the question was, that unless the tongues of heretics were
+cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen who were burning them,
+by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would commend these
+letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand jury.</p>
+<p>I want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against
+Judge Comegys or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would,
+raised in Delaware, in the shadow of the whipping-post and the
+pillory. We must remember that Delaware was a slave State; that the
+Bible became extremely dear to the people because it upheld that
+peculiar institution. We must remember that the Bible was the block
+on which mother and child stood for sale when they were separated
+by the Christians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as the
+title-pages to slavery, and as the book of all books that gave the
+right to masters to whip mothers and to sell children.</p>
+<p>There are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping
+and standing in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain
+crimes and sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from
+the penitentiary are furnished by the State with a dark jacket
+plainly marked on the back with a large Roman "C," the letter to be
+of a light color. This they are to wear for six months after being
+discharged, and if they are found at any time without the dark
+jacket and the illuminated "C" they are to be punished with twenty
+lashes upon the bare back. The object, I presume, of this law, is
+to drive from the State all the discharged convicts for the benefit
+of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland&mdash;that is to say,
+other Christian communities. A cruel people make cruel laws.</p>
+<p>The objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a
+punishment which cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who
+administers the punishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded
+as the person who receives it. I am opposed to any kind of
+punishment that cannot be administered by a gentleman. I am opposed
+to corporal punishment everywhere. It should be taken from the
+asylums and penitentiaries, and any man who would apply the lash to
+the naked back of another is beneath the contempt of honest
+people.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced
+in the New York Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a
+punishment for wife-beating?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr.
+Bergh's bill. He will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters,
+who, under the same circumstances, would be wife-beaters
+themselves. If they are not wife-beaters when they commence the
+business of beating others, they soon will be. I think that
+wife-beating in great cities could be stopped by putting all the
+wife-beaters at work at some government employment, the value of
+the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The trouble now
+is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely poor, so
+that the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last
+crust out of her own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging
+for the prison here, you will in the first place prevent thousands
+of wives from informing, and in many cases, where the wife would
+inform, she would afterward be murdered by the flogged brute. This
+brute would naturally resort to the same means to reform his wife
+that the State had resorted to for the purpose of reforming him.
+Flogging would beget flogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness
+of heart. When he reads that a wife has been beaten, he says the
+husband deserves to be beaten himself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be
+the executioner, I imagine you could not prove by the back of the
+man that the punishment had been inflicted.</p>
+<p>Another good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the
+Catholic Church. We should also do away with the idea that a
+marriage is a sacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered
+happy by seeing a husband and wife live together, although the
+husband gets most of his earthly enjoyment from whipping his wife.
+No woman should live with a man a moment after he has struck her.
+Just as the idea of liberty enlarges, confidence in the whip and
+fist, in the kick and blow, will diminish. Delaware occupies toward
+freethinkers precisely the same position that a wife-beater does
+toward the wife. Delaware knows that there are no reasons
+sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently these reasons are
+supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post. The
+whipping-post is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory
+is a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a
+kind of holy and serene delight. I am opposed to the religion of
+brute force, but all these frightful things have grown principally
+out of a belief in eternal punishment and out of the further idea
+that a certain belief is necessary to avoid eternal pain.</p>
+<p>If Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn
+every body forever simply for being intellectually honest, surely
+he ought to allow the good people of Delaware to imprison the same
+gentleman for two months. Of course there are thousands and
+thousands of good people in Delaware, people who have been in other
+States, people who have listened to Republican speeches, people who
+have read the works of scientists, who hold the laws of 1740 in
+utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge Comegys and who have a kind
+of sympathy for the grand jury.</p>
+<p>You will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six
+or seven hundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884
+will stand redeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged
+from the statute book. Delaware has not had the best of
+opportunities. You must remember that it is next to New Jersey,
+which is quite an obstacle in the path of progress. It is just
+beyond Maryland, which is another obstacle. I heard the other day
+that God originally made oysters with legs, and afterward took them
+off, knowing that the people of Delaware would starve to death
+before they would run to catch anything. Judge Comegys is the last
+judge who will make such a charge in the United States. He has
+immortalized himself as the last mile-stone on that road. He is the
+last of his race. No more can be born. Outside of this he probably
+was a very clever man, and it may be, he does not believe a word he
+utters. The probability is that he has underestimated the
+intelligence of the people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that
+he is entirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate him
+intellectually, and overestimate him morally. Nothing could tempt
+me to do this man injustice, though I could hardly add to the
+injury he has done himself. He has called attention to laws that
+ought to be repealed, and to lectures that ought to be repeated. I
+feel in my heart that he has done me a great service, second only
+to that for which I am indebted to the grand jury. Had the Judge
+known me personally he probably would have said nothing. Should I
+have the misfortune to be arrested in his State and sentenced to
+two months of solitary confinement, the Judge having become
+acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist on
+spending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months
+he would, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy,
+providing he had honor enough to express his honest thought. After
+all, it is all a question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot
+convince myself there is any God who will ever damn a man for
+having been honest. This gives me a certain hope for the Judge and
+the grand jury.</p>
+<p>For two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must
+have been in heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his
+side, and remarked to the angels in the language of the late Adjt.
+Gen. Thomas: "The eyes of all Delaware are upon you."</p>
+<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday
+     afternoon, when he answered the question "What Must We Do to
+     Be Saved?" But before doing so he replied to the recent
+     criticisms of city clergymen on his "Talmagian Theology"&mdash;
+     Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Ladies and Gentlemen</i>:</p>
+<p>WHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their
+duty to reply for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair,
+or that I am blasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always
+been considered by theologians as a crime. Ministers have always
+said you will have no respect for our ideas unless you are solemn.
+Solemnity is a condition precedent to believing anything without
+evidence. And if you can only get a man solemn enough, awed enough,
+he will believe anything.</p>
+<p>In this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I
+may say by way of preface that I have always held him in the
+highest esteem. He struggles, according to his statement, with the
+problem of my sincerity, and he about half concludes that I am not
+sincere. There is a little of the minister left in Dr. Thomas.
+Ministers always account for a difference of opinion by attacking
+the motive. Now, to him, it makes no difference whether I am
+sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my argument be answered?
+Suppose you could prove that the maker of the multiplication table
+held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times ten would be a
+hundred still.</p>
+<p>My sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the
+argument&mdash;not the slightest. But this gentleman begins to
+suspect that I am doing what I do for the sake of applause. What a
+commentary on the Christian religion, that, after they have been
+preaching it for sixteen or eighteen hundred years, a man attacks
+it for the sake of popularity&mdash;a man attacks it for the
+purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to speak upon this
+subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my
+fellow-citizens differed with me; and I was denounced as though I
+had been a wild beast. But I have lived to see the majority of the
+men and women of intellect in the United States on my side; I have
+lived to see the church deny her creed; I have lived to see
+ministers apologize in public for what they preached; and a great
+and glorious work is going on until, in a little while, you will
+not find one of them, unless it is some old petrifaction of the
+red-stone period, who will admit that he ever believed in the
+Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of Eternal Agony. The
+religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the intellect of
+America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go to hear
+infidelity it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the
+orthodox Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They are
+beginning to hold it in contempt.</p>
+<p>But this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I
+attacked certain doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of
+eternal pain. I hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if
+there be a God in this universe who made a hell; if there be a God
+in this universe who denies to any human being the right of
+reformation, then that God is not good, that God is not just, and
+the future of man is infinitely dark. I despise that doctrine, and
+I have done what little I could to get that horror from the cradle,
+that horror from the hearts of mothers, that horror from the hearts
+of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers, and sisters. It is
+a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of life and all
+the hopes of mankind. I despise it.</p>
+<p>And the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I
+admit here to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do
+not care how old it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the
+men were inspired or not. I have no reverence for what I believe to
+be false, and in determining what is false I go by my reason. And
+whenever another man gives me an argument I examine it. If it is
+good I follow it. If it is bad I throw it away. I have no reverence
+for any book that upholds human slavery. I despise such a book. I
+have no reverence for any book that upholds or palliates the
+infamous institution of polygamy. I have no reverence for any book
+that tells a husband to kill his wife if she differs with him upon
+the subject of religion. I have no reverence for any book that
+defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have no reverence for
+a God that orders his legions to slay the old and helpless, and to
+whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers and babes. I
+have no reverence for such a book; neither have I any reverence for
+the author of that book. No matter whether he be God or man, I have
+no reverence. I have no reverence for the miracles of the Bible. I
+have no reverence for the story that God allowed bears to tear
+children in pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but I
+have reverence for the truth, for justice, for charity, for
+humanity, for intellectual liberty, and for human progress.</p>
+<p>I have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I
+have never met any minister that I thought had brain enough to
+think for himself and for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence
+for barbarism, no matter how ancient it may be, and no reverence
+for the savagery of the Old Testament; no reverence for the malice
+of the New. And let me tell you here to-night that the Old
+Testament is a thousand times better than the New. The Old
+Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the grave. God was
+satisfied when his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for the New
+Testament&mdash;it was reserved for universal benevolence&mdash;to
+rend the veil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze
+of man upon the abyss of hell. The New Testament is just as much
+worse than the Old, as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the
+fashion to say that the Old Testament is bad and that the New
+Testament is good. I have no reverence for any book that teaches a
+doctrine contrary to my reason; no reverence for any book that
+teaches a doctrine contrary to my heart; and, no matter how old it
+is, no matter how many have believed it, no matter how many have
+died on account of it, no matter how many live for it, I have no
+reverence for that book, and I am glad of it.</p>
+<p>Dr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things
+with infinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy,
+or religious persecution, but that I should "mildly
+suggest"&mdash;mildly,&mdash;should not hurt anybody's feelings.
+When I go to church the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When
+I meet one I tell him, "There is no hell," and he says: "What do
+you want to hurt our feelings for?" He wishes me mildly to suggest
+that the sun and moon did not stop, that may be the bears only
+frightened the children, and that, after all, Lot's wife was only
+scared. Why, there was a minister in this city of Chicago who
+imagined that his congregation were progressive, and, in his
+pulpit, he said that he did not believe the story of Lot's
+wife&mdash;said that he did not think that any sensible man would
+believe that a woman was changed into salt; and they tried him, and
+the congregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And finally he
+went before that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and
+owned up to the chloride of sodium, and said: "I not only take the
+Bible <i>cum grano salis</i>, but with a whole barrelful."</p>
+<p>My doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so;
+no need of going away around the bush and suggesting may be,
+perhaps, possibly, peradventure. That is the ministerial way, but I
+do not like it.</p>
+<p>I am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well
+as the bad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one
+word against honesty, one word against liberty, one word against
+charity, one word against any institution that is good. I attack
+the bad, not the good, and I would like to have some minister point
+out in some lecture or speech that I have delivered, one word
+against the good, against the highest happiness of the human
+race.</p>
+<p>I have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor
+of liberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in
+favor of progress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one
+word in favor of the bad, and I never expect to.</p>
+<p>Dr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in
+spite of us.</p>
+<p>Doesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think
+to-morrow? You see, you hear, you taste, you feel, you
+smell&mdash;these are the avenues by which Nature approaches the
+brain, the consequence of this is thought, and you cannot by any
+possibility help thinking.</p>
+<p>Neither can you determine what you will think. These impressions
+are made independently of your will. "But," says this reverend
+doctor, "Whence comes this conception of space?" I can tell him.
+There is such a thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies
+room&mdash;space&mdash;and, in our minds, space is simply the
+opposite of matter. And it comes naturally&mdash;not
+supernaturally.</p>
+<p>Does the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God
+for us to conceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there
+is something. We can think of the opposite of something, and
+therefore we say space. "But," says this gentleman, "Where do we
+get the idea of good and bad?" I can tell him; no trouble about
+that. Every man has the capacity to enjoy and the capacity to
+suffer&mdash;every man. Whenever a man enjoys himself he calls that
+good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad. The animals that are
+useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the hurtful, he calls
+bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls good; those
+that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good ones, he
+calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is out
+that ministers to him, he says "this is good;" when the storm comes
+and blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his
+crop, he says "this is bad." And all phenomena that affect men well
+he calls good; all that affect him ill he calls bad.</p>
+<p>Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the
+effect in nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of
+suffering. That is the foundation of conscience; and if man could
+not suffer, if man could not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of
+the word conscience; and the words right and wrong never could have
+passed human lips. There are no supernatural fields. We get our
+ideas from experience&mdash;some of them from our forefathers, many
+from experience. A man works&mdash;food does not come of itself. A
+man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in the sun and
+heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a revelation
+from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it than
+the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen, we
+never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten
+Commandments been given from Mount Sinai.</p>
+<p>You go into a savage country where they never heard of the
+Bible, and let a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one
+little bird, and the hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take
+it from him, and you would see whether he would need a direct
+revelation from God in order to make up his mind who had the better
+right to that bird. Our ideas of right and wrong are born of our
+surroundings, and if a man will think for a moment he will see it.
+But they deny that the mind thinks in spite of us. I heard a story
+of a man who said, "No man can think of one thing a minute, he will
+think of something else." Well, there was a little Methodist
+preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute&mdash;that he
+could say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing.
+"Well," said the man, "I'll tell you what I will do. There is the
+best road-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you
+will just say the Lord's Prayer, and not think of another thing."
+And the little fellow shut up his eyes: "Our Father which art in
+Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be
+done&mdash;I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"</p>
+<p>I have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find
+some fact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the
+seeds of thought&mdash;that every brain is a kind of field where
+the seeds are sown, and that some are very poor, and some are very
+barren, and some are very rich. That is my opinion.</p>
+<p>Again he asks: "If one is not responsible for his thought, why
+is any one blamed for thinking as he does?" It is not a question of
+blame, it is a question of who is right&mdash;a question of who is
+wrong. Admit that every one thinks exactly as he must, that does
+not show that his thought is right; that does not show that his
+thought is the highest thought. Admit that every piece of land in
+the world produces what it must; that does not prove that the land
+covered with barren rocks and a little moss is just as good as the
+land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it prove that the
+mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it prove
+that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold
+men responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for
+their actions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty
+is this&mdash;the right to do anything that does not interfere with
+another&mdash;in other words, to act right; and intellectual
+liberty is this&mdash;the right to think right, and the right to
+think wrong, provided you do your best to think right. I have
+always said it, and I expect to say it always.</p>
+<p>The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual
+theory. I believe in that theory.</p>
+<p>If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the
+direct interference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is
+right. It is a theory of evolution.</p>
+<p>I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that
+chemistry came from the black art; and I also contend that religion
+will be lost in science. I believe in evolution. I believe in the
+budding of the seed, the shining of the sun, the dropping of the
+rain; I believe in the spreading and the growing; and that is as
+true in every other department of the world as it is in vegetation.
+I believe it; but that does not account for the Bible doctrine. We
+are told we have a book absolutely inspired, and it will not do to
+say God gradually grows. If he is infinite now, he knows as much as
+he ever will. If he has been always infinite, he knew as much at
+the time he wrote the Bible as he knows to-day; and, consequently,
+whatever he said then must be as true now as it was then. You see
+they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with religion&mdash;a
+little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the
+supernatural.</p>
+<p>Hear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the
+clergymen in the world could not get one drop of rain out of the
+sky. I insist on it. All the prayers on earth cannot produce one
+drop of rain. I also said all the clergymen of the world could not
+save one human life. They tried it last year. They tried it in the
+United States. The Christian world upon its knees implored God to
+save one life, and the man died. The man died! Had the man
+recovered the whole church would have claimed that it was in answer
+to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say now? What
+is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: "There is prayer
+and there is rain." Good. "Can he that is himself or any one else
+say there is no possible relation between one and the other?" I do.
+Let us put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity;
+can any one say there is no possible relation between the two? How
+does Dr. Thomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year's
+crops? And yet this gentleman really throws out the idea that there
+is some possible relation between prayer and rain, between rain and
+health; and he tells us that he would have died twenty-five years
+ago had it not been for prayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a
+medicine. Life depends upon certain facts&mdash;not upon prayer.
+All the prayer in the world cannot take the place of the
+circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is no
+substitute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take
+the place of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find
+that he eats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This
+reverend Doctor says: "Shall we say that all the love of the unseen
+world"&mdash;how does he know there is any love in the unseen
+world? "and the love of God"&mdash;how does he know there is any
+love in God? "heed not the cries and tears of earth?"</p>
+<p>I do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of
+religious persecution. Let him read the history of those who were
+put in dungeons, of those who lifted their chained hands to God and
+mingled prayer with the clank of fetters; men that were in the
+dungeons simply for loving this God, simply for worshiping this
+God. And what did God do? Nothing. The chains remained upon the
+limbs of his worshipers. They remained in the dungeons built by
+theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God do? Nothing.
+Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were piled
+around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did God
+do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds
+and thousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted
+their hands to God and implored him to protect their children,
+their daughters; and what did God do?</p>
+<p>Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put
+upon the naked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children
+were sold from the arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of
+life were trodden beneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did
+God do? Nothing. Human beings, his children, were tracked through
+swamps by bloodhounds; and what did God do? Nothing. Wild storms
+sweep over the earth and the shipwrecked go down in the billows;
+and what does God do? Nothing. There come plague and pestilence and
+famine. What does God do? Thousands and thousands perish. Little
+children die upon the withered breasts of mothers; and what does
+God do? Nothing.</p>
+<p>What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man
+have ever touched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to
+the history of the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and
+agony, and imprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the
+bravest and best. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite?
+Has the hand of help ever been reached from heaven? I do not know;
+but I do not believe it.</p>
+<p>Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right
+has he to tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He
+had too much brain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a
+doubt&mdash;and a doubt is born of an idea. And his doctrine has
+been declared by his own church to be unorthodox. They have passed
+on his case and they have found him unconstitutional. What right
+has he to state what is orthodox? And here is what he says:
+"Christianity"&mdash;orthodox Christianity I suppose he
+means&mdash;"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and
+punishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the
+principles of the government of God are the same there as here;
+that character, and not profession determines destiny; and that
+Humboldt, and Dickens, and all others who have gone and shall go to
+that world shall receive their just rewards; that souls will always
+be in the place in which for the time, be it now or a million years
+hence, they are fitted. That is what Christianity teaches."</p>
+<p>If it does, never will I have another word to say against
+Christianity. It never has taught it. Christianity&mdash;orthodox
+Christianity&mdash;teaches that when you draw your last breath you
+have lost the last opportunity for reformation. Christianity
+teaches that this little world is the eternal line between time and
+eternity, and if you do not get religion in this life, you will be
+eternally damned in the next. That is Christianity. They say: "Now
+is the accepted time." If you put it off until you die, that is too
+late; and the doctrine of the Christian world is that there is no
+opportunity for reformation in another world. The doctrine of
+orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord Jesus
+Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in
+the next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail
+here, God in his infinite wisdom will never give you another
+chance. That is orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox
+Christianity, the greatest, the best and the sublimest of the world
+are now in hell. And why is it that they say it is not orthodox
+Christianity? I have made them ashamed of their doctrine. When I
+called to their attention the fact that such men as Darwin, such
+men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow, Laplace, Shakespeare, and
+Humboldt, were in hell, it struck them all at once that the company
+in heaven would not be very interesting with such men left out.</p>
+<p>And now they begin to say: "We think the Lord will give those
+men another chance." I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most
+sanguine expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their
+creeds; I have made them ashamed of their doctrine&mdash;and that
+is glory enough. They will let me in, a few years after I am dead.
+I admit that the doctrine that God will treat us as we treat
+others&mdash;I admit that is taught by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but
+it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that understood. I
+admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he was driven
+out of the church because he thought God too good to damn men
+forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic
+Church is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon
+that question. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory&mdash;that
+is, a place where a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a
+new trial.</p>
+<p>Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell
+your congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by
+divine inspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your
+people whether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.</p>
+<p>Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever
+upheld polygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in
+favor of religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your
+people whether you honestly believe that a good man can suffer for
+a bad one and the bad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell
+what you really think and there will not be as much difference
+between you and myself as you imagine.</p>
+<p>The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes
+to the rescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the
+fact that he is a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a
+choice as to the manner in which a man or babe shall be dampened.
+This gentleman regards modern infidelity as "pitifully shallow" as
+to its intellectual conceptions and as to its philosophical views
+of the universe and of the problems regarding man's place in it and
+of his destiny. "Pitifully shallow!"</p>
+<p>What is the modern conception of the universe? The modern
+conception is that the universe always has been and forever will
+be. The modern conception of the universe is that it embraces
+within its infinite arms all matter, all spirit, all forms of
+force, all that is, all that has been, all that can be. That is the
+modern conception of this universe. And this is called
+"pitiful."</p>
+<p>What is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in
+the universe is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish
+Jehovah who made it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs
+of this world. And they even go so far as to say that that Being
+made experiments in which he signally failed. That Being made man
+and woman and put them in a garden and allowed them to become
+totally depraved. That Being of infinite wisdom made hundreds and
+millions of people when he knew he would have to drown them. That
+Being peopled a planet like this with men, women and children,
+knowing that he would have to consign most of them to eternal fire.
+That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That is an infamous
+conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception of
+Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of
+Tyndall and of every other man who has thought. I love to think of
+the whole universe together as one eternal fact. I love to think
+that everything is alive; that crystallization is itself a step
+toward joy. I love to think that when a bud bursts into blossom it
+feels a thrill. I love to have the universe full of feeling and
+full of joy, and not full of simple dead, inert matter, managed by
+an old bachelor for all eternity.</p>
+<p>Another thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose
+to banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our
+relations to the present and to the possible future from human
+thought.</p>
+<p>I have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time.
+Why? Do not make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I
+do not know anything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry.
+That is all. Y or do not know where you are going to land. It may
+be the happy port of heaven. Wait until you get there. It will be
+time enough to make trouble then. This is what I have said. I have
+said that the golden bridge of life from gloom emerges, and on
+shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it. Life is a shadowy strange
+and winding road on which we travel for a few short steps, just a
+little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love, to the low and
+quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where the only
+salutation is "Good-Night!" Whether there is a good morning I do
+not know, but I am willing to wait.</p>
+<p>Let us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build
+palaces for the future, but do not let us spend time making
+dungeons for men who happen to differ from us. I am willing to take
+the conceptions of Humboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and
+I am willing to compare their splendid conceptions with the
+doctrine embraced in the Baptist creed. This gentleman has his
+ideas upon a variety of questions, and he tells me that, "No one
+has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and Darwin are
+castaways!" Why not? They were not Christians. They did not believe
+in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the inspiration
+of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they are
+castaways. But he says: "No one has the right to say that orthodoxy
+condemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right,
+and who has tried to bless the earth he is raised on." That is what
+I say, but that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the
+best man in the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of
+God, or in the divinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it
+not say it? Is there an orthodox minister in this town now who will
+stand up and say that an honest atheist can be saved? He will not.
+Let any preacher say it, and he will be tried for heresy.</p>
+<p>I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of
+judgment, and they cross-examine him, and they say to him:</p>
+<p>"Did you believe the Bible?"</p>
+<p>"No."</p>
+<p>"Did you belong to the church?"</p>
+<p>"No."</p>
+<p>"Did you take care of your wife and children?"</p>
+<p>"Yes?"</p>
+<p>"Pay your debts?"</p>
+<p>"Yes."</p>
+<p>"Love your country?"</p>
+<p>"Yes."</p>
+<p>"Love the whole world?"</p>
+<p>"Yes."</p>
+<p>"Never made anybody unhappy?"</p>
+<p>"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever
+wronged let them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am;
+but," said he, "I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in
+the divinity of Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not
+believe in the existence of God. I now find I was mistaken; but
+that was my doctrine." Now, I want to know what, according to the
+orthodox church, is done with that man?</p>
+<p>He is sent to hell.</p>
+<p>That is their doctrine.</p>
+<p>Then the next fellow comes. He says:</p>
+<p>"Where did you come from?"</p>
+<p>And he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and
+he says:</p>
+<p>"I came from the gallows. I was just hung."</p>
+<p>"What were you hung for?"</p>
+<p>"Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left.
+The day I was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb."</p>
+<p>That is Christianity. And they say to him: "Come in! Let the
+band play!"</p>
+<p>That is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is
+hanged&mdash;there is a minister there, and the minister tells him
+he is all right. All he has to do is just to believe on the
+Lord.</p>
+<p>Another objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am
+scurrilous. Scurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he
+is not scurrilous, calls infidels, "donkeys, serpents, buzzards."
+That is simply to show that he is not scurrilous.</p>
+<p>Dr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks
+independently of the will; and I propose to prove by him that it
+does. He is the last man in the world to controvert that
+doctrine&mdash;the last man. In spite of himself his mind absorbed
+the sermon of another man, and he repeated it as his own. I am
+satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind acted
+independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence
+in favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am
+infinitely obliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously
+offered.</p>
+<p>He also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and
+renders him unfit for the discharge of the highest duties
+pertaining to life, and that we show the greatest shallowness when
+we endeavor to overthrow Calvinism. What is Calvinism? It is the
+doctrine that an infinite God made millions of people, knowing that
+they would be damned. I have answered that a thousand times. I
+answer it again. No God has a right to make a mistake, and then
+damn the mistake. No God has a right to make a failure, and a man
+who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous success. No God
+has a right to make an investment that will not finally pay a
+dividend.</p>
+<p>The world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life
+and all mine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all
+going wrong, that immorality was stalking through the land, that
+crime was about to engulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their
+prophecies, the world has steadily grown better, and there is more
+justice, more charity, more kindness, more goodness, and more
+liberty in the world to-day than ever before. And there is more
+infidelity in the world to-day than ever before.</p>
+<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the
+     issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts
+     transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the
+     starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had
+     struck because they could not live on reduced wages.
+     Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing
+     starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up
+     the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle
+     for higher wages
+
+     While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of
+     destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a
+     fund "for the extension of the church." The extension
+     committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with
+     such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city.
+     The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter
+     twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging
+     between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning
+     Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money
+     contributed for the extension of the church would find its
+     way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.
+
+     Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the
+     matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other
+     things that demanded his immediate attention.
+
+     Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension
+     Committee, was seen at his office in the North American
+     Bank, of which institution he is President.
+
+     He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their
+     trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the
+     charitable to extend to them direct aid.
+
+     Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor
+     and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the
+     church.
+
+     "The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the
+     giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their
+     idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save
+     men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.
+
+     "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own
+     resources. If the poor felt that they could get material
+     help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or
+     woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my
+     typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she
+     gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the
+     lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where
+     people are poor, it's their own fault.
+
+     "After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of
+     material things&mdash;it is the soul that makes life worth
+     living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see
+     this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have
+     been working all day, singing hymns and following the leader
+     in prayer."
+
+     Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who
+     need material help?" was asked.
+
+     "No, sir; I do not," said Mr. Van Norden. "If a man or woman
+     wants money, they should work for It."
+
+     "But is employment always to be had?"
+
+     "I think it is by Americans. You'll find that most of the
+     people out of work are those who are not adapted to the
+     conditions of this country.
+</pre>
+<p>Colonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such
+philosophy.&mdash;New York Morning Advertiser, March 10,1892.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read the article in the Morning
+Advertiser entitled "Workers Starving"?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read it, and was greatly surprised at the
+answers made to the reporter of the Advertiser.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the remarks of the Rev.
+John Hall and by Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the "Church
+Extension Committee"?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have answered
+under some irritation, or that the reporter did not happen to take
+down all he said. It hardly seems probable that Dr. Hall should
+have said that he had no time to discuss the matter of aiding the
+needy poor, giving as a reason that there were so many other things
+that demanded his immediate attention. The church is always
+insisting that it is, above all things, a charitable institution;
+that it collects and distributes many millions every year for the
+relief of the needy, and it is always quoting: "Sell that thou hast
+and give to the poor." It is hard to imagine anything of more
+importance than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppressed.
+Of course, I know that the church itself produces nothing, and that
+it lives on contributions; but its claim is that it receives from
+those who are able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent
+need.</p>
+<p>I have sometimes thought, that the most uncharitable thing in
+the world is an organized charity. It seems to have the
+peculiarities of a corporation, and becomes as soulless as its
+kindred. To use a very old phrase, it generally acts like "a beggar
+on horseback."</p>
+<p>Probably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for the poor, and
+I imagine that he must have been irritated or annoyed when he made
+the answer attributed to him in the <i>Advertiser</i>. The good
+Samaritan may have been in a hurry, but he said nothing about it.
+The Levites that passed by on the other side seemed to have had
+other business. Understand me, I am saying nothing against Dr.
+Hall, but it does seem to me that there are few other matters more
+important than assisting our needy fellow-men.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of Mr. Warner Van Norden's
+sentiments as expressed to the reporter?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> In the first place, I think he is entirely
+mistaken. I do not think the cloakmakers brought their trouble upon
+themselves. The wages they receive were and are insufficient to
+support reasonable human beings. They work for almost nothing, and
+it is hard for me to understand why they live at all, when life is
+so expensive and death so cheap. All they can possibly do is to
+earn enough one day to buy food to enable them to work the next.
+Life with them is a perpetual struggle. They live on the edge of
+death. Under their feet they must feel the side of the grave
+crumbling, and thus they go through, day by day, month by month,
+year by year. They are, I presume, sustained by a hope that is
+never realized.</p>
+<p>Mr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of helping the poor
+and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the church, and
+that the experience of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms
+to the poor only encourages them in their idleness and their
+crimes.</p>
+<p>Is Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground that when Christ
+said: "Sell that thou hast and give to the poor," he intended to
+encourage idleness and crime?</p>
+<p>Is it possible that when it was said, "It is better to give than
+to receive," the real meaning was, It is better to encourage
+idleness and crime than to receive assistance?</p>
+<p>For instance, a man falls into the water. Why should one
+standing on the shore attempt to rescue him? Could he not properly
+say: "If all who fall into the water are rescued, it will only
+encourage people to fall into the water; it will make sailors
+careless, and persons who stand on wharves, will care very little
+whether they fall in or not. Therefore, in order to make people
+careful who have not fallen into the water, let those in the water
+drown." In other words, why should anybody be assisted, if
+assistance encourages carelessness, or idleness, or negligence?</p>
+<p>According to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of place in this
+world, kindness is a mistake, and hospitality springs from a lack
+of philosophy. In other words, all should take the consequences of
+their acts, not only, but the consequences of the acts of
+others.</p>
+<p>If I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still insist that
+men should be charitable on their own account. A man without pity,
+no matter how intelligent he may be, is at best only an
+intellectual beast, and if by withholding all assistance we could
+finally people the world with those who are actually
+self-supporting, we would have a population without sympathy,
+without charity&mdash;that is to say, without goodness. In my
+judgment, it would be far better that none should exist.</p>
+<p>Mr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty of the church is
+to save men's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.
+I think that conditions have a vast deal to do with morality and
+goodness. If you wish to change the conduct of your fellow-men, the
+first thing to do is to change their conditions, their
+surroundings; in other words, to help them to help
+themselves&mdash;help them to get away from bad influences, away
+from the darkness of ignorance, away from the temptations of
+poverty and want, not only into the light intellectually, but into
+the climate of prosperity. It is useless to give a hungry man a
+religious tract, and it is almost useless to preach morality to
+those who are so situated that the necessity of the present, the
+hunger of the moment, overrides every other consideration. There is
+a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a good deal of persuasion
+in necessity.</p>
+<p>Prosperity is apt to make men selfish. They imagine that because
+they have succeeded, others and all others, might or may succeed.
+If any man will go over his own life honestly, he will find that he
+has not always succeeded because he was good, or that he has always
+failed because he was bad. He will find that many things happened
+with which he had nothing to do, for his benefit, and that, after
+all is said and done, he cannot account for all of his successes by
+his absolute goodness. So, if a man will think of all the bad
+things he has done&mdash;of all the bad things he wanted to
+do&mdash;of all the bad things he would have done had he had the
+chance, and had he known that detection was impossible, he will
+find but little foundation for egotism.</p>
+<p><i>Question</i>. What do you say to this language of Mr. Van
+Norden. "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own
+resources. If the poor felt that they could get material help they
+would want it always, and in this day, if a man and woman cannot
+get along, it is their own fault"?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> All I can say is that I do not agree with him.
+Often there are many more men in a certain trade than there is work
+for such men. Often great factories shut down, leaving many
+thousands out of employment. You may say that it was the fault of
+these men that they learned that trade; that they might have known
+it would be overcrowded; so you may say it was the fault of the
+capitalist to start a factory in that particular line, because he
+should have known that it was to be overdone.</p>
+<p>As no man can look very far into the future, the truth is it was
+nobody's fault, and without fault thousands and thousands are
+thrown out of employment. Competition is so sharp, wages are so
+small, that to be out of employment for a few weeks means want. You
+cannot say that this is the fault of the man who wants bread. He
+certainly did not wish to go hungry; neither did he deliberately
+plan a failure. He did the best he could. There are plenty of
+bankers who fail in business, not because they wish to fail; so
+there are plenty of professional men who cannot make a living, yet
+it may not be their fault; and there are others who get rich, and
+it may not be by reason of their virtues.</p>
+<p>Without doubt, there are many people in the city of New York who
+cannot make a living. Competition is too sharp; life is too
+complex; consequently the percentage of failures is large. In
+savage life there are few failures, but in civilized life there are
+many. There are many thousands out of work and out of food in
+Berlin to-day. It can hardly be said to be their fault. So there
+are many thousands in London, and every other great city of the
+world. You cannot account for all this want by saying that the
+people who want are entirely to blame.</p>
+<p>A man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough to think that
+his wealth was the result of his own unaided efforts; and he is
+sometimes heartless enough to say that others should get rich by
+following his example.</p>
+<p>Mr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter who gets two
+dollars a day, and that she dresses better than the lords and
+ladies did of olden times. He must refer to the times of the Garden
+of Eden. Out of two dollars a day one must live, and there is very
+little left for gorgeous robes. I hardly think a lady is to be
+envied because she receives two dollars a day, and the probability
+is that the manner in which she dresses on that sum&mdash;having
+first deducted the expenses of living&mdash;is not calculated to
+excite envy.</p>
+<p>The philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to be concentrated into
+this line: "Where people are poor it is their own fault." Of course
+this is the death of all charity.</p>
+<p>We are then informed by this gentleman that "happiness does not
+lie in the enjoyment of material things&mdash;that it is the soul
+that makes life worth living."</p>
+<p>Is it the soul without pity that makes life worth living? Is it
+the soul in which the blossom of charity has never shed its perfume
+that makes life so desirable? Is it the soul, having all material
+things, wrapped in the robes of prosperity, and that says to all
+the poor: It is your own fault; die of hunger if you
+must&mdash;that makes life worth living?</p>
+<p>It may be asked whether it is worth while for such a soul to
+live.</p>
+<p>If this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I do not wish to
+visit his working girls' club, or to "hear girls who have been
+working all day singing hymns and following the leader in prayer."
+Why should a soul without pity pray? Why should any one ask God to
+be merciful to the poor if he is not merciful himself? For my own
+part, I would rather see poor people eat than to hear them pray. I
+would rather see them clothed comfortably than to see them
+shivering, and at the same time hear them sing hymns.</p>
+<p>It does not seem possible that any man can say that there are no
+worthy poor in this city who need material help. Neither does it
+seem possible that any man can say to one who is starving that if
+he wants money he must work for it. There are hundreds and
+thousands in this city willing to work who can find no employment.
+There are good and pure women standing between their children and
+starvation, living in rooms worse than cells in
+penitentiaries&mdash;giving their own lives to their
+children&mdash;hundreds and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross
+of every suffering, worthy of the reverence and love of mankind. So
+there are men wandering about these streets in search of work,
+willing to do anything to feed the ones they love.</p>
+<p>Mr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I do not believe
+that he expresses his real sentiments. But, after all, why should
+we expect charity in a church that believes in the dogma of eternal
+pain? Why cannot the rich be happy here in their palaces, while the
+poor suffer and starve in huts, when these same rich expect to
+enjoy heaven forever, with all the unbelievers in hell? Why should
+the agony of time interfere with their happiness, when the agonies
+of eternity will not and cannot affect their joy? But I have
+nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr. Van Norden&mdash;only against
+their ideas.</p>
+<a name="link0014" id="link0014"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * Boston, 1898.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some
+attention to the lecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of
+October. Have you read a report of it, and what have you to
+say?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev.
+Mr. Mills. I do not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but
+from what Dr. Plumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little
+philosophy with his religion and some science with his
+superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to have successfully avoided both.
+His manners do not appear to me to be of the best. Why should he
+call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply because he does not
+happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to say that this
+"poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven, a
+majestic being&mdash;unique&mdash;peculiar&mdash;who "trod the sea
+and hushed the storm and raised the dead"? Why does Dr. Plumb call
+this world a "poor" world? According to his creed, it was created
+by infinite wisdom, infinite goodness and infinite power. How dare
+he call the work of such a being "poor"?</p>
+<p>Is it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work
+of the Infinite and say to God that he made a "poor" world? If I
+believed this world had been made by an infinitely wise and good
+Being, I should certainly insist that this is not a poor world,
+but, on the contrary, a perfect world. I would insist that
+everything that happens is for the best. Whether it looks wise or
+foolish to us, I would insist that the fault we thought we saw,
+lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and benevolent
+Creator.</p>
+<p>Dr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor
+mechanic and a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all
+religious preachers, takes several things for granted; things that
+have not been established by evidence, and things which in their
+nature cannot be established.</p>
+<p>He tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty
+Redeemer from Heaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven
+is? Does he know that any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure
+that an infinite God would be foolish enough to make people who
+needed a redeemer?</p>
+<p>He also says that this Being "trod the sea, hushed the storm and
+raised the dead." Is there any evidence that this Being trod the
+sea? Any more evidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the
+ocean? Any evidence that he hushed the storm any more than there is
+that the storm comes from the cave of &#65533;?olus? Is there any
+evidence that he raised the dead? How would it be possible to prove
+that the dead were raised? How could we prove such a thing if it
+happened now? Who would believe the evidence? As a matter of fact,
+the witnesses themselves would not believe and could not believe
+until raising of the dead became so general as to be regarded as
+natural.</p>
+<p>Dr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the
+only evidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea,
+hushed the storm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows
+anything, that these stories were not written until Christ himself
+had been dead for at least four generations. He knows also that
+these accounts were written at a time when the belief in miracles
+was almost universal, and when everything that actually happened
+was regarded of no particular importance, and only the things that
+did not happen were carefully written out with all the details.</p>
+<p>So Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm "spake as
+never man spake." Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who
+denounced human slavery many years before Christ was born? Did he
+ever read Epicurus, one of the greatest of the Greeks? Has he read
+anything from Buddha? Has he read the dialogues between Arjuna and
+Krishna? If he has, he knows that every great and splendid
+utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he lived. Did he
+ever read Lao-tsze? If he did&mdash;and this man lived many
+centuries before the coming of our Lord&mdash;he knows that
+Lao-tsze said "we should render benefits for injuries. We should
+love our enemies, and we should not resist evil." So it will hardly
+do now to say that Christ spake as never man spake, because he
+repeated the very things that other men had said.</p>
+<p>So he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly
+groping Socrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read
+Confucius? Only a little while ago a book was published by Mr.
+For-long showing the origin of the principal religion and the
+creeds that have been taught. In this book you will find the cream
+of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you will also find a few
+pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and after you have
+read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you will find
+that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,
+while the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of
+stone or piles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was
+not simply a sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by
+feeling, but he had intelligence&mdash;a great brain in which
+burned the torch of reason. Read Confucius, and you will think that
+he must have known the sciences of to-day; that is to say, the
+conclusions that have been reached by modern thinkers. It could
+have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he spake as
+never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him you
+will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the
+intelligence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.</p>
+<p>Dr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct
+theology. Whether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I
+do know that I am not trying to reconstruct theology. I am
+endeavoring to destroy it. I have no more confidence in theology
+than I have in astrology or in the black art. Theology is a science
+that exists wholly independent of facts, and that reaches
+conclusions without the assistance of evidence. It also scorns
+experience and does what little it can to do away with thought.</p>
+<p>I make a very great distinction between theology and real
+religion. I can conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now,
+here we are, men and women in this world, and we have certain
+faculties, certain senses. There are things that we can ascertain,
+and by developing our brain we can avoid mistakes, keep a few
+thorns out of our feet, a few thistles out of our hands, a few
+diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we should use all our
+senses, gathering information from every possible quarter, and this
+information should be only used for the purpose of ascertaining the
+facts, for finding out the conditions of well-being, to the end
+that we may add to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.</p>
+<p>In other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in
+mental hospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I
+say reason, I mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the
+flame small and flickering, but, after all, it is the only light I
+have, and never with my consent shall any preacher blow it out.</p>
+<p>Now, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men
+of their greatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why
+do you call Christ good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do
+you put him above mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because
+he was just? Why do you put him before justice? Suppose it should
+turn out that no such person as Christ ever lived. What harm would
+that do justice or mercy? Wouldn't the tear of pity be as pure as
+now, and wouldn't justice, holding aloft her scales, from which she
+blows even the dust of prejudice, be as noble, as admirable as now?
+Is it not better to love, justice and mercy than to love a name,
+and when you put a name above justice, above mercy, are you sure
+that you are benefiting your fellow-men?</p>
+<p>If Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my
+argument instead of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness
+instead of telling the consequences that would follow from my
+action? We have nothing to do with the consequences. I said that to
+believe without evidence, or in spite of evidence, was
+superstition. If that definition is correct, Dr. Plumb is a
+superstitious man, because he believes at least without evidence.
+What evidence has he that Christ was God? In the nature of things,
+how could he have evidence? The only evidence he pretends to have
+is the dream of Joseph, and he does not know that Joseph ever
+dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not write an account of his
+dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only hearsay for the dream, and the
+dream is the foundation of his creed.</p>
+<p>Now, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me
+with being a burglar&mdash;a coarse, blasphemous burglar&mdash;who
+wishes to rob somebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not
+hesitate to tell a Mohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He
+would tell a Mormon in Utah that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and
+that Brigham Young was no better. In other words, if in Turkey, he
+would be a coarse and blasphemous burglar, and he would follow the
+same profession in Utah. So probably he would tell the Chinese that
+Confucius was an ignorant wretch and that their religion was
+idiotic, and the Chinese priest would denounce Dr. Plumb as a very
+coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr. Plumb would be perfectly
+astonished that a priest could be so low, so impudent and
+malicious.</p>
+<p>Of course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to
+it.</p>
+<p>If Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a
+little and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in
+all probability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr.
+Plumb, and yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a
+little superstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his
+many virtues, there may be a little righteous malice.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I
+suppose he has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So
+I believe him to be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I
+am concerned, I have no objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he
+can to get all the churches to act together. He may never succeed,
+but I am not responsible for that.</p>
+<p>So I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes
+to be the gospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an
+infinitely good God made a poor world; that he made man and woman
+and put them in the Garden of Eden, and that this same God before
+that time had manufactured a devil, and that when he manufactured
+this devil, he knew that he would corrupt the man and woman that he
+had determined to make; that he could have defeated the devil, but
+that for a wise purpose, he allowed his Satanic Majesty to succeed;
+that at the time he allowed him to succeed, he knew that in
+consequence of his success that he (God) in about fifteen or
+sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole world
+with the exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for
+seed. At the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were
+totally depraved, that they were saturated with the sin of Adam and
+Eve, and that their children would be their natural heirs. He also
+knew at the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that he (God),
+some four thousand years afterward, would be compelled to be born
+in Palestine as a babe, to learn the carpenter's trade, and to go
+about the country for three years preaching to the people and
+discussing with the rabbis of his chosen people, and he also knew
+that these chosen people&mdash;these people who had been governed
+and educated by him, to whom he had sent a multitude of prophets,
+would at that time be so savage that they would crucify him,
+although he would be at that time the only sinless being who had
+ever stood upon the earth. This he knew would be the effect of his
+government, of his education of his chosen people. He also knew at
+the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in consequence of
+that success a vast majority of the human race would become eternal
+convicts in the prison of hell.</p>
+<p>All this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is
+infinitely wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What
+would this God have done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or
+goodness?</p>
+<p>Of all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of
+savagery, there is none more perfectly absurd than
+Christianity.</p>
+<a name="link0015" id="link0015"><!-- H2 anchor --></a>
+<div style="height: 4em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+<h2>A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.</h2>
+<pre>
+     * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.
+</pre>
+<p><i>Question</i>. Have you followed the controversy, or rather,
+the interest manifested in the letters to the <i>Journal</i> which
+have followed your lecture of Sunday, and what do you think of
+them?</p>
+<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read the letters and reports that have
+been published in the <i>Journal</i>. Some of them seem to be very
+sincere, some not quite honest, and some a little of both.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many
+Christians do not believe in a personal devil, but are still
+Christians. He states that they hold that the references in the New
+Testament to the devil are simply to personifications of evil, and
+do not apply to any personal existence. He says that he could give
+the names of a number of pastors who hold such views. He does not
+state what his view is. Consequently, I do not know whether he is a
+believer in a personal devil or not.</p>
+<p>The statement that the references in the New Testament to a
+devil are simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any
+personal existence, seems to me utterly absurd.</p>
+<p>The references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as
+good and satisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the
+angels referred to in the New Testament simply personifications of
+good, and are there no such personal existences? If devils are only
+personifications of evil, how is it that these personifications of
+evil could hold arguments with Jesus Christ? How could they talk
+back? How could they publicly acknowledge the divinity of Christ?
+As a matter of fact, the best evidences of Christ's divinity in the
+New Testament are the declarations of devils. These devils were
+supposed to be acquainted with supernatural things, and
+consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the average Jew,
+not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was unable to
+recognize a deity when he met him.</p>
+<p>Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls
+them, were of various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others
+could talk, and Christ said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they
+were very difficult to expel from the bodies of men; that it
+required fasting and prayer to get them out. Now, did Christ mean
+that these dumb devils did not exist? That they were only
+"personifications of evil"?</p>
+<p>Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was
+tempted by the devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and
+that this personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple
+and tried to induce him to jump off. Now, where did this
+personification of evil come from? Was it an actual existence? Dr.
+MacArthur says that it may not have been. Then it did not come from
+the outside of Christ. If it existed it came from the inside of
+Christ, so that, according to MacArthur, Christ was the creator of
+his own devil.</p>
+<p>I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr.
+MacArthur's opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his
+opinion. I hope some time he will tell us whether he really
+believes in a devil or not, or whether he thinks all allusions and
+references to devils in the New Testament can be explained away by
+calling the devils "personifications of evil." Then, of course, he
+will tell us whether it was a "personification of evil" that
+offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and whether Christ
+expelled seven "personifications of evil" from Mary Magdalene, and
+how did they come to count these "personifications of evil"? If the
+devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil," then, of
+course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may be
+different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and
+yet Mary Magdalene had seven.</p>
+<p>Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then
+vigorously beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man
+of straw? I take it for granted that Christians to some extent, at
+least, believe in their creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as
+the inspired word of God; that they believe in the fall of man, in
+the atonement, in salvation by faith, in the resurrection and
+ascension of Christ. I take it for granted that they believe these
+things. Of course, the only evidence I have is what they say.
+Possibly that cannot be depended upon. They may be dealing only in
+the "personification of truth."</p>
+<p>When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these
+things, I am told that I am far behind the religious thinking of
+the hour, but after all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful.
+Prof. Briggs attacked this "man of straw," and the straw man turned
+on him and put him out. A preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher
+in some seminary out in Ohio, challenged this "man of straw," and
+the straw man put him out.</p>
+<p>Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man,
+and if the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I
+mean only explain what he calls the "religious thinking of the
+hour," the "straw man" will put him out too.</p>
+<p>Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds
+of representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval
+monks, which leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will
+Dr. MacArthur have the goodness to point out one opinion that I
+have put into the minds of representative thinkers&mdash;that is,
+of orthodox thinkers&mdash;that any orthodox religious teacher of
+to-day has discarded? Will he have the kindness to give just
+one?</p>
+<p>In my lecture on "Superstition" I did say that to deny the
+existence of evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil,
+is to deny the truth of the New Testament; and that to deny the
+existence of these imps of darkness is to contradict the words of
+Jesus Christ. I did say that if we give up the belief in devils we
+must give up the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, and we
+must give up the divinity of Christ. Upon that declaration I stand,
+because if devils do not exist, then Jesus Christ was mistaken, or
+we have not in the New Testament a true account of what he said and
+of what he pretended to do. If the New Testament gives a true
+account of his words and pretended actions, then he did claim to
+cast out devils. That was his principal business. That was his
+certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated his
+mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of
+darkness.</p>
+<p>Now, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take
+the veracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity;
+with that divinity you take the atonement, and when you take the
+atonement, the great fabric known as Christianity becomes a
+shapeless ruin.</p>
+<p>Now, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a
+minister, but like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little
+unfair. They have a little tendency to what might be called a
+natural crook. They become spiritual when they ought to be candid.
+They become a little ingenious and pious when they ought to be
+frank; and when really driven into a corner, they clasp their
+hands, they look upward, and they cry "<i>Blasphemy!</i>" I do not
+mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply mean that they are
+illogical.</p>
+<p>Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative
+of progressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no
+progressive religious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make
+a remark. If religion rests on an inspired revelation, it is
+incapable of progress. It may be said that year after year we get
+to understand it better, but if it is not understood when given,
+why is it called a "revelation"? There is no progress in the
+multiplication table. Some men are better mathematicians than
+others, but the old multiplication table remains the same. So there
+can be no progress in a revelation from God.</p>
+<p>Now, Spain&mdash;and that is the great mistake, the great
+misfortune&mdash;has remained orthodox. That is to say, the
+Spaniards have been true to their superstition. Of course the Rev.
+Dr. MacArthur will not admit that Catholicism is Christianity, and
+I suppose that the pope would hardly admit that a Baptist is a very
+successful Christian. The trouble with Spain is, and the trouble
+with the Baptist Church is, that neither of them has progressed to
+any great extent.</p>
+<p>Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as
+man grows better, simply because it was produced by man and the
+better man is, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer
+civilized, will be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist
+religion has progressed, it is a demonstration that it was not
+originally founded on a revelation from God.</p>
+<p>In my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any
+distinction between the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness,
+and that if God created and governs this world we ought to thank
+him, if we thanked him at all, for all that happens; that we should
+thank him just as heartily for famine and cyclone as for sunshine
+and harvest, and that if President McKinley thanked God for the
+victory at Santiago, he also should have thanked him for sending
+the yellow fever.</p>
+<p>I stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any
+distinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If
+God governs this world, then everything that happens is the very
+best that could happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could
+happen to A is to be a murderer and the best thing that could have
+happened to B was to be murdered. There is no escape from this if
+the world is governed by infinite wisdom and goodness.</p>
+<p>It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This
+God who made man and made him free knew exactly how he would use
+his freedom, and consequently this God cannot escape the
+responsibility for the actions of men. He made them. He knew
+exactly what they would do. He is responsible.</p>
+<p>If I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew
+that he would murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr.
+MacArthur would think as much as he preaches, he would come much
+nearer agreeing with me.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss
+Ingersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying
+Ingersoll. Of course I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis
+Parks to discuss the address. I dislike to be compelled to go to
+the end of my life without being dignified. At the same time I will
+forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks for not answering me, because I
+know that he cannot.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of
+consonants, denounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says
+that Christianity is not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ.
+He further says that we do not believe in such a thing as a devil
+in human form, but we know that there is evil, and that evil we
+call the devil. He hides his head under the same leaf with Dr.
+MacArthur by calling the devil evil.</p>
+<p>Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to
+the devil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the
+idea that the devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say
+this and say it honestly?</p>
+<p>But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent;
+seems to go along with the logic of his creed. He says that the
+yellow fever, if it visited our soldiers, came from God, and that
+we should thank God for it. He does not say the soldiers should
+thank God for it, or that those who had it should thank God for it,
+but that we should thank God for it, and there is this wonderful
+thing about Christianity. It enables us to bear with great
+fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the misfortunes of
+others.</p>
+<p>He says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of
+course I am not as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev.
+Moldehnke appears to be. I have not the faintest idea of what God's
+purposes are. He works, even according to his messengers, in such a
+mysterious way, that with the little reason I have I find it
+impossible to follow him. Why God should have any purpose that
+could be worked out with yellow fever, or cholera, or why he should
+ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in partnership with
+cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have never been
+able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my ignorance,
+and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be that
+everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not
+believe it.</p>
+<p>There is a little old story on this subject that throws some
+light on the workings of the average orthodox mind.</p>
+<p>One morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his
+father, "One of the ewe lambs is dead."</p>
+<p>"Well," said the father; "that is all for the best. Twins never
+do very well, any how."</p>
+<p>The next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb,
+and the old man said, "Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe
+will have more wool."</p>
+<p>The next morning the son said, "The old ewe is dead."</p>
+<p>"Well," replied the old man; "that may be for the best, but I
+don't see it this morning."</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is
+on the wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am
+greatly obliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are
+easily refuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such
+refutation might be an advertisement for me.</p>
+<p>Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there
+are some things in the lecture on "Superstition" worth the while
+even of a Methodist minister to answer.</p>
+<p>Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he
+does, will he Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He
+may say that God created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I
+ask Mr. Hamlin this question: Why did God create a successful
+rival? When God created the devil, did he not know at that time
+that he was to make this world? That he was to create Adam and Eve
+and put them in the Garden of Eden, and did he not know that this
+devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That in consequence of that
+they would fall? That in consequence of that he would have to drown
+all their descendants except eight? That in consequence of that he
+himself would have to be born into this world as a Judean peasant?
+That he would have to be crucified and suffer for the sins of these
+people who had been misled by this devil that he deliberately
+created, and that after all he would be able only to save a few
+Methodists?</p>
+<p>Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He
+can answer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will
+be no advertisement for him.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which
+I now return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, "Ingersoll in
+many respects is like Voltaire." I think no finer compliment has
+been paid me by any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years,
+and again I thank the Rev. Mr. Belcher.</p>
+<p>The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says
+that every utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and
+that every argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend
+my time in ringing the changes on arguments that have been answered
+over and over again for hundreds of years.</p>
+<p>Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack
+motives; that you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man
+who makes it. You must answer not the man, but the argument.</p>
+<p>Another thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that
+is that no argument is old until it has been answered. An argument
+that has not been answered, although it has been put forward for
+many centuries, is still as fresh as a flower with the dew on its
+breast. It never is old until it has been answered.</p>
+<p>It is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments
+have been answered, and if they have and he knows that they have,
+of course it will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these
+answers.</p>
+<p>Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do
+you believe in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of
+men and women become tenements for little imps and goblins and
+demons? Do you believe that the devil used to lead men and women
+astray? Do you believe the stories about devils that you find in
+the Old and New Testaments?</p>
+<p>Now, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long
+ago. Answer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he
+is a person, that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you
+another question: Why should this devil punish souls in hell for
+rebelling against God? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of
+God, help punish God's enemies? This may have been answered many
+times, but one more repetition will do but little harm.</p>
+<p>Another thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do
+you believe that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors
+of which open only to receive sinners, and do you believe that
+eternal punishment is the highest expression of justice and
+mercy?</p>
+<p>If you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and
+you knew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to
+hell and suffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And
+if, knowing this, you changed the stone into a man, would you not
+be a fiend? Now, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual;
+nothing with the Presbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and
+tell us how that is.</p>
+<p>I say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or
+misery for any of the children of men&mdash;I say to you that your
+God is a wild beast, an insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with
+every drop of my blood.</p>
+<p>At the same time you may say whether you are up, according to
+Dr. Mac Arthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.</p>
+<p>The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be
+absolutely sincere. He is orthodox&mdash;true blue. He believes in
+a devil; in an acting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of
+course he does not think this devil is as stout as God, but he is
+quicker; not quite as wise, but a little more cunning.</p>
+<p>According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the
+universe&mdash;king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr.
+Campbell will not admit that if this devil does not exist the
+Christian creeds all crumble, but I think he will admit that if the
+devil does not exist, then Christ was mistaken, or that the writers
+of the New Testament did not truthfully give us his utterances.</p>
+<p>Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil,
+may be he was mistaken about the existence of God. In other words,
+if Christ made a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say
+he was divine, although ignorance has generally believed in
+divinity. So I do not see exactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if
+the devil does not exist the Christian creeds do not crumble, and
+when I say Christian creeds I mean orthodox creeds. Is there any
+orthodox Christian creed without the devil in it?</p>
+<p>Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the
+fall of man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the
+devil is the keystone. Remove him, the arch falls.</p>
+<p>Now, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains
+intact without crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the
+atonement and the existence of the devil are all thrown aside?</p>
+<p>Of course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being
+good, forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not
+Christianity. Orthodox Christians say that a man must believe on
+Christ, must have faith, and that to act as Christ did, is not
+enough; that a man who acts exactly as Christ did, dying without
+faith, would go to hell. So when Mr. Campbell speaks of a
+Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox Christian.</p>
+<p>Now, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he
+knows a good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every
+conceivable disguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring
+lion; that at another time he is a god of this world; on another
+occasion a dragon, and in the afternoon of the same day may be
+Lucifer, an angel of light, and all the time, I guess, a prince of
+lies. So he often assumes the disguise of the serpent.</p>
+<p>So the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the
+wilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made
+him more than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ
+could not see through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil
+with a mask to fool God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil
+to tempt Christ by offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they
+already belonged to Christ, and when Christ knew that the devil had
+no title, and when the devil knew that Christ knew that he had no
+title, and when the devil knew that Christ knew that he was the
+devil, and when the devil knew that he was Christ? Does the
+reverend gentleman still think that it was the disguise of the
+devil that tempted Christ?</p>
+<p>I would like some of these questions answered, because I have a
+very inquiring mind.</p>
+<p>So Mr. Campbell tells us&mdash;and it is very good and
+comforting of him&mdash;that there is a time coming when the devil
+shall deceive the nations no more. He also tells us that God is
+more powerful than the devil, and that he is going to put an end to
+him.</p>
+<p>Will Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the
+devil? If he is going to put an end to him why did he start him?
+Was it not a waste of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair
+to let this devil, so powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the
+Garden of Eden, and put Adam and Eve, who were then scarcely half
+dry, within his power, and not only Adam and Eve within his power,
+but their descendants, so that the slime of the serpent has been on
+every babe, and so that, in consequence of what happened in the
+Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless millions in the
+presence of the most merciful God?</p>
+<p>Now, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these
+things. He may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think
+of his own congregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the
+wolves of doubt and thought.</p>
+<p>The Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good
+sense; one who thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his
+convictions. Of course I am sorry that he does not agree with me,
+but I have become used to that, and so I thank him for the truths
+he utters.</p>
+<p>He does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I
+guess by following him up we would find that he did not believe in
+the existence of a personal God, or in the inspiration of the
+Scriptures. In fact, he tells us that he has given up the
+infallibility of the Bible. At the same time, he says it is the
+most perfect compendium of religious and moral thought. In that I
+think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast deal of irreligion
+in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral thought in the
+Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired nor
+infallible.</p>
+<p>The Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church,
+declares that those who do not believe in a personal God do not
+believe in a personal Satan, and <i>vice versa</i>. The one, he
+says, necessitates the other. In this I do not think he is quite
+correct. I think many people believe in a personal God who do not
+believe in a personal devil, but I know of none who do believe in a
+personal devil who do not also believe in a personal God. The
+orthodox generally believe in both of them, and for many centuries
+Christians spoke with great respect of the devil. They were afraid
+of him.</p>
+<p>But I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny
+a personal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I
+agree with this because I suppose by "God's word" he means the
+Bible.</p>
+<p>He further says, and I agree with him, that a "Christian" needs
+no scientific argument on which to base his belief in the
+personality of Satan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian
+does need a scientific argument it is equally true that he never
+will have one.</p>
+<p>You see this word "Science" means something that somebody knows;
+not something that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or
+believes, but something that somebody knows.</p>
+<p>Of course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the
+existence of the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr.
+Kraeling says, and I thank him for his candor, that the Bible does
+prove the existence of the devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse,
+and I do agree with him that the "revealed word" teaches the
+existence of a personal devil, and that all truly orthodox
+Christians believe that there is a personal devil, and the Rev. Mr.
+Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he proves that without
+this devil there could be no redemption for the evil spirits; so he
+brings forward the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. At the
+same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what the Bible
+says, he insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme, and
+then he drops into humor and says that if any further arguments are
+needed to prove the existence of the devil, that I furnish
+them.</p>
+<p>How a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can
+have anything like a sense of humor is beyond even my
+imagination.</p>
+<p>Now, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask
+him the same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture
+on "Superstition."</p>
+<p>Now, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a
+being of infinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he
+created has been governed by him.</p>
+<p>Now, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions,
+with the request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If
+you, Mr. Kraeling, had the power to make a world, would you make an
+exact copy of this? Would you make a man and woman, put them in a
+garden, knowing that they would be deceived, knowing that they
+would fall? Knowing that all the consequences believed in by
+orthodox Christians would follow from that fall? Would you do it?
+And would you make your world so as to provide for earthquakes and
+cyclones? Would you create the seeds of disease and scatter them in
+the air and water? Would you so arrange matters as to produce
+cancers? Would you provide for plague and pestilence? Would you so
+make your world that life should feed on life, that the quivering
+flesh should be torn by tooth and beak and claw? Would you?</p>
+<p>Now, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be
+honest.</p>
+<p>Would you make different races of men? Would you make them of
+different colors, and would you so make them that they would
+persecute and enslave each other? Would you so arrange matters that
+millions and millions should toil through many generations, paid
+only by the lash on the back? Would you have it so that millions
+and millions of babes would be sold from the breasts of mothers? Be
+honest, would you provide for religious persecution? For the
+invention and use of instruments of torture? Would you see to it
+that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was not
+overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong
+would triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not
+be a shield? Would you make a world where the best would be loaded
+with chains? Where the best would die in the darkness of dungeons?
+Where the best would make scaffolds sacred with their blood?</p>
+<p>Would you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud
+should represent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of
+honest credulity?</p>
+<p>Would you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war?
+Would you so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens,
+so that woman would be a slave, so that children would be trampled
+upon as though they were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the
+woods with wild beasts? Would you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm
+your children? Would you provide for earthquakes that would swallow
+them? Would you make them ignorant, savage, and fill their minds
+with all the phantoms of horror? Would you?</p>
+<p>Now, it will only take you a few moments to answer these
+questions, and if you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that
+you believe in the orthodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If
+you say you would not, I will admit that there is a little dawn of
+intelligence in your brain.</p>
+<p>At the same time I want it understood with regard to all these
+ministers that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize
+their congregations, so that the congregations may allow the
+ministers to develop, to grow, to become really and truly
+intelligent. The process is slow, but it is sure.</p>
+<div style="height: 6em;"><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<br />
+<table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4">
+<tbody>
+<tr>
+<td><big><big><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm">
+TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big></td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+</tbody>
+</table>
+<br />
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br /></div>
+</body>
+</html>