diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/orig38807-h/main.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38807-h/main.htm | 11445 |
1 files changed, 11445 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38807-h/main.htm b/old/orig38807-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..754e5ef --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38807-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,11445 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> +<head> +<meta name="generator" content="HTML-Kit Tools HTML Tidy plugin" /> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= +"text/html; charset=us-ascii" /> +<title>The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, by Robert G. +Ingersoll</title> + +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[*/ + <!-- + body { text-align:justify} + P { margin:15%; + margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; } + img {border: 0;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 30%; margin-right: 20%;} + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: left; + color: gray; + } /* page numbers */ + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; + margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 35%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + CENTER { padding: 10px;} + PRE { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;} + --> +/*]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div style="height: 8em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<a name="title" id="title"></a> +<h1>THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL</h1> +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> +<br /> +<center>"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF +THOUGHT,<br /> +AND THE CROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL."</center> +<br /> +<h3>In Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.</h3> +<h3>DISCUSSIONS</h3> +<br /> +<h4>Dresden Edition</h4> +<h3>1900</h3> +<br /> +<center><img alt="titlepage (62K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" +height="1109" width="721" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<center><img alt="portrait (64K)" src="images/portrait.jpg" height= +"1201" width="582" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>Contents</h2> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC">CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS +CLERGY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF +TOLERATION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE +NORMILE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI +GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE +COMEGYS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND +LORIMER.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND +WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. +PLUMB.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY +ON SUPERSTITION.</a></p> +<a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a><br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.</h2> +<blockquote> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</a></p> +MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.<br /> +(1877.)<br /> +Answer to San Francisco Clergymen—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0002">MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</a></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 class="toc"><a href="#link0003">TO THE INDIANAPOLIS +CLERGY.</a></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 class="toc"><a href="#link0004">THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</a></p> +THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.<br /> +(1883.)<br /> +Are the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively<br /> +Read?—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0005">THE LIMITATIONS OF +TOLERATION.</a></p> +THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.<br /> +(1888.)<br /> +Discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. +Coudert,<br /> +and ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club +of<br /> +New York—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</a></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 class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SUICIDE OF JUDGE +NORMILE.</a></p> +SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.<br /> +(1892.)<br /> +Reply to the <i>Western Watchman</i>—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0008">IS SUICIDE A SIN?</a></p> +IS SUICIDE A SIN?<br /> +(1894.)<br /> +Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in <i>The New York +World</i>—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0009">IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</a></p> +IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?<br /> +(1891.)<br /> +Reply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, "Brutality and +Avarice<br /> +Triumphant"—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0010">A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI +GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</a></p> +A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.<br /> +(1878.)<br /> +Defence of the Lecture on Moses—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0011">AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE +COMEGYS.</a></p> +AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.<br /> +(1881.)<br /> +Charged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0012">A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND +LORIMER.</a></p> +A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.<br /> +(1882.)<br /> +Solemnity—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0013">A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND +WARNER VAN NORDEN.</a></p> +A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.<br /> +(1892.)<br /> +Dr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving<br /> +Workers—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0014">A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. +PLUMB.</a></p> +A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.<br /> +(1898.)<br /> +Interview in a Boston Paper—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 class="toc"><a href="#link0015">A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY +ON SUPERSTITION.</a></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 /></blockquote> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="link0001" id="link0001"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.</h2> +<pre> + * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San + Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various + clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon + him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man, + Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts." +</pre> +<center>I.</center> +<p>AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I +offer in evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent +but a small part of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even +that part shall not be defiled or smirched by a single personality. +Whatever I say, I shall say because I believe it will tend to make +this world grander, man nearer just, the father kinder, the mother +more loving, the children more affectionate, and because I believe +it will make an additional flower bloom in the pathway of every one +who hears me.</p> +<p>In the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? +What have I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a +wolf that in the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his +innocent flock. What have I said?</p> +<p>I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and +Child." In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical +and intellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the +right to do right; the right to do anything that did not interfere +with the real happiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty +to be the right to think right, and the right to think +wrong—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> + "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> +<center>DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER?</center> +<center>II.</center> +<p>IF this "sacred" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is +not inspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and +heartless as any devil could be.</p> +<p>"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn +among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are +with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your +possession.</p> +<p>"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children +after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your +bondmen forever.</p> +<p>"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, +<i>shall be</i> of the heathen that are round about you; of them +shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."—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> +<center>WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?</center> +<center>III.</center> +<p>FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that +the earth was made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours +each, and that on the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. +Geologists have driven the church from this position, and it is now +claimed that the days mentioned in the Bible are periods of time. +This is a simple evasion, not in any way supported by the +Scriptures. The Bible distinctly and clearly says that the world +was created in six days. There is not within its lids a clearer +statement. It does not say six periods. It was made according to +that book in six days:</p> +<p>31. "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it +was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth +day."—<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> +<center>WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?</center> +<center>IV.</center> +<p>WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was +understood by those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. +From time to time discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent +with the Scriptures. At first, theologians denounced the +discoverers of all facts inconsistent with the Bible, as atheists +and scoffers.</p> +<p>The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the +universe; that the sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck +called the earth. The men who discovered that all this was a +mistake were denounced by the ignorant clergy of that day, +precisely as the ignorant clergy of our time denounce the advocates +of free thought. When the doctrine of the earth's place in the +solar system was demonstrated; when persecution could no longer +conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church made an +effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of science. +When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation became +apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of +the Bible. Then it was pretended that the "days" of creation were +vast periods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible +that the sun revolved around the earth, then the account given by +Joshua of the sun standing still for the space of a whole day, was +changed into a figure of speech. It was said that Joshua merely +conformed to the mode of speech common in his day; and that when he +said the sun stood still, he merely intended to convey the idea +that the earth ceased turning upon its axis. They admitted that +stopping the sun could not lengthen the day, and for that reason it +must have been the earth that stopped. But you will remember that +the moon stood still in the valley of Ajalon—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> +<center>V.</center> +<p>IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to +give up the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all +the eminent theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, +they were right. To give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great +degree at least, the supernatural. To throw away the little ghosts +simply prepares the mind of man to give up the great ones. The +founders of nearly all creeds, and of all religions properly so +called, have taught the existence of good and evil spirits. They +have peopled the dark with devils and the light with angels. They +have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs. The moment +these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends, disappear +from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted for by +natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been +taken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While +the church believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified +form. The evil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and +more phenomena are accounted for by natural means. Just to the +extent that belief has been lost in spirits, just to that extent +the church has lost its power and authority. When men ceased to +account for the happening of any event by ascribing it to the +direct action of good or evil spirits, and began to reason from +known premises, the chains of superstition began to grow weak. Into +such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many Christians +not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take the +ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us +see:</p> +<p>"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."—<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> +<center>THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.</center> +<center>VI.</center> +<p>ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the +slavery of man.</p> +<p>18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not +obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, +when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.</p> +<p>19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and +bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of +his place.</p> +<p>20. "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our +son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a +glutton and a drunkard.</p> +<p>21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, +that he die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all +Israel shall hear, and fear."—<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> +<center>THE GALLANTRY OF GOD.</center> +<center>VII.</center> +<p>I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no +respect for the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It +takes something besides epithets and invectives to prove or +disprove anything. Let us see what the sacred volume says +concerning the mothers and daughters of the human race.</p> +<p>A man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has +not there an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is +less than a man.</p> +<p>11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.</p> +<p>12. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority +over the man, but to be in silence."</p> +<p>The reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to +the sacred writer, was:</p> +<p>13. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.</p> +<p>14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was +in the transgression.</p> +<p>15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if +they continue in faith and charity and holiness with +sobriety."—<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> +<center>DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE?</center> +<center>VIII.</center> +<p>READ the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of +Numbers—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> +<center>DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL +TYRANNY?</center> +<center>IX.</center> +<p>FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but +the right to govern himself. All political authority is vested in +the people themselves, They have the right to select their officers +and agents, and these officers and agents are responsible to the +people. Political authority does not come from the clouds. Man +should not be governed by the aristocracy of the air. The Bible is +not a Republican or Democratic book. Exactly the opposite doctrine +is taught. From that volume we learn that the people have no power +whatever; that all power and political authority comes from on +high, and that all the kings, all the potentates and powers, have +been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel kings have +been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of Deity. +The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one +duty—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> +<center>THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.</center> +<center>X.</center> +<p>THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world +with blood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, +Christians are beginning to say that men have a right to differ +upon religious questions provided the questions about which they +differ are not considered of great importance. The motto of the +Evangelical Alliance is: "In non-essentials, Liberty; in +essentials, Unity."</p> +<p>The Christian world have condescended to say that upon all +non-essential points we shall have the right to think for +ourselves; but upon matters of the least importance, they will +think and speak for us. In this they are consistent. They but +follow the teachings of the God they worship. They but adhere to +the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures. Within that +volume there is no such thing as religious toleration. Within that +volume there is not one particle of mercy for an unbeliever. For +all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners of their +own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any +Christian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that +extent false to his religion. Let us see what the "Magna Charta" of +liberty says upon this subject:</p> +<p>6. "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy +daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as +thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve +other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers.</p> +<p>7. "Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, +nigh unto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the +earth even unto the other end of the earth.</p> +<p>8. "Thou shalt not consent unto him; nor hearken unto him; +neither shall thine eye pity him; neither shalt thou spare, neither +shalt thou conceal him.</p> +<p>9. "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first +upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the +people.</p> +<p>10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because +he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which +brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of +bondage."—<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> +<center>DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY?</center> +<center>XI.</center> +<p>IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, +changeable, unjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of +the Hebrews? Is it possible to read the words said to have been +spoken by this Deity, without a shudder? Is it possible to +contemplate his character without hatred?</p> +<p>"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall +devour flesh."—<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> +<center>THE PLAN OF SALVATION.</center> +<center>XII.</center> +<p>WE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the +salvation of all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of +God is made manifest to the children of men. According to the great +scheme of the atonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in +order to satisfy a law. What kind of law must it be that is +satisfied with the agony of innocence? Who made this law? If God +made it he must have known that the innocent would have to suffer +as a consequence. The whole scheme is to me a medley of +contradictions, impossibilities and theological conclusions. We are +told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden +death never would have entered the world. We are further informed +that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not have +been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death never +would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first +parents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world, +you and I never would have existed. The earth would have been +filled thousands of generations before you and I were born. At the +feast of life, death made seats vacant for us. According to this +doctrine, we are indebted to the devil for our existence. Had he +not tempted Eve—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> +<center>OTHER RELIGIONS.</center> +<center>XIII.</center> +<p>WE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in +all ages endeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and +Whither? He has endeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to +pluck the secret of his existence from the night. He has questioned +the spectres of his own imagination. He has explored the mysterious +avenues of dreams. He has peopled the heavens with spirits. He has +mistaken his visions for realities. In the twilight of ignorance he +has mistaken shadows for gods. In all ages he has been the slave of +misery, the dupe of superstition and the fool of hope. He has +suffered and aspired.</p> +<p>Religion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we +throw aside the grosser and absurder forms of +faith—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> +<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.</h2> +<pre> + * Chicago Times, 1879. +</pre> +<p>To the Editor:—</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> +<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.</h2> +<pre> + * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883. +</pre> +<p>THE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. +David Walk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. +D. O'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as +described in the Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?—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> +<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.</h2> +<pre> + * Brooklyn Union, 1883. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost +unanimously have declared that the church is suffering very little +from the skepticism of the day, and that the influence of the +scientific writers, whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or +infidel, is not great; and that the books of such writers are not +read as much as some people think they are. What is your opinion +with regard to that subject?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> It is natural for a man to defend his business, +to stand by his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this +accounts for the ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the +increase. By comparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see +the progress that has been made. Only a few years ago men who are +now considered quite orthodox would have been imprisoned, or at +least mobbed, for heresy. Only a few years ago men like Huxley and +Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would have been +considered as the most infamous of monsters.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The +scientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. +With hat in hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a +fossil, and asked the forgiveness of God for making any discovery +in nature. At that time every scientific discovery was something to +be pardoned. Moses was authority in geology, and Joshua was +considered the first astronomer of the world. Now everything has +changed, and everybody knows it except the clergy. Now religion is +taking off its hat to science. Religion is finding out new meanings +for old texts. We are told that God spoke in the language of the +common people; that he was not teaching any science; that he +allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them +there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any +question of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a +spiritual way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the +Bible has ceased to be regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a +passage to settle a dispute of fact. The most intellectual men of +the world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men of the greatest +reputations hold all supernaturalism in contempt. Millions of +people are reading the opinions of men who combat and deny the +foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher than +all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought than +all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel +twenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember +when I would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick +as autumn leaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, +trades, and employments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are +not simply disbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not +with indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and +hundreds of thousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox +Christianity. Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable +contempt the doctrine of eternal punishment. The doctrine of +atonement is regarded as absurd by millions. So with the dogma of +imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that the +Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the arguments of +infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful reason: That the +hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from reading the +original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he cannot +defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more +infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the +theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister +who feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his +congregation is concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He +declares that the young people in his church don't know enough to +have intelligent doubts, and that the old people are substantially +in the same condition. Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a +breastwork so strong that other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. +Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity should never be refuted in the +pulpit. I admit that it never has been successfully done, but I did +not suppose so many ministers admitted the impossibility. Mr. Foote +is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells tells us that +scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not be spoken +of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling of +security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great +majority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about +current infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in +ignorance; that it would be dangerous for the Christian minister +even to state the position of the infidel; that, after stating it, +he might not, even with the help of God, successfully combat the +theory. These ministers do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for +infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke.</p> +<p>He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He +thinks that the church is safe because the Christians read. He +differs with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George +E. Reed believes that infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. +He has more confidence in his general and in the weapons of his +warfare than some of his brethren. His confidence may arise from +the fact that he has never had a discussion. The Rev. Dr. +McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the catechism; that +there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the brute +force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to +use the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the +rod is a divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for +their children; that mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the +religion of universal love. The man who cannot raise children +without whipping them ought not to have them. The man who would mar +the flesh of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human +being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps a relic of +barbarism in his heart. There is nothing reformatory in punishment; +nothing reformatory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is +the only reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an +abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and child upon a +savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father +prompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in +the victim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is +infamous. All this is passing away, however, with orthodox +Christianity. That children are treated better than formerly shows +conclusively the increase of what is called infidelity. Infidelity +has always been a protest against tyranny in the state, against +intolerance in the church, against barbarism in the family. It has +always been an appeal for light, for justice, for universal +kindness and tenderness.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that +worldliness is the greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is +on the increase?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I see that all the ministers you have interviewed +regard worldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is +worldliness? I suppose worldliness consists in paying attention to +the affairs of this world; getting enjoyment out of this life; +gratifying the senses, giving the ears music, the eyes painting and +sculpture, the palate good food; cultivating the imagination; +playing games of chance; adorning the person; developing the body; +enriching the mind; investigating the facts by which we are +surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking; working; +inventing; buying; selling; hoping—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> +<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.</h2> +<pre> + * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. + Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the + Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan + Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as + submitted in advance, were the following propositions: +</pre> +<p>Colonel Ingersoll's Opening.</p> +<p>Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:</p> +<p>I AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to +differ with me. I want to convince you that you are under no +compulsion to accept my creed; that you are, so far as I am +concerned, absolutely free to follow the torch of your reason +according to your conscience; and I believe that you are civilized +to that degree that you will extend to me the right that you claim +for yourselves.</p> +<p>First. Thought is a necessary natural product—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> +<center>REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.</center> +<p><i>Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President</i>: It is not only +"the sense of the church" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is +any sense at all; and I am only wondering how a reasonably +intelligent being—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> +<center>GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.</center> +<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> +<center>REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.</center> +<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> +<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A CHRISTMAS SERMON.</h2> +<pre> + * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel + Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December + 19,1891. +</pre> +<center>I.</center> +<p>THE good part of Christmas is not always Christian—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> +<center>II.</center> +<p>WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for +kindness, charity and love.</p> +<p>The gentle editor of the <i>Christian Advocate</i> charges me +with having written three "gigantic falsehoods," and he points them +out as follows: <i>First</i>—"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> +<center>III.</center> +<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> +<center>INGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.</center> +<center>IV.</center> +<p><i>To the Editor of the Evening Telegram</i> :</p> +<p>SOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the +columns of the <i>Telegram</i> have wandered from the questions +under discussion. It may be well enough to state what is really in +dispute.</p> +<p>I was called to account for having stated that Christianity did +not bring "tidings of great joy," but a message of eternal +grief—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> + "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> +<center>INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.</center> +<center>V.</center> +<p>NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.</p> +<p>The industrious people of the world—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> +<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.</h2> +<pre> + *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis + Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read an article in the <i>Western +Watchman</i>, entitled "Suicide of Judge Normile"? If so, what is +your opinion of it?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read the article, and I think the spirit +in which it is written is in exact accord with the creed, with the +belief, that prompted it.</p> +<p>In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but +of Henry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had +been shocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no +right "to feel special concern in the life or death of either," for +the reason, "that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as +infidels and scoffers."</p> +<p>According to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on +the direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the <i>Watchman</i> is +to be believed, Catholics have no right to have special concern for +the fate of such people, even after their death.</p> +<p>The church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the +lost—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> + "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> +<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>IS SUICIDE A SIN?</h2> +<pre> + * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894. +</pre> +<p>Col. Ingersoll's First Letter.</p> +<p>I DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If +it is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more +sorrow, more failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to +despair. In civilized life there is a great struggle, great +competition, and many fail. To fail in a great city is like being +wrecked at sea. In the country a man has friends; he can get a +little credit, a little help, but in the city it is different. The +man is lost in the multitude. In the roar of the streets, his cry +is not heard. Death becomes his only friend. Death promises release +from want, from hunger and pain, and so the poor wretch lays down +his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and falls asleep.</p> +<p>To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many +endure and suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark +of life in huts and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of +misery and want; support it by beggary, by eating the crust found +in the gutter, and to whom it only gives days of weariness and +nights of fear and dread. Why should the man, sitting amid the +wreck of all he had, the loved ones dead, friends lost, seek to +lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the future have for +him?</p> +<p>Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. +When life is of no value to him, when he can be of no real +assistance to others, why should a man continue? When he is of no +benefit, when he is a burden to those he loves, why should he +remain? The old idea was that God made us and placed us here for a +purpose and that it was our duty to remain until he called us. The +world is outgrowing this absurdity. What pleasure can it give God +to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the quivering flesh +slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is this a +festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A +little morphine would give him sleep—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> +<center>COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.</center> +<p>IN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken +that "under many circumstances a man has the right to kill +himself."</p> +<p>This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and +the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of +self-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life +is the gift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days +of men; that it is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with +grateful patience. Some have denounced suicide as the worst of +crimes—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> +<center>SUICIDE A SIN.</center> +<pre> + * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you think that what you have written about +suicide has caused people to take their lives?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I do not. People do not kill themselves +because of the ideas of others. They are the victims of +misfortune.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you consider the chief cause of +suicide?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> There are many causes. Some individuals are +crossed in love, others are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still +others are diseased in body and frequently in mind. There are a +thousand and one causes that lead up to the final act.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you consider that nationality plays a part +in these tragedies?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No, it is a question of individuals. There are +those whose sorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers +seek the peace of death.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you, then, advise suicide?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I have never done so, but I have said, and +still say, that there are circumstances under which it is +justifiable for a person to take his life.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the law which prohibits +self-destruction?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a +man was tried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I +think he pleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the +terrible crime of the poor wretch, sentenced him to the +penitentiary for two years. This was an outrage; infamous in every +way, and a disgrace to our civilization.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the +frequency of suicides?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> By no means. After this, persons in New York who +have made up their minds to commit suicide will see to it that they +succeed.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have your opinions been in any way modified +since your first announcement of them?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No +one can answer my articles on suicide, because no one can +satisfactorily refute them. Every man of sense knows that a person +being devoured by a cancer has the right to take morphine, and pass +from agony to dreamless sleep. So, too, there are circumstances +under which a man has the right to end his pain of mind.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you seen in the papers that many who have +killed themselves have had on their persons some article of yours +on suicide?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that +I do not think these persons were led to kill themselves by reading +the articles. Many people who have killed themselves were found to +have Bibles or tracts in their pockets.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How do you account for the presence of the +latter?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> The reason of this is that the theologians know +nothing. The pious imagine that their God has placed us here for +some wise and inscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us +when he wants us. All this is idiotic. When a man is of no use to +himself or to others, when his days and nights are filled with pain +and sorrow, why should he remain to endure them longer?</p> +<center>SUICIDE A SIN.</center> +<pre> + * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview. +</pre> +<p>COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he +had read the Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an +interview had with the reverend gentleman.</p> +<p>Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same +views still. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion +among the orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected +when anything sensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a +little common sense with his theology, and, of course this has +displeased the truly orthodox.</p> +<p>Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of +supernatural religion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. +The orthodox ministers take the ground that an infinite Being +created man, put him on the earth and determined his days. They say +that God desires every person to live until he, God, calls for his +soul. They insist that we are all on guard and must remain so until +relieved by a higher power—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> +<center>SUICIDE AND SANITY.</center> +<pre> + * New York Press, 1897. An Interview. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first +question, to which Colonel Ingersoll replied:</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No. At the same time I believe that a great +majority of suicides are insane. There are circumstances under +which suicide is natural, sensible and right. When a man is of no +use to himself, when he can be of no use to others, when his life +is filled with agony, when the future has no promise of relief, +then I think he has the right to cast the burden of life away and +seek the repose of death.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with +suicide. Of nearly all things death is the most feared. And the man +who voluntarily enters the realm of death cannot properly be called +a coward. Many men who kill themselves forget the duties they owe +to others—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> +<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?</h2> +<pre> + *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and + Avarice Triumphant," published in the North American Review, + June, 1891. +</pre> +<p>THERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy +individual and national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of +evil. They mistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening +of the world. To them everything has changed. Men are no longer +honest or brave, and women have ceased to be beautiful. They are +dyspeptic, and it gives them the greatest pleasure to say that the +art of cooking has been lost.</p> +<p>For many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. +They lifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step +in advance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and +goodness and self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. +They doubted the morality of well-dressed people—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> +<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.</h2> +<pre> + * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made +on your lectures by the <i>Cincinnati Gazette</i> and the +<i>Catholic Telegraph</i>?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read portions of the articles.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of them?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, they are hardly of importance enough to +form a distinct subject of thought.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Well, what do you think of the attempted +argument of the <i>Gazette</i> against your lecture on Moses?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> The writer endeavors to show that considering the +ignorance prevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one +could reasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the +advantage of telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this +reason a few mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also +shows that, although God was in favor of slavery he introduced some +reforms; but whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate +slavery or to help the slave is not stated. The article has nothing +to do with my position. I am perfectly willing to admit that there +is a land called Egypt; that the Jews were once slaves; that they +got away and started a little country of their own. All this may be +true without proving that they were miraculously fed in the +wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or that God went into +partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have been a man by +the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned into +snakes.</p> +<p>A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the +course of his remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and +had brought a stone from the mountain. He requested the children to +pass in line before him so that they could all get a look at this +wonderful stone. After they had all seen it he said: "You will as +you grow up meet people who will deny that there ever was a flood, +or that God saved Noah and the animals in the ark, and then you can +tell them that you know better, because you saw a stone from the +very mountain where the ark rested."</p> +<p>That is precisely the kind of argument used in the +<i>Gazette</i>. The article was written by some one who does not +quite believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures himself, and +were it not for the fear of hell, would probably say so.</p> +<p>I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as +Mecca, such a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made +known his will to Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the +<i>Gazette</i> would answer all this by saying that Mohammed did +exist, and that therefore God must have talked with him. I admit +that there was such a general as Washington, but I do not admit +that God kept him from being shot. I admit that there is a portrait +of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not admit that it shed tears. +I admit that there was such a man as Moses, but I do not admit that +God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I admit that there was +such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit that he carried his +head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the river, and put +his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit that the +article appeared in the <i>Gazette</i>, but I do not admit that it +amounted to anything whatever.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Did you notice what the <i>Catholic +Telegraph</i> said about your lecture being ungrammatical?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the <i>Catholic +Telegraph</i> occurs the following: "The lecture was a failure as +brilliant as Ingersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric." After +making this statement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, +after finding fault with my "ungrammatical rhetoric" he then writes +the following sentence: "It could not boast neither of novelty in +argument or of attractive language." After this, nothing should be +noticed that this gentleman says on the subject of grammar.</p> +<p>In this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing +is more remarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys +manners. With one exception, no priest has ever written about me, +so far as I know, except in an arrogant and insolent manner. They +seem utterly devoid of the usual amenities of life. Every one who +differs with them is vile, ignorant and malicious. But, after all, +what can you expect of a gentleman who worships a God who will damn +dimpled babes to an eternity of fire, simply because they were not +baptized.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page +of history and the newest page of science are nothing more than +commentaries on the Mosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses +has been believed in, and has been received as the highest truth by +the very brightest names in science. What do you think of that +statement?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I think it is without the least foundation in +fact, and is substantially like the gentleman's theology, depending +simply upon persistent assertion.</p> +<p>I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that +the fossil animals were in any way related to the animals now +living, and believed that God had frequently destroyed all life +upon the earth and then produced other forms. Agassiz was the last +scientist of any standing who ventured to throw a crumb of comfort +to this idea.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you mean to say that all the great living +scientists regard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I do. I say this: All men of science and men of +sense look upon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who +stands in the same relation to science that Shakespeare did to the +drama, held this opinion. The same is held by the best minds in +Germany, by Huxley, Tyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John +W. Draper and others in the United States. Whoever agrees with +Moses is some poor frightened orthodox gentleman afraid of losing +his soul or his salary, and as a rule, both are exceedingly +small.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Some people say that you slander the Bible in +saying that God went into partnership with hornets, and declare +that there is no such passage in the Bible.</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of +the twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I will send hornets before +thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the +Hittite from before thee."</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you find in lecturing through the country +that your ideas are generally received with favor?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many +freethinkers as there were five years ago. In five years more we +will be in the majority.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Is it true that the churches, as a general +thing, make strong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent +people from going to hear you?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes; in many places ministers have advised their +congregations to keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly +dangerous man. The result has generally been a full house, and I +have hardly ever failed to publicly return my thanks to the clergy +for acting as my advance agents.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to +convert you?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Not often. But I do receive a great many +anonymous letters, threatening me with the wrath of God, and +calling my attention to the uncertainty of life and the certainty +of damnation. These letters are nearly all written in the ordinary +Christian spirit; that is to say, full of hatred and +impertinence.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Don't you think it remarkable that the +<i>Telegraph</i>, a Catholic paper, should quote with extravagant +praise, an article from such an orthodox sheet as the +<i>Gazette</i>?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not. All the churches must make common +cause. All superstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. +In a few years all the churches will be united. This will unite all +forms of liberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of +arrogance, of theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to +see a Catholic quoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the +same men would have taken great pleasure in swearing that the +Catholic Church was the worst possible organization. That church +should forever hold its peace. Wherever it has had authority it has +destroyed human liberty. It reduced Italy to a hand organ, Spain to +a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to contempt. Catholicism is +the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of man has withered. The +recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew should make a +priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre should +make a Protestant careful.</p> +<p>I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party +denounces Garibaldi, the hero of Italy, as a "pet tiger" to Victor +Emmanuel. I could not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank +him for his abuse.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What do you think of the point that no one is +able to judge of these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I do not think it is necessary to understand +Hebrew to decide as to the probability of springs gushing out of +dead bones, or of the dead getting out of their graves, or of the +probability of ravens keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I +hardly think it is necessary even to be a Greek scholar to make up +my mind as to whether devils actually left a person and took refuge +in the bodies of swine. Besides, if the Bible is not properly +translated, the circulation ought to stop until the corrections are +made. I am not accountable if God made a revelation to me in a +language that he knew I never would understand. If he wishes to +convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do it in +English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to +it.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible +owing to mistranslations?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been +made to help out the text. It would be much worse, much more +contradictory had it been correctly translated. Nearly all of the +<i>mistakes</i>, as Mr. Weller would say, have been made for the +purposes of harmony.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. How many errors do you suppose there are?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, I do not know. It has been reported that +the American Bible Society appointed a committee to hunt for +errors, and the said committee returned about twenty-four to +twenty-five thousand. And thereupon the leading men said, to +correct so many errors will destroy the confidence of the common +people in the sacredness of the Scriptures. Thereupon it was +decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other day that a +very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that they knew +they were publishing a book full of errors.</p> +<p><i>Question</i>. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> My first objection is, it is not true.</p> +<p>Second.—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> +<a name="link0011" id="link0011"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</h2> +<pre> + * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have +been indicted in the State of Delaware for the crime of +blasphemy?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I +believe, is the Chief Justice of the State, dedicated the new +court-house at Wilmington to the service of the Lord, by a charge +to the grand jury, in which he almost commanded them to bring in a +bill of indictment against me, for what he was pleased to call the +crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter of fact, there can be no crime +committed by man against God, provided always that a correct +definition of the Deity has been given by the orthodox churches. +They say that he is infinite. If so, he is conditionless. I can +injure a man by changing his conditions. Take from a man water, and +he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and he suffocates; he may +die from too much, or too little heat. That is because he is a +conditioned being. But if God is conditionless, he cannot in any +way be affected by what anybody else may do; and, consequently, a +sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the principle of +the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy was +invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able +to take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork +behind which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. +Injustice is the only blasphemy that can be committed, and justice +is the only true worship. Man can sin against man, but not against +God. But even if man could sin against God, it has always struck me +that an infinite being would be entirely able to take care of +himself without the assistance of a Chief Justice. Men have always +been violating the rights of men, under the plea of defending the +rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so perfectly delightful +to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge, and get God in +his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has taken this +occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in heaven, +and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified copy +of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help +satisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little +ahead.</p> +<p>The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That +lecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; +and, to tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what +a Yankee would call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for +me to tell whether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of +course I have no personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In +fact he has done me a favor. He has called the attention of the +civilized world to certain barbarian laws that disfigure and +disgrace the statute books of most of the States. These laws were +passed when our honest ancestors were burning witches, trading +Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and molasses, branding +people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with hot irons, +putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the name of +God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We have +outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter +of fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the +States, like Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though +there might be trouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware, +without getting one man broad enough, sensible enough, and honest +enough, to do justice. I hardly think it would be possible in any +State to select a jury in the ordinary way that would convict any +person charged with what is commonly known as blasphemy.</p> +<p>All the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of +being blasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the +Presbyterians as blasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the +Baptists; the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Catholics all +united in denouncing the Quakers, and they all together denounced +the Unitarians—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> +<center>AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.</center> +<pre> + * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' +compliments to you before the Delaware grand jury?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies +upon the law passed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to +me as though he had died about the date of the law, had risen from +the dead, and had gone right on where he had left off. I presume he +is a good man, but compared with other men, is something like his +State when compared with other States.</p> +<p>A great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge +Comegys as unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of +Delaware is in exact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, +the whip-ping-post, and the suppression of free speech are the +natural fruit of the Old and New Testament.</p> +<p>Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, +without the protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the +protection of law, and all church property would be taxed like +other property. The Sabbath would be no longer a day devoted to +superstition. Everyone could express his honest thought upon every +possible subject. Everyone, notwithstanding his belief, could +testify in a court of justice. In other words, honesty would be on +an equality with hypocrisy. Science would stand on a level, so far +as the law is concerned, with superstition. Whenever this happens +the end of orthodox Christianity will be near.</p> +<p>By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, +forgiveness. I mean no natural virtue, because all the natural +virtues existed and had been practiced by hundreds and thousands of +millions before Christ was born. There certainly were some good men +even in the days of Christ in Jerusalem, before his death.</p> +<p>By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a +good man dying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in +full. By Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the +next world a few will be forever happy, while the many will be +eternally miserable. Christianity, as I have explained it, must be +protected, guarded, and sustained by law. It was founded by the +sword that is to say, by physical force,—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> +<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.</h2> +<pre> + * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday + afternoon, when he answered the question "What Must We Do to + Be Saved?" But before doing so he replied to the recent + criticisms of city clergymen on his "Talmagian Theology"— + 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> +<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.</h2> +<pre> + * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the + issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts + transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the + starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had + struck because they could not live on reduced wages. + Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing + starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up + the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle + for higher wages + + While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of + destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a + fund "for the extension of the church." The extension + committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with + such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city. + The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter + twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging + between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning + Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money + contributed for the extension of the church would find its + way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers. + + Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the + matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other + things that demanded his immediate attention. + + Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension + Committee, was seen at his office in the North American + Bank, of which institution he is President. + + He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their + trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the + charitable to extend to them direct aid. + + Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor + and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the + church. + + "The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the + giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their + idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save + men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally. + + "It is best to teach people to rely upon their own + resources. If the poor felt that they could get material + help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or + woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my + typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she + gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the + lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where + people are poor, it's their own fault. + + "After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of + material things—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> +<a name="link0014" id="link0014"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.</h2> +<pre> + * Boston, 1898. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some +attention to the lecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of +October. Have you read a report of it, and what have you to +say?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. +Mr. Mills. I do not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but +from what Dr. Plumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little +philosophy with his religion and some science with his +superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to have successfully avoided both. +His manners do not appear to me to be of the best. Why should he +call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply because he does not +happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to say that this +"poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven, a +majestic being—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> +<a name="link0015" id="link0015"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.</h2> +<pre> + * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview. +</pre> +<p><i>Question</i>. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, +the interest manifested in the letters to the <i>Journal</i> which +have followed your lecture of Sunday, and what do you think of +them?</p> +<p><i>Answer.</i> I have read the letters and reports that have +been published in the <i>Journal</i>. Some of them seem to be very +sincere, some not quite honest, and some a little of both.</p> +<p>The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many +Christians do not believe in a personal devil, but are still +Christians. He states that they hold that the references in the New +Testament to the devil are simply to personifications of evil, and +do not apply to any personal existence. He says that he could give +the names of a number of pastors who hold such views. He does not +state what his view is. Consequently, I do not know whether he is a +believer in a personal devil or not.</p> +<p>The statement that the references in the New Testament to a +devil are simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any +personal existence, seems to me utterly absurd.</p> +<p>The references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as +good and satisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the +angels referred to in the New Testament simply personifications of +good, and are there no such personal existences? If devils are only +personifications of evil, how is it that these personifications of +evil could hold arguments with Jesus Christ? How could they talk +back? How could they publicly acknowledge the divinity of Christ? +As a matter of fact, the best evidences of Christ's divinity in the +New Testament are the declarations of devils. These devils were +supposed to be acquainted with supernatural things, and +consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the average Jew, +not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was unable to +recognize a deity when he met him.</p> +<p>Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls +them, were of various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others +could talk, and Christ said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they +were very difficult to expel from the bodies of men; that it +required fasting and prayer to get them out. Now, did Christ mean +that these dumb devils did not exist? That they were only +"personifications of evil"?</p> +<p>Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was +tempted by the devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and +that this personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple +and tried to induce him to jump off. Now, where did this +personification of evil come from? Was it an actual existence? Dr. +MacArthur says that it may not have been. Then it did not come from +the outside of Christ. If it existed it came from the inside of +Christ, so that, according to MacArthur, Christ was the creator of +his own devil.</p> +<p>I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. +MacArthur's opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his +opinion. I hope some time he will tell us whether he really +believes in a devil or not, or whether he thinks all allusions and +references to devils in the New Testament can be explained away by +calling the devils "personifications of evil." Then, of course, he +will tell us whether it was a "personification of evil" that +offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and whether Christ +expelled seven "personifications of evil" from Mary Magdalene, and +how did they come to count these "personifications of evil"? If the +devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil," then, of +course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may be +different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and +yet Mary Magdalene had seven.</p> +<p>Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then +vigorously beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man +of straw? I take it for granted that Christians to some extent, at +least, believe in their creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as +the inspired word of God; that they believe in the fall of man, in +the atonement, in salvation by faith, in the resurrection and +ascension of Christ. I take it for granted that they believe these +things. Of course, the only evidence I have is what they say. +Possibly that cannot be depended upon. They may be dealing only in +the "personification of truth."</p> +<p>When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these +things, I am told that I am far behind the religious thinking of +the hour, but after all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful. +Prof. Briggs attacked this "man of straw," and the straw man turned +on him and put him out. A preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher +in some seminary out in Ohio, challenged this "man of straw," and +the straw man put him out.</p> +<p>Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, +and if the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I +mean only explain what he calls the "religious thinking of the +hour," the "straw man" will put him out too.</p> +<p>Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds +of representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval +monks, which leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will +Dr. MacArthur have the goodness to point out one opinion that I +have put into the minds of representative thinkers—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> +</body> +</html> |