diff options
Diffstat (limited to '38807-h/38807-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38807-h/38807-h.htm | 13977 |
1 files changed, 13977 insertions, 0 deletions
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—Definition of Liberty, Physical<br /> and Mental—The + Right to Compel Belief—Woman the Equal of Man—The<br /> + Ghosts—Immortality—Slavery—Witchcraft—Aristocracy + of the<br /> Air—Unfairness of Clerical Critics—Force and + Matter—Doctrine of<br /> Negation—Confident Deaths of + Murderers—Childhood Scenes returned to<br /> by the Dying—Death-bed + of Voltaire—Thomas Paine—The First<br /> Sectarians Were + Heretics—Reply to Rev. Mr. Guard—Slaughter of<br /> the + Canaanites—Reply to Rev. Samuel Robinson—Protestant<br /> + Persecutions—Toleration—Infidelity and Progress—The<br /> + Occident—Calvinism—Religious Editors—Reply to the Rev. + Mr.<br /> Ijams—Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers?—Reply + to<br /> California <i>Christian Advocate</i>—Self-Government of + French People at<br /> and Since the Revolution—On the Site of the + Bastile—French<br /> Peasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ—Was + the World created in Six<br /> Days—Geology—What is the + Astronomy of the Bible?—The Earth the Centre<br /> of the Universe—Joshua's + Miracle—Change of Motion into Heat—Geography<br /> and + Astronomy of Cosmas—Does the Bible teach the Existence of<br /> + that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?—Saul and the Woman of<br /> + Endor—Familiar Spirits—Demonology of the New Testament—Temptation + of<br /> Jesus—Possession by Devils—Gadarene Swine Story—Test + of Belief—Bible<br /> Idea of the Rights of Children—Punishment + of the Rebellious<br /> Son—Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice—Persecution + of Job—The Gallantry<br /> of God—Bible Idea of the Rights of + Women—Paul's Instructions to<br /> Wives—Permission given to + Steal Wives—Does the Bible Sanction<br /> Polygamy and Concubinage?—Does + the Bible Uphold and Justify Political<br /> Tyranny?—Powers that + be Ordained of God—Religious Liberty of<br /> God—Sun-Worship + punishable with Death—Unbelievers to be damned—Does<br /> the + Bible describe a God of Mercy?—Massacre Commanded—Eternal<br /> + Punishment Taught in the New Testament—The Plan of Salvation—Fall<br /> + and Atonement Moral Bankruptcy—Other Religions—Parsee<br /> + Sect—Brahmins—Confucians—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—Inspiration + of the Scriptures—Rev. Dr.<br /> Thomas—Formation of the Old + Testament—Rev. Dr. Kohler—Rev. Mr.<br /> Herford—Prof. + Swing—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—Character + of Jesus—Two or Three Christs Described<br /> in the Gospels—Christ's + Change of Opinions—Gospels Later than the<br /> Epistles—Divine + Parentage of Christ a Late Belief—The Man Christ<br /> probably a + Historical Character—Jesus Belittled by his Worshipers—He<br /> + never Claimed to be Divine—Christ's Omissions—Difference + between<br /> Christian and other Modern Civilizations—Civilization + not Promoted<br /> by Religion—Inventors—French and American + Civilization: How<br /> Produced—Intemperance and Slavery in + Christian Nations—Advance due to<br /> Inventions and Discoveries—Missionaries—Christian + Nations Preserved by<br /> Bayonet and Ball—Dr. T. B. Taylor—Origin + of Life on this Planet—Sir<br /> William Thomson—Origin of + Things Undiscoverable—Existence after<br /> Death—Spiritualists—If + the Dead Return—Our Calendar—Christ and<br /> Christmas-The + Existence of Pain—Plato's Theory of Evil—Will God do<br /> + Better in Another World than he does in this?—Consolation—Life + Not a<br /> Probationary Stage—Rev. D.O'Donaghue—The Case of + Archibald Armstrong<br /> and Jonathan Newgate—Inequalities of Life—Can + Criminals live a<br /> Contented Life?—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?—Increase in the Number of + Infidels—Spread of Scientific<br /> Literature—Rev. Dr. Eddy—Rev. + Dr. Hawkins—Rev. Dr. Haynes—Rev.<br /> Mr. Pullman—Rev. + Mr. Foote—Rev. Mr. Wells—Rev. Dr. Van Dyke—Rev.<br /> + Carpenter—Rev. Mr. Reed—Rev. Dr. McClelland—Ministers + Opposed to<br /> Discussion—Whipping Children—Worldliness as + a Foe of the Church—The<br /> Drama—Human Love—Fires, + Cyclones, and Other Afflictions as Promoters<br /> of Spirituality—Class + Distinctions—Rich and Poor—Aristocracies—The<br /> + Right to Choose One's Associates—Churches Social Affairs—Progress<br /> + of the Roman Catholic Church—Substitutes for the Churches—Henry<br /> + Ward Beecher—How far Education is Favored by the Sects—Rivals + of the<br /> Pulpit—Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago—French + Revolution<br /> produced by the Priests—Why the Revolution was a + Failure—Infidelity<br /> of One Hundred Years Ago—Ministers + not more Intellectual than a Century<br /> Ago—Great Preachers of + the Past—New Readings of Old Texts—Clerical<br /> Answerers + of Infidelity—Rev. Dr. Baker—Father Fransiola—Faith + and<br /> Reason—Democracy of Kindness—Moral Instruction—Morality + Born of Human<br /> Needs—The Conditions of Happiness—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—Propositions—Toleration + not a Disclaimer but a Waiver of the<br /> Right to Persecute—Remarks + of Courtlandt Palmer—No Responsibility for<br /> Thought—Intellectual + Hospitality—Right of Free Speech—Origin of the<br /> term + "Toleration"—Slander and False Witness—Nobody can Control + his own<br /> Mind: Anecdote—Remarks of Mr. Coudert—Voltaire, + Rousseau, Hugo, and<br /> Ingersoll—General Woodford's Speech—Reply + by Colonel Ingersoll—A<br /> Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment + to Voltaire—Responsibility for<br /> Thoughts—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—Christmas + a Pagan Festival—Reply<br /> to Dr. Buckley—Charges by the + Editor of the Christian Advocate—The<br /> Tidings of Christianity—In + what the Message of Grief Consists—Fear<br /> and Flame—An + Everlasting Siberia—Dr. Buckley's Proposal to Boycott the<br /> + Telegram—Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. Cana + Day<br /> be Blasphemed?—Hurting Christian feelings—For + Revenue only What is<br /> Blasphemy?—Balaam's Ass wiser than the + Prophet—The Universalists—Can<br /> God do Nothing for this + World?—The Universe a Blunder if Christianity<br /> is true—The + Duty of a Newspaper—Facts Not Sectarian—The Rev.<br /> Mr. + Peters—What Infidelity Has Done—Public School System not<br /> + Christian—Orthodox Universities—Bruno on Oxford—As to + Public<br /> Morals—No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe—The + Atonement<br /> Immoral—As to Sciences and Art—Bruno, + Humboldt, Darwin—Scientific<br /> Writers Opposed by the Church—As + to the Liberation of Slaves—As to<br /> the Reclamation of + Inebriates—Rum and Religion—The Humanity<br /> of Infidelity—What + Infidelity says to the Dying—The Battle<br /> Continued—Morality + not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity—The<br /> Inquisition and + Religious Persecution—Human Nature Derided by<br /> Christianity—Dr. + DaCosta—"Human Brotherhood" as exemplified by<br /> the History of + the Church—The Church and Science, Art and<br /> Learning——Astronomy's + Revenge—Galileo and Kepler—Mrs. Browning:<br /> Science + Thrust into the Brain of Europe—Our Numerals—Christianity + and<br /> Literature—Institution's of Learning—Stephen Girard—James + Lick—Our<br /> Chronology—Historians—Natural Philosophy—Philology—Metaphysical<br /> + Research—Intelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian—Inventions—John<br /> + Ericsson—Emancipators—Rev. Mr. Ballou—The Right of Goa + to<br /> Punish—Rev. Dr. Hillier—Rev. Mr. Haldeman—George + A. Locey—The "Great<br /> Physician"—Rev. Mr. Talmage—Rev. + J. Benson Hamilton—How Voltaire<br /> Died—The Death-bed of + Thomas Paine—Rev. Mr. Holloway—Original<br /> Sin—Rev. + Dr. Tyler—The Good Samaritan a Heathen—Hospitals and<br /> + Asylums—Christian Treatment of the Insane—Rev. Dr. Buckley—The<br /> + North American Review Discussion—Judge Black, Dr. Field,<br /> Mr. + Gladstone—Circulation of Obscene Literature—Eulogy of<br /> + Whiskey—Eulogy of Tobacco—Human Stupidity that Defies the + Gods—Rev.<br /> Charles Deems—Jesus a Believer in a Personal + Devil—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>—Henry D'Arcy—Peter's<br /> Prevarication-Some + Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a<br /> Catholic—Wishes do not + Affect the Judgment—Devout Robbers—Penitent<br /> Murderers—Reverential + Drunkards—Luther's Distich—Judge<br /> Normile—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>—Under what<br /> Circumstances a Man has the + Right to take his Own Life—Medicine and the<br /> Decrees of God—Case + of the Betrayed Girl—Suicides not Cowards—Suicide<br /> under + Roman Law—Many Suicides Insane—Insanity Caused by Religion—The<br /> + Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic—Natural and Sufficient Cause + for<br /> Self-destruction—Christ's Death a Suicide—Col. + Ingersoll's Reply to his<br /> Critics—Is Suffering the Work of + God?—It is not Man's Duty to<br /> Endure Hopeless Suffering—When + Suicide is Justifiable—The<br /> Inquisition—Alleged + Cowardice of Suicides—Propositions<br /> Demonstrated—Suicide + the Foundation of the Christian<br /> Religion—Redemption and + Atonement—The Clergy on Infidelity<br /> and Suicide—Morality + and Unbelief—Better injure yourself than<br /> Another—Misquotation + by Opponents—Cheerful View the Best—The<br /> Wonder is that + Men endure—Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New<br /> York Journal)—Causes + of Suicide—Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise<br /> Suicide—Suicides + with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets—Suicide a Sin<br /> + (Interview in The New York Herald)—Comments on Rev. Alerle St. + Croix<br /> Wright's Sermon—Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The + York World)—As to<br /> the Cowardice of Suicide—Germany and + the Prevalence of Suicide—Killing<br /> of Idiots and Defective + Infants—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"—Croakers and + Prophets of Evil—Medical Treatment<br /> for Believers in Universal + Evil—Alleged Fraud in Army<br /> Contracts—Congressional + Extravagance—Railroad "Wreckers"—How<br /> Stockholders in + Some Roads Lost Their Money—The Star-Route<br /> Trials—Timber + and Public Lands—Watering Stock—The Formation<br /> of Trusts—Unsafe + Hotels: European Game and Singing Birds—Seal<br /> Fisheries—Cruelty + to Animals—Our Indians—Sensible and Manly<br /> Patriotism—Days + of Brutality—Defence of Slavery by the Websters,<br /> Bentons, and + Clays—Thirty Years' Accomplishment—Ennobling Influence of<br /> + War for the Right—The Lady ana the Brakeman—American Esteem + of Honesty<br /> in Business—Republics do not Tend to Official + Corruption—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—How Biblical Miracles are sought + to<br /> be Proved—Some <i>Non Sequiturs</i>—A Grammatical + Criticism—Christianity<br /> Destructive of Manners—Cuvier + and Agassiz on Mosaic Cosmogony—Clerical<br /> Advance agents—Christian + Threats and Warnings—Catholicism the Upas<br /> Tree—Hebrew + Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding Probababilities<br /> —Contradictions + and Mistranslations of the Bible—Number of Errors in<br /> the + Scriptures—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—Can a Conditionless<br /> Deity + be Injured?—Injustice the only Blasphemy—The Lecture<br /> in + Delaware—Laws of that State—All Sects in turn Charged with<br /> + Blasphemy—Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought<br /> + to Be—A Fatal Biblical Passage—Judge Comegys—Wilmington<br /> + Preachers—States with Laws against Blasphemy—No Danger of + Infidel<br /> Mobs—No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated—Comegys + a<br /> Resurrection—Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict—Advice + about the Cutting<br /> out of Heretics' Tongues—Objections to the + Whipping-post—Mr. Bergh's<br /> Bill—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—Charged + with Being Insincere—Irreverence—Old Testament<br /> Better + than the New—"Why Hurt our Feelings?"—Involuntary Action of<br /> + the Brain—Source of our Conceptions of Space—Good and Bad—Right + and<br /> Wrong—The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer—Men + Responsible<br /> for their Actions—The "Gradual" Theory Not + Applicable to<br /> the Omniscient—Prayer Powerless to Alter + Results—Religious<br /> Persecution—Orthodox Ministers Made + Ashamed of their<br /> Creed—Purgatory—Infidelity and Baptism + Contrasted—Modern Conception<br /> of the Universe—The Golden + Bridge of Life—"The Only Salutation"—The<br /> Test for + Admission to Heaven—"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—Cloakmakers' + Strike—Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension<br /> Society—The + Uncharitableness of Organized Charity—Defence of the<br /> + Cloakmakers—Life of the Underpaid—On the Assertion that + Assistance<br /> encourages Idleness and Crime—The Man without Pity + an Intellectual<br /> Beast—Tendency of Prosperity to Breed + Selfishness—Thousands Idle<br /> without Fault—Egotism of + Riches—Van Norden's Idea of Happiness—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—Why should a Minister call this a "Poor"<br /> World?—Would + an Infinite God make People who Need a Redeemer?—Gospel<br /> + Gossip—Christ's Sayings Repetitions—The Philosophy of + Confucius—Rev.<br /> Mr. Mills—The Charge of "Robbery"—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—Rev. Roberts. + MacArthur—A<br /> Personal Devil—Devils who held + Conversations with Christ not simply<br /> personifications of Evil—The + Temptation—The "Man of Straw"—Christ's<br /> Mission + authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils—Spain—God<br /> + Responsible for the Actions of Man—Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks—Rev. + Dr. E.<br /> F. Moldehnke—Patience amidst the Misfortunes of Others—Yellow + Fever<br /> as a Divine Agent—The Doctrine that All is for the Best—Rev. + Mr.<br /> Hamlin—Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?—A + Compliment by the<br /> Rev. Mr. Belcher—Rev. W. C. Buchanan—No + Argument Old until it is<br /> Answered—Why should God Create + sentient Beings to be Damned?—Rev. J.<br /> W. Campbell—Rev. + Henry Frank—Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on Christ and the<br /> Devil—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—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—the Blessed Trinity of + Humanity. + </p> + <p> + I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience—the Blessed Trinity + of Science. + </p> + <p> + I believe in Man, Woman and Child—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—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—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—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—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—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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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." + </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—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—"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—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—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. + </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 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. + </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—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. + </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."—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—from + the Bible—from this sacred gift of God—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."—<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."—<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—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. + </p> + <p> + "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good + and gentle, but also to the fro ward."—<i>I Peter ii., 18</i>. + </p> + <p> + "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, + suffering wrongfully."—<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."—<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,—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."—<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 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. + </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—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. + </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."—<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."—<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."—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."—<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."—<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—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. + </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—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—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."—<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?"—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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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—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—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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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—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 <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—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."—<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."—<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—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."—<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—understand + me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High—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—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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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."—<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—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—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. + </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—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—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: + </p> + <p> + This is the prayer of the Brahmins—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—that + is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a heretic—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—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. + </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—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:— + </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—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—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—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?—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—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. + </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.—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—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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"?—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—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—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. + </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—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?" + </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—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." + </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—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—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,—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? + </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—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + <i>Answer.</i> There are four principal theories: + </p> + <p> + <i>First</i>—That there is behind the universe a being of infinite + power and wisdom, kindness, and justice. + </p> + <p> + <i>Second</i>—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>—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>—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—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + There are two facts inconsistent in my mind—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—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—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." + </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—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—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—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—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. + </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?—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,"—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." + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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 <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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + <i>Question</i>. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as + cruel as the aristocracy of wealth—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—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? + </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—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—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—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—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—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. + </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—-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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + So it is from every source in nature—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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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—I mean of thought, of mind—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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? + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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?'" + </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—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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,"—"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—meaning + myself—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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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." + </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—whether a parody on divine revelation, or a parody + upon the prayer of prayers—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—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—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? + </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!—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—the liberty to destroy—and + another thing for him to give us the liberty which we claim—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—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—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. + </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—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. + </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)—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. + </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—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." + </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—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—for I know so few they make a small + battalion—but for good women, to come to the rescue. + </p> + <p> + GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </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—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? + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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—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? + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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! + </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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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: + </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—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—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. + </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—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!" + </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—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—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—the + more the better. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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>—"Christianity + did not come with tidings of great joy? but with a message of eternal + grief." + </p> + <p> + <i>Second</i>—"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>—"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—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—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—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"—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—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—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—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—wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of + punishing the <i>Telegram</i>—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—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—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—More + light! + </p> + <p> + III. + </p> + <p> + 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 <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—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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—the absolute enfranchisement of the soul—and does it + "for revenue"—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—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. + </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—the bad man blasphemes—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—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—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—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. + </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—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:— + </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—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. + </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—as is its custom—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + But let me answer these questions in their order. + </p> + <p> + <i>First</i>—As to the schools. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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." + </p> + <p> + The great names in science are not those of recognized saints. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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? + </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—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—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—As to the reclamation of inebriates. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Sixth—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—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. + </p> + <p> + Seventh—"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—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—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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"—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—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. + </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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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." + </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—not worth thinking about—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—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—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—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? + </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—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—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 Curé of St. + Sulpice and the Abbé 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 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: + </p> + <p> + "'Let me die in peace!' + </p> + <p> + "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. + </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—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. + </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—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—in attacking the human heart—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—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—and I should think such theology stood in need + of a doctor—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—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—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—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—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—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—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—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—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—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"—of that + "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the church"—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—<i>not + the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures</i>—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—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 <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 fé</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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—best for him and others—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—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. + </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—-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—the light + fading from their lives—seek the refuge of death. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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? + </p> + <p> + Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances—of + conditions—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—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—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—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! + </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—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. + </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—that so many are terrified + by the "something after death"—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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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? + </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—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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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." + </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>.—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>.—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>.—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—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"—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—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—from these arguments—and so, instead of + attacking the arguments, they attack the man who makes them. + </p> + <p> + <i>Fifth</i>.—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—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>.—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—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—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. + </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>.—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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>.—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. + </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—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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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>.—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </p> + <p> + <i>Ninth</i>.—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—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—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—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>.—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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—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—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—merchants, bankers, and men + engaged in all trades and professions—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—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—an + amplitude—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.—It is not inspired. + </p> + <p> + Third.—It upholds human slavery. + </p> + <p> + Fourth.—It sanctions concubinage. + </p> + <p> + Fifth.—It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as + the utter destruction of old men and little children. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Seventh.—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.—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.—It upholds polygamy. + </p> + <p> + Tenth.—It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of + any science whatever. + </p> + <p> + 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. + </p> + <p> + Twelfth.—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—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. + </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—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—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—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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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,—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—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"— + 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—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. + </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—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. + </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"—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 + <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—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—space—and, in + our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes naturally—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—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—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. + </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—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?" + </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—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—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. + </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—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—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?" + </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—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." + </p> + <p> + 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. + </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—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. + </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—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—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—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.—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—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—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—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. + </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—having + first deducted the expenses of living—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—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—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—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. + </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—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—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"? + </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 �?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—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. + </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—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—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. + </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—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—that is, of orthodox thinkers—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—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. + </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—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—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—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—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. + </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> |