diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:13 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:13 -0700 |
| commit | 99b5d26c420c0f00ffd2baabbe689cd9d1e4ef65 (patch) | |
| tree | 3a71645c06434f563e285607daf6fb002ffc11c5 /old | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38811-h/images/frontispiece.jpg | bin | 0 -> 66335 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38811-h/images/titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 66178 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38811-h/main.htm | 16777 |
3 files changed, 16777 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38811-h/images/frontispiece.jpg b/old/orig38811-h/images/frontispiece.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a65bbd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38811-h/images/frontispiece.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38811-h/images/titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38811-h/images/titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..38fe04e --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38811-h/images/titlepage.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38811-h/main.htm b/old/orig38811-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..833b571 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38811-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,16777 @@ +<!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, Vol. 11 (of 12) 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> +<br /> +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> +<br /> +<h3>"TO PLOW IS TO PRAY; TO PLANT IS TO PROPHESY,<br /> +AND THE HARVEST ANSWERS AND FULFILLS."</h3> +<br /> +<h3>IN TWELVE VOLUMES, VOLUME XI.</h3> +<br /> +<h2>MISCELLANY</h2> +<br /> +<h3>1900</h3> +<br /> +<h3>DRESDEN EDITION</h3> +<br /> +<center><img alt="titlepage (64K)" src="images/titlepage.jpg" +height="958" width="607" /></center> +<br /> +<br /> +<center><img alt="frontispiece (64K)" src="images/frontispiece.jpg" +height="611" width="898" /></center> +<br /> +<center>North View of "Walston," Dobbs Ferry-on-Hudson, New +York</center> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<h2>Contents</h2> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC">CONTENTS OF VOLUME XI.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">ADDRESS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS +ACT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR +BLASPHEMY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">A REPLY TO BISHOP +SPALDING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">CRIMES AGAINST +CRIMINALS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A WOODEN GOD.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SOME INTERROGATION +POINTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">ART AND MORALITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF +FAITH.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">ERNEST RENAN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0013">TOLSTOÏ AND "THE KREUTZER +SONATA."</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">THOMAS PAINE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">THE THREE +PHILANTHROPISTS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0016">SHOULD THE CHINESE BE +EXCLUDED?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0017">A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0018">WHAT I WANT FOR +CHRISTMAS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0019">FOOL FRIENDS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0020">INSPIRATION</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0021">THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0022">HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL +PAPER.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0023">SECULARISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0024">CRITICISM OF "ROBERT ELSMERE," +"JOHN WARD, PREACHER," AND "AN AFRICAN FARM."</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0025">THE LIBEL LAWS</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0026">REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A +NEW RELIGION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0027">AN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0028">HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE +SIDE?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0029">THE IMPROVED MAN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0030">EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0031">THE JEWS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0032">CRUMBLING CREEDS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0033">OUR SCHOOLS.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0034">VIVISECTION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0035">THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL +CATECHISM.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0036">THE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0037">SPIRITUALITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0038">SUMTER'S GUN.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0039">WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0040">CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA +REFORMATORY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0041">LAW'S DELAY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0042">THE BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0043">A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES +TO-DAY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0044">SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0045">SOWING AND REAPING.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0046">SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR +CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0047">WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR +THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0048">GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY +PROCLAMATION.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0049">A LOOK BACKWARD AND A +PROPHECY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0050">POLITICAL MORALITY.</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0051">A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE +INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.</a></p> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="linkTOC" id="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME XI.</h2> +<blockquote> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0001">ADDRESS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS +ACT.</a></p> +<br /> +Introduction by Frederick Douglass("Abou Ben Adhem")—Decision +of<br /> +the United States Supreme Court pronouncing the Civil Rights +Act<br /> +Unconstitutional—Limitations of Judges—Illusion +Destroyed by the<br /> +Decision in the Dred Scott Case—Mistake of Our Fathers in +adopting<br /> +the Common Law of England—The 13th Amendment to the +Constitution<br /> +Quoted—The Clause of the Constitution upholding +Slavery—Effect of<br /> +this Clause—Definitions of a State by Justice Wilson and +Chief Justice<br /> +Chase—Effect of the Thirteenth Amendment—Justice Field +on Involuntary<br /> +Servitude—Civil Rights Act Quoted—Definition of the +Word Servitude by<br /> +the Supreme Court—Obvious Purpose of the +Amendment—Justice Miller<br /> +on the 14th Amendment—Citizens Created by this +Amendment—Opinion<br /> +of Justice Field—Rights and Immunities guaranteed by +the<br /> +Constitution—Opinion delivered by Chief-Justice +Waite—Further Opinions<br /> +of Courts on the question of Citizenship—Effect of the 13th, +14th and<br /> +15th Amendments—"Corrective" Legislation by +Congress—Denial of equal<br /> +"Social" Privileges—Is a State responsible for the Action of +its Agent<br /> +when acting contrary to Law?—The Word "State" must include +the People<br /> +of the State as well as the Officers of the State—The +Louisiana Civil<br /> +Rights Law, and a Case tried under it—Uniformity of Duties +essential to<br /> +the Carrier—Congress left Powerless to protect Rights +conferred by the<br /> +Constitution—Definition of "Appropriate +Legislation"—Propositions laid<br /> +down regarding the Sovereignty of the State, the powers of the +General<br /> +Government, etc.—A Tribute to Justice Harlan—A Denial +that Property<br /> +exists by Virtue of Law—Civil Rights not a Question of +Social<br /> +Equality—Considerations upon which Social Equality +depends—Liberty not<br /> +a Question of Social Equality—The Superior +Man—Inconsistencies of the<br /> +Past—No Reason why we should Hate the Colored +People—The Issues that<br /> +are upon Us.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002">TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR +BLASPHEMY.</a></p> +<br /> +ADDRESS TO THE JURY.<br /> +Report of the Case from the New York Times (note)—The Right +to express<br /> +Opinions—Attempts to Rule the Minds of Men by +Force—Liberty the<br /> +Greatest Good—Intellectual Hospitality Defined—When the +Catholic<br /> +Church had Power—Advent of the Protestants—The +Puritans, Quakers.<br /> +Unitarians, Universalists—What is Blasphemy?—Why this +Trial should not<br /> +have Taken Place—Argument cannot be put in Jail—The +Constitution of<br /> +New Jersey—A higher Law than Men can Make—The Blasphemy +Statute<br /> +Quoted and Discussed—Is the Statute Constitutional?—The +Harm done<br /> +by Blasphemy Laws—The Meaning of this +Persecution—Religions are<br /> +Ephemeral—Let us judge each other by our Actions—Men +who have braved<br /> +Public Opinion should be Honored—The Blasphemy Law if +enforced would<br /> +rob the World of the Results of Scientific Research—It +declares the<br /> +Great Men of to-day to be Criminals—The Indictment Read and +Commented<br /> +upon—Laws that go to Sleep—Obsolete Dogmas the Denial +of which was<br /> +once punished by Death—Blasphemy Characterized—On the +Argument<br /> +that Blasphemy Endangers the Public Peace—A Definition of +real<br /> +Blasphemy—Trials for Blasphemy in England—The case of +Abner<br /> +Kneeland—True Worship, Prayer, and Religion—What is +Holy and<br /> +Sacred—What is Claimed in this Case—For the Honor of +the State—The<br /> +word Liberty—Result of the Trial (note).<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003">GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.</a></p> +<br /> +The Feudal System—Office and Purpose of our +Constitution—Which God<br /> +shall we Select?—The Existence of any God a Matter of +Opinion—What is<br /> +entailed by a Recognition of a God in the Constitution—Can +the Infinite<br /> +be Flattered with a Constitutional Amendment?—This government +is<br /> +Secular—The Government of God a Failure—The Difference +between the<br /> +Theological and the Secular Spirit—A Nation neither Christian +nor<br /> +Infidel—The Priest no longer a Necessity—Progress of +Science and the<br /> +Development of the Mind.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004">A REPLY TO BISHOP +SPALDING.</a></p> +<br /> +On God in the Constitution—Why the Constitutional Convention +ignored<br /> +the Question of Religion—The Fathers +Misrepresented—Reasons why the<br /> +Attributes of God should not form an Organic Part of the Law of +the<br /> +Land—The Effect of a Clause Recognizing God.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005">CRIMES AGAINST +CRIMINALS.</a></p> +<br /> +The Three Pests of a Community—I. Forms of Punishment and +Torture—More<br /> +Crimes Committed than Prevented by Governments—II. Are not +Vices<br /> +transmitted by Nature?—111. Is it Possible for all People to +be<br /> +Honest?—Children of Vice as the natural Product of +Society—Statistics:<br /> +the Relation between Insanity, Pauperism, and Crime—IV. The +Martyrs of<br /> +Vice—Franklin's Interest in the Treatment of +Prisoners—V. Kindness<br /> +as a Remedy—Condition of the Discharged Prisoner—VI. +Compensation<br /> +for Convicts—VII. Professional Criminals—Shall the +Nation take<br /> +Life?—Influence of Public Executions on the +Spectators—Lynchers<br /> +for the Most Part Criminals at Heart—VIII. The Poverty of the +Many a<br /> +perpetual Menace—Limitations of Land-holding.—IX. +Defective Education<br /> +by our Schools—Hands should be educated as well as +Head—Conduct<br /> +improved by a clearer Perception of Consequences—X. The +Discipline of<br /> +the average Prison Hardening and Degrading—While Society +cringes before<br /> +Great Thieves there will be Little Ones to fill the Jails—XI. +Our<br /> +Ignorance Should make us Hesitate.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0006">A WOODEN GOD.</a></p> +<br /> +On Christian and Chinese worship—Report of the Select +Committee<br /> +on Chinese Immigration—The only true God as contrasted +with<br /> +Joss—Sacrifices to the "Living God"—Messrs. Wright, +Dickey, O'Connor<br /> +and Murch on the "Religious System" of the American Union—How +to prove<br /> +that Christians are better than Heathens—Injustice in the +Name of<br /> +God—An honest Merchant the best Missionary—A Few +Extracts from<br /> +Confucius—The Report proves that the Wise Men of China who +predicted<br /> +that Christians could not be Trusted were not only Philosophers +but<br /> +Prophets.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0007">SOME INTERROGATION +POINTS.</a></p> +<br /> +A New Party and its Purpose—The Classes that Exist in +every<br /> +Country—Effect of Education on the Common People—Wants +Increased by<br /> +Intelligence—The Dream of 1776—The Monopolist and the +Competitor—The<br /> +War between the Gould and Mackay Cables—Competition +between<br /> +Monopolies—All Advance in Legislation made by Repealing +Laws—Wages<br /> +and Values not to be fixed by Law—Men and Machines—The +Specific of<br /> +the Capitalist: Economy—The poor Man and Woman devoured +by<br /> +their Fellow-men—Socialism one of the Worst Possible forms +of<br /> +Slavery—Liberty not to be exchanged for Comfort—Will +the Workers<br /> +always give their Earnings for the Useless?—Priests, +Successful Frauds,<br /> +and Robed Impostors.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0008">ART AND MORALITY.</a></p> +<br /> +The Origin of Man's Thoughts—The imaginative +Man—"Medicinal View" of<br /> +Poetry—Rhyme and Religion—The theological Poets and +their Purpose in<br /> +Writing—Moral Poets and their "Unwelcome Truths"—The +really Passionate<br /> +are the Virtuous—Difference between the Nude and the +Naked—Morality<br /> +the Melody of Conduct—The inculcation of Moral Lessons not +contemplated<br /> +by Artists or great Novelists—Mistaken Reformers—Art +not a<br /> +Sermon—Language a Multitude of Pictures—Great Pictures +and Great<br /> +Statues painted and chiseled with Words—Mediocrity moral from +a<br /> +Necessity which it calls Virtue—Why Art Civilizes—The +Nude—The Venus<br /> +de Milo—This is Art.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0009">THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF +FAITH.</a></p> +<br /> +The Way in which Theological Seminaries were +Endowed—Religious<br /> +Guide-boards—Vast Interests interwoven with +Creeds—Pretensions of<br /> +Christianity—Kepler's Discovery of his Three Great +Laws—Equivocations<br /> +and Evasions of the Church—Nature's Testimony against +the<br /> +Bible—The Age of Man on the Earth—"Inspired" Morality +of the<br /> +Bible—Miracles—Christian Dogmas—What the church +has been Compelled to<br /> +Abandon—The Appeal to Epithets, Hatred and +Punishment—"Spirituality"<br /> +the last Resource of the Orthodox—What is it to be +Spiritual?—Two<br /> +Questions for the Defenders of Orthodox Creeds.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0010">WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?</a></p> +<br /> +Part I. Inharmony of Nature and the Lot of Man with the Goodness +and<br /> +Wisdom of a supposed Deity—Why a Creator is +Imagined—Difficulty of the<br /> +Act of Creation—Belief in Supernatural Beings—Belief +and Worship among<br /> +Savages—Questions of Origin and Destiny—Progress +impossible without<br /> +Change of Belief—Circumstances Determining Belief—How +may the<br /> +True Religion be Ascertained?—Prosperity of Nations nor +Virtue<br /> +of Individuals Dependent on Religions or Gods—Uninspired +Books<br /> +Superior—Part II. The Christian +Religion—Credulity—Miracles cannot<br /> +be Established—Effect of Testimony—Miraculous Qualities +of all<br /> +Religions—Theists and Naturalists—The Miracle of +Inspiration—How<br /> +can the alleged Fact of Inspiration be Established?—God's +work and<br /> +Man's—Rewards for Falsehood offered by the Church.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0011">HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.</a></p> +<br /> +Statement by the Principal of King's College—On the +Irrelevancy of a<br /> +Lack of Scientific Knowledge—Difference between the Agnostic +and<br /> +the Christian not in Knowledge but in Credulity—The real name +of<br /> +an Agnostic said to be "Infidel"—What an Infidel +is—"Unpleasant"<br /> +significance of the Word—Belief in Christ—"Our Lord and +his Apostles"<br /> +possibly Honest Men—Their Character not +Invoked—Possession by evil<br /> +spirits—Professor Huxley's Candor and Clearness—The +splendid Dream<br /> +of Auguste Comte—Statement of the Positive +Philosophy—Huxley and<br /> +Harrison.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0012">ERNEST RENAN.</a></p> +<br /> +His Rearing and his Anticipated Biography—The complex +Character of the<br /> +Christ of the Gospels—Regarded as a Man by Renan—The +Sin against the<br /> +Holy Ghost—Renan on the Gospels—No Evidence that they +were written<br /> +by the Men whose Names they Bear—Written long after the +Events they<br /> +Describe—Metaphysics of the Church found in the Gospel of +John—Not<br /> +Apparent why Four Gospels should have been Written—Regarded +as<br /> +legendary Biographies—In "flagrant contradiction one with +another"—The<br /> +Divine Origin of Christ an After-growth—Improbable that he +intended to<br /> +form a Church—Renan's Limitations—Hebrew +Scholarship—His "People of<br /> +Israel"—His Banter and Blasphemy.<br /> +TOLSTOY AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA."<br /> +Tolstoy's Belief and Philosophy—His Asceticism—His View +of Human<br /> +Love—Purpose of "The Kreutzer Sonata"—Profound +Difference between the<br /> +Love of Men and that of Women—Tolstoy cannot now found a +Religion, but<br /> +may create the Necessity for another Asylum—The +Emotions—The Curious<br /> +Opinion Dried Apples have of Fruit upon the +Tree—Impracticability of<br /> +selling All and giving to the Poor—Love and +Obedience—Unhappiness in<br /> +the Marriage Relation not the fault of Marriage.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0014">THOMAS PAINE.</a></p> +<br /> +Life by Moncure D. Conway—Early Advocacy of Reforms against +Dueling<br /> +and Cruelty to Animals—The First to write "The United States +of<br /> +America"—Washington's Sentiment against Separation from +Great<br /> +Britain—Paine's Thoughts in the Declaration of +Independence—Author of<br /> +the first Proclamation of Emancipation in +America—Establishment of a<br /> +Fund for the Relief of the Army—H's "Farewell +Address"—The "Rights of<br /> +Man"—Elected to the French Convention—Efforts to save +the Life of the<br /> +King—His Thoughts on Religion—Arrested—The "Age +of Reason" and the<br /> +Weapons it has furnished "Advanced Theologians"—Neglect by +Gouverneur<br /> +Morris and Washington—James Monroe's letter to Paine and to +the<br /> +Committee of General Safety—The vaunted Religious Liberty +of<br /> +Colonial Maryland—Orthodox Christianity at the Beginning of +the 19th<br /> +Century—New Definitions of God—The Funeral of +Paine.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0015">THE THREE +PHILANTHROPISTS.</a></p> +<br /> +I. Mr. A., the Professional Philanthropist, who established a +Colony<br /> +for the Enslavement of the Poor who could not take care of +themselves,<br /> +amassed a large Fortune thereby, built several churches, and +earned<br /> +the Epitaph, "He was the Providence of the Poor"—II. Mr. +B.,<br /> +the Manufacturer, who enriched himself by taking advantage of +the<br /> +Necessities of the Poor, paid the lowest Rate of Wages, +considered<br /> +himself one of God's Stewards, endowed the "B Asylum" and the +"B<br /> +College," never lost a Dollar, and of whom it was recorded, "He +Lived<br /> +for Others." III. Mr. C., who divided his Profits with the People +who had<br /> +earned it, established no Public Institutions, suppressed Nobody; +and<br /> +those who have worked for him said, "He allowed Others to live +for<br /> +Themselves."<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0016">SHOULD THE CHINESE BE +EXCLUDED?</a></p> +SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED?<br /> +Trampling on the Rights of Inferiors—Rise of the Irish and +Germans<br /> +to Power—The Burlingame Treaty—Character of Chinese +Laborers—Their<br /> +Enemies in the Pacific States—Violation of Treaties—The +Geary Law—The<br /> +Chinese Hated for their Virtues—More Piety than Principle +among the<br /> +People's Representatives—Shall we go back to Barbarism?<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0017">A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.</a></p> +<br /> +What the Educated Man Knows—Necessity of finding out the +Facts<br /> +of Nature—"Scholars" not always Educated Men; from +necessaries to<br /> +luxuries; who may be called educated; mental misers; the first duty +of<br /> +man; university education not necessary to usefulness, no advantage +in<br /> +learning useless facts.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0018">WHAT I WANT FOR +CHRISTMAS.</a></p> +<br /> +Would have the Kings and Emperors resign, the Nobility drop +their<br /> +Titles, the Professors agree to teach only What they Know, +the<br /> +Politicians changed to Statesmen, the Editors print only the<br /> +Truth—Would like to see Drunkenness and Prohibition +abolished,<br /> +Corporal Punishment done away with, and the whole World free.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0019">FOOL FRIENDS.</a></p> +<br /> +The Fool Friend believes every Story against you, never denies a +Lie<br /> +unless it is in your Favor, regards your Reputation as Common +Prey,<br /> +forgets his Principles to gratify your Enemies, and is so friendly +that<br /> +you cannot Kick him.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0020">INSPIRATION.</a></p> +<br /> +Nature tells a different Story to all Eyes and Ears—Horace +Greeley and<br /> +the Big Trees—The Man who "always did like rolling +land"—What the<br /> +Snow looked like to the German—Shakespeare's different Story +for each<br /> +Reader—As with Nature so with the Bible.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0021">THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.</a></p> +<br /> +People who live by Lying—A Case in point—H. Hodson +Rugg's Account of<br /> +the Conversion of Ingersoll and 5,000 of his Followers—The +"Identity of<br /> +Lost Israel with the British Nation"—Old Falsehoods about +Infidels—The<br /> +New York Observer and Thomas Paine—A Rascally English +Editor—The<br /> +Charge that Ingersoll's Son had been Converted—The Fecundity +of<br /> +Falsehood.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0022">HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL +PAPER.</a></p> +<br /> +The Editor should not narrow his Horizon so that he can see +only<br /> +One Thing—To know the Defects of the Bible is but the +Beginning of<br /> +Wisdom—The Liberal Paper should not discuss Theological +Questions<br /> +Alone—A Column for Children—Candor and +Kindness—Nothing should be<br /> +Asserted that is not Known—Above All, teach the Absolute +Freedom of the<br /> +Mind.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0023">SECULARISM.</a></p> +<br /> +The religion of Humanity; what it Embraces and what it +Advocates—A<br /> +Protest against Ecclesiastical Tyranny—Believes in Building a +Home<br /> +here—Means Food and Fireside—The Right to express your +Thought—Its<br /> +advice to every Human Being—A Religion without Mysteries, +Miracles, or<br /> +Persecutions.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0024">CRITICISM OF "ROBERT ELSMERE," +"JOHN WARD, PREACHER," AND "AN AFRICAN FARM."</a></p> +<br /> +Religion unsoftened by Infidelity—The Orthodox Minister whose +Wife has<br /> +a Heart—Honesty of Opinion not a Mitigating +Circumstance—Repulsiveness<br /> +of an Orthodox Life—John Ward an Object of Pity—Lyndall +of the<br /> +"African Farm"—The Story of the Hunter—Death of +Waldo—Women the<br /> +Caryatides of the Church—Attitude of Christianity toward +other<br /> +Religions—Egotism of the ancient Jews.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0025">THE LIBEL LAWS.</a></p> +<br /> +All Articles appearing in a newspaper should be Signed by the<br /> +Writer—The Law if changed should throw greater Safeguards +around the<br /> +Reputation of the Citizen—Pains should be taken to give +Prominence to<br /> +Retractions—The Libel Laws like a Bayonet in War.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0026">REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A +NEW RELIGION.</a></p> +REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION.<br /> +Mr. Newton not Regarded as a Sceptic—New Meanings given to +Old<br /> +Words—The vanishing Picture of Hell—The +Atonement—Confidence being<br /> +Lost in the Morality of the Gospel—Exclusiveness of the +Churches—The<br /> +Hope of Immortality and Belief in God have Nothing to do with +Real<br /> +Religion—Special Providence a Mistake.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0027">AN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.</a></p> +<br /> +The Day regarded as a Holiday—A Festival far older<br /> +than Christianity—Relics of Sun-worship in Christian<br /> +Ceremonies—Christianity furnished new Steam for an old +Engine—Pagan<br /> +Festivals correspond to Ours—Why Holidays are +Popular—They must be for<br /> +the Benefit of the People.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0028">HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE +SIDE?</a></p> +<br /> +The Object of Freethought—what the Religionist calls +"Affirmative<br /> +and Positive"—The Positive Side of +Freethought—Constructive Work of<br /> +Christianity.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0029">THE IMPROVED MAN.</a></p> +<br /> +He will be in Favor of universal Liberty, neither Master nor Slave; +of<br /> +Equality and Education; will develop in the Direction of the +Beautiful;<br /> +will believe only in the Religion of this World—His +Motto—Will not<br /> +endeavor to change the Mind of the "Infinite"—Will have no +Bells or<br /> +Censers—Will be satisfied that the Supernatural does not +exist—Will be<br /> +Self-poised, Independent, Candid and Free.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0030">EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.</a></p> +<br /> +The Working People should be protected by Law—Life of no +particular<br /> +Importance to the Man who gets up before Daylight and works +till<br /> +after Dark—A Revolution probable in the Relations between +Labor and<br /> +Capital—Working People becoming Educated and more +Independent—The<br /> +Government can Aid by means of Good Laws—Women the worst +Paid—There<br /> +should be no Resort to Force by either Labor or Capital.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0031">THE JEWS.</a></p> +<br /> +Much like People of other Religions—Teaching given Christian +Children<br /> +about those who die in the Faith of Abraham—Dr. John Hall +on<br /> +the Persecution of the Jews in Russia as the Fulfillment of<br /> +Prophecy—Hostility of Orthodox early Christians excited by +Jewish<br /> +Witnesses against the Faith—An infamous Chapter of +History—Good<br /> +and bad Men of every Faith—Jews should outgrow their +own<br /> +Superstitions—What the intelligent Jew Knows.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0032">CRUMBLING CREEDS.</a></p> +CRUMBLING CREEDS.<br /> +The Common People called upon to Decide as between the Universities +and<br /> +the Synods—Modern Medicine, Law, Literature and Pictures as +against the<br /> +Old—Creeds agree with the Sciences of their Day—Apology +the Prelude<br /> +to Retreat—The Presbyterian Creed Infamous, but no worse +than<br /> +the Catholic—Progress begins when Expression of Opinion +is<br /> +Allowed—Examining the Religions of other Countries—The +Pulpit's<br /> +Position Lost—The Dogma of Eternal Pain the Cause of the +orthodox<br /> +Creeds losing Popularity—Every Church teaching this Infinite +Lie must<br /> +Fall.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0033">OUR SCHOOLS.</a></p> +OUR SCHOOLS.<br /> +Education the only Lever capable of raising Mankind—The<br /> +School-house more Important than the Church—Criticism of New +York's<br /> +School-Buildings—The Kindergarten System +Recommended—Poor Pay of<br /> +Teachers—The great Danger to the Republic is Ignorance.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0034">VIVISECTION.</a></p> +<br /> +The Hell of Science—Brutal Curiosity of Vivisectors—The +Pretence that<br /> +they are working for the Good of Man—Have these scientific +Assassins<br /> +added to useful Knowledge?—No Good to the Race to be +Accomplished by<br /> +Torture—The Tendency to produce a Race of intelligent Wild +Beasts.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0035">THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL +CATECHISM.</a></p> +<br /> +Right of the Government to ask Questions and of the Citizen to +refuse<br /> +to answer them—Matters which the Government has no Right to +pry<br /> +into—Exposing the Debtor's financial Condition—A Man +might decline to<br /> +tell whether he has a Chronic Disease or not.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0036">THE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS.</a></p> +<br /> +Natural Phenomena and Myths celebrated—The great Day of the +first<br /> +Religion, Sun-worship—A God that Knew no Hatred nor Sought +Revenge—The<br /> +Festival of Light.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0037">SPIRITUALITY.</a></p> +<br /> +A much-abused Word—The Early Christians too Spiritual to +be<br /> +Civilized—Calvin and Knox—Paine, Voltaire and Humboldt +not<br /> +Spiritual—Darwin also Lacking—What it is to be really +Spiritual—No<br /> +connection with Superstition.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0038">SUMTER'S GUN.</a></p> +<br /> +What were thereby blown into Rags and Ravelings—The Birth of +a<br /> +new Epoch announced—Lincoln made the most commanding Figure +of the<br /> +Century—Story of its Echoes.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0039">WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.</a></p> +<br /> +What might have been Asked of a Christian 100 years after<br /> +Christ—Hospitals and Asylums not all built for +Charity—Girard<br /> +College—Lick Observatory—Carnegie not an Orthodox +Christian—Christian<br /> +Colleges—Give us Time.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0040">CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA +REFORMATORY.</a></p> +<br /> +Brockway a Savage—The Lash will neither develop the Brain nor +cultivate<br /> +the Heart—Brutality a Failure—Bishop Potter's +apostolical Remark.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0041">LAW'S DELAY.</a></p> +<br /> +The Object of a Trial—Justice can afford to Wait—The +right of<br /> +Appeal—Case of Mrs. Maybrick—Life Imprisonment for +Murderers—American<br /> +Courts better than the English.<br /> +BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.<br /> +Universities naturally Conservative—Kansas State +University's<br /> +Objection to Ingersoll as a commencement Orator—Comment by +Mr. Depew<br /> +(note)—Action of Cornell and the University of +Missouri.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0043">A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES +TO-DAY.</a></p> +<br /> +The Chances a few Years ago—Capital now +Required—Increasing<br /> +competition in Civilized Life—Independence the first +Object—If he has<br /> +something to say, there will be plenty to listen.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0044">SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.</a></p> +<br /> +Science goes hand in hand with Imagination—Artistic and +Ethical<br /> +Development—Science destroys Superstition, not true +Religion—Education<br /> +preferable to Legislation—Our Obligation to our +Children.<br /> +"SOWING AND REAPING."<br /> +Moody's Belief accounted for—A dishonest and corrupting +Doctrine—A<br /> +want of Philosophy and Sense—Have Souls in Heaven no +Regrets?—Mr.<br /> +Moody should read some useful Books.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0046">SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR +CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?</a></p> +<br /> +Teachings of orthodox Sunday Schools—The ferocious God of +the<br /> +Bible—Miracles—A Christian in Constantinople would not +send his<br /> +Child to a Mosque—Advice to all Agnostics—Strangle the +Serpent of<br /> +Superstition.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0047">WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR +THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?</a></p> +<br /> +Character of the Bible—Men and Women not virtuous because of +any<br /> +Book—The Commandments both Good and Bad—Books that do +not help<br /> +Morality—Jehovah not a moral God—What is +Morality?—Intelligence the<br /> +only moral guide.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0048">GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY +PROCLAMATION.</a></p> +<br /> +Decline of the Christian Religion in New +Hampshire—Outgrown<br /> +Beliefs—Present-day Views of Christ and the Holy +Ghost—Abandoned<br /> +Notions about the Atonement—Salvation for Credulity—The +Miracles<br /> +of the New Testament—The Bible "not true but +inspired"—The "Higher<br /> +Critics" riding two Horses—Infidelity in the Pulpit—The +"restraining<br /> +Influences of Religion" as illustrated by Spain and +Portugal—Thinking,<br /> +Working and Praying—The kind of Faith that has +Departed.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0049">A LOOK BACKWARD AND A +PROPHECY.</a></p> +<br /> +The <i>Truth Seeker</i> congratulated on its Twenty-fifth +Birthday—Teachings<br /> +of Twenty-five Years ago—Dodging and evading—The +Clerical Assault<br /> +on Darwin—Draper, Buckle, Hegel, Spencer, +Emerson—Comparison<br /> +of Prejudices—Vanished Belief in the Devil—Matter +and<br /> +Force—Contradictions Dwelling in Unity—Substitutes for +Jehovah—A<br /> +Prophecy.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0050">POLITICAL MORALITY.</a></p> +<br /> +Argument in the contested Election Case of Strobach against +Herbert—The<br /> +Importance of Honest Elections—Poisoning the Source of +Justice—The<br /> +Fraudulent Voter a Traitor to his Sovereign, the Will of the<br /> +People—Political Morality Imperative.<br /> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0051">A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE +INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.</a></p> +Date and Manner of Composing the Old Testament—Other Books +not now in<br /> +Existence, and Disagreements about the Canon—Composite +Character of<br /> +certain Books—Various Versions—Why was God's message +given to the Jews<br /> +alone?—The Story of the Creation, of the Flood, of the Tower, +and<br /> +of Lot's wife—Moses and Aaron and the Plagues of +Egypt—Laws of<br /> +Slavery—Instructions by Jehovah Calculated to excite +Astonishment and<br /> +Mirth—Sacrifices and the Scapegoat—Passages showing +that the Laws of<br /> +Moses were made after the Jews had left the Desert—Jehovah's +dealings<br /> +with his People—The Sabbath +Law—Prodigies—Joshua's Miracle—Damned<br /> +Ignorance and Infamy—Jephthah's Sacrifice—Incredible +Stories—The<br /> +Woman of Endor and the Temptation of David—Elijah and +Elisha—Loss of<br /> +the Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah—The Jews before and after +being<br /> +Abandoned by Jehovah—Wealth of Solomon and other +Marvels.<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>ADDRESS ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.</h2> +<p>ON the 22d of October, 1883, a vast number of citizens met at +Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., to give expression to their views +concerning the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, +in which it is held that the Civil Rights Act is +unconstitutional.</p> +<p>Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was one of the speakers.</p> +<p>The Hon. Frederick Douglass introduced him as follows:</p> +<pre> + Abou Ben Adhem—(may his tribe increase!) + Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace, + And saw within the moonlight of his room, + Making it rich and like a lily in bloom, + An angel writing in a book of gold: + Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold; + And to the presence in the room he said, + "What writest thou?" The vision raised its head, + And, with a look made all of sweet accord, + Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord." + "And is mine one?" asked Abou. "Nay, not so," + Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low, + But cheerily still; and said, "I pray thee, then, + Write me as one that loves his fellow-men." + The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night + It came again, with a great wakening light, + And showed the names whom love of God had blest; + And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest. +</pre> +<p>I have the honor to introduce Robert G. Ingersoll.</p> +<center>MR. INGERSOLL'S SPEECH.</center> +<p>Ladies and Gentlemen:</p> +<p>We have met for the purpose of saying a few words about the +recent decision of the Supreme Court, in which that tribunal has +held the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act to be +unconstitutional; and so held in spite of the fact that for years +the people of the North and South have, with singular unanimity, +supposed the Act to be constitutional—supposed that it was +upheld by the 13th and 14th Amendments,—and so supposed +because they knew with certainty the intention of the framers of +the amendments. They knew this intention, because they knew what +the enemies of the amendments and the enemies of the Civil Rights +Act claimed was the intention. And they also knew what the friends +of the amendments and the law admitted the intention to be. The +prejudices born of ignorance and of slavery had died or fallen +asleep, and even the enemies of the amendments and the law had +accepted the situation.</p> +<p>But I shall speak of the decision as I feel, and in the same +manner as I should speak even in the presence of the Court. You +must remember that I am not attacking persons, but +opinions—not motives, but reasons—not judges, but +decisions.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court has decided:</p> +<p>1. That the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act of +March 1, 1875, are unconstitutional, as applied to the +States—not being authorized by the 13th and 14th +Amendments.</p> +<p>2. That the 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, +and the legislation forbidden to be adopted by Congress for +enforcing it, is not "direct" legislation, but +"corrective,"—such as may be necessary or proper for +counteracting and restraining the effect of laws or acts passed or +done by the several States.</p> +<p>3. That the 13th Amendment relates only to slavery and +involuntary servitude, which it abolishes.</p> +<p>4. That the 13th Amendment establishes universal freedom in the +United States.</p> +<p>5. That Congress may probably pass laws directly enforcing its +provisions.</p> +<p>6. That such legislative power in Congress extends only to the +subject of slavery, and its incidents.</p> +<p>7. That the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public +conveyances and places of public amusement, imposes no badge of +slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most +infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the +14th Amendment.</p> +<p>8. The Court is uncertain whether the accommodations and +privileges sought to be protected by the first and second sections +of the Civil Rights Act are or are not rights constitutionally +demandable,—and if they are, in what form they are to be +protected.</p> +<p>9. Neither does the Court decide whether the law, as it stands, +is operative in the Territories and the District of Columbia.</p> +<p>10. Neither does the Court decide whether Congress, under the +commercial power, may or may not pass a law securing to all persons +equal accommodations on lines of public conveyance between two or +more States.</p> +<p>11. The Court also holds, in the present case, that until some +State law has been passed, or some State action through its +officers or agents has been taken adverse to the rights of citizens +sought to be protected by the 14th Amendment, no legislation of the +United States under said amendment, or any proceeding under such +legislation, can be called into activity, for the reason that the +prohibitions of the amendment are against State laws and acts done +under State authority. The essence of said decision being, that the +managers and owners of inns, railways, and all public conveyances, +of theatres and all places of public amusement, may discriminate on +account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and +that the citizen so discriminated against, is without redress.</p> +<p>This decision takes from seven millions of people the shield of +the Constitution. It leaves the best of the colored race at the +mercy of the meanest of the white. It feeds fat the ancient grudge +that vicious ignorance bears toward race and color. It will be +approved and quoted by hundreds of thousands of unjust men. The +masked wretches who, in the darkness of night, drag the poor negro +from his cabin, and lacerate with whip and thong his quivering +flesh, will, with bloody hands, applaud the Supreme Court. The men +who, by mob violence, prevent the negro from depositing his +ballot—who with gun and revolver drive him from the polls, +and those who insult with vile and vulgar words the inoffensive +colored girl, will welcome this decision with hyena joy. The basest +will rejoice—the noblest will mourn.</p> +<p>But even in the presence of this decision, we must remember that +it is one of the necessities of government that there should be a +court of last resort; and while all courts will more or less fail +to do justice, still, the wit of man has, as yet, devised no better +way. Even after reading this decision, we must take it for granted +that the judges of the Supreme Court arrived at their conclusions +honestly and in accordance with the best light they had. While they +had the right to render the decision, every citizen has the right +to give his opinion as to whether that decision is good or bad. +Knowing that they are liable to be mistaken, and honestly mistaken, +we should always be charitable enough to admit that others may be +mistaken; and we may also take another step, and admit that we may +be mistaken about their being mistaken. We must remember, too, that +we have to make judges out of men, and that by being made judges +their prejudices are not diminished and their intelligence is not +increased. No matter whether a man wears a crown or a robe or a +rag. Under the emblem of power and the emblem of poverty, the man +alike resides. The real thing is the man—the distinction +often exists only in the clothes. Take away the crown—there +is only a man. Remove the robe—there remains a man. Take away +the rag, and we find at least a man.</p> +<p>There was a time in this country when all bowed to a decision of +the Supreme Court. It was unquestioned. It was regarded as "a voice +from on high." The people heard and they obeyed. The Dred Scott +decision destroyed that illusion forever. From that day to this the +people have claimed the privilege of putting the decisions of the +Supreme Court in the crucible of reason. These decisions are no +longer exempt from honest criticism. While the decision remains, it +is the law. No matter how absurd, no matter how erroneous, no +matter how contrary to reason and justice, it remains the law. It +must be overturned either by the Court itself (and the Court has +overturned hundreds of its own decisions), or by legislative +action, or by an amendment to the Constitution. We do not appeal to +armed revolution. Our Government is so framed that it provides for +what may be called perpetual peaceful revolution. For the redress +of any grievance, for the purpose of righting any wrong, there is +the perpetual remedy of an appeal to the people.</p> +<p>We must remember, too, that judges keep their backs to the dawn. +They find what has been, what is, but not what ought to be. They +are tied and shackled by precedent, fettered by old decisions, and +by the desire to be consistent, even in mistakes. They pass upon +the acts and words of others, and like other people, they are +liable to make mistakes. In the olden time we took what the doctors +gave us, we believed what the preachers said; and accepted, without +question, the judgments of the highest court. Now it is different. +We ask the doctor what the medicine is, and what effect he expects +it to produce. We cross-examine the minister, and we criticise the +decision of the Chief-Justice. We do this, because we have found +that some doctors do not kill, that some ministers are quite +reasonable, and that some judges know something about law. In this +country, the people are the sovereigns. All +officers—including judges—are simply their servants, +and the sovereign has always the right to give his opinion as to +the action of his agent. The sovereignty of the people is the rock +upon which rests the right of speech and the freedom of the +press.</p> +<p>Unfortunately for us, our fathers adopted the common law of +England—a law poisoned by kingly prerogative—by every +form of oppression, by the spirit of caste, and permeated, +saturated, with the political heresy that the people received their +rights, privileges and immunities from the crown. The thirteen +original colonies received their laws, their forms, their ideas of +justice, from the old world. All the judicial, legislative, and +executive springs and sources had been touched and tainted.</p> +<p>In the struggle with England, our fathers justified their +rebellion by declaring that Nature had clothed all men with the +right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The moment +success crowned their efforts, they changed their noble declaration +of equal rights for all, and basely interpolated the word "white." +They adopted a Constitution that denied the Declaration of +Independence—a Constitution that recognized and upheld +slavery, protected the slave-trade, legalized piracy upon the high +seas—that demoralized, degraded, and debauched the nation, +and that at last reddened with brave blood the fields of the +Republic.</p> +<p>Our fathers planted the seeds of injustice, and we gathered the +harvest. In the blood and flame of civil war, we retraced our +fathers' steps. In the stress of war, we implored the aid of +Liberty, and asked once more for the protection of Justice. We +civilized the Constitution of our fathers. We adopted three +Amendments—the 13th, 14th and 15th—the Trinity of +Liberty.</p> +<p>Let us examine these amendments:</p> +<p>"Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a +punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly +convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place +subject to their jurisdiction.</p> +<p>"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by +appropriate legislation."</p> +<p>Before the adoption of this amendment, the Constitution had +always been construed to be the perfect shield of slavery. In order +that slavery might be protected, the slave States were considered +as sovereign. Freedom was regarded as a local prejudice, slavery as +the ward of the Nation, the jewel of the Constitution. For +three-quarters of a century, the Supreme Court of the United States +exhausted judicial ingenuity in guarding, protecting and fostering +that infamous institution. For the purpose of preserving that +infinite outrage, words and phrases were warped, and stretched, and +tortured, and thumbscrewed, and racked. Slavery was the one sacred +thing, and the Supreme Court was its constitutional guardian.</p> +<p>To show the faithfulness of that tribunal, I call your attention +to the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the +Constitution:</p> +<p>"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws +thereof, escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or +regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but +shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such +service or labor may be due."</p> +<p>The framers of the Constitution were ashamed to use the word +"slave," and thereupon they said "person." They were ashamed to use +the word "slavery," and they evaded it by saying, "held to service +or labor." They were ashamed to put in the word "master," so they +called him "the party to whom service or labor may be due."</p> +<p>How can a slave owe service? How can a slave owe labor? How +could a slave make a contract? How could the master have a legal +claim against a slave? And yet, the Supreme Court of the United +States found no difficulty in upholding the Fugitive Slave Law by +virtue of that clause. There were hundreds of decisions declaring +that Congress had power to pass laws to carry that clause into +effect, and it was carried into effect.</p> +<p>You will observe the wording of this clause:</p> +<p>"No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws +thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or +regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but +shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such +service or labor may be due."</p> +<p>To whom was this clause directed? To individuals or to States? +It expressly provides that the "person" held to service or labor +shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence +of any law or regulation in the "State" to which he has fled. Did +that law apply to States, or to individuals?</p> +<p>The Supreme Court held that it applied to individuals as well as +to States. Any "person," in any State, interfering with the master +who was endeavoring to steal the person he called his slave, was +liable to indictment, and hundreds and thousands were indicted, and +hundreds languished in prisons because they were noble enough to +hold in infinite contempt such infamous laws and such infamous +decisions. The best men in the United States—the noblest +spirits under the flag—were imprisoned because they were +charitable, because they were just, because they showed the hunted +slave the path to freedom, and taught him where to find amid the +glittering host of heaven the blessed Northern Star.</p> +<p>Every fugitive slave carried that clause with him when he +entered a free State; carried it into every hiding place; and every +Northern man was bound, by virtue of that clause, to act as the spy +and hound of slavery. The Supreme Court, with infinite ease, made a +club of that clause with which to strike down the liberty of the +fugitive and the manhood of the North.</p> +<p>In the Dred Scott decision it was solemnly decided that a man of +African descent, whether a slave or not, was not, and could not be, +a citizen of a State or of the United States. The Supreme Court +held on the even tenor of its way, and in the Rebellion that +tribunal was about the last fort to surrender.</p> +<p>The moment the 13th Amendment was adopted, the slaves became +freemen. The distinction between "white" and "colored" vanished. +The negroes became as though they had never been slaves—as +though they had always been free—as though they had been +white. They became citizens—they became a part of "the +people," and "the people" constituted the State, and it was the +State thus constituted that was entitled to the constitutional +guarantee of a republican government.</p> +<p>These freed men became citizens—became a part of the State +in which they lived.</p> +<p>The highest and noblest definition of a State, in our Reports, +was given by Justice Wilson, in the case of Chisholm, &c., vs. +Georgia;</p> +<p>"By a State, I mean a complete body of free persons, united for +their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to +do justice to others."</p> +<p>Chief Justice Chase declared that:</p> +<p>"The people, in whatever territory dwelling, whether temporarily +or permanently, or whether organized under regular government, or +united by less definite relations, constitute the State."</p> +<p>Now, if the people, the moment the 13th Amendment was adopted +were all free, and if these people constituted the State; if, under +the Constitution of the United States, every State is guaranteed a +republican government, then it is the duty of the General +Government to see to it that every State has such a government. If +distinctions are made between free men on account of race or color, +the government is not republican. The manner in which this +guarantee of a republican form of government is to be enforced or +made good, must be left to the wisdom and discretion of +Congress.</p> +<p>The 13th Amendment not only destroyed, but it built. It +destroyed the slave-pen, and on its site erected the temple of +Liberty. It did not simply free slaves—it made citizens. It +repealed every statute that upheld slavery. It erased from every +Report every decision against freedom. It took the word "white" +from every law, and blotted from the Constitution all clauses +acknowledging property in man.</p> +<p>If, then, all the people in each State, were, by virtue of the +13th Amendment, free, what right had a majority to enslave a +minority? What right had a majority to make any distinctions +between free men? What right had a majority to take from a minority +any privilege, or any immunity, to which they were entitled as free +men? What right had the majority to make that unequal which the +Constitution made equal?</p> +<p>Not satisfied with saying that slavery should not exist, we find +in the amendment the words "nor involuntary servitude." This was +intended to destroy every mark and badge of legal inferiority.</p> +<p>Justice Field upon this very question, says:</p> +<p>"It is, however, clear that the words 'involuntary servitude' +include something more than slavery, in the strict sense of the +term. They include also serfage, vassalage, villanage, peonage, and +all other forms of compulsory service for the mere benefit or +pleasure of others. Nor is this the full import of the term. The +abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude was intended to make +every one born in this country a free man, and as such to give him +the right to pursue the ordinary avocations of life without other +restraint than such as affects all others, and to enjoy equally +with them the fruits of his labor. A person allowed to pursue only +one trade or calling, and only in one locality of the country, +would not be, in the strict sense of the term, in a condition of +slavery, but probably no one would deny that he would be in a +condition of servitude. He certainly would not possess the +liberties, or enjoy the privileges of a freeman."</p> +<p>Justice Field also quotes with approval the language of the +counsel for the plaintiffs in the case:</p> +<p>"Whenever a law of a State, or a law of the United States, makes +a discrimination between classes of persons which deprives the one +class of their freedom or their property, or which makes a caste of +them, to subserve the power, pride, avarice, vanity or vengeance of +others—there involuntary servitude exists within the meaning +of the 13th Amendment."</p> +<p>To show that the framers of the 13th Amendment intended to blot +out every form of slavery and servitude, I call attention to the +Civil Rights Act, approved April 9, 1866, which provided, among +other things, that:</p> +<p>"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any +foreign power—excluding Indians not taxed—are citizens +of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, +without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary +servitude, are entitled to the full and equal benefit of all laws +and proceedings for the security of person and property enjoyed by +white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishments, pains and +penalties—and to none other—any law, statute, +ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding; +and they shall have the same rights in every State and Territory of +the United States as white persons."</p> +<p>The Supreme Court, in <i>The Slaughter-House Cases,</i> (16 +Wallace, 69) has said that the word servitude has a larger meaning +than the word slavery. "The word 'servitude' implies subjection to +the will of another contrary to the common right." A man is in a +state of involuntary servitude when he is forced to do, or +prevented from doing, a thing, not by the law of the State, but by +the simple will of another. He who enjoys less than the common +rights of a citizen, he who can be forced from the public highway +at the will of another, who can be denied entrance to the cars of a +common carrier, is in a state of servitude.</p> +<p>The 13th Amendment did away with slavery not only, and with +involuntary servitude, but with every badge and brand and stain and +mark of slavery. It abolished forever distinctions on account of +race and color.</p> +<p>In the language of the Supreme Court:</p> +<p>"It was the obvious purpose of the 13th Amendment to forbid all +shades and conditions of African slavery."</p> +<p>And to that I add, it was the obvious purpose of that amendment +to forbid all shades and conditions of slavery, no matter of what +sort or kind—all marks of legal inferiority. Each citizen was +to be absolutely free. All his rights complete, whole, unmaimed and +unabridged.</p> +<p>From the moment of the adoption of that amendment, the law +became color-blind. All distinctions on account of complexion +vanished. It took the whip from the hand of the white man, and put +the nation's flag above the negro's hut. It gave horizon, scope and +dome to the lowest life. It stretched a sky studded with stars of +hope above the humblest head.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court has admitted, in the very case we are now +discussing, that:</p> +<p>"Under the 13th Amendment the legislation meaning the +legislation of Congress—so far as necessary or proper to +eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary +servitude, may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts of +individuals, whether sanctioned by State legislation or not."</p> +<p>Here we have the authority for dealing with individuals.</p> +<p>The only question then remaining is, whether an individual, +being the keeper of a public inn, or the agent of a railway +corporation, created by a State, can be held responsible in a +Federal Court for discriminating against a citizen of the United +States on account of race, color, or previous condition of +servitude. If such discrimination is a badge of slavery, or places +the party discriminated against in a condition of involuntary +servitude, then the Civil Rights Act may be upheld by the 13th +Amendment.</p> +<p>In The United Slates vs. Harris, 106 U. S., 640, the Supreme +Court says:</p> +<p>"It is clear that the 13th Amendment, besides abolishing forever +slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States, gives +power to Congress to protect all citizens from being in any way +subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the +punishment of crime, and in the enjoyment of that freedom which it +was the object of the amendment to secure."</p> +<p>This declaration covers the entire case.</p> +<p>I agree with Justice Field:</p> +<p>"The 13th Amendment is not confined to African slavery. It is +general and universal in its application—prohibiting the +slavery of white men as well as black men, and not prohibiting mere +slavery in the strict sense of the term, but involuntary servitude +in every form." 16 Wallace, 90.</p> +<p>The 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary +servitude shall exist. Who must see to it that this declaration is +carried out? There can be but one answer. It is the duty of +Congress.</p> +<p>At last the question narrows itself to this: Is a citizen of the +United States, when denied admission to public inns, railway cars +and theatres, on account of his race or color, in a condition of +involuntary servitude? If he is, then he is under the immediate +protection of the General Government, by virtue of the 13th +Amendment; and the Civil Rights Act is clearly constitutional.</p> +<p>If excluded from one inn, he may be from all; if from one car, +why not from all? The man who depends for the preservation of his +privileges upon a conductor, instead of the Constitution, is in a +condition of involuntary servitude. He who depends for his +rights—not upon the laws of the land, but upon a landlord, is +in a condition of involuntary servitude.</p> +<p>The framers of the 13th Amendment knew that the negro would be +persecuted on account of his race and color—knew that many of +the States could not be trusted to protect the rights of the +colored man; and for that reason, the General Government was +clothed with power to protect the colored people from all forms of +slavery and involuntary servitude.</p> +<p>Of what use are the declarations in the Constitution that +slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist, and that all +persons born or naturalized in the United States shall be +citizens—not only of the United States, but of the States in +which they reside—if, behind these declarations, there is no +power to act—no duty for the General Government to +discharge?</p> +<p>Notwithstanding the 13th Amendment had been +adopted—notwithstanding slavery and involuntary servitude had +been legally destroyed—it was found that the negro was still +the helpless victim of the white man. Another amendment was needed; +and all the Justices of the Supreme Court have told us why the 14th +Amendment was adopted.</p> +<p>Justice Miller, speaking for the entire court, tells us +that:</p> +<p>"In the struggle of the civil war, slavery perished, and +perished as a necessity of the bitterness and force of the +conflict."</p> +<p>That:</p> +<p>"When the armies of freedom found themselves on the soil of +slavery, they could do nothing else than free the victims whose +enforced servitude was the foundation of the war."</p> +<p>He also admits that:</p> +<p>"When hard pressed in the contest, the colored men (for they +proved themselves men in that terrible crisis) offered their +services, and were accepted, by thousands, to aid in suppressing +the unlawful rebellion."</p> +<p>He also informs us that:</p> +<p>"Notwithstanding the fact that the Southern States had formerly +recognized the abolition of slavery, the condition of the slave, +without further protection of the Federal Government, was almost as +bad as it had been before."</p> +<p>And he declares that:</p> +<p>"The Southern States imposed upon the colored race onerous +disabilities and burdens—curtailed their rights in the +pursuit of liberty and property, to such an extent that their +freedom was of little value, while the colored people had lost the +protection which they had received from their former owners from +motives of interest."</p> +<p>And that:</p> +<p>"The colored people in some States were forbidden to appear in +the towns in any other character than that of menial +servants—that they were required to reside on the soil +without the right to purchase or own it—that they were +excluded from many occupations of gain and profit—that they +were not permitted to give testimony in the courts where white men +were on trial—and it was said that their lives were at the +mercy of bad men, either because laws for their protection were +insufficient, or were not enforced."</p> +<p>We are informed by the Supreme Court that, "under these +circumstances," the proposition for the 14th Amendment was passed +through Congress, and that Congress declined to treat as restored +to full participation in the Government of the Union, the States +which had been in insurrection, until they ratified that article by +a formal vote of their legislative bodies.</p> +<p>Thus it will be seen that the rebel States were restored to the +Union by adopting the 14th Amendment. In order to become equal +members of the Federal Union, these States solemnly agreed to carry +out the provisions of that amendment.</p> +<p>The 14th Amendment provides that:</p> +<p>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and +subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United +States, and of the State wherein they reside."</p> +<p>That is affirmative in its character. That affirmation imposes +the obligation upon the General Government to protect its citizens +everywhere. That affirmation clothes the Federal Government with +power to protect its citizens. Under that clause, the Federal arm +can reach to the boundary of the Republic, for the purpose of +protecting the weakest citizen from the tyranny of citizens or +States. That clause is a contract between the Government and every +man—a contract wherein the citizen promises allegiance, and +the nation promises protection.</p> +<p>By this clause, the Federal Government adopted all the citizens +of all the States and Territories, including the District of +Columbia, and placed them under the shield of the +Constitution—made each one a ward of the Republic.</p> +<p>Under this contract, the Government is under direct obligation +to the citizen. The Government cannot shirk its responsibility by +leaving a citizen to be protected in his rights, as a citizen of +the United States, by a State. The obligation of protection is +direct. The obligation on the part of the citizen to the Government +is direct. The citizen cannot be untrue to the Government because +his State is, The action of the State under the 14th Amendment is +no excuse for the citizen. He must be true to the Government. In +war, the Government has a right to his service. In peace, he has +the right to be protected.</p> +<p>If the citizen must depend upon the State, then he owes the +first allegiance to that government or power that is under +obligation to protect him. Then, if a State secedes from the Union, +the citizen should go with the State—should go with the power +that protects.</p> +<p>That is not my doctrine. My doctrine is this: The first duty of +the General Government is to protect each citizen. The first duty +of each citizen is to be true—not to his State, but to the +Republic.</p> +<p>This clause of the 14th Amendment made us all citizens of the +United States—all children of the Republic. Under this +decision, the Republic refuses to acknowledge her children. Under +this decision of the Supreme Court, they are left upon the +doorsteps of the States. Citizens are changed to foundlings.</p> +<p>If the 14th Amendment created citizens of the United States, the +power that created must define the rights of the citizens thus +created, and must provide a remedy where such rights are infringed. +The Federal Government speaks through its +representatives—through Congress; and Congress, by the Civil +Rights Act, defined some of the rights, privileges and immunities +of a citizen of the United States—and Congress provided a +remedy when such rights and privileges were invaded, and gave +jurisdiction to the Federal courts.</p> +<p>No State, or the department of any State, can authoritatively +define the rights, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the +United States. These rights and immunities must be defined by the +United States, and when so defined, they cannot be abridged by +State authority.</p> +<p>In the case of Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wall., p. 140, Justice +Field, in a concurring opinion, speaking of the 14th Amendment, +says:</p> +<p>"It grew out of the feeling that a nation which had been +maintained by such costly sacrifices was, after all, worthless, if +a citizen could not be protected in all his fundamental rights, +everywhere—North and South, East and West—throughout +the limits of the Republic. The amendment was not, as held in the +opinion of the majority, primarily intended to confer citizenship +on the negro race. It had a much broader purpose. It was intended +to justify legislation extending the protection of the National +Government over the common rights of all citizens of the United +States, and thus obviate objection to the legislation adopted for +the protection of the emancipated race. It was intended to make it +possible for all persons—which necessarily included those of +every race and color—to live in peace and security wherever +the jurisdiction of the nation reached. It therefore recognized, if +it did not create, a national citizenship. This national +citizenship is primary and not secondary.".</p> +<p>I cannot refrain from calling attention to the splendor and +nobility of the truths expressed by Justice Field in this +opinion.</p> +<p>So, Justice Field, in his dissenting opinion in what are known +as <i>The Slaughter-House Cases</i>, found in 16 Wallace, p. 95, +still speaking of the 14th Amendment, says:</p> +<p>"It recognizes in express terms—if it does not +create—citizens of the United States, and it makes their +citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth or the fact of +their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State, +or the condition of their ancestry.</p> +<p>"A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States +residing in that State. The fundamental rights, privileges and +immunities which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen of +the United States, are not dependent upon the citizenship of any +State. * * *</p> +<p>"They do not derive their existence from its legislation, and +cannot be destroyed by its power."</p> +<p>What are "the fundamental rights, privileges and immunities" +which belong to a free man? Certainly the rights of all citizens of +the United States are equal. Their immunities and privileges must +be the same. He who makes a discrimination between citizens on +account of color, violates the Constitution of the United +States.</p> +<p>Have all citizens the same right to travel on the highways of +the country? Have they all the same right to ride upon the railways +created by State authority? A railway is an improved highway. It +was only by holding that it was an improved highway that counties +and States aided in their construction. It has been decided, over +and over again, that a railway is an improved highway. A railway +corporation is the creation of a State—an agent of the State. +It is under the control of the State—and upon what principle +can a citizen be prevented from using the highways of a State on an +equality with all other citizens?</p> +<p>These are all rights and immunities guaranteed by the +Constitution of the United States.</p> +<p>Now, the question is—and it is the only question—can +these rights and immunities, thus guaranteed and thus confirmed, be +protected by the General Government?</p> +<p>In the case of <i>The U. S. vs. Reese, et al.</i>, 92 U. S., p. +207, the Supreme Court decided, the opinion having been delivered +by Chief-Justice Waite, as follows:</p> +<p>"Rights and immunities created by, and dependent upon, the +Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The +form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress in +the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall +provide. This may be varied to meet the necessities of the +particular right to be protected."</p> +<p>This decision was acquiesced in by Justices Strong, Bradley, +Swayne, Davis, Miller and Field. Dissenting opinions were filed by +Justices Clifford and Hunt, but neither dissented from the +proposition that:</p> +<p>"Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the +Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress," +and that "the form and manner of the protection may be such as +Congress in the exercise of its legitimate discretion shall +provide."</p> +<p>So, in the same case, I find this language:</p> +<p>"It follows that the Amendment"—meaning the +15th—"has invested the citizens of the United States with a +new constitutional right, which is within the protecting power of +Congress. This, under the express provisions of the second section +of the Amendment, Congress may enforce by appropriate +legislation."</p> +<p>If the 15th Amendment invested the citizens of the United States +with a new constitutional right—that is, the right to +vote—and if for that reason that right is within the +protecting power of Congress, then I ask, if the 14th Amendment +made certain persons citizens of the United States, did such +citizenship become a constitutional right? And is such citizenship +within the protecting power of Congress? Does citizenship mean +anything except certain "rights, privileges and immunities"?</p> +<p>Is it not an invasion of citizenship to invade the immunities or +privileges or rights belonging to a citizen? Are not, then, all the +immunities and privileges and rights under the protecting power of +Congress?</p> +<p>The 13th Amendment found the negro a slave, and made him a free +man. That gave to him a new constitutional right, and according to +the Supreme Court, that right is within the protecting power of +Congress.</p> +<p>What rights are within the protecting power of Congress? All the +rights belonging to a free man.</p> +<p>The 14th Amendment made the negro a citizen. What then is under +the protecting power of Congress? All the rights, privileges and +immunities belonging to him as a citizen.</p> +<p>So, in the case of <i>Tennessee vs, Davis</i>, 100 U, S,, 263, +the Supreme Court, held that:</p> +<p>"The United States is a government whose authority extends over +the whole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States, and +upon all the people of all the States.</p> +<p>"No State can exclude the Federal Government from the exercise +of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or withhold +from it for a moment the cognizance of any subject which the +Constitution has committed to it."</p> +<p>This opinion was given by Justice Strong, and acquiesced in by +Chief-Justice Waite, Justices Miller, Swayne, Bradley and +Harlan.</p> +<p>So in the case of <i>Pensacola Tel. Co. vs. Western Union Tel. +Co</i>., 96 U. S., p. 10, the opinion having been delivered by +Chief-Justice Waite, I find this:</p> +<p>"The Government of the United States, within the scope of its +power, operates upon every foot of territory under its +jurisdiction. It legislates for the whole Nation, and is not +embarrassed by State lines."</p> +<p>This was acquiesced in by Justices Clifford, Strong, Bradley, +Swayne and Miller.</p> +<p>So we are told by the entire Supreme Court in the case of +<i>Tiernan vs. Rynker</i>, 102 U. S., 126, that:</p> +<p>"When the subject to which the power applies is national in its +character, or of such a nature as to admit of uniformity of +regulation, the power is exclusive of State authority."</p> +<p>Surely the question of citizenship is "national in its +character." Surely the question as to what are the rights, +privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States is +"national in its character."</p> +<p>Unless the declarations and definitions, the patriotic +paragraphs, and the legal principles made, given, uttered and +defined by the Supreme Court are but a judicial jugglery of words, +the Civil Rights Act is upheld by the intent, spirit and language +of the 14th Amendment.</p> +<p>It was found that the 13th Amendment did not protect the negro. +Then the 14th was adopted. Still the colored citizen was trodden +under foot. Then the 15th was adopted. The 13th made him free, and, +in my judgment, made him a citizen, and clothed him with all the +rights of a citizen. That was denied, and then the 14th declared +that he was a citizen. In my judgment, that gave him the right to +vote. But that was denied—then the 15th was adopted, +declaring that his right to vote should never be denied.</p> +<p>The 13th Amendment made all free. It broke the chains, pulled up +the whipping-posts, overturned the auction-blocks, gave the colored +mother her child, put the shield of the Constitution over the +cradle, destroyed all forms of involuntary servitude, and in the +azure heaven of our flag it put the Northern Star.</p> +<p>The 14th Amendment made us all citizens. It is a contract +between the Republic and each individual—a contract by which +the Nation agrees to protect the citizen, and the citizen agrees to +defend the Nation. This amendment placed the crown of sovereignty +on every brow.</p> +<p>The 15th Amendment secured the citizen in his right to vote, in +his right to make and execute the laws, and put these rights above +the power of any State. This amendment placed the ballot—the +sceptre of authority—in every sovereign hand.</p> +<p>We are told by the Supreme Court, in the case under discussion, +that:</p> +<p>"We must not forget that the province and scope of the 13th and +14th Amendments are different;" that the 13th Amendment "simply +abolished slavery," and that the 14th Amendment "prohibited the +States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of +the United States; from depriving them of life, liberty or +property, without due process of law; and from denying to any the +equal protection of the laws."</p> +<p>We are told that:</p> +<p>"The amendments are different, and the powers of Congress under +them are different. What Congress has power to do under one it may +not have power to do under the other." That "under the 13th +Amendment it has only to do with slavery and its incidents;" but +that "under the 14th Amendment it has power to counteract and +render nugatory all State laws or proceedings which have the effect +to abridge any of the privileges or immunities of the citizens of +the United States, or to deprive them of life, liberty or property, +without due process of law, or to deny to any of them the equal +protection of the laws."</p> +<p>Did not Congress have that power under the 13th Amendment? Could +the States, in spite of the 13th Amendment, deprive free men of +life or property without due process of law? Does the Supreme Court +wish to be understood, that until the 14th Amendment was adopted +the States had the right to rob and kill free men? Yet, in its +effort to narrow and belittle the 13th Amendment, it has been +driven to this absurdity. Did not Congress, under the 13th +Amendment, have power to destroy slavery and involuntary servitude? +Did not Congress, under that amendment, have the power to protect +the lives, liberty and property of free men? And did not Congress +have the power "to render nugatory all State laws and proceedings +under which free men were to be deprived of life, liberty or +property, without due process of law"?</p> +<p>If Congress was not clothed with such power by the 13th +Amendment, what was the object of that amendment? Was that +amendment a mere opinion, or a prophecy, or the expression of a +hope?</p> +<p>The 14th Amendment provides that:</p> +<p>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the +privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor +shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property +without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its +jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws."</p> +<p>We are told by the Supreme Court that Congress has no right to +enforce the 14th Amendment by direct legislation, but that the +legislation under that amendment can only be of a "corrective" +character—such as may be necessary or proper for +counteracting and redressing the effect of unconstitutional laws +passed by the States. In other words, that Congress has no duty to +perform, except to counteract the effect of unconstitutional laws +by corrective legislation.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court has also decided, in the present case, that +Congress has no right to legislate for the purpose of enforcing +these clauses until the States shall have taken action. What action +can the State take? If a State passes laws contrary to these +provisions or clauses, they are void. If a State passes laws in +conformity to these provisions, certainly Congress is not called on +to legislate. Under what circumstances, then, can Congress be +called upon to act by way of "corrective" legislation, as to these +particular clauses? What can Congress do? Suppose the State passes +no law upon the subject, but allows citizens of the +State—managers of railways, and keepers of public inns, to +discriminate between their passengers and guests on account of race +or color—what then?</p> +<p>Again, what is the difference between a State that has no law on +the subject, and a State that has passed an unconstitutional law? +In other words, what is the difference between no law and a void +law? If the "corrective" legislation of Congress is not needed +where the State has passed an unconstitutional law, is it needed +where the State has passed no law? What is there in either case to +correct? Surely it requires no particular legislation on the part +of Congress to kill a law that never had life.</p> +<p>The States are prohibited by the Constitution from making any +regulations of foreign commerce. Consequently, all regulations made +by the States are null and void, no matter what the motive of the +States may have been, and it requires no law of Congress to annul +such laws or regulations. This was decided by the Supreme Court of +the United States, long ago, in what are known as <i>The License +Cases</i>. The opinion may be found in the 5th of Howard, 583.</p> +<p>"The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution, is +produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme."</p> +<p>This was decided by the Supreme Court, the opinion having been +delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of <i>Gibbons vs. +Ogden</i>, 9 Wheat, 210.</p> +<p>The same doctrine was held in the case of <i>Henderson et al., +vs. Mayor of New York, et al.</i>, 92 U. S. 272—the opinion +of the Court being delivered by Justice Miller.</p> +<p>So it was held in the case of <i>The Board of Liquidation vs. +McComb</i>—2 Otto, 541.</p> +<p>"That an unconstitutional law will be treated by the courts as +null and void"—citing <i>Osborn vs. The Bank of the United +States</i>, 9 Wheaton, 859, and <i>Davis vs. Gray</i>, 16 Wallace, +220.</p> +<p>Now, if the legislation of Congress must be "corrective," then I +ask, corrective of what? Certainly not of unconstitutional and void +laws. That which is void, cannot be corrected. That which is +unconstitutional is not the subject of correction. Congress either +has the right to legislate directly, or not at all; because +indirect or corrective legislation can apply only, according to the +Supreme Court, to unconstitutional and void laws that have been +passed by a Stale; and as such laws cannot be "corrected," the +doctrine of "corrective legislation" dies an extremely natural +death.</p> +<p>A State can do one of three things: 1. It can pass an +unconstitutional law; 2. It can pass a constitutional law; 3. It +can fail to pass any law. The unconstitutional law, being void, +cannot be corrected. The constitutional law does not need +correction. And where no law has been passed, correction is +impossible.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court insists that Congress can not take action +until the State does. A State that fails to pass any law on the +subject, has not taken action. This leaves the person whose +immunities and privileges have been invaded, with no redress except +such as he may find in the State Courts in a suit at law; and if +the State Court takes the same view that is apparently taken by the +Supreme Court in this case,—namely, that it is a "social +question," one not to be regulated by law, and not covered in any +way by the Constitution—then, discrimination can be made +against citizens by landlords and railway conductors, and they are +left absolutely without remedy.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court asks, in this decision,</p> +<p>"Can the act of a mere individual—the owner of the inn, or +public conveyance, or place of amusement, refusing the +accommodation, be justly regarded as imposing any badge of slavery +or servitude upon the applicant, or only as inflicting an ordinary +civil injury properly cognizable by the laws of the State, and +presumably subject to redress by those laws, until the contrary +appears?"</p> +<p>How is "the contrary to appear"? Suppose a person denied equal +privileges upon the railway on account of race and color, brings +suit and is defeated? And suppose the highest tribunal of the State +holds that the question is of a "social" character—what then? +If, to use the language of the Supreme Court, it is "an ordinary +civil injury, imposing no badge of slavery or servitude," then, no +Federal question is involved.</p> +<p>Why did not the Supreme Court tell us what may be done when "the +contrary appears"? Nothing is clearer than the intention of the +Supreme Court in this case—and that is, to decide that +denying to a man equal accommodations at public inns on account of +race or color, is not an abridgment of a privilege or immunity of a +citizen of the United States, and that such person, so denied, is +not in a condition of involuntary servitude, or denied the equal +protection of the laws. In other words—that it is a "social +question."</p> +<p>I have been told by one who heard the decision when it was read +from the bench, that the following phrase was in the opinion:</p> +<p>"<i>There are certain physiological differences of race that +cannot be ignored</i>."</p> +<p>That phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole decision +should be read.</p> +<p>Suppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes being in +a decided majority and having entire control, had drawn the color +line, had insisted that:</p> +<p>"There were certain physiological differences between the races +that could not be ignored," and had refused to allow white people +to enter their hotels, to ride in the best cars, or to occupy the +aristocratic portion of a theatre; and suppose that a white man, +thrust from the hotels, denied the entrance to cars, had brought +his suit in the Federal Court. Does any one believe that the +Supreme Court would have intimated to that man that "there is only +a social question involved,—a question with which the +Constitution and laws have nothing to do, and that he must depend +for his remedy upon the authors of the injury"? Would a white man, +under such circumstances, feel that he was in a condition of +involuntary servitude? Would he feel that he was treated like an +underling, like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was +under the protection of the laws, shielded like other men by the +Constitution? Of course, the argument of color is just as strong on +one side as on the other. The white man says to the black, "You are +not my equal because you are black;" and the black man can with the +same propriety, reply, "You are not my equal because you are +white." The difference is just as great in the one case as in the +other. The pretext that this question involves, in the remotest +degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow, and absurd.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court, some time ago, held that the 4th Section of +the Civil Rights Act was constitutional. That section declares +that:</p> +<p>"No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or +maybe prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as grand +or petit juror in any court of the United States or of any State, +on account of color or previous condition of servitude."</p> +<p>It also provides that:</p> +<p>"If any officer or other person charged with any duty in the +selection or summoning of jurors, shall exclude, or fail to summon, +any citizen in the case aforesaid, he shall, on conviction, be +guilty of misdemeanor and be fined not more than five hundred +dollars."</p> +<p>In the case known as <i>Ex-parte vs. Virginia</i>—found in +100 U. S. 339—it was held that an indictment against a State +officer, under this section, for excluding persons of color from +the jury, could be sustained. Now, let it be remembered, there was +no law of the State of Virginia, by virtue of which a man was +disqualified from sitting on the jury by reason of race or color. +The officer did exclude, and did fail to summon, a citizen on +account of race or color or previous condition of servitude. And +the Supreme Court held:</p> +<p>"That whether the Statute-book of the State actually laid down +any such rule of disqualification or not, the State, through its +officer, enforced such rule; and that it was against such State +action, through its officers and agents, that the last clause of +the section was directed."</p> +<p>The Court further held that:</p> +<p>"This aspect of the law was deemed sufficient to divest it of +any unconstitutional character."</p> +<p>In other words, the Supreme Court held that the officer was an +agent of the State, although acting contrary to the statute of the +State; and that, consequently, such officer, acting outside of law, +was amenable to the Civil Rights Act, under the 14th Amendment, +that referred only to States. The question arises: Is a State +responsible for the action of its agent when acting contrary to +law? In other words: Is the principal bound by the acts of his +agent, that act not being within the scope of his authority? Is a +State liable—or is the Government liable—for the act of +any officer, that act not being authorized by law?</p> +<p>It has been decided a thousand times, that a State is not liable +for the torts and trespasses of its officers. How then can the +agent, acting outside of his authority, be prosecuted under a law +deriving its entire validity from a constitutional amendment +applying only to States? Does an officer, by acting contrary to +State law, become so like a State that the word State, used in the +Constitution, includes him?</p> +<p>So it was held in the case of <i>Neal vs. +Delaware</i>,—103 U. S., 307,—that an officer acting +contrary to the laws of the State—in defiance of those +laws—would be amenable to the Civil Rights Act, passed under +an amendment to the Constitution now held applicable only to +States.</p> +<p>It is admitted, and expressly decided in the case of <i>The U. +S. vs. Reese et al.</i>, (already quoted) that when the wrongful +refusal at an election is because of race, color, or previous +condition of servitude, Congress can interfere and provide for the +punishment of any individual guilty of such refusal, no matter +whether such individual acted under or against the authority of the +State.</p> +<p>With this statement I most heartily agree. I agree that:</p> +<p>"When the wrongful refusal is because of race, color, or +previous condition of servitude, Congress can interfere and provide +for the punishment of any individual guilty of such refusal."</p> +<p>That is the key that unlocks the whole question. Congress has +power—full, complete, and ample,—to protect all +citizens from unjust discrimination, and from being deprived of +equal privileges on account of race, color, or previous condition +of servitude. And this language is just as applicable to the 13th +and 14th, as to the 15th Amendment. If a citizen is denied the +accommodations of a public inn, or a seat in a railway car, on +account of race or color, or deprived of liberty on account of race +or color, the Constitution has been violated, and the citizen thus +discriminated against or thus deprived of liberty, is entitled to +redress in a Federal Court.</p> +<p>It is held by the Supreme Court that the word "State" does not +apply to the "people" of the State—that it applies only to +the agents of the people of the State. And yet, the word "State," +as used in the Constitution, has been held to include not only the +persons in office, but the people who elected them—not only +the agents, but the principals. In the Constitution it is provided +that "no State shall coin money; and no State shall emit bills of +credit." According to this decision, any person in any State, +unless prevented by State authority, has the right to coin money +and to emit bills of credit, and Congress has no power to legislate +upon the subject—provided he does not counterfeit any of the +coins or current money of the United States. Congress would have to +deal—not with the individuals, but with the State; and unless +the State had passed some act allowing persons to coin money, or +emit bills of credit, Congress could do nothing. Yet, long ago, +Congress passed a statute preventing any person in any State from +coining money. No matter if a citizen should coin it of pure gold, +of the requisite fineness and weight, and not in the likeness of +United States coins, he would be a criminal. We have a silver +dollar, coined by the Government, worth eighty-five cents; and yet, +if any person, in any State, should coin what he called a dollar, +not like our money, but with a dollar's worth of silver in it, he +would be guilty of a crime.</p> +<p>It may be said that the Constitution provides that Congress +shall have power to coin money, and provide for the punishment of +counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United +States; in other words, that the Constitution gives power to +Congress to coin money and denies it to the States, not only, but +gives Congress the power to legislate against counterfeiting. So, +in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, power is given to Congress, +and power is denied to the States, not only, but Congress is +expressly authorized to enforce the amendments by appropriate +legislation. Certainly the power is as broad in the one case as in +the other; and in both cases, individuals can be reached as well as +States.</p> +<p>So the Constitution provides that:</p> +<p>"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the +several States."</p> +<p>Under this clause Congress deals directly with individuals. The +States are not engaged in commerce, but the people are; and +Congress makes rules and regulations for the government of the +people so engaged.</p> +<p>The Constitution also provides that:</p> +<p>"Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the Indian +tribes."</p> +<p>It was held in the case of <i>The United States vs. +Holliday</i>, 3 Wall., 407, that:</p> +<p>"Commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the +individuals composing those tribes."</p> +<p>And under this clause it has been further decided that Congress +has the power to regulate commerce not only between white people +and Indian tribes, but between Indian tribes; and not only that, +but between individual Indians. <i>Worcester vs. The State, 6 Pet., +575; The United States vs. 4.3 Gallons, 93 U. S., 188; The United +States vs. Shawmux, 2 Saw., 304.</i></p> +<p>Now, if the word "tribe" includes individual Indians, may not +the word "State" include citizens?</p> +<p>In this decision it is admitted by the Supreme Court that where +a subject is submitted to the general legislative power of +Congress, then Congress has plenary powers of legislation over the +whole subject. Let us apply these words to the 13th Amendment. In +this very decision I find that the 13th Amendment:</p> +<p>"By its own unaided force and effect, abolished slavery and +established universal freedom."</p> +<p>The Court admits that:</p> +<p>"Legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various +cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe +proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit."</p> +<p>The Court further admits:</p> +<p>"And such legislation may be primary and direct in its +character."</p> +<p>And then gives the reason:</p> +<p>"For the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws +establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that +slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the +United States."</p> +<p>I now ask, has that subject—that is to say, +Liberty,—been submitted to the general legislative power of +Congress? The 13th Amendment provides that Congress shall have +power to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation.</p> +<p>In construing the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights +Act, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has forgotten the +principle of construction that has been laid down so often by +courts, and that is this: that in construing statutes, courts may +look to the history and condition of the country as circumstances +from which to gather the intention of the Legislature. So it seems +to me that the Court failed to remember the rule laid down by Story +in the case of <i>Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,</i> +16 Pet., 611, a rule laid down in the interest of +slavery—laid down for the purpose of depriving human beings +of their liberty:</p> +<p>"Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation, after all, will be +found to be to look to the nature and objects of the particular +powers, duties and rights with all the lights and aids of +contemporary history, and to give to the words of each just such +operation and force consistent with their legitimate meaning, as +may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed."</p> +<p>It must be admitted that certain rights were conferred by the +13th Amendment. Surely certain rights were conferred by the 14th +Amendment; and these rights should be protected and upheld by the +Federal Government. And it was held in the case last cited, +that:</p> +<p>"If by one mode of interpretation the right must become shadowy +and unsubstantial, and without any remedial power adequate to the +end, and by another mode it will attain its just end and secure its +manifest purpose—it would seem, upon principles of reasoning +absolutely irresistable, that the latter ought to prevail. No court +of justice can be authorized so as to construe any clauses of the +Constitution as to defeat its obvious ends, when another +construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, +will enforce and protect them."</p> +<p>In the present case, the Supreme Court holds, that Congress can +not legislate upon this subject until the State has passed some law +contrary to the Constitution.</p> +<p>I call attention in reply to this, to the case of <i>Hall vs. De +Cuir,</i> 95 U. S., 486. The State of Louisiana, in 1869, acting in +the spirit of these amendments to the Constitution, passed a law +requiring that all persons engaged within that State in the +business of common carriers of passengers, should make no +discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of +servitude. Under this law, Mrs. De Cuir, a colored woman, took +passage on a steamer, buying a ticket from New Orleans to +Hermitage—the entire trip being within the limits of the +State. The captain of the boat refused to give her equal +accommodations with other passengers—the refusal being on the +ground of her color. She commenced suit against the captain in the +State Court of Louisiana, and recovered judgment for one thousand +dollars. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of that State, +and the judgment of the lower court was sustained. Thereupon, the +captain died, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the +United States by his administrator, on the ground that a Federal +question was involved.</p> +<p>You will see that this was a case where the State had acted, and +had acted exactly in accordance with the constitutional amendments, +and had by law provided that the privileges and immunities of the +citizen of the United States—residing in the State of +Louisiana—should not be abridged, and that no distinction +should be made on account of race or color. But in that case the +Supreme Court of the United States solemnly decided that the +legislation of the State was void—that the State of Louisiana +had no right to interfere—no right, by law, to protect a +citizen of the United States from being discriminated against under +such circumstances.</p> +<p>You will remember that the plaintiff, Mrs. De Cuir, was to be +carried from New Orleans to Hermitage, and that both places were +within the State of Louisiana. Notwithstanding this, the Supreme +Court held:</p> +<p>"That if the public good required such legislation, it must come +from Congress and not from the State."</p> +<p>What reason do you suppose was given? It was this: The +Constitution gives to Congress power to regulate commerce between +the States; and it appeared from the evidence given in that case, +that the boat plied between the ports of New Orleans and Vicksburg. +Consequently, it was engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, it +was under the protection of Congress; and being under the +protection of Congress, the State had no authority to protect its +citizens by a law in perfect harmony with the Constitution of the +United States, while such citizens were within the limits of +Louisiana. The Supreme Court scorns the protection of a State!</p> +<p>In the case recently decided, and about which we are talking +to-night, the Supreme Court decides exactly the other way. It +decides that if the public good requires such legislation, it must +come from the States, and not from Congress; that Congress cannot +act until the State has acted, and until the State has acted wrong, +and that Congress can then only act for the purpose of "correcting" +such State action. The decision in <i>Hall vs. De Cuir</i> was +rendered in 1877. The Civil Rights Act was then in force, and +applied to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United +States, and provided expressly that:</p> +<p>"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall +be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, +privileges, and facilities of inns, public conveyances on land or +water, theatres, and other places of public amusement, without +regard to race or color."</p> +<p>And yet the Supreme Court said:</p> +<p>"No carrier of passengers can conduct his business with +satisfaction to himself, or comfort to those employing him, if on +one side of a State line his passengers, both white and colored, +must be permitted to occupy the same cabin, and on the other to be +kept separate."</p> +<p>What right had the other State to pass a law that passengers +should be kept separate, on account of race or color? How could +such a law have been constitutional? The Civil Rights Act applied +to all States, and to both sides of the lines between all States, +and produced absolute uniformity—and did not put the captain +to the trouble of dividing his passengers. The Court further +said:</p> +<p>"Uniformity in the regulations by which the carrier is to be +governed from one end to the other of his route, is a necessity in +his business."</p> +<p>The uniformity had been guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, and +the statute of the State of Louisiana was in exact conformity with +the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Court also +said:</p> +<p>"And to secure uniformity, Congress, which is untrammeled by +State lines, has been invested with the exclusive power of +determining what such regulations shall be."</p> +<p>Yes. Congress has been invested with such power, and Congress +has used it in passing the Civil Rights Act—and yet, under +these circumstances, the Court proceeds to imagine the difficulty +that a captain would have in dividing his passengers as he crosses +a State line, keeping them apart until he reaches the line of +another State, and then bringing them together, and so going on +through the process of dispersing and huddling, to the end of his +unfortunate route.</p> +<p>It is held by the Supreme Court, that uniformity of duties is +essential to the carrier, and so essential, that Congress has +control of the whole matter. If uniformity is so desirable for the +carrier that Congress takes control, then uniformity as to the +rights of passengers is equally desirable; and under the 13th and +14th Amendments, Congress has the exclusive power to state what the +rights, privileges and immunities of passengers shall be. So that, +in 1877, the Supreme Court decided that the <i>States could not</i> +legislate; and in 1883, that <i>Congress could not</i>, unless the +State had. If Congress controls interstate commerce upon the +navigable waters, it also controls interstate commerce upon the +railways. And if Congress has exclusive jurisdiction in the one +case, it has in the other. And if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it +does not have to wait until States take action. If it does not have +to wait until States take action, then the Civil Rights Act, in so +far as it refers to the rights of passengers going from one State +to another, must be constitutional.</p> +<p>It must be remembered, in this discussion, that the 8th Section +of the Constitution conferred upon Congress the power:</p> +<p>"To make all laws that may be necessary and proper for carrying +into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the +Government of the United States."</p> +<p>So the 2nd Section of the 13th Article provides:</p> +<p>"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by +appropriate legislation."</p> +<p>The same language is used in the 14th and 15th Amendments.</p> +<p>"This clause does not limit—it enlarges—the powers +vested in the General Government. It is an additional +power—not a restriction on those already granted. It does not +impair the right of the Legislature to exercise its best judgment +in the selection of measures to carry into execution the +constitutional powers of the Government. A sound construction of +the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature that +discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers +are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to +perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most +beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate—let it be +within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are +appropriate—which are plainly adapted to that end—are +constitutional."</p> +<p>This is the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of +<i>M'Caulay, vs. The State</i>, 4 Wheaton, 316.</p> +<p>"Congress must possess the choice of means, and must be +empowered to use any means which are in fact conducive to the +exercise of a power granted by the Constitution." U. S. vs. Fisher, +2 Cranch, 358.</p> +<p>Again:</p> +<p>"The power of Congress to pass laws to enforce rights conferred +by the Constitution is not limited to the express powers of +legislation enumerated in the Constitution. The powers which are +necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly +given and duties expressly enjoined, are always implied. The end +being given, the means to accomplish it are given also." <i>Prigs +vs. The Commonwealth</i>, 16 Peters, 539.</p> +<p>This decision was delivered by Justice Story, and is the same +one already referred to, in which liberty was taken from a human +being by judicial construction. It was held in that case that the +2nd Section of the 4th Article of the Constitution, to which I have +already called attention, contained "a positive and unqualified +recognition of the right" of the owner in a slave, unaffected by +any State law or regulation. If this is so, then I assert that the +13th Amendment "contains a positive and unqualified recognition of +the right" of every human being to liberty; that the 14th Amendment +"contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right" to +citizenship; and that the 15th Amendment "contains a positive and +unqualified recognition of the right" to vote.</p> +<p>Justice Story held in that case that:</p> +<p>"Under and by virtue of that section of the Constitution the +owner of a slave was clothed with entire authority in every State +in the nation to seize and recapture his slave."</p> +<p>He also held that:</p> +<p>"In that sense, and to that extent, that clause of the +Constitution might properly be said to execute itself, and to +require no aid from legislation—State or National."</p> +<p>"But," says Justice Story:</p> +<p>"The clause of the Constitution does not stop there, but says +that he, the slave, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to +whom such service or labor may be due."</p> +<p>And he holds that:</p> +<p>"Under that clause of the section Congress became clothed with +the appropriate authority to legislate for its enforcement."</p> +<p>Now let us look at the 13th and 14th Amendments in the light of +that decision.</p> +<p>First. Liberty and citizenship were given the colored people by +this amendment. And Justice Story tells us that:</p> +<p>"The power of Congress to enforce rights conferred by the +Constitution is not limited to the express powers of legislation +enumerated in the Constitution, but the powers which are necessary +to protect such rights are always implied."</p> +<p>Language cannot be stronger; words cannot be clearer. But now +this decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court, and Congress +is left powerless to protect rights conferred by the Constitution. +It has been shorn of implied powers. It has duties to perform, and +no power to act. It has rights to protect, but cannot choose the +means. It is entangled in its own strength. It is a prisoner in the +bastile of judicial construction.</p> +<p>Let us go further. Justice Story tells us that:</p> +<p>"The words 'but shall be given up on the claim of the person to +whom such labor or service may be due,' clothes Congress with the +appropriate authority to legislate for its enforcement."</p> +<p>In the light of this remark, let us look at the 14th +Amendment:</p> +<p>"All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and +subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United +States and of the State wherein they reside."</p> +<p>To which are added these words:</p> +<p>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the +privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor +shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property +without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its +jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."</p> +<p>Now, if the words: "But shall be delivered up on claim of the +party to whom such service or labor may be due," clothes Congress +with power to legislate upon the entire subject, then I ask if the +words in the 14th Amendment declaring that "no law shall be made by +any State, or enforced, which shall abridge the privileges or +immunities of citizens of the United States; and that no State +shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due +process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the +equal protection of the laws," does not clothe Congress with the +power to legislate upon the entire subject?</p> +<p>In the two cases there is only this difference: The first +decision was made in the interest of human slavery—made to +protect property in man; and the second decision ought to have been +made for exactly the opposite purpose. Under the first decision, +Congress had the right to select the means—but now that is +denied. And yet it was decided in <i>M'Cauley vs. The State</i>, 4 +Wheaton, 316, that:</p> +<p>"When the Government has a right to do an act, and has imposed +on it the duty of performing an act, then it must, according to the +dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means."</p> +<p>Again:</p> +<p>"The Government has the right to employ freely every means not +prohibited, for the fulfillment of its acknowledged duties."</p> +<p><i>The Legal Tender Cases</i>—12 Wallace, 457.</p> +<p>It will thus be seen that Congress has the undoubted right to +make all laws necessary for the exercise of all the powers vested +in it by the Constitution. When the Constitution imposes a duty +upon Congress, it grants the necessary means. Congress certainly, +then, has the right to pass all necessary laws for the enforcement +of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Any legislation is +"appropriate" that is calculated to accomplish the end sought and +that is not repugnant to the Constitution. Within these limits +Congress has the sovereign power of choice. No better definition of +"appropriate legislation" has been given than that by the Supreme +Court of California, in the case of The People vs. Washington, 38 +California, 658:</p> +<p>"Legislation which practically tends to facilitate the securing +to all, through the aid of the judicial and executive departments +of the Government, the full enjoyment of personal freedom, is +appropriate."</p> +<p>The Supreme Court despairingly asks:</p> +<p>"If this legislation is appropriate for enforcing the +prohibitions of the Amendment, it is difficult to see where it is +to stop. Why may not Congress, with equal show of authority, enact +a code of laws for the enforcement and vindication of all rights of +life, liberty and property?"</p> +<p>My answer is: The legislation will stop when and where the +discriminations on account of race, color or previous condition of +servitude, stop. Whenever an immunity or privilege of a citizen of +the United States is trodden down by the State, or by an +individual, under the circumstances mentioned in the Civil Rights +Act—that is to say, on account of race, color, or previous +condition of servitude—then the Federal Government must +interfere. The Government must defend the immunities and privileges +of its citizens, not only from State invasion, but from individual +invaders, when that invasion is based upon the distinction of race, +color, or previous condition of servitude. The Government has taken +upon itself that duty. This duty can be discharged by a law making +a uniform rule, obligatory not only upon States, but upon +individuals. All this will stop when the discriminations stop.</p> +<p>After such examination of the authorities as I have been able to +make, I lay down the following propositions, namely:</p> +<p>1. The sovereignty of a State extends only to that which exists +by its own authority.</p> +<p>2. The powers of the General Government were not conferred by +the people of a single State; they were given by the people of the +United States; and the laws of the United States, in pursuance of +the Constitution, are supreme over the entire Republic.</p> +<p>3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of +each State.</p> +<p>4. The United States is a Government whose authority extends +over the whole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States +and upon all the people of all the States.</p> +<p>5. No State can exclude the Federal Government from the exercise +of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or withhold +from it, for a moment, the cognizance of any subject which that +instrument has committed to it.</p> +<p>6. It is the duty of Congress to enforce the Constitution, and +it has been clothed with power to make all laws necessary and +proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the +Constitution in the General Government.</p> +<p>7. It is the duty of the Government to protect every citizen of +the United States in all his rights, everywhere, without regard to +race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and this the +Government has the right to do by direct legislation.</p> +<p>8. Every citizen, when his privileges and immunities are invaded +by the legislature of a State, has the right of appeal from such. +State to the Supreme Court of the nation.</p> +<p>9. When a State fails to pass any law protecting a citizen from +discrimination on account of race or color, and fails, in fact, to +protect such citizen, then such citizen has the right to find +redress in the Federal Courts.</p> +<p>10. Whenever, in the Constitution, a State is prohibited from +doing anything that in the nature of the thing can be done by any +citizen of that State, then the word "State" embraces and includes +all the people of a State.</p> +<p>11. The 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor +involuntary servitude shall exist within the jurisdiction of the +United States.</p> +<p>This is not a mere negation—it is a splendid affirmation. +The duty is imposed upon the General Government by that amendment +to see to it that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall +exist.</p> +<p>It is a question absolutely within the power of the Federal +Government, and the Federal Government is clothed with power to +make all necessary laws to enforce that amendment against States +and persons.</p> +<p>12. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or +naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction +thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States +wherein they reside. This is also an affirmation. It is not a +prohibition. The moment that amendment was adopted, it became the +duty of the United States to protect the citizens recognized or +created by that amendment. We are no longer citizens of the United +States because we are citizens of a State, but we are citizens of +the United States because we have been born or have been +naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States. It +therefore follows, that it is not only the right, but it is the +duty, of Congress, to pass all laws necessary for the protection of +citizens of the United States.</p> +<p>13. Congress can not shirk this responsibility by leaving +citizens of the United States to the care and keeping of the +several States.</p> +<p>The recent decision of the Supreme Court cuts, as with a sword, +the tie that binds the citizen to the nation. Under the old +Constitution, it was not certainly known who were citizens of the +United States. There were citizens of the States, and such citizens +looked to their several States for protection. The Federal +Government had no citizens. Patriotism did not rest on mutual +obligation. Under the 14th Amendment, we are all citizens of a +common country; and our first duty, our first obligation, our +highest allegiance, is not to the State in which we reside, but to +the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment tends to destroy State +prejudices and lays a foundation for national patriotism.</p> +<p>14. All statutes—all amendments to the +Constitution—in derogation of natural rights, should be +strictly construed.</p> +<p>15. All statutes and amendments for the preservation of natural +rights should be liberally construed. Every court should, by strict +construction, narrow the scope of every law that infringes upon any +natural human right; and every court should, by construction, give +the broadest meaning to every statute or constitutional provision +passed or adopted for the preservation of freedom.</p> +<p>16. In construing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the +Supreme Court need not go back to decisions rendered in the days of +slavery—when every statute was construed in favor of the +sovereignty of the State and the rights of the master. These +amendments utterly obliterated such decisions. The Supreme Court +should begin with the amendments. It need not look behind them. +They are a part of the fundamental organic law of the nation. They +were adopted to destroy the old statutes, to obliterate the +infamous clauses in the Constitution, and to lay a new foundation +for a new nation.</p> +<p>17. Congress has the power to eradicate all forms and incidents +of slavery and involuntary servitude, by direct and primary +legislation binding upon States and individuals alike. And when +citizens are denied the exercise of common rights and +privileges—when they are refused admittance to public inns +and railway cars, on an equality with white persons—and when +such denial and refusal are based upon race and color, such +citizens are in a condition of involuntary servitude.</p> +<p>The Supreme Court has failed to take into consideration the +intention of the framers of these amendments. It has failed to +comprehend the spirit of the age. It has undervalued the +accomplishment of the war. It has not grasped in all their height +and depth the great amendments to the Constitution and the real +object of government. To preserve liberty is the only use for +government. There is no other excuse for legislatures, or +presidents, or courts, for statutes or decisions. Liberty is not +simply a means—it is an end. Take from our history, our +literature, our laws, our hearts—that word, and we are naught +but moulded clay. Liberty is the one priceless jewel. It includes +and holds and is the weal and wealth of life. Liberty is the soil +and light and rain—it is the plant and bud and flower and +fruit—and in that sacred word lie all the seeds of progress, +love and joy.</p> +<p>This decision, in my judgment, is not worthy of the Court by +which it was delivered. It has given new life to the serpent of +State Sovereignty. It has breathed upon the dying embers of +ignorant hate. It has furnished food and drink, breath and blood, +to prejudices that were perishing of famine, and in the old case of +<i>Civilization vs. Barbarism</i>, it has given the defendant a new +trial.</p> +<p>From this decision, John M. Harlan had the breadth of brain, the +goodness of heart, and the loyalty to logic, to dissent. By the +fortress of Liberty, one sentinel remains at his post. For moral +courage I have supreme respect, and I admire that intellectual +strength that breaks the cords and chains of prejudice and damned +custom as though they were but threads woven in a spider's loom. +This judge has associated his name with freedom, and he will be +remembered as long as men are free.</p> +<p>We are told by the Supreme Court that:</p> +<p>"Slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property and +lands and goods can exist without law."</p> +<p>I deny that property exists by virtue of law. I take exactly the +opposite ground. It was the fact that man had property in lands and +goods, that produced laws for the protection of such property. The +Supreme Court has mistaken an effect for a cause. Laws passed for +the protection of property, sprang from the possession and +ownership of the thing to be protected. When one man enslaves +another, it is a violation of all justice—a subversion of the +foundation of all law. Statutes passed for the purpose of enabling +man to enslave his fellow-man, resulted from a conspiracy entered +into by the representatives of brute force. Nothing can be more +absurd than to call such a statute, born of such a conspiracy a +law. According to the idea of the Supreme Court, man never had +property until he had passed a law upon the subject. The first man +who gathered leaves upon which to sleep, did not own them, because +no law had been passed on the leaf subject. The first man who +gathered fruit—the first man who fashioned a club with which +to defend himself from wild beasts, according to the Supreme Court, +had no property in these things, because no laws had been passed, +and no courts had published their decisions.</p> +<p>So the defenders of monarchy have taken the ground that +societies were formed by contract—as though at one time men +all lived apart, and came together by agreement and formed a +government. We might just as well say that the trees got into +groves by contract or conspiracy. Man is a social being. By living +together there grow out of the relation, certain regulations, +certain customs. These at last hardened into what we call +law—into what we call forms of government—and people +who wish to defend the idea that we got everything from the king, +say that our fathers made a contract. Nothing can be more absurd. +Men did not agree upon a form of government and then come together; +but being together, they made rules for the regulation of conduct. +Men did not make some laws and then get some property to fit the +laws, but having property they made laws for its protection.</p> +<p>It is hinted by the Supreme Court that this is in some way a +question of social equality. It is claimed that social equality +cannot be enforced by law. Nobody thinks it can. This is not a +question of social equality, but of equal rights. A colored citizen +has the same right to ride upon the cars—to be fed and lodged +at public inns, and to visit theatres, that I have. Social equality +is not involved.</p> +<p>The Federal soldiers who escaped from Libby and Andersonville, +and who in swamps, in storm, and darkness, were rescued and fed by +the slave, had no scruples about eating with a negro. They were +willing to sit beneath the same tree and eat with him the food he +brought. The white soldier was then willing to find rest and +slumber beneath the negro's roof. Charity has no color. It is +neither white nor black. Justice and Patriotism are the same. Even +the Confederate soldier was willing to leave his wife and children +under the protection of a man whom he was fighting to enslave.</p> +<p>Danger does not draw these nice distinctions as to race or +color. Hunger is not proud. Famine is exceedingly democratic in the +matter of food. In the moment of peril, prejudices perish. The man +fleeing for his life does not have the same ideas about social +questions, as he who sits in the Capitol, wrapped in official +robes. Position is apt to be supercilious. Power is sometimes +cruel. Prosperity is often heartless.</p> +<p>This cry about social equality is born of the spirit of +caste—the most fiendish of all things. It is worse than +slavery. Slavery is at least justified by avarice—by a desire +to get something for nothing—by a desire to live in idleness +upon the labor of others—but the spirit of caste is the +offspring of natural cruelty and meanness.</p> +<p>Social relations depend upon almost an infinite number of +influences and considerations. We have our likes and dislikes. We +choose our companions. This is a natural right. You cannot force +into my house persons whom I do not want. But there is a difference +between a public house and a private house. The one is for the +public. The private house is for the family and those they may +invite. The landlord invites the entire public, and he must serve +those who come if they are fit to be received. A railway is public, +not private. It derives its powers and its rights from the State. +It takes private land for public purposes. It is incorporated for +the good of the public, and the public must be served. The railway, +the hotel, and the theatre, have a right to make a distinction +between people of good and bad manners—between the clean and +the unclean. There are white people who have no right to be in any +place except a bath-tub, and there are colored people in the same +condition. An unclean white man should not be allowed to force +himself into a hotel, or into a railway car—neither should +the unclean colored. What I claim is, that in public places, no +distinction should be made on account of race or color. The bad +black man should be treated like the bad white man, and the good +black man like the good white man. Social equality is not contended +for—neither between white and white, black and black, nor +between white and black.</p> +<p>In all social relations we should have the utmost +liberty—but public duties should be discharged and public +rights should be recognized, without the slightest discrimination +on account of race or color. Riding in the same cars, stopping at +the same inns, sitting in the same theatres, no more involve a +social question, or social equality, than speaking the same +language, reading the same books, hearing the same music, traveling +on the same highway, eating the same food, breathing the same air, +warming by the same sun, shivering in the same cold, defending the +same flag, loving the same country, or living in the same +world.</p> +<p>And yet, thousands of people are in deadly fear about social +equality. They imagine that riding with colored people is +dangerous—that the chance acquaintance may lead to marriage. +They wish to be protected from such consequences by law. They dare +not trust themselves. They appeal to the Supreme Court for +assistance, and wish to be barricaded by a constitutional +amendment. They are willing that colored women shall prepare their +food—that colored waiters shall bring it to +them—willing to ride in the same cars with the porters and to +be shown to their seats in theatres by colored ushers—willing +to be nursed in sickness by colored servants. They see nothing +dangerous—nothing repugnant, in any of these +relations,—but the idea of riding in the same car, stopping +at the same hotel, fills them with fear—fear for the future +of our race. Such people can be described only in the language of +Walt Whitman. "They are the immutable, granitic pudding-heads of +the world.".</p> +<p>Liberty is not a social question. Civil equality is not social +equality. We are equal only in rights. No two persons are of equal +weight, or height. There are no two leaves in all the forests of +the earth alike—no two blades of grass—no two grains of +sand—no two hairs. No two any-things in the physical world +are precisely alike. Neither mental nor physical equality can be +created by law, but law recognizes the fact that all men have been +clothed with equal rights by Nature, the mother of us all.</p> +<p>The man who hates the black man because he is black, has the +same spirit as he who hates the poor man because he is poor. It is +the spirit of caste. The proud useless despises the honest useful. +The parasite idleness scorns the great oak of labor on which it +feeds, and that lifts it to the light.</p> +<p>I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot. +Men are not superior by reason of the accidents of race or color. +They are superior who have the best heart—the best brain. +Superiority is born of honesty, of virtue, of charity, and above +all, of the love of liberty. The superior man is the providence of +the inferior. He is eyes for the blind, strength for the weak, and +a shield for the defenceless. He stands erect by bending above the +fallen. He rises by lifting others.</p> +<p>In this country all rights must be preserved, all wrongs +redressed, through the ballot. The colored man has in his +possession in his care, a part of the sovereign power of the +Republic. At the ballot-box he is the equal of judges and senators, +and presidents, and his vote, when counted, is the equal of any +other. He must use this sovereign power for his own protection, and +for the preservation of his children. The ballot is his sword and +shield. It is his political providence. It is the rock on which he +stands, the column against which he leans. He should vote for no +man who dees not believe in equal rights for all—in the same +privileges and immunities for all citizens, irrespective of race or +color.</p> +<p>He should not be misled by party cries, or by vague promises in +political platforms. He should vote for the men, for the party, +that will protect him; for congressmen who believe in liberty, for +judges who worship justice, whose brains are not tangled by +technicalities, and whose hearts are not petrified by precedents; +and for presidents who will protect the blackest citizen from the +tyranny of the whitest State. As you cannot trust the word of some +white people, and as some black people do not always tell the +truth, you must compel all candidates to put their principle' in +black and white.</p> +<p>Of one thing you can rest assured: The best white people are +your friends. The humane, the civilized, the just, the most +intelligent, the grandest, are on your side. The sympathies of the +noblest are with you. Your enemies are also the enemies of liberty, +of progress and of justice. The white men who make the white race +honorable believe in equal rights for you. The noblest living are, +the noblest dead were, your friends. I ask you to stand with your +friends.</p> +<p>Do not hold the Republican party responsible for this decision, +unless the Republican party endorses it. Had the question been +submitted to that party, it would have been decided exactly the +other way—at least a hundred to one. That party gave you the +13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. They were given in good faith. +These amendments put you on a constitutional and political equality +with white men. That they have been narrowed in their application +by the Supreme Court, is not the fault of the Republican party. Let +us wait and see what the Republican party will do. That party has a +strange history, and in that history is a mingling of cowardice and +courage. The army of progress always becomes fearful after victory, +and courageous after defeat. It has been the custom for principle +to apologize to prejudice. The Proclamation of Emancipation gave +liberty only to slaves beyond our lines—those beneath our +flag were left to wear their chains. We said to the Southern +States: "Lay down your arms, and you shall keep your slaves." We +tried to buy peace at the expense of the negro.</p> +<p>We offered to sacrifice the manhood of the North, and the +natural rights of the colored man, upon the altar of the Union. The +rejection of that offer saved us from infamy. At one time we +refused to allow the loyal black man to come within our lines. We +would meet him at the outposts, receive his information, and drive +him back to chain and lash. The Government publicly proclaimed that +the war was waged to save the Union, with slavery. We were afraid +to claim that the negro was a man—afraid to admit that he was +property—and so we called him "contraband." We hesitated to +allow the negro to fight for his own freedom—hesitated to let +him wear the uniform of the nation while he battled for the +supremacy of its flag.</p> +<p>These are some of the inconsistencies of the past. In spite of +them we advanced. We were educated by events, and at last we +clearly saw that slavery was rebellion; that the "institution" had +borne its natural fruit—civil war; that the entire country +was responsible for slavery, and that slavery was responsible for +rebellion. We declared that slavery should be extirpated from the +Republic. The great armies led by the greatest commander of the +modern world, shattered, crushed and demolished the Rebellion. The +North grew grand. The people became sublime. The three sacred +amendments were adopted. The Republic was free.</p> +<p>Then came a period of hesitation, apology and fear. The colored +citizen was left to his fate. For years the Federal arm, palsied by +policy, was powerless to protect; and this period of fear, of +hesitation, of apology, of lack of confidence in the right, has +borne its natural fruit—this decision of the Supreme +Court.</p> +<p>But it is not for me to give you advice. Your conduct has been +above all praise. You have been as patient as the earth beneath, as +the stars above. You have been law-abiding and industrious, You +have not offensively asserted your rights, or offensively borne +your wrongs. You have been modest and forgiving. You have returned +good for evil. When I remember that the ancestors of my race were +in universities and colleges and common schools while you and your +fathers were on the auction-block, in the slave-pen, or in the +field beneath the cruel lash, in States where reading and writing +were crimes, I am astonished at the progress you have made.</p> +<p>All that I—all that any reasonable man—can ask is, +that you continue doing as you have done. Above all +things—educate your children—strive to make yourselves +independent—work for homes—work for +yourselves—and wherever it is possible become the masters of +yourselves.</p> +<p>Nothing gives me more pleasure than to see your little children +with books under their arms, going and coming from school.</p> +<p>It is very easy to see why colored people should hate us, but +why we should hate them is beyond my comprehension. They never sold +our wives. They never robbed our cradles.. They never scarred our +backs. They never pursued us with bloodhounds. They never branded +our flesh.</p> +<p>It has been said that it is hard to forgive a man to whom we +have done a great injury. I can conceive of no other reason why we +should hate the colored people. To us they are a standing reproach. +Their history is our shame. Their virtues seem to enrage some white +people—their patience to provoke, and their forgiveness to +insult. Turn the tables—change places—and with what +fierceness, with what ferocity, with what insane and passionate +intensity we would hate them!</p> +<p>The colored people do not ask for revenge—they simply ask +for justice. They are willing to forget the past—willing to +hide their scars—anxious to bury the broken chains, and to +forget the miseries and hardships, the tears and agonies, of two +hundred years.</p> +<p>The old issues are again upon us. Is this a Nation? Have all +citizens of the United States equal rights, without regard to race +or color? Is it the duty of the General Government to protect its +citizens? Can the Federal arm be palsied by the action or +non-action of a State?</p> +<p>Another opportunity is given for the people of this country to +take sides. According to my belief, the supreme thing for every man +to do is to be absolutely true to himself. All +consequences—whether rewards or punishments, whether honor +and power, or disgrace and poverty, are as dreams undreamt. I have +made my choice. I have taken my stand. Where my brain and heart go, +there I will publicly and openly walk. Doing this, is my highest +conception of duty. Being allowed to do this, is liberty.</p> +<p>If this is not now a free Government; if citizens cannot now be +protected, regardless of race or color; if the three sacred +amendments have been undermined by the Supreme Court—we must +have another; and if that fails, then another; and we must neither +stop, nor pause, until the Constitution shall become a perfect +shield for every right, of every human being, beneath our flag.</p> +<a name="link0002" id="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>TRIAL OF C. B. REYNOLDS FOR BLASPHEMY.</h2> +<h3>Address to the Jury.</h3> +<pre> + * Within thirty miles of New York, in the city of + Morristown, New Jersey, a man was put on trial yesterday for + distributing a pamphlet argument against the infallibility + of the Bible. The crime which the Indictment alleges Is + Blasphemy, for which the statutes of New Jersey provide a + penalty of two hundred dollars fine, or twelve months + imprisonment, or both. It is the first case of the kind ever + tried in New Jersey, although the law dates back to colonial + days. Charles B. Reynolds is the man on trial, and the State + of New Jersey, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Morris + County, is the prosecutor. The Circuit Court, Judge Francis + Child, assisted by County Judges Munson and Quimby, sit upon + the case. Prosecutor Wilder W. Cutler represents the State, + and Robert G. Ingersoll appears for the defendant. + + Mr. Reynolds went to Boonton last summer to hold "free- + thought" meetings. Announcing his purpose without any + flourish, he secured a piece of ground, pitched a tent upon + it, and invited the towns-people to come and hear him. It + was understood that he had been a Methodist minister: that, + finding it impossible to reconcile his mind to some of the + historical parts of the Bible, and unable to accept it in + its entirety as a moral guide, he left the church and set + out to proclaim his conclusions. The churches in Boonton + arrayed themselves against him. The Catholics and Methodists + were especially active. Taking this opposition as an excuse, + one element of the town invaded his tent. They pelted + Reynolds with ancient eggs and vegetables. They chopped away + the guy ropes of the tent and slashed the canvas with their + knives. When the tent collapsed, the crowd rushed for the + speaker to inflict further punishment by plunging him in the + duck pond They rummaged the wrecked tent, but in vain. He + had made his way ont in the confusion and was no more seen + in Boonton. + + But what he had said did not leave Boonton with him, and the + pamphlets he had distributed were read by many who probably + would not have looked between their covers had his visit + been attended by no unusual circumstances. Boonton was still + agitated up on the subject when Mr. Reynolds appeared in + Morristown. This time he did not try to hold meetings, but + had his pamphlets with him. + + Mr. Reynolds appeared in Morristown with the pamphlets on + October thirteenth. A Boonton delegation was there, + clamoring for his indictment for blasphemy. The Grand Jury + heard of his visit and found two indictments against him; + one for blasphemy at + + Boonton and the second for blasphemy at Morristown. He + furnished a five hundred dollar bond to appear for trial. On + account of Colonel Ingersoll's throat troubles the case was + adjourned several times through the winter and until Monday + last, when it was set peremptorily for trial yesterday. + + The public feeling excited at Boonton was overshadowed by + that at Morristown and the neighboring region. For six + months no topic was so interesting to the public as this. It + monopolized attention at the stores, and became a fruitful + subject of gossip in social and church circles. Under such + circumstances it was to be expected that everybody who could + spare the time would go to court yesterday. Lines of people + began to climb the court house hill early in the morning. At + the hour of opening court the room set apart for the trial + was packed, and distaffs had to be stationed at the foot of + the stairs to keep back those who were not early enough. + From nine thirty to eleven o'clock the crowd inside talked + of blasphemy in all the phases suggested by this case, and + the outsiders waited patiently on the lawn and steps and + along the dusty approaches to the gray building. + + Eleven o'clock brought the train from New York and on it + Colonel Ingersoll. His arrival at the court house with his + clerk opened a new chapter in the day's gossip. The event + was so absorbing indeed, that the crowd failed entirely to + notice an elderly man wearing a black frock snit, a silk + hat, with an army badge pinned to his coat, and looking like + a merchant of means, who entered the court house a few + minutes behind the famous lawyer. The last comer was the + defendant. + + All was ready for the case. Within five minutes five jurors + were in the box. Then Colonel Ingersoll asked what were his + rights about challenges. He was informed that he might make + six peremptory challenges and must challenge before the + jurors took their seats. The only disqualification the Court + would recognize would be the inability of a juror to change + his opinion in spite of evidence. Colonel Ingersoll induced + the Court to let him examine the five in the box and + promptly ejected two Presbyterians. + + Thereafter Colonel Ingersoll examined every juror as soon as + presented. He asked particularly about the nature of each + man's prejudice, if he had one. To a juror who did not know + that he understood the word, the Colonel replied: "I may not + define the word legally, but my own idea is that a man is + prejudiced when he has made up his mind on a case without + knowing anything about it." This juror thought that he came + under that category. + + Presbyterians had a rather hard time with the examiner. + After twenty men had been examined and the defence had + exercised five of its peremptory challenges, the following + were sworn as jurymen. * * * * + + The jury having been sworn, Prosecutor Cutler announced that + he would try only the indictment for the offence in + Morristown. He said that Reynolds was charged with + distributing pamphlets containing matter claimed to be + blasphemous under the law. If the charge could be proved he + asked a verdict of guilty. Then he called sixteen towns- + people, to most of whom Reynolds had given a pamphlet. + + Colonel Ingersoll tried to get the Presbyterian witnesses to + say that they had read the pamphlet. Not one of them + admitted it. Further than this he attempted no + cross-examination. + + "I do not know that I shall have any witnesses one way or + the other," Colonel Ingersoll said, rising to suggest a + recess. "Perhaps after dinner I may feel like making a few + remarks." + + "There will be great disappointment if you do not" Judge + Child responded, in a tone that meant a word for himself as + well as for the other listeners. The spectators nodded + approval to this sentiment. At 4:20 o'clock Col. Ingersoll + having spoken since 2 o'clock, Judge Child adjourned court + until this morning. + + As Colonel Ingersoll left the room a throng pressed after + him to offer congratulations. One old man said: "Colonel + Ingersoll I am a Presbyterian pastor, but I must say that + was the noblest speech in defence of liberty I ever heard! + Your hand, sir; your hand,"—The Times, New York, May + 20,1887. +</pre> +<p>GENTLEMEN of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most +important cases that can be submitted to a jury. It is not a case +that involves a little property, neither is it one that involves +simply the liberty of one man. It involves the freedom of speech, +the intellectual liberty of every citizen of New Jersey.</p> +<p>The question to be tried by you is whether a man has the right +to express his honest thought; and for that reason there can be no +case of greater importance submitted to a jury. And it may be well +enough for me, at the outset, to admit that there could be no case +in which I could take a greater—a deeper interest. For my +part, I would not wish to live in a world where I could not express +my honest opinions. Men who deny to others the right of speech are +not fit to live with honest men.</p> +<p>I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any +church, of any State, to put a padlock on the lips—to make +the tongue a convict. I passionately deny the right of the Herod of +authority to kill the children of the brain. A man has a right to +work with his hands, to plow the earth, to sow the seed, and that +man has a right to reap the harvest. If we have not that right, +then all are slaves except those who take these rights from their +fellow-men. If you have the right to work with your hands and to +gather the harvest for yourself and your children, have you not a +right to cultivate your brain? Have you not the right to read, to +observe, to investigate—and when you have so read and so +investigated, have you not the right to reap that field? And what +is it to reap that field? It is simply to express what you have +ascertained—simply to give your thoughts to your +fellow-men.</p> +<p>If there is one subject in this world worthy of being discussed, +worthy of being understood, it is the question of intellectual +liberty. Without that, we are simply painted clay; without that, we +are poor, miserable serfs and slaves. If you have not the right to +express your opinions, if the defendant has not this right, then no +man ever walked beneath the blue of heaven that had the right to +express his thought. If others claim the right, where did they get +it? How did they happen to have it, and how did you happen to be +deprived of it? Where did a church or a nation get that right?</p> +<p>Are we not all children of the same Mother? Are we not all +compelled to think, whether we wish to or not? Can you help +thinking as you do? When you look out upon the woods, the +fields,—when you look at the solemn splendors of the +night—these things produce certain thoughts in your mind, and +they produce them necessarily. No man can think as he desires. No +man controls the action of his brain, any more than he controls the +action of his heart. The blood pursues its old accustomed ways in +spite of you. The eyes see, if you open them, in spite of you. The +ears hear, if they are unstopped, without asking your permission. +And the brain thinks in spite of you. Should you express that +thought? Certainly you should, if others express theirs. You have +exactly the same right. He who takes it from you is a robber.</p> +<p>For thousands of years people have been trying to force other +people to think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed? +No. Why? Because brute force is not an argument. You can stand with +the lash over a man, or you can stand by the prison door, or +beneath the gallows, or by the stake, and say to this man: "Recant +or the lash descends, the prison door is locked upon you, the rope +is put about your neck, or the torch is given to the fagot." And so +the man recants. Is he convinced? Not at all. Have you produced a +new argument? Not the slightest. And yet the ignorant bigots of +this world have been trying for thousands of years to rule the +minds of men by brute force. They have endeavored to improve the +mind by torturing the flesh—to spread religion with the sword +and torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by putting +their feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, patriots, +philosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been the +result? Are we any nearer thinking alike to-day than we were +then?</p> +<p>No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to +make people think its way by force and flame. And yet every church +that ever was established commenced in the minority, and while it +was in the minority advocated free speech—every one. John +Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in +France, wrote a book on religious toleration in order to show that +all men had an equal right to think; and yet that man afterward, +clothed in a little authority, forgot all his sentiments about +religious liberty, and had poor Servetus burned at the stake, for +differing with him on a question that neither of them knew anything +about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration—in the +majority, he practiced murder.</p> +<p>I want you to understand what has been done in the world to +force men to think alike. It seems to me that if there is some +infinite being who wants us to think alike, he would have made us +alike. Why did he not do so? Why did he make your brain so that you +could not by any possibility be a Methodist? Why did he make yours +so that you could not be a Catholic? And why did he make the brain +of another so that he is an unbeliever—why the brain of +another so that he became a Mohammedan—if he wanted us all to +believe alike?</p> +<p>After all, may be Nature is good enough and grand enough and +broad enough to give us the diversity born of liberty. May be, +after all, it would not be best for us all to be just the same. +What a stupid world, if everybody said yes to everything that +everybody else might say.</p> +<p>The most important thing in this world is liberty. More +important than food or clothes—more important than gold or +houses or lands—more important than art or science—more +important than all religions, is the liberty of man.</p> +<p>If civilization tends to do away with liberty, then I agree with +Mr. Buckle that civilization is a curse. Gladly would I give up the +splendors of the nineteenth century—gladly would I forget +every invention that has leaped from the brain of man—gladly +would I see all books ashes, all works of art destroyed, all +statues broken, and all the triumphs of the world +lost—gladly, joyously would I go back to the abodes and dens +of savagery, if that were necessary to preserve the inestimable gem +of human liberty. So would every man who has a heart and brain.</p> +<p>How has the church in every age, when in authority, defended +itself? Always by a statute against blasphemy, against argument, +against free speech. And there never was such a statute that did +not stain the book that it was in, and that did not certify to the +savagery of the men who passed it. Never. By making a statute and +by defining blasphemy, the church sought to prevent +discussion—sought to prevent argument—sought to prevent +a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a +doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a statute that prevents your +speaking against it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives +because lips are locked. It lives because men are slaves.</p> +<p>If I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines that in my +judgment will make this world happier and better. If I know myself, +I advocate only those things that will make a man a better citizen, +a better father, a kinder husband—that will make a woman a +better wife, a better mother—doctrines that will fill every +home with sunshine and with joy. And if I believed that anything I +should say to-day would have any other possible tendency, I would +stop. I am a believer in liberty. That is my religion—to give +to every other human being every right that I claim for myself, and +I grant to every other human being, not the right—because it +is his right—but instead of granting I declare that it is his +right, to attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer every +argument that I urge—in other words, he must have absolute +freedom of speech.</p> +<p>I am a believer in what I call "intellectual hospitality." A man +comes to your door. If you are a gentleman and he appears to be a +good man, you receive him with a smile. You ask after his health. +You say: "Take a chair; are you thirsty, are you hungry, will you +not break bread with me?" That is what a hospitable, good man +does—he does not set the dog on him. Now, how should we treat +a new thought? I say that the brain should be hospitable and say to +the new thought: "Come in; sit down; I want to cross-examine you; I +want to find whether you are good or bad; if good, stay; if bad, I +don't want to hurt you—probably you think you are all +right,—but your room is better than your company, and I will +take another idea in your place." Why not? Can any man have the +egotism to say that he has found it all out? No. Every man who has +thought, knows not only how little he knows, but how little every +other human being knows, and how ignorant, after all, the world +must be.</p> +<p>There was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church had power. +And I want it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am +opposed to Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics—while I +am opposed to Presbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians. I +do not fight people,—I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I +never go into personalities. As I said, I do not hate +Presbyterians, but Presbyterianism—that is, I am opposed to +their doctrine. I do not hate a man that has the rheumatism—I +hate the rheumatism when it has a man. So I attack certain +principles because I think they are wrong, but I always want it +understood that I have nothing against persons—nothing +against victims.</p> +<p>There was a time when the Catholic Church was in power in the +Old World. All at once there arose a man called Martin Luther, and +what did the dear old Catholics think? "Oh," they said, "that man +and his followers are going to hell." But they did not go. They +were very good people. They may have been mistaken—I do not +know. I think they were right in their opposition to +Catholicism—but I have just as much objection to the religion +they founded as I have to the church they left. But they thought +they were right, and they made very good citizens, and it turned +out that their differing from the Mother Church did not hurt them. +And then after awhile they began to divide, and there arose +Baptists; and-the other gentlemen, who believed in this law that is +now in New Jersey, began cutting off their ears so that they could +hear better; they began putting them in prison so that they would +have a chance to think. But the Baptists turned out to be good +folks—first rate—good husbands, good fathers, good +citizens. And in a little while, in England, the people turned to +be Episcopalians, on account of a little war that Henry VIII. had +with the Pope,—and I always sided with the Pope in that +war—but it made no difference; and in a little while the +Episcopalians turned out to be just about like other folks—no +worse—and, as I know of, no better.</p> +<p>After awhile arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian said, "We +don't want anything of him—he is a bad man;" and they finally +drove some of them away and they settled in New England, and there +were among them Quakers, than whom there never were better people +on the earth—industrious, frugal, gentle, kind and +loving—and yet these Puritans began hanging them. They said: +"They are corrupting our children; if this thing goes on, everybody +will believe in being kind and gentle and good, and what will +become of us?" They were honest about it. So they went to cutting +off ears. But the Quakers were good people and none of the +prophecies were fulfilled.</p> +<p>In a little while there came some Unitarians and they said, "The +world is going to ruin, sure;"—but the world went on as +usual, and the Unitarians produced men like Channing—one of +the tenderest spirits that ever lived—they produced men like +Theodore Parker—one of the greatest brained and greatest +hearted men produced upon this continent—a good man—and +yet they thought he was a blasphemer—they even prayed for his +death—on their bended knees they asked their God to take time +to kill him. Well, they were mistaken. Honest, probably.</p> +<p>After awhile came the Universalists, who said: "God is good. He +will not damn anybody always, just for a little mistake he made +here. This is a very short life; the path we travel is very dim, +and a great many shadows fall in the way, and if a man happens to +stub his toe, God will not burn him forever." And then all the rest +of the sects cried out, "Why, if you do away with hell, everybody +will murder just for pastime—everybody will go to stealing +just to enjoy themselves." But they did not. The Universalists were +good people—just as good as any others. Most of them much +better. None of the prophecies were fulfilled, and yet the +differences existed.</p> +<p>And so we go on until we find people who do not believe the +Bible at all, and when they say they do not, they come within this +statute.</p> +<p>Now, gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first, that this +statute under which Mr. Reynolds is being tried is +unconstitutional—that it is not in harmony with the +constitution of New Jersey; and I am going to try to show you in +addition to that, that it was passed hundreds of years ago, by men +who believed it was right to burn heretics and tie Quakers to the +end of a cart; men and even modest women—stripped +naked—and lash them from town to town. They were the men who +originally passed that statute, and I want to show you that it has +slept all this time, and I am informed—I do not know how it +is—that there never has been a prosecution in this State for +blasphemy.</p> +<p>Now, gentlemen, what is blasphemy? Of course nobody knows what +it is, unless he takes into consideration where he is. What is +blasphemy in one country would be a religious exhortation, in +another. It is owing to where you are and who is in authority. And +let me call your attention to the impudence and bigotry of the +American Christians. We send missionaries to other countries. What +for? To tell them that their religion is false, that their gods are +myths and monsters, that their saviors and apostles were impostors, +and that our religion is true. You send a man from +Morristown—a Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes there, and +he tells the Mohammedans—and he has it in a pamphlet and he +distributes it—that the Koran is a lie, that Mohammed was not +a prophet of God, that the angel Gabriel is not so large that it is +four hundred leagues between his eyes—that it is all a +mistake—there never was an angel so large as that. Then what +would the Turks do? Suppose the Turks had a law like this statute +in New Jersey. They would put the Morristown missionary in jail, +and he would send home word, and then what would the people of +Morristown say? Honestly—what do you think they would say? +They would say, "Why, look at those poor, heathen wretches. We sent +a man over there armed with the truth, and yet they were so blinded +by their idolatrous religion, so steeped in superstition, that they +actually put that man in prison." Gentlemen, does not that show the +need of more missionaries? I would say, yes.</p> +<p>Now, let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes from Turkey to +Morristown. He has got a pamphlet. He says, "The Koran is the +inspired book, Mohammed is the real prophet, your Bible is false +and your Savior simply a myth." Thereupon the Morristown people put +him in jail. Then what would the Turks say? They would say, +"Morristown needs more missionaries," and I would agree with +them.</p> +<p>In other words, what we want is intellectual hospitality. Let +the world talk. And see how foolish this trial is. I have no doubt +that the prosecuting attorney-agrees with me to-day, that whether +this law is good or bad, this trial should not have taken place. +And let me tell you why. Here comes a man into your town and +circulates a pamphlet. Now, if they had just kept still, very few +would ever have heard of it. That would have been the end. The +diameter of the echo would have been a few thousand feet. But in +order to stop the discussion of that question, they indicted this +man, and that question has been more discussed in this country +since this indictment than all the discussions put together since +New Jersey was first granted to Charles II.'s dearest brother +James, the Duke of York.. And what else? A trial here that is to be +reported and published all over the United States, a trial that +will give Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty millions of people. +And yet this was done for the purpose of stopping a discussion of +this subject. I want to show you that the thing is in itself almost +idiotic—that it defeats itself, and that you cannot crush out +these things by force. Not only so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right +to be defended, and his counsel has the right to give his opinions +on this subject.</p> +<p>Suppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in jail. The argument has not +been sent to jail. That is still going the rounds, free as the +winds. Suppose you keep him at hard labor a year—all the time +he is there, hundreds and thousands of people will be reading some +account, or some fragment, of this trial. There is the trouble. If +you could only imprison a thought, then intellectual tyranny might +succeed. If you could only take an argument and put a striped suit +of clothes on it—if you could only take a good, splendid, +shining fact and lock it up in some dungeon of ignorance, so that +its light would never again enter the mind of man, then you might +succeed in stopping human progress. Otherwise, no.</p> +<p>Let us see about this particular statute. In the first place, +the State has a constitution. That constitution is a rule, a +limitation to the power of the Legislature, and a certain +breastwork for the protection of private rights, and the +constitution says to this sea of passions and prejudices: "Thus far +and no farther." The constitution says to each individual: "This +shall panoply you; this is your complete coat of mail; this shall +defend your rights." And it is usual in this country to make as a +part of each constitution several general declarations—called +the Bill of Rights. So I find that in the old constitution of New +Jersey, which was adopted in the year of grace 1776, although the +people at that time were not educated as they are now—the +spirit of the Revolution at that time not having permeated all +classes of society—a declaration in favor of religious +freedom. The people were on the eve of a revolution. This +constitution was adopted on the third day of July, 1776, one day +before the immortal Declaration of Independence. Now, what do we +find in this—and we have got to go by this light, by this +torch, when we examine the statute.</p> +<p>I find in that constitution, in its Eighteenth Section, this: +"No person shall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable +privilege of worshiping God, in a manner agreeable to the dictates +of his own conscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled +to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and +judgment; nor shall he be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any +other rates for the purpose of building or repairing any church or +churches, contrary to what he believes to be true." That was a very +great and splendid step. It was the divorce of church and state. It +no longer allowed the State to levy taxes for the support of a +particular religion, and it said to every citizen of New Jersey: +All that you give for that purpose must be voluntarily given, and +the State will not compel you to pay for the maintenance of a +church in which you do not believe. So far so good.</p> +<p>The next paragraph was not so good. "There shall be no +establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference +to another, and no Protestant inhabitants of this State shall be +denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his +religious principles; but all persons professing a belief in the +faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves +peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to any office of +profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege +and immunity enjoyed by other citizens."</p> +<p>What became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not +know—whether they had any right to be elected to office or +not under this Act. But in 1844, the State having grown civilized +in the meantime, another constitution was adopted. The word +Protestant was then left out. There was to be no establishment of +one religion over another. But Protestantism did not render a man +capable of being elected to office any more than Catholicism, and +nothing is said about any religious belief whatever. So far, so +good.</p> +<p>"No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any +office of public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of +any civil right on account of his religious principles."</p> +<p>That is a very broad and splendid provision. "No person shall be +denied any civil right on account of his religious principles." +That was copied from the Virginia constitution, and that clause in +the Virginia constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and +under that clause men were entitled to give their testimony in the +courts of Virginia whether they believed in any religion or not, in +any bible or not, or in any god or not.</p> +<p>That same clause was afterward adopted by the State of Illinois, +also by many other States, and wherever that clause is, no citizen +can be denied any civil right on account of his religious +principles. It is a broad and generous clause. This statute, under +which this indictment is drawn, is not in accordance with the +spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under that clause, no man can be +deprived of any civil right on account of his religious principles, +or on account of his belief. And yet, on account of this miserable, +this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute, the same man +who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can be sent to +the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing his honest +thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you that this +statute is unconstitutional.</p> +<p>But we will go another step: "Every person may freely speak, +write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible +for the abuse of that right."</p> +<p>That is in the constitution of nearly every State in the Union, +and the intention of that is to cover slanderous words—to +cover a case where a man under pretence of enjoying the freedom of +speech falsely assails or accuses his neighbor. Of course he should +be held responsible for that abuse.</p> +<p>Then follows the great clause in the constitution of +1844—more important than any other clause in that +instrument—a clause that shines in that constitution like a +star at night.—</p> +<p>"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of +speech or of the press."</p> +<p>Can anything be plainer—anything be more forcibly +stated?</p> +<p>"No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of speech."</p> +<p>Now, while you are considering this statute, I want you to keep +in mind this other statement:</p> +<p>"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of +speech or of the press."</p> +<p>And right here there is another thing I want to call your +attention to. There is a constitution higher than any statute. +There is a law higher than any constitution. It is the law of the +human conscience, and no man who is a man will defile and pollute +his conscience at the bidding of any legislature. Above all things, +one should maintain his selfrespect, and there is but one way to do +that, and that is to live in accordance with your highest +ideal.</p> +<p>There is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they exist +in this poor world—the absolute consequences of certain +acts—they are above all. And this higher law is the breath of +progress, the very outstretched wings of civilization, under which +we enjoy the freedom we have. Keep that in your minds. There never +was a legislature great enough—there never was a constitution +sacred enough, to compel a civilized man to stand between a black +man and his liberty. There never was a constitution great enough to +make me stand between any human being and his right to express his +honest thoughts. Such a constitution is an insult to the human +soul, and I would care no more for it than I would for the growl of +a wild beast. But we are not driven to that necessity here. This +constitution is in accord with the highest and noblest aspirations +of the heart—"No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge +the liberty of speech."</p> +<p>Now let us come to this old law—this law that was asleep +for a hundred years before this constitution was adopted—this +law coiled like a snake beneath the foundations of the +Government—this law, cowardly, dastardly—this law +passed by wretches who were afraid: to discuss—this law +passed by men who could not, and who knew they could not, defend +their creed—and so they said: "Give us the sword of the State +and we will cleave the heretic down." And this law was made to +control the minority. When the Catholics were in power they visited +that law upon their opponents. When the Episcopalians were in +power, they tortured and burned the poor Catholic who had scoffed +and who had denied the truth of their religion. Whoever was in +power used that, and whoever was out of power cursed that—and +yet, the moment he got in power he used it: The people became +civilized—but that law was on the statute book. It simply +remained. There it was, sound asleep—its lips drawn over its +long and cruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken it. And it +slept on, and New Jersey has flourished. Men have done well. You +have had average health in this country. Nobody roused the statute +until the defendant in this case went to Boonton, and there made a +speech in which he gave his honest thought, and the people not +having an argument handy, threw stones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the +defendant, published a pamphlet on Blasphemy and in it gave a +photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is his offence. Now let +us read this infamous statute:</p> +<p>"<i>If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God +by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his +being</i>"—</p> +<p>I want to say right here—many a man has cursed the God of +another man. The Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant. +The Presbyterians have cursed the God of the +Catholics—charged them with idolatry—cursed their +images, laughed at their ceremonies. And these compliments have +been interchanged between all the religions of the world. But I say +here to-day that no man, unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the +God in whom he believed. No man, no human being, has ever lived who +cursed his own idea of God. He always curses the idea that somebody +else entertains. No human being ever yet cursed what he believed to +be infinite wisdom and infinite goodness—and you know it. +Every man on this jury knows that. He feels that that must be an +absolute certainty. Then what have they cursed? Some God they did +not believe in—that is all. And has a man that right? I say, +yes. He has a right to give his opinion of Jupiter, and there is +nobody in Morristown who will deny him that right. But several +thousands years ago it would have been very dangerous for him to +have cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just as powerful now as he +was then, but the Roman people are not powerful, and that is all +there was to Jupiter—the Roman people.</p> +<p>So there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the god of +the Greeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to +drink hemlock. Yet now everybody can curse this god. Why? Is the +god dead? No. He is just as alive as he ever was. Then what has +happened? The Greeks have passed away. That is all. So in all of +our churches here. Whenever a church is in the minority it clamors +for free speech. When it gets in the majority, no. I do not believe +the history of the world will show that any orthodox church when in +the majority ever had the courage to face the free lips of the +world. It sends for a constable. And is it not wonderful that they +should do this when they preach the gospel of universal +forgiveness—when they say, "if a man strike you on one cheek +turn to him the other also—but if he laughs at your religion, +put him in the penitentiary"? Is that the doctrine? Is that the +law?</p> +<p>Now, read this law. Do you know as I read it I can almost hear +John Calvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to +him. It is written exactly as he would have written it. There never +was an inquisitor who would not have read that law with a malicious +smile. The Christians who brought the fagots and ran with all their +might to be at the burning, would have enjoyed that law. You know +that when they used to burn people for having said something +against religion, they used to cut their tongues out before they +burned them. Why? For fear that if they did not, the poor, burning +victims might say something that would scandalize the Christian +gentlemen who were building the fire. All these persons would have +been delighted with this law.</p> +<p>Let us read a little further:</p> +<p>"—<i>Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus +Christ</i>."</p> +<p>Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor God, was +crucified? How did they come to crucify him? Because they did not +believe in free speech in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a +law against blasphemy in Jerusalem—a law exactly like this. +Just think of it. Oh, I tell you we have passed too many +mile-stones on the shining road of human progress to turn back and +wallow in that blood, in that mire.</p> +<p>No: Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed +that he was actually a God. Others believed that he was not only a +man, but that he stood as the representative of infinite love and +wisdom. No man ever said one word against that Being for saying "Do +unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." No man +ever raised his voice against him because he said, "Blessed are the +merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And are they the "merciful" +who when some man endeavors to answer their argument, put him in +the penitentiary? No. The trouble is, the priests—the trouble +is, the ministers—the trouble is, the people whose business +it was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled' with each +other, and they put meanings upon human expressions by malice, +meanings that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them. +I believe that nearly all that has been done in this world has been +honestly done. I believe that the poor savage who kneels down and +prays to a stuffed snake—prays that his little children may +recover from the fever—is honest, and it seems to me that a +good God would answer his prayer if he could, if it was in +accordance with wisdom, because the poor savage was doing the best +he could, and no one can do any better than that.</p> +<p>So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that +nearly everybody was going to hell, said exactly what they +believed. They were honest about it, and I would not send one of +them to jail—would never think of such a thing—even if +he called the unbelievers of the world "wretches," "dogs," and +"devils." What would I do? I would simply answer him—that is +all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but I would +answer him in kindness.</p> +<p>So these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a +necessity. Do you know that all the mechanics that ever +lived—take the best ones—cannot make two clocks that +will run exactly alike one hour, one minute? They cannot make two +pendulums that will beat in exactly the same time, one beat. If you +cannot do that, how are you going to make hundreds, thousands, +billions of people, each with a different quality and quantity of +brain, each clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh, and each +driven by passion's storm over the wild sea of life—how are +you going to make them all think alike? This is the impossible +thing that Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been +trying to do. This was the object of the Inquisition and of the +foolish Legislature that passed this statute.</p> +<p>Let me read you another line from this ignorant +statute:—</p> +<p>"<i>Or the Christian religion</i>."</p> +<p>Well, what is the Christian religion? "If you scoff at the +Christian religion—if you curse the Christian religion." Well +what is it? Gentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the +Catholic Church. Is that the Christian religion? The Catholic +believes it is the Christian religion, and you have to admit that +it is the oldest one, and then the Catholics turn round and scoff +at the Protestants. Is that the Christian religion? If so, every +Christian religion has been cursed by every other Christian +religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish statute?</p> +<p>I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the Presbyterian +and tell him, "Your doctrine is all wrong." I think he has the +right to say to him, "You are leading thousands to hell." If he +believes it, he not only has the right to say it, but it is his +duty to say it; and if the Presbyterian really believes the +Catholics are all going to the devil, it is his duty to say so. Why +not? I will never have any religion that I cannot defend—that +is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be mistaken, because +no man is absolutely certain that he knows. We all understand that. +Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each individual +is very narrow, and in his poor sky the stars are few and very +small.</p> +<p>"<i>Or the Word of God</i>—"</p> +<p>What is that?</p> +<p>"<i>The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old +and New Testaments</i>."</p> +<p>Now, what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the +right to show that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one +vote, and one only? Has he the right to show that they passed in +convention upon what books they would put in and what they would +not? Has he the right to show that there were twenty-eight books +called "The Books of the Hebrew's"? Has he the right to show that? +Has he the right to show that Martin Luther said he did not believe +there was one solitary word of gospel in the Epistle to the Romans? +Has he the right to show that some of these books were not written +till nearly two hundred years afterward? Has he the right to say +it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this is true or not, +but has a man the right to say it if he believes it?</p> +<p>Suppose I should read the Bible all through right here in +Morristown, and after I got through I should make up my mind that +it is not a true book—what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my +hand over my mouth and start for another State, and the minute I +got over the line say, "It is not true, It is not true"? Or, ought +I to have the right and privilege of saying right here in New +Jersey, "My fellow-citizens, I have read the book—I do not +believe that it is the word of God"? Suppose I read it and think it +is true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to Turkey and +read the Koran and make up my mind that it is false, you would all +say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say so.</p> +<p>By force you can make hypocrites—men who will agree with +you from the teeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no +more hypocrites. We have enough in every community. And how are you +going to keep from having more? By having the air free,—by +wiping from your statute books such miserable and infamous laws as +this.</p> +<p>"<i>The Holy Scriptures</i>."</p> +<p>Are they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be +sincere? There are thousands of things in the Scriptures that +everybody believes. Everybody believes the Scriptures are right +when they say, "Thou shalt not steal"—everybody. And when +they say "Give good measure, heaped up and running over," everybody +says, "Good!" So when they say "Love your neighbor," everybody +applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and practices it, does +it make any difference whether he believes in the flood or not? Is +that of any importance? Whether a man built an ark or +not—does that make the slightest difference? A man might deny +it and yet be a very good man. Another might believe it and be a +very mean man. Could it now, by any possibility, make a man a good +father, a good husband, a good citizen? Does it make any difference +whether you believe it or not? Does it make any difference whether +or not you believe that a man was going through town, and his hair +was a little short, like mine, and some little children laughed at +him, and thereupon two bears from the woods came down and tore to +pieces about forty of these children? Is it necessary to believe +that? Suppose a man should say, "I guess that is a mistake; they +did not copy that right; I guess the man that reported that was a +little dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly right." +Any harm in saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary +for that? Can you imagine an infinitely good God sending a man to +hell because he did not believe the bear story?</p> +<p>So I say if you believe the Bible, say so; if you do not believe +it, say so. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in +Protestantism itself. The Protestants when they fought the +Catholics said: "Read the Bible for yourselves—stop taking it +from your priests—read the sacred volume with your own eyes; +it is a revelation from God to his children, and you are the +children." And then they said: "If after you read it you do not +believe it, and you say anything against it, we will put you in +jail, and God will put you in hell." That is a fine position to get +a man in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and +look at his pictures, saying: "They are the finest in the place, +and I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at them the other +day said they were daubs, and I kicked him downstairs—now I +want your candid judgment." So the Protestant Church says to a man, +"This Bible is a message from your Father,—your Father in +heaven. Read it. Judge for yourself. But if after you have read it +you say it is not true, I will put you in the penitentiary for one +year."</p> +<p>The Catholic Church has a little more sense about that—at +least more logic. It says: "This Bible is not given to everybody. +It is given to the world, to be sure, but it must be interpreted by +the church. God would not give a Bible to the world unless he also +appointed some one, some organization, to tell the world what it +means." They said: "We do not want the world filled with +interpretations, and all the interpreters fighting each other." And +the Protestant has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying: "Judge +for yourself, but if you judge wrong you will go to the +penitentiary here and to hell hereafter.".</p> +<p>Now, let us see further:</p> +<p>"<i>Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule</i>"</p> +<p>Think of such a law as that, passed under a constitution that +says, "No law shall abridge the liberty of speech." But you must +not ridicule the Scriptures. Did anybody ever dream of passing a +law to protect Shakespeare from being laughed at? Did anybody ever +think of such a thing? Did anybody ever want any legislative +enactment to keep people from holding Robert Burns in contempt? The +songs of Burns will be sung as long as there is love in the human +heart. Do we need to protect him from ridicule by a statute? Does +he need assistance from New Jersey? Is any statute needed to keep +Euclid from being laughed at in this neighborhood? And is it +possible that a work written by an infinite Being has to be +protected by a legislature? Is it possible that a book cannot be +written by a God so that it will not excite the laughter of the +human race?</p> +<p>Why, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in the +human brain. It is the torch of the mind—it sheds light. +Humor is the readiest test of truth—of the natural, of the +sensible—and when you take from a man all sense of humor, +there will only be enough left to make a bigot. Teach this man who +has no humor—no sense of the absurd—the Presbyterian +creed, fill his darkened brain with superstition and his heart with +hatred—then frighten him with the threat of hell, and he will +be ready to vote for that statute. Such men made that law.</p> +<p>Let us read another clause:—</p> +<p>"<i>And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined +nor exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not +exceeding twelve months, or both</i>."</p> +<p>I want you to remember that this statute was passed in England +hundreds of years ago—just in that language. The punishment, +however, has been somewhat changed. In the good old days when the +king sat on the throne—in the good old days when the altar +was the right-bower of the throne—then, instead of saying: +"Fined two hundred dollars and imprisoned one year," it was: "All +his goods shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored with a +hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall be branded with the letter +B; and for the second offence he shall suffer death by burning." +Those were the good old days when people maintained the orthodox +religion in all its purity and in all its ferocity.</p> +<p>The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case +is: Is this statute constitutional? Is this statute in harmony +with, the part of the constitution of 1844 which says: "The liberty +of speech shall not be abridged"? That is for you to say. Is this +law constitutional, or is it simply an old statute that fell +asleep, that was forgotten, that people simply failed to repeal? I +believe I can convince you, if you will think a moment, that our +fathers never intended to establish a government like that. When +they fought for what they believed to be religious +liberty—when they fought for what they believed to be liberty +of speech, they believed that all such statutes would be wiped from +the statute books of all the States.</p> +<p>Let me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in +this country naturalization laws. People may come here irrespective +of their religion. They must simply swear allegiance to this +country—they must forswear allegiance to every other +potentate, prince and power—but they do not have to change +their religion. A Hindoo may become a citizen of the United States, +and the Constitution of the United States, like the constitution of +New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo believes in a +God—in a God that no Christian does believe in. He believes +in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a collection of +falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Savior—in Buddha. Now, I +ask you,—when that man comes here and becomes a +citizen—when the Constitution is about him, above +him—has he the right to give his ideas about his religion? +Has he the right to say in New Jersey: "There is no God except the +Supreme Brahm—there is no Savior except Buddha, the +Illuminated, Buddha the Blest"? I say that he has that +right—and you have no right, because in addition to that he +says, "You are mistaken; your God is not God; your Bible is not +true, and your religion is a mistake," to abridge his liberty of +speech. He has the right to say it, and if he has the right to say +it, I insist before this Court and before this jury, that he has +the right to give his reasons for saying it; and in giving those +reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not simply to +appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of logic, but he has +the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use the smile of +ridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not +to stay in it.</p> +<p>So the Persian—the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits +of Good and Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph +forever—if that is his religion—has the right to state +it, and the right to give his reasons for his belief. How +infinitely preposterous for you, one of the States of this Union, +to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to your shores. You do not +ask him to renounce his God. You ask him to renounce the Shah. Then +when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of every other +citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and to denounce +yours.</p> +<p>There is another thing. What was the spirit of our Government at +that time? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What +were their opinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is +the defendant in this case? Thomas Jefferson—and there is, in +my judgment, only one name on the page of American history greater +than his—only one name for which I have a greater and +tenderer reverence—and that is Abraham Lincoln, because of +all men who ever lived and had power, he was the most merciful. And +that is the way to test a man. How does he use power? Does he want +to crush his fellow citizens? Does he like to lock somebody up in +the penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? Does he +wish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist—like a +devil, or like a man? Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same +views entertained by the defendant in this case, and he was made +President of the United States. He was the author of the +Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, +writer of that clause in the constitution of that State, that made +all the citizens equal before the law. And when I come to the very +sentences here charged as blasphemy, I will show you that these +were the common sentiments of thousands of very great, of very +intellectual and admirable men.</p> +<p>I have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the +occasion, to call your attention to the infinite harm that has been +done in almost every religious nation by statutes such as this. +Where that statute is, liberty can not be; and if this statute is +enforced by this jury and by this Court, and if it is afterwards +carried out, and if it could be carried out in the States of this +Union, there would be an end of all intellectual progress. We would +go back to the Dark Ages. Every man's mind, upon these subjects at +least, would become a stagnant pool, covered with the scum of +prejudice and meanness.</p> +<p>And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people been +friends? Here we are to-day in this blessed air—here amid +these happy fields. Can we imagine, with these surroundings, that a +man for having been found with a crucifix in his poor little home, +had been taken from his wife and children and burned—burned +by Protestants? You cannot conceive of such a thing now. Neither +can you conceive that there was a time when Catholics found some +poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of the church, and +took that poor honest wretch—while his wife wept—while +his children clung to his hands—to the public square, drove a +stake in the ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the +fagots, and let the wife whom he loved and his little children see +the flames climb around his limbs—you cannot imagine that any +such infamy was ever practiced. And yet I tell you that the same +spirit made this detestable, infamous, devilish statute.</p> +<p>You can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same kind +of men that made this law said to another man: "You say this world +is round?" "Yes, sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow +on the moon." "You have?"—Now, can you imagine a society, +outside of hyenas and boa-constrictors, that would take that man, +put him in the penitentiary, in a dungeon, turn the key upon him, +and let his name be blotted from the book of human life? Years +afterward some explorer amid ruins finds a few bones. The same +spirit that did that, made this statute—the same spirit that +did that, went before the grand jury in this case—exactly. +Give the men that had this man indicted, the power, and I would not +want to live in that particular part of the country. I would not +willingly live with such men. I would go somewhere else, where the +air is free, where I could speak my sentiments to my wife, to my +children, and to my neighbors.</p> +<p>Now, this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies +of the olden times. What does it mean? It means that the State of +New Jersey has all the light it wants. And what does that mean? It +means that the State of New Jersey is absolutely +infallible—that it has got its growth and does not propose to +grow any more. New Jersey knows enough, and it will send teachers +to the penitentiary.</p> +<p>It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all that +it is ever going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They are +the clouds. Humanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the waves +of the sea. These waves depend upon the force and direction of the +wind—that is to say, of passion; but Humanity is the great +sea. And so our religions change from day to day, and it is a +blessed thing that they do. Why? Because we grow, and we are +getting a little more civilized every day,—and any man that +is not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a +civilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to +everybody else the rights he claims for himself, is not in honest +man.</p> +<p>Here is a man who says, "I am going to join the Methodist +Church." What right has he? Just the same right to join it that I +have not to join it—no more, no less. But if you are a +Methodist and I am not, it simply proves that you do not agree with +me, and that I do not agree with you—that is all. Another man +is a Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or is convinced that +Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any man that would +persecute him on that account, is a poor barbarian—a savage; +any man that would abuse him on that account, is a +barbarian—a savage.</p> +<p>Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to any +church. How are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he +treats his wife, his children, his neighbors. Does he pay his +debts? Does he tell the truth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a +heart that melts when he hears grief's story? That is the way to +judge him. I do not care what he thinks about the bears, or the +flood, about bibles or gods. When some poor mother is found +wandering in the street with a babe at her breast, does he quote +Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way to judge. +And suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If +Christianity is true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should +pity the poor wretch that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You +will get your revenge on him through all eternity—is not that +enough?</p> +<p>So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by +theories, not by what we happen to believe—because that +depends very much on where we were born.</p> +<p>If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been a +Mohammedan. If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have been +a Buddhist—I can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on +oatmeal, I might have been a Covenanter—nobody knows. If I +had lived in Ireland, and seen my poor wife and children driven +into the street, I think I might have been a Home-ruler—no +doubt of it. You see it depends on where you were born—much +depends on our surroundings.</p> +<p>Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not Mohammedans, +and there are men born in this country who are not +Christians—Methodists, Unitarians, or Catholics, plenty of +them, who are unbelievers—plenty of them who deny the truth +of the Scriptures—plenty of them who say:</p> +<p>"I know not whether there be a God or not." Well, it is a +thousand times better to say that honestly than to say dishonestly +that you believe in God.</p> +<p>If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his +honest opinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to +talk with a hypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest +mind—and then you are going to judge him, not by what he says +but by what he does. It is very easy to sail along with the +majority—easy to sail the way the boats are going—easy +to float with the stream; but when you come to swim against the +tide, with the men on the shore throwing rocks at you, you will get +a good deal of exercise in this world.</p> +<p>And do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest +obligation to men who have fought the prevailing notions of their +day? There is not a Presbyterian in Morristown that does not hold +up for admiration the man that carried the flag of the +Presbyterians when they were in the minority—not one. There +is not a Methodist in this State who does not admire John and +Charles Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner of that new +and despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory in them +because they braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose +idiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like this. And there is not +a Universalist that does not worship dear old Hosea Ballou—I +love him myself—because he said to the Presbyterian minister: +"You are going around trying to keep people out of hell, and I am +going around trying to keep hell out of the people." Every +Universalist admires him and loves him because when despised and +railed at and spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for the +eternal mercy of God. And there is not a solitary Protestant who +does not honor Martin Luther—who does not honor the +Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out +on the sand of the sea by Episcopalians, and kept there till the +rising tide drowned her, and all she had to do to save her life was +to say, "God save the king," but she would not say it without the +addition of the words, "If it be God's will." No one, who is not a +miserable, contemptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration +before such courage, such self-denial—such heroism. No matter +what the attitude of your body may be, your soul falls on its knees +before such men and such women.</p> +<p>Let us take another step. Where would we have been if authority +had always triumphed? Where would we have been if such statutes had +always been carried out? We have now a science called astronomy. +That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought +than all things else. We now live in an infinite universe. We know +that the sun is a million times larger than our earth, and we know +that there are other great luminaries millions of times larger than +our sun. We know that there are planets so far away that light, +traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles +a second, requires fifteen thousand years to reach this grain of +sand, this tear, we call the earth—and we now know that all +the fields of space are sown thick with constellations. If that +statute had been enforced, that science would not now be the +property of the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible, +and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For what sum of +money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the science +of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the story +of the stars in spite of that statute.</p> +<p>The first men who said the world was round were scourged for +scoffing at the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one +of the greatest men that ever lived, said: "Does he think with his +little lever to overturn the Universe of God?" Martin Luther +insisted that such men ought to be trampled under foot. If that +statute had been carried into effect, Galileo would have been +impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of the three laws, would have +died with the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind would +have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted. And what +else? If that statute had been carried out, the world would have +been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the philosophy, of +the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of +Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of +life—the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a +nation, and helped to civilize a world.</p> +<p>If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that +enrich the libraries of the world could not have been written. If +that statute had been enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered +the lectures now known as "The Cosmos." If that statute had been +enforced, Charles Darwin would not have been allowed to give to the +world his discoveries that have been of more benefit to mankind +than all the sermons ever uttered. In England they have placed his +sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New Jersey, and +this statute could have been enforced, he would have lived one year +at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went so far as not +simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely to deny the +existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the noblest +and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever lived, +was of the same opinion.</p> +<p>And so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the +men who are leading the race upward and shedding light in the +intellectual world? They are the men declared by that statute to be +criminals. Mr. Spencer could not publish his books in the State of +New Jersey. He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet +that man has added to the intellectual wealth of the world.</p> +<p>So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz—so with +the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern times.</p> +<p>You may not agree with these men—and what does that prove? +It simply proves that they do not agree with you—that is all. +Who is to blame? I do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be +right; but if they had the power, and put you in the penitentiary +simply because you differed with them, they would be savages; and +if you have the power and imprison men because they differ from +you, why then, of course, you are savages.</p> +<p>No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that have +a little horizon to their minds—a little sky, a little scope. +I hate anything that is narrow and pinched and withered and mean +and crawling, and that is willing to live on dust. I believe in +creating such an atmosphere that things will burst into blossom. I +believe in good will, good health, good fellowship, good +feeling—and if there is any God on the earth, or in heaven, +let us hope that he will be generous and grand. Do you not see what +the effect will be? I am not cursing you because you are a +Methodist, and not damning you because you are a Catholic, or +because you are an Infidel—a good man is more than all of +these. The grandest of all things is to be in the highest and +noblest sense a man.</p> +<p>Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the defendant +in this case, has done. Let me read the charges against him as set +out in this indictment.</p> +<p>I shall insist that this statute does not cover any +publication—that it covers simply speech—not in +writing, not in book or pamphlet. Let us see:</p> +<p>"<i>This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the +whole world in his mad fury</i>."</p> +<p>Well, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the +Bible describe God as having drowned the whole world with the +exception of eight people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know +whether there is anybody in this county who has really read the +Bible, but I believe the story of the flood is there. It does say +that God destroyed all flesh, and that he did so because he was +angry. He says so, himself, if the Bible be true.</p> +<p>The defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible. The +Bible says that God is loving, and says that he drowned the world, +and that he was angry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the "Sacred +Scriptures"?</p> +<p>"<i>Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, +ever supposed it could be.</i>"</p> +<p>Well, the Bible does say that he repented having made man. Now, +is there any blasphemy in saying that the Bible is true? That is +the only question. It is a fact that God, according to the Bible, +did drown nearly everybody. If God knows all things, he must have +known at the time he made them that he was going to drown them. Is +it likely that a being of infinite wisdom would deliberately do +what he knew he must undo? Is it blasphemy to ask that question? +Have you a right to think about it at all? If you have, you have +the right to tell somebody what you think—if not, you have no +right to discuss it, no right to think about it. All you have to do +is to read it and believe it—to open your mouth like a young +robin, and swallow—worms or shingle nails—no matter +which.</p> +<p>The defendant further blasphemed and said that:—</p> +<p>"<i>An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience with +a world which was just what his own stupid blundering had made it, +knew no better way out of the muddle than to destroy it by +drowning!</i>"</p> +<p>Is that true? Was not the world exactly as God made it? +Certainly. Did he not, if the Bible is true, drown the people? He +did. Did he know he would drown them when he made them? He did. Did +he know they ought to be drowned when they were made? He did. Where +then, is the blasphemy in saying so? There is not a minister in +this world who could explain it—who would be permitted to +explain it—under this statute. And yet you would arrest this +man and put him in the penitentiary. But after you lock him in the +cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible that a good +and wise God, knowing that he was going to drown them, made +millions of people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do +not pretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course, +you cannot answer the question. Is there anything blasphemous in +that? Would it be blasphemy in me to say I do not believe that any +God ever made men, women and children—mothers, with babes +clasped to their breasts, and then sent a flood to fill the world +with death?</p> +<p>A rain lasting for forty days—the water rising hour by +hour, and the poor wretched children of God climbing to the tops of +their houses—then to the tops of the hills. The water still +rising—no mercy. The people climbing higher and higher, +looking to the mountains for salvation—the merciless rain +still falling, the inexorable flood still rising. Children falling +from the arms of mothers—no pity. The highest hills +covered—infancy and old age mingling in death—the cries +of women, the sobs and sighs lost in the roar of waves—the +heavens still relentless. The mountains are covered—a +shoreless sea rolls round the world, and on its billows are +billions of corpses.</p> +<p>This is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this crime +is called a deed of infinite mercy.</p> +<p>Do you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I have +the right to say to all the world that this is false.</p> +<p>If there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a +wise God, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to +the penitentiary for simply telling the truth?</p> +<p>Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at +science—whoever by profane language should bring the rule of +three into contempt, or whoever should attack the proposition that +two parallel lines will never include a space, should be sent to +the penitentiary—what would you think of it? It would be just +as wise and just as idiotic as this.</p> +<p>And what else says the defendant?</p> +<p>"<i>The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous." +"Provoked him to anger.</i>"</p> +<p>Is that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous?</p> +<p>Let us read another line—</p> +<p>"<i>And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger +bums like hell</i>."</p> +<p>That is true. The Bible says of God—"My anger burns to the +lowest hell." And that is all that the defendant says. Every word +of it is in the Bible. He simply does not believe it—and for +that reason is a "blasphemer."</p> +<p>I say to you now, gentlemen,—and I shall argue to the +Court,—that there is not in what I have read a solitary +blasphemous word—not a word that has not been said in +hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world. Theodore Parker, a +Unitarian, speaking of this Bible-God said: "Vishnu with a necklace +of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing serpents, is a +figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old Testament." +That, we might call "blasphemy," but not what I have read.</p> +<p>Let us read on:—</p> +<p>"<i>He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the +wrath of the enemy</i>."</p> +<p>That is in the Bible—word for word. Then the defendant in +astonishment says:</p> +<p>"<i>The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!</i>"</p> +<p>That is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible is +true, God was afraid.</p> +<p>"<i>Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?</i>"</p> +<p>Is not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and +powerful, is it possible he is afraid of anything? If the defendant +had said that God was afraid of his enemies, that might have been +blasphemy—but this man says the Bible says that, and you are +asked to say that it is blasphemy. Now, up to this point there is +no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce this infamous +statute—this savage law.</p> +<p>"<i>The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the +most foul and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and +polygamy, perpetrated by God's own saints, and the New Testament +indorses these lecherous wretches as examples for all good +Christians to follow</i>.".</p> +<p>Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold +polygamy? Abraham would have gotten into trouble in New +Jersey—no doubt of that. Sarah could have obtained a divorce +in this State—no doubt of that. What is the use of telling a +falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth about the patriarchs.</p> +<p>Everybody knows that the same is true of Moses. We have all +heard of Solomon—a gentleman with five or six hundred wives, +and three or four hundred other ladies with whom he was acquainted. +This is simply what the defendant says. Is there any blasphemy +about that? It is only the truth. If Solomon were living in the +United States to-day, we would put him in the penitentiary. You +know that under the Edmunds Mormon law he would be locked up. If +you should present a petition signed by his eleven hundred wives, +you could not get him out.</p> +<p>So it was with David. There are some splendid things about +David, of course. I admit that, and pay my tribute of respect to +his courage—but he happened to have ten or twelve wives too +many, so he shut them up, put them in a kind of penitentiary and +kept them there till they died. That would not be considered good +conduct even in Morristown. You know that. Is it any harm to speak +of it? There are plenty of ministers here to set it +right—thousands of them all over the country, every one with +his chance to talk all day Sunday and nobody to say a word back. +The pew cannot reply to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit +there and take it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, +they ought to answer it. But it is here, and the only answer is an +indictment.</p> +<p>I say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham, and of Jacob. +Did you ever know of a more despicable fraud practiced by one +brother on another than Jacob practiced on Esau? My sympathies have +always been with Esau. He seemed to be a manly man. Is it blasphemy +to say that you do not like a hypocrite, a murderer, or a thief, +because his name is in the Bible? How do you know what such men are +mentioned for? May be they are mentioned as examples, and you +certainly ought not to be led away and induced to imagine that a +man with seven hundred wives is a pattern of domestic propriety, +one to be followed by yourself and your sons. I might go on and +mention the names of hundreds of others who committed every +conceivable crime, in the name of religion—who declared war, +and on the field of battle killed men, women and babes, even +children yet unborn, in the name of the most merciful God. The +Bible is filled with the names and crimes of these sacred savages, +these inspired beasts. Any man who says that a God of love +commanded the commission of these crimes is, to say the least of +it, mistaken. If there be a God, then it is blasphemous to charge +him with the commission of crime.</p> +<p>But let us read further from this indictment:</p> +<p>"The aforesaid printed document contains other scandalous, +infamous and blasphemous matters and things, to the tenor and +effect following, that is to say—"</p> +<p>Then comes this particularly blasphemous line:</p> +<p>"<i>Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over</i> ."</p> +<p>Gentlemen, there are many things I have read that I should not +have expressed in exactly the same language used by the defendant, +and many things that I am going to read I might not have said at +all, but the defendant had the right to say every word with which +he is charged in this indictment. He had the right to give his +honest thought, no matter whether any human being agreed with what +he said or not, and no matter whether any other man approved of the +manner in which he said these things. I defend his right to speak, +whether I believe in what he spoke or not, or in the propriety of +saying what he did. I should defend a man just as cheerfully who +had spoken against my doctrine, as one who had spoken against the +popular superstitions of my time. It would make no difference to me +how unjust the attack was upon my belief—how maliciously +ingenious; and no matter how sacred the conviction that was +attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And why? Because no +attack can be answered by force, no argument can be refuted by a +blow, or by imprisonment, or by fine. You may imprison the man, but +the argument is free; you may fell the man to the earth, but the +statement stands.</p> +<p>The defendant in this case has attacked certain beliefs, thought +by the Christian world to be sacred. Yet, after all, nothing is +sacred but the truth, and by truth I mean what a man sincerely and +honestly believes. The defendant says:</p> +<p>"<i>Take time to calmly think it over: Was a Jewish girl the +mother of God, the mother of your God?</i>"</p> +<p>The defendant probably asked this question, supposing that it +must be answered by all sensible people in the negative. If the +Christian religion is true, then a Jewish girl was the mother of +Almighty God. Personally, if the doctrine is true, I have no fault +to find with the statement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of +God.—Millions believe, that this is true—I do not +believe,—but who knows? If a God came from the throne of the +universe, came to this world and became the child of a pure and +loving woman, it would not lessen, in my eyes, the dignity or the +greatness of that God.</p> +<p>There is no more perfect picture on the earth, or within the +imagination of man, than a mother holding in her thrilled and happy +arms a child, the fruit of love.</p> +<p>No matter how the statement is made, the fact remains the same. +A Jewish girl became the mother of God. If the Bible is true, that +is true, and to repeat it, even according to your law, is not +blasphemous, and to doubt it, or to express the doubt, or to deny +it, is not contrary to your constitution.</p> +<p>To this defendant it seemed improbable that God was ever born of +woman, was ever held in the lap of a mother; and because he cannot +believe this, he is charged with blasphemy. Could you pour contempt +on Shakespeare by saying that his mother was a woman,—by +saying that he was once a poor, crying, little, helpless child? Of +course he was; and he afterwards became the greatest human being +that ever touched the earth,—the only man whose intellectual +wings have reached from sky to sky; and he was once a crying babe. +What of it? Does that cast any scorn or contempt upon him? Does +this take any of the music from "Midsummer Night's +Dream"?—any of the passionate wealth from "Antony and +Cleopatra," any philosophy from "Macbeth," any intellectual +grandeur from "King Lear"? On the contrary, these great productions +of the brain show the growth of the dimpled babe, give every mother +a splendid dream and hope for her child, and cover every cradle +with a sublime possibility.</p> +<p>The defendant is also charged with having said that: "<i>God +cried and screamed</i>."</p> +<p>Why not? If he was absolutely a child, he was like other +children,—like yours, like mine. I have seen the time, when +absent from home, that I would have given more to have heard my +children cry, than to have heard the finest orchestra that ever +made the air burst into flower. What if God did cry? It simply +shows that his humanity was real and not assumed, that it was a +tragedy, real, and not a poor pretence. And the defendant also says +that if the orthodox religion be true, that the</p> +<p>"<i>God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms, +and made aimless dashes into space with his little fists</i>."</p> +<p>Is there anything in this that is blasphemous? One of the best +pictures I ever saw of the Virgin and Child was painted by the +Spaniard, Murillo. Christ appears to be a truly natural, chubby, +happy babe. Such a picture takes nothing from the majesty, the +beauty, or the glory of the incarnation.</p> +<p>I think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church that it +lifts up for adoration and admiration, a mother,—that it pays +what it calls "Divine honors" to a woman. There is certainly +goodness in that, and where a church has so few practices that are +good, I am willing to point this one out. It is the one redeeming +feature about Catholicism, that it teaches the worship of a +woman.</p> +<p>The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ. He goes +so far as to say, that:</p> +<p>"<i>He was found staring foolishly at his own little +toes.</i>"</p> +<p>And why not? The Bible says, that "he increased in wisdom and +stature." The defendant might have referred to something far more +improbable. In the same verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus +increased in wisdom and stature, will be found the assertion that +he increased in favor with God and man. The defendant might have +asked how it was that the love of God for God increased.</p> +<p>But the defendant has simply stated that the child Jesus grew, +as other children grow; that he acted like other children, and if +he did, it is more than probable that he did stare at his own toes. +I have laughed many a time to see little children astonished with +the sight of their feet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the +little toes in motion. Certainly there is nothing blasphemous in +supposing that the feet of Christ amused him, precisely as the feet +of other children have amused them. There is nothing blasphemous +about this; on the contrary, it is beautiful. If I believed in the +existence of God, the Creator of this world, the Being who, with +the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of space with stars, as a +farmer sows his grain, I should like to think of him as a little, +dimpled babe, overflowing with joy, sitting upon the knees of a +loving mother. The ministers themselves might take a lesson even +from the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an effort to +bring an infinite God a little nearer to the human heart.</p> +<p>The defendant also says, speaking of the infant Christ, "<i>He +was nursed at Mary's breast.</i>"</p> +<p>Yes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact in it. +Nursed at the breast of woman. No painting, no statue, no words can +make a deeper and a tenderer impression upon the heart of man than +this: The infinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of +woman.</p> +<p>You see these things do not strike all people the same. To a man +that has been raised on the orthodox desert, these things are +incomprehensible. He has been robbed of his humanity. He has no +humor, nothing but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with +folded wings.</p> +<p>Imagination, like the atmosphere of spring, woos every seed of +earth to seek the blue of heaven, and whispers of bud and flower +and fruit. Imagination gathers from every field of thought and +pours the wealth of many lives into the lap of one. To the +contracted, to the cast-iron people who believe in heartless and +inhuman creeds, the words of the defendant seem blasphemous, and to +them the thought that God was a little child is monstrous.</p> +<p>They cannot bear to hear it said that he nursed at the breast of +a maiden, that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that he had the +joys and sorrows of other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not only +you, but the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is known +as the "Apocryphal New Testament," books that were once considered +inspired, once admitted to be genuine, and that once formed a part +of our New Testament. I hope you have read the books of Joseph and +Mary, of the Shepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and of Mary, in +which many of the things done by the youthful Christ are +described—books that were once the delight of the Christian +world; books that gave joy to children, because in them they read +that Christ made little birds of clay, that would at his command +stretch out their wings and fly with joy above his head. If the +defendant in this case had said anything like that, here in the +State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted; the orthodox +ministers would have shouted "blasphemy," and yet, these little +stories made the name of Christ dearer to children.</p> +<p>The church of to-day lacks sympathy; the theologians are without +affection. After all, sympathy is genius. A man who really +sympathizes with another understands him. A man who sympathizes +with a religion, instantly sees the good that is in it, and the man +who sympathizes with the right, sees the evil that a creed +contains.</p> +<p>But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ, is +charged with having said:</p> +<p>"<i>God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle and +was rocked to sleep.</i>"</p> +<p>Yes, and there is no more beautiful picture than that. Let some +great religious genius paint a picture of this kind—of a babe +smiling with content, rocked in the cradle by the mother who bends +tenderly and proudly above him. There could be no more beautiful, +no more touching, picture than this. What would I not give for a +picture of Shakespeare as a babe,—a picture that was a +likeness,—rocked by his mother? I would give more for this +than for any painting that now enriches the walls of the world.</p> +<p>The defendant also says, that:</p> +<p>"<i>God was sick when cutting his teeth.</i>"</p> +<p>And what of that? We are told that he was tempted in all points, +as we are. That is to say, he was afflicted, he was hungry, he was +thirsty, he suffered the pains and miseries common to man. +Otherwise, he was not flesh, he was not human.</p> +<p>"<i>He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever and the +whooping cough</i>."</p> +<p>Certainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he was, in +fact, a child. Other children have them. Other children, loved as +dearly by their mothers as Christ could have been by his, and yet +they are taken from the little family by fever; taken, it may be, +and buried in the snow, while the poor mother goes sadly home, +wishing that she was lying by its side. All that can be said of +every word in this address, about Christ and about his childhood, +amounts to this; that he lived the life of a child; that he acted +like other children. I have read you substantially what he has +said, and this is considered blasphemous.</p> +<p>He has said, that:</p> +<p>"<i>According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian +world commanded people to destroy each other.</i>"</p> +<p>If the Bible is true, then the statement of the defendant is +true. Is it calculated to bring God into contempt to deny that he +upheld polygamy, that he ever commanded one of his generals to rip +open with the sword of war, the woman with child? Is it blasphemy +to deny that a God of infinite love gave such commandments? Is such +a denial calculated to pour contempt and scorn upon the God of the +orthodox?</p> +<p>Is it blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children to +murder each other? Is it blasphemous to say that he was benevolent, +merciful and just?</p> +<p>It is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that God is +good. I do not believe that a God made this world, filled it with +people and then drowned them. I do not believe that infinite wisdom +ever made a mistake. If there be any God he was too good to commit +such an infinite crime, too wise, to make such a mistake. Is this +blasphemy? Is it blasphemy to say that Solomon was not a virtuous +man, or that David was an adulterer?</p> +<p>Must we say when this ancient King had one of his best generals +placed in the front of the battle—deserted him and had him +murdered for the purpose of stealing his wife, that he was "a man +after God's own heart"? Suppose the defendant in this case were +guilty of something like that? Uriah was fighting for his country, +fighting the battles of David, the King. David wanted to take from +him his wife. He sent for Joab, his commander-in-chief, and said to +him:</p> +<p>"Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the front of the +attacking force, and when the people sally forth from the town to +defend its gate, fall back so that this gallant, noble, patriotic +man may be slain."</p> +<p>This was done and the widow was stolen by the King. Is it +blasphemy to tell the truth and to say exactly what David was? Let +us be honest with each other; let us be honest with this +defendant.</p> +<p>For thousands of years men have taught that the ancient +patriarchs were sacred, that they were far better than the men of +modern times, that what was in them a virtue, is in us a crime. +Children are taught in Sunday schools to admire and respect these +criminals of the ancient days. The time has come to tell the truth +about these men, to call things by their proper names, and above +all, to stand by the right, by the truth, by mercy and by justice. +If what the defendant has said is blasphemy under this statute then +the question arises, is the statute in accordance with the +constitution? If this statute is constitutional, why has it been +allowed to sleep for all these years? I take this position: Any law +made for the preservation of a human right, made to guard a human +being, cannot sleep long enough to die; but any law that deprives a +human being of a natural right—if that law goes to sleep, it +never wakes, it sleeps the sleep of death.</p> +<p>I call the attention of the Court to that remarkable case in +England where, only a few years ago, a man appealed to trial by +battle. The law allowing trial by battle had been asleep in the +statute book of England for more than two hundred years, and yet +the court held that, in spite of the fact that the law had been +asleep—it being a law in favor of a defendant—he was +entitled to trial by battle. And why? Because it was a statute at +the time made in defence of a human right, and that statute could +not sleep long enough or soundly enough to die. In consequence of +this decision, the Parliament of England passed a special act, +doing away forever with the trial by battle.</p> +<p>When a statute attacks an individual right, the State must never +let it sleep. When it attacks the right of the public at large and +is allowed to pass into a state of slumber, it cannot be raised for +the purpose of punishing an individual.</p> +<p>Now, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an almost infinite +interest in this trial, and before you decide, I am exceedingly +anxious that you should understand with clearness the thoughts I +have expressed upon this subject I want you to know how the +civilized feel, and the position now taken by the leaders of the +world.</p> +<p>A few years ago almost everything spoken against the grossest +possible superstition was considered blasphemous. The altar hedged +itself about with the sword; the Priest went in partnership with +the King. In those days statutes were leveled against all human +speech. Men were convicted of blasphemy because they believed in an +actual personal God; because they insisted that God had body and +parts. Men were convicted of blasphemy because they denied that God +had form. They have been imprisoned for denying the doctrine of +transubstantiation, and they have been torn in pieces for defending +that doctrine. There are but few dogmas now believed by any +Christian church that have not at some time been denounced as +blasphemous.</p> +<p>When Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the Episcopal Church +a creed was made, and in that creed there were five dogmas that +must, of necessity, be believed. Anybody who denied any one, was to +be punished—for the first offence, with fine, with +imprisonment, or branding, and for the second offence, with death. +Not one of these five dogmas is now a part of the creed of the +Church of England.</p> +<p>So I could go on for days and weeks and months, showing that +hundreds and hundreds of religious dogmas, to deny which was death, +have been either changed or abandoned for others nearly as absurd +as the old ones were. It may be, however, sufficient to say, that +wherever the church has had power it has been a crime for any man +to speak his honest thought. No church has ever been willing that +any opponent should give a transcript of his mind. Every church in +power has appealed to brute force, to the sword, for the purpose of +sustaining its creed. Not one has had the courage to occupy the +open field. The church has not been satisfied with calling Infidels +and unbelievers blasphemers. Each church has accused nearly every +other church of being a blasphemer. Every pioneer has been branded +as a criminal. The Catholics called Martin Luther a blasphemer, and +Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer. Pious ignorance +always regards intelligence as a kind of blasphemy. Some of the +greatest men of the world, some of the best, have been put to death +for the crime of blasphemy, that is to say, for the crime of +endeavoring to benefit their fellow-men.</p> +<p>As long as the church has the power to close the lips of men, so +long and no longer will superstition rule this world.</p> +<p>"Blasphemy is the word that the majority hisses into the ear of +the few."</p> +<p>After every argument of the church has been answered, has been +refuted, then the church cries, "blasphemy!"</p> +<p>Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newly discovered +truth.</p> +<p>Blasphemy is what a withered last year's leaf says to a this +year's bud.</p> +<p>Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.</p> +<p>Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.</p> +<p>And let me say now, that the crime of blasphemy, as set out in +this statute, is impossible. No man can blaspheme a book. No man +can commit blasphemy by telling his honest thought. No man can +blaspheme a God, or a Holy Ghost, or a Son of God. The Infinite +cannot be blasphemed.</p> +<p>In the olden time, in the days of savagery and superstition, +when some poor man was struck by lightning, or when a blackened +mark was left on the breast of a wife and mother, the poor savage +supposed that some god, angered by something he had done, had taken +his revenge. What else did the savage suppose? He believed that +this god had the same feelings, with regard to the loyalty of his +subjects, that an earthly chief had, or an earthly king had, with +regard to the loyalty or treachery of members of his tribe, or +citizens of his kingdom. So the savage said, when his country was +visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the people away, or the +storm scattered their poor houses in fragments: "We have allowed +some Freethinker to live; some one is in our town or village who +has not brought his gift to the priest, his incense to the altar; +some man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our god." +Then, for the purpose of appeasing the supposed god, for the +purpose of again winning a smile from heaven, for the purpose of +securing a little sunlight for their fields and homes, they drag +the accused man from his home, from his wife and children, and with +all the ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They did it +in self-defence; they believed that they were saving their own +lives and the lives of their children; they did it to appease their +god. Most people are now beyond that point. Now when disease visits +a community, the intelligent do not say the disease came because +the people were wicked; when the cholera comes, it is not because +of the Methodists, of the Catholics, of the Presbyterians, or of +the Infidels. When the wind destroys a town in the far West, it is +not because somebody there had spoken his honest thoughts. We are +beginning to see that the wind blows and destroys without the +slightest reference to man, without the slightest care whether it +destroys the good or the bad, the irreligious or the religious. +When the lightning leaps from the clouds it is just as likely to +strike a good man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of +flame climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly and +just as joyously, the home of virtue, as they do the den and lair +of vice.</p> +<p>Then the reason for all these laws has failed. The laws were +made on account of a superstition. That superstition has faded from +the minds of intelligent men, and, as a consequence, the laws based +on the superstition ought to fail.</p> +<p>There is one splendid thing in nature, and that is that men and +nations must reap the consequences of their acts—reap them in +this world, if they live, and in another if there be one. The man +who leaves this world a bad man, a malicious man, will probably be +the same man when he reaches another realm, and the man who leaves +this shore good, charitable and honest, will be good, charitable +and honest, no matter on what star he lives again. The world is +growing sensible upon these subjects, and as we grow sensible, we +grow charitable.</p> +<p>Another reason has been given for these laws against blasphemy, +the most absurd reason that can by any possibility be given. It is +this: There should be laws against blasphemy, because the man who +utters blasphemy endangers the public peace.</p> +<p>Is it possible that Christians will break the peace? Is it +possible that they will violate the law? Is it probable that +Christians will congregate together and make a mob, simply because +a man has given an opinion against their religion? What is their +religion? They say, "If a man smites you on one cheek, turn the +other also." They say, "We must love our neighbors as we love +ourselves." Is it possible then, that you can make a mob out of +Christians,—that these men, who love even their enemies, will +attack others, and will destroy life, in the name of universal +love? And yet, Christians themselves say that there ought to be +laws against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are +controlled by universal love, will become so outraged, when they +hear an honest man express an honest thought, that they will leap +upon him and tear him in pieces.</p> +<p>What is blasphemy? I will give you a definition; I will give you +my thought upon this subject. What is real blasphemy?</p> +<p>To live on the unpaid labor of other men—that is +blasphemy.</p> +<p>To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his +body—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon the brain, +padlocks upon the lips—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be true what +you believe to be a lie—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you may gain +the applause of the ignorant and superstitious mob—that is +blasphemy.</p> +<p>To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of the ignorant +many—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest +fellow-men—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of eternal +pain—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>To violate your conscience—that is blasphemy.</p> +<p>The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the judge who +pronounces an unjust sentence, are blasphemers.</p> +<p>The man who bows to public opinion against his better judgment +and against his honest conviction, is a blasphemer.</p> +<p>Why should we fear our fellow-men? Why should not each human +being have the right, so far as thought and its expression are +concerned, of all the world? What harm can come from an honest +interchange of thought?</p> +<p>I have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken freely, and +yet the sun rose this morning, just the same as it always has. +There is no particular change visible in the world, and I do not +see but that we are all as happy to-day as though we had spent +yesterday in making somebody else miserable. I denounced on +yesterday the superstitions of the Christian world, and yet, last +night I slept the sleep of peace. You will pardon me for saying +again that I feel the greatest possible interest in the result of +this trial, in the principle at stake. This is my only apology, my +only excuse, for taking your time. For years I have felt that the +great battle for human liberty, the battle that has covered +thousands of fields with heroic dead, had finally been won. When I +read the history of this world, of what has been endured, of what +has been suffered, of the heroism and infinite courage of the +intellectual and honest few, battling with the countless serfs and +slaves of kings and priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance +and prejudice, of faith and fear, there was in my heart the hope +that the great battle had been fought, and that the human race, in +its march towards the dawn, had passed midnight, and that the +"great balance weighed up morning." This hope, this feeling, gave +me the greatest possible joy. When I thought of the many who had +been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty had perished in ashes, +of how many o! the noblest and greatest had stood upon scaffolds, +and of the countless hearts, the grandest that ever throbbed in +human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny of church and +state, of how many of the noble and loving had sighed themselves +away in dungeons, the only consolation was that the last bastile +had fallen, that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn down +and that the scaffolds of the world could no longer be wet with +heroic blood.</p> +<p>You know that sometimes, after a great battle has been fought, +and one of the armies has been broken, and its fortifications +carried, there are occasional stragglers beyond the great field, +stragglers who know nothing of the fate of their army, know nothing +of the victory, and for that reason, fight on. There are a few such +stragglers in the State of New Jersey. They have never heard of the +great victory. They do not know that in all civilized countries the +hosts of superstition have been put to flight. They do not know +that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the leaders of the +intellectual armies of the world.</p> +<p>One of the last trials of this character, tried in Great +Britain,—and that is the country that our ancestors fought in +the sacred name of liberty,—one of the last trials in that +country, a country ruled by a state church, ruled by a woman who +was born a queen, ruled by dukes and nobles and lords, children of +ancient robbers—was in the year 1843. George Jacob Holyoake, +one of the best of the human race, was imprisoned on a charge of +Atheism, charged with having written a pamphlet and having made a +speech in which he had denied the existence of the British God. The +judge who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went down to his +grave with a stain upon his intellect and upon his honor. All the +real intelligence of Great Britain rebelled against the outrage. +There was a trial after that to which I will call your attention. +Judge Coleridge, father of the present Chief Justice of England, +presided at this trial. A poor man by the name of Thomas Pooley, a +man who dug wells for a living, wrote on the gate of a priest, +that, if people would burn their Bibles and scatter the ashes on +the lands, the crops would be better, and that they would also save +a good deal of money in tithes. He wrote several sentences of a +kindred character. He was a curious man. He had an idea that the +world was a living, breathing animal. He would not dig a well +beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain upon this +animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge Coleridge, on that +charge. An infinite God was about to be dethroned, because an +honest well-digger had written his sentiments on the fence of a +parson. He was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. +Afterward, many intelligent people asked for his pardon, on the +ground that he was in danger of becoming insane. The judge refused +to sign the petition. The pardon was refused. Long before his +sentence expired, he became a raving maniac. He was removed to an +asylum and there died. Some of the greatest men in England attacked +that judge, among these, Mr. Buckle, author of "The History of +Civilization in England," one of the greatest books in this world. +Mr. Buckle denounced Judge Coleridge. He brought him before the bar +of English opinion, and there was not a man in England, whose +opinion was worth anything, who did not agree with Mr. Buckle, and +did not with him, declare the conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an +infamous outrage. What were the reasons given? This, among others: +The law was dead; it had been asleep for many years; it was a law +passed during the ignorance of the Middle Ages, and a law that came +out of the dungeon of religious persecution; a law that was +appealed to by bigots and by hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an +honest man.</p> +<p>In many parts of this country, people have entertained the idea +that New England was still filled with the spirit of Puritanism, +filled with the descendants of those who killed Quakers in the name +of universal benevolence, and traded Quaker children in the +Barbadoes for rum, for the purpose of establishing the fact that +God is an infinite father.</p> +<p>Yet, the last trial in Massachusetts on a charge like this, was +when Abner Kneeland was indicted on a charge of Atheism. He was +tried for having written this sentence: "The Universalists believe +in a God which I do not." He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief +Justice Shaw upheld the decision, and upheld it because he was +afraid of public opinion; upheld it, although he must have known +that the statute under which Kneeland was indicted was clearly and +plainly in violation of the Constitution. No man can read the +decision of Justice Shaw without being convinced that he was +absolutely dominated, either by bigotry, or hypocrisy. One of the +judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a dissenting opinion, and +in that dissenting opinion is the argument of a civilized, of an +enlightened jurist. No man can answer the dissenting opinion of +Justice Morton. The case against Kneeland was tried more than fifty +years ago, and there has been none since in the New England States; +and this case, that we are now trying, is the first ever tried in +New Jersey. The fact that it is the first, certifies to my +interpretation of this statute, and it also certifies to the +toleration and to the civilization of the people of this State. The +statute is upon your books. You inherited it from your ignorant +ancestors, and they inherited it from their savage ancestors. The +people of New Jersey were heirs of the mistakes and of the +atrocities of ancient England.</p> +<p>It is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it been +allowed to slumber? Who obtained this indictment? Were they +actuated by good and noble motives? Had they the public weal at +heart, or were they simply endeavoring to be revenged upon this +defendant? Were they willing to disgrace the State, in order that +they might punish him?</p> +<p>I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and now the +question arises, what is worship? Who is a worshiper? What is +prayer? What is real religion? Let me answer these questions.</p> +<p>Good, honest, faithful work, is worship. The man who ploughs the +fields and fells the forests; the man who works in mines, the man +who battles with the winds and waves out on the wide sea, +controlling the commerce of the world; these men are worshipers. +The man who goes into the forest, leading his wife by the hand, who +builds him a cabin, who makes a home in the wilderness, who helps +to people and civilize and cultivate a continent, is a +worshiper.</p> +<p>Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only +prayer that deserves an answer,—good, honest, noble work.</p> +<p>A woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter, gone down to +degradation and filth; the woman who follows him and lifts him out +of the mire and presses him to her noble heart, until he becomes a +man once more, this woman is a worshiper. Her act is worship.</p> +<p>The poor man and the poor woman who work night and day, in order +that they may give education to their children, so that they may +have a better life than their father and mother had; the parents +who deny themselves the comforts of life, that they may lay up +something to help their children to a higher place—they are +worshipers; and the children who, after they reap the benefit of +this worship, become ashamed of their parents, are blasphemers.</p> +<p>The man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife,—a wife +prematurely old and gray,—the husband who sits by her bed and +holds, her thin, wan hand in his as lovingly, and kisses it as +rapturously, as passionately, as when it was dimpled,—that is +worship; that man is a worshiper; that is real religion.</p> +<p>Whoever increases the sum of human joy, is a worshiper. He who +adds to the sum of human misery, is a blasphemer.</p> +<p>Gentlemen, you can never make me believe—no statute can +ever convince me, that there is any infinite Being in this universe +who hates an honest man. It is impossible to satisfy me that there +is any God, or can be any God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that +has the courage to express his thought. Neither can the whole world +convince me that any man should be punished, either in this world +or in the next, for being candid with his fellow-men. If you send +men to the penitentiary for speaking their thoughts, for +endeavoring to enlighten their fellows, then the penitentiary will +become a place of honor, and the victim will step from it—not +stained, not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.</p> +<p>Let us take one more step.</p> +<p>What is holy, what is sacred? I reply that human happiness is +holy, human rights are holy. The body and soul of man—these +are sacred. The liberty of man is of far more importance than any +book; the rights of man more sacred than any religion—than +any Scriptures, whether inspired or not.</p> +<p>What we want is the truth, and does any one suppose that all of +the truth is confined in one book—that the mysteries of the +whole world are explained by one volume?</p> +<p>All that is—all that conveys information to man—all +that has been produced by the past—all that now +exists—should be considered by an intelligent man. All the +known truths of this world—all the philosophy, all the poems, +all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing +music—the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the words +of honest men, the trumpet calls to duty—all these make up +the bible of the world—everything that is noble and true and +free, you will find in this great book.</p> +<p>If we wish to be true to ourselves,—if we wish to benefit +our fellow-men—if we wish to live honorable lives—we +will give to every other human being every right that we claim for +ourselves.</p> +<p>There is another thing that should be remembered by you. You are +the judges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In a +case like this, you are the final judges as to what the law is; and +if you acquit, no court can reverse your verdict. To prevent the +least misconception, let me state to you again what I claim:</p> +<p>First. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares +that:</p> +<p>"<i>The liberty of speech shall not be abridged</i>." Second. +That this statute, under which this indictment is found, is +unconstitutional, because it does abridge the liberty of speech; it +does exactly that which the constitution emphatically says shall +not be done.</p> +<p>Third. I claim, also, that under this law—even if it be +constitutional—the words charged in this indictment do not +amount to blasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the +darkness, of this statute.</p> +<p>Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no +matter what the Court may tell you about the law—how good it +is, or how bad it is—no matter what the Court may instruct +you on that subject—do not forget one thing, and that is: +That the words charged in the indictment are the only words that +you can take into consideration in this case. Remember that no +matter what else may be in the pamphlet—no matter what +pictures or cartoons there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who +mobbed this man in the name of universal liberty and love—do +not forget that you have no right to take one word into account +except the exact words set out in this indictment—that is to +say, the words that I have read to you. Upon this point the Court +will instruct you that you have nothing to do with any other line +in that pamphlet; and I now claim, that should the Court instruct +you that the statute is constitutional, still I insist that the +words set out in this indictment do not amount to blasphemy.</p> +<p>There is still another point. This statute says: "Whoever shall +<i>willfully</i> speak against." Now, in this case, you must find +that the defendant "willfully" did so and so—that is to say, +that he made the statements attributed to him knowing that they +were not true. If you believe that he was honest in what he said, +then this statute does not touch him. Even under this statute, a +man may give his honest opinion. Certainly, there is no law that +charges a man with "willfully" being honest—"willfully" +telling his real opinion—"willfully" giving to his fellow-men +his thought.</p> +<p>Where a man is charged with larceny, the indictment must set out +that he took the goods or the property with the intention to +steal—with what the law calls the <i>animus furandi</i>. If +he took the goods with the intention to steal, then he is a thief; +but if he took the goods believing them to be his own, then he is +guilty of no offence. So in this case, whatever was said by the +defendant must have been "willfully" said. And I claim that if you +believe that what the man said was honestly said, you cannot find +him guilty under this statute.</p> +<p>One more point: This statute has been allowed to slumber so +long, that no man had the right to awaken it. For more than one +hundred years it has slept; and so far as New Jersey is concerned, +it has been sound asleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug +out of its grave. The breath of life is sought to be breathed into +it, to the end that some people may wreak their vengeance on an +honest man.</p> +<p>Is there any evidence—has there been any—to show +that the defendant was not absolutely candid in the expression of +his opinions? Is there one particle of evidence tending, to show +that he is not a perfectly honest and sincere man? Did the +prosecution have the courage to attack his reputation? No. The +State has simply proved to you that he circulated that +pamphlet—that is all.</p> +<p>It was claimed, among other things, that the defendant +circulated this pamphlet among children. There was no such +evidence—not the slightest. The only evidence about schools, +or school-children was, that when the defendant talked with the +bill-poster,—whose business the defendant was interfering +with,—he asked him something about the population of the +town, and about the schools. But according to the evidence, and as +a matter of fact, not a solitary pamphlet was ever given to any +child, or to any youth. According to the testimony, the defendant +went into two or three stores,—laid the pamphlets on a show +case, or threw them upon a desk—put them upon a stand where +papers were sold, and in one instance handed a pamphlet to a man. +That is all.</p> +<p>In my judgment, however, there would have been no harm in giving +this pamphlet to every citizen of your place.</p> +<p>Again I say, that a law that has been allowed to sleep for all +these years—allowed to sleep by reason of the good sense and +by reason of the tolerant spirit of the State of New Jersey, should +not be allowed to leap into life because a few are intolerant, or +because a few lacked good sense and judgment. This snake should not +be warmed into vicious life by the blood of anger.</p> +<p>Probably not a man on this jury agrees with me about the subject +of religion. Probably not a member of this jury thinks that I am +right in the opinions that I have entertained and have so often +expressed. Most of you belong to some church, and I presume that +those who do, have the good of what they call Christianity at +heart. There maybe among you some Methodists. If so, they have read +the history of their church, and they know that when it was in the +minority, it was persecuted, and they know that they can not read +the history of that persecution without becoming indignant. They +know that the early Methodists were denounced as heretics, as +ranters, as ignorant pretenders.</p> +<p>There are also on this jury, Catholics, and they know that there +is a tendency in many parts of this country to persecute a man now +because he is a Catholic. They also know that their church has +persecuted in times past, whenever and wherever it had the power; +and they know that Protestants, when in power, have always +persecuted Catholics; and they know, in their hearts, that all +persecution, whether in the name of law, or religion, is monstrous, +savage, and fiendish.</p> +<p>I presume that each one of you has the good of what you call +Christianity at heart. If you have, I beg of you to acquit this +man. If you believe Christianity to be a good, it never can do any +church any good to put a man in jail for the expression of opinion. +Any church that imprisons a man because he has used an argument +against its creed, will simply convince the world that it cannot +answer the argument.</p> +<p>Christianity will never reap any honor, will never reap any +profit, from persecution. It is a poor, cowardly, dastardly way of +answering arguments. No gentleman will do it—no civilized man +ever did do it—no decent human being ever did, or ever +will.</p> +<p>I take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a certain +affection, for the State in which you live—that you take a +pride in the Commonwealth of New Jersey. If you do, I beg of you to +keep the record of your State clean. Allow no verdict to be +recorded against the freedom of speech. At present there is not to +be found on the records of any inferior court, or on those of the +Supreme tribunal—any case in which a man has been punished +for speaking his sentiments. The records have not been +stained—have not been polluted—with such a verdict.</p> +<p>Keep such a verdict from the Reports of your State—from +the Records of your courts. No jury has yet, in the State of New +Jersey, decided that the lips of honest men are not free—that +there is a manacle upon the brain.</p> +<p>For the sake of your State—for the sake of her reputation +throughout the world—for your own sakes—and those of +your children, and their children yet to be—say to the world +that New Jersey shares in the spirit of this age,—that New +Jersey is not a survival of the Dark Ages,—that New Jersey +does not still regard the thumbscrew as an instrument of +progress,—that New Jersey needs no dungeon to answer the +arguments of a free man, and does not send to the penitentiary, men +who think, and men who speak. Say to the world, that where +arguments are without foundation, New Jersey has confidence enough +in the brains of her people to feel that such arguments can be +refuted by reason.</p> +<p>For the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the sake of +something of far more value to this world than New Jersey—for +the sake of something of more importance to mankind than this +continent—for the sake of Human Liberty, for the sake of Free +Speech, acquit this man.</p> +<p>What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart, Liberty is +to the soul of man. Without it, there come suffocation, degradation +and death.</p> +<p>In the name of Liberty, I implore—and not only so, but I +insist—that you shall find a verdict in favor of this +defendant. Do not do the slightest thing to stay the march of human +progress. Do not carry us back, even for a moment, to the darkness +of that cruel night that good men hoped had passed away +forever.</p> +<p>Liberty is the condition of progress. Without Liberty, there +remains only barbarism. Without Liberty, there can be no +civilization.</p> +<p>If another man has not the right to think, you have not even the +right to think that he thinks wrong. If every man has not the right +to think, the people of New Jersey had no right to make a statute, +or to adopt a constitution—no jury has the right to render a +verdict, and no court to pass its sentence.</p> +<p>In other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has +the right to form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be +such a thing as real religion without liberty. Without liberty +there can be no such thing as conscience, no such word as justice. +All human actions—all good, all bad—have for a +foundation the idea of human liberty, and without Liberty there can +be no vice, and there can be no virtue.</p> +<p>Without Liberty there can be no worship, no blasphemy—no +love, no hatred, no justice, no progress.</p> +<p>Take the word Liberty from human speech and all the other words +become poor, withered, meaningless sounds—but with that word +realized—with that word understood, the world becomes a +paradise.</p> +<p>Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the +prosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the court +are simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did not find +the indictment. That was found by the grand jury. The grand jury +did not find the indictment of its own motion. Certain people came +before the grand jury and made their complaint—gave their +testimony, and upon that testimony, under this statute, the +indictment was found.</p> +<p>While I do not blame these people—they not being on +trial—I do ask you to stand on the side of right.</p> +<p>I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge a +public duty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to +judgment, no matter what authority may say, no matter what public +opinion may demand. A man who stands by the right, against the +world, cannot help applauding himself, and saying: "I am an honest +man."</p> +<p>I want your verdict—a verdict born of manhood, of courage; +and I want to send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick. +I wish you to furnish the words of this dispatch—only two +words—and these two words will fill an anxious heart with +joy. They will fill a soul with light. It is a very short +message—only two words—and I ask you to furnish them: +"Not guilty."</p> +<p>You are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true +to your consciences, true to your best judgment, true to the best +interests of the people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of +Liberty.</p> +<p>I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under +the flag of the United States—that flag for which has been +shed the bravest and best blood of the world—under that flag +maintained by Washington, by Jefferson, by Franklin and by +Lincoln—under that flag in defence of which New Jersey poured +out her best and bravest blood—I hope it will never be +necessary again for a man to stand before a jury and plead for the +Liberty of Speech.</p> +<pre> + Note: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty. + The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs + amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel + Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.—C. P. Farrell. +</pre> +<a name="link0003" id="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.</h2> +<p>"<i>All governments derive their just powers from the consent of +the governed</i>."</p> +<p>IN this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides +in the people themselves; that they are the only rightful source of +authority. For many centuries before the formation of our +Government, before the promulgation of the Declaration of +Independence, the people had but little voice in the affairs of +nations. The source of authority was not in this world; kings were +not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre was not held by the +consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne by the will of +God, and for that reason was not accountable to the people for the +exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people obeyed. He was +lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was lord of +their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the +kingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will +was law, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will +was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and +the king on earth had certain favorites and officers to do his. +These officers were accountable to him, and he was responsible to +God.</p> +<p>The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the +divine plan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by +threats and promises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was +made to enlighten the common people; no one thought of educating a +peasant—of developing the mind of a laborer. The people were +created to support thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil +and obey—to work and want. They were to be satisfied with +huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children must +expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon their +knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The +poor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he +imagined it protected his body; he divided his crust with the +church, believing that it protected his soul. He was the prey of +Throne and Altar—one deformed his body, the other his +mind—and these two vultures fed upon his toil. He was taught +by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest +to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made the +enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the +peasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself., He +was kept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of +superstition, and because education is the foe of that egotism +often mistaken for patriotism.</p> +<p>The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good +and true of every land—the boundaries of countries are not +the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or +color, he loves those who speak other languages and worship other +gods. Between him and those who suffer, there is no impassable +gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the hand of friendship to +the human race. He does not bow before a provincial and patriotic +god—one who protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest +of mankind.</p> +<p>Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted +that it was the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone +had the true religion—that the gods of other nations were +false and fraudulent, and that other religions were wicked, +ignorant and absurd. In this way the seeds of hatred had been sown, +and in this way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have had +no sympathy with those of a different complexion, with those who +knelt at other altars and expressed their thoughts in other +words—and even a difference in garments placed them beyond +the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice +and the excuse for hatred.</p> +<p>The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. +People became somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues +and vices were quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became +somewhat acquainted with kings—peasants had the pleasure of +gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the differences +were mostly in rags and names.</p> +<p>In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. +They declared that "all governments derive their just powers from +the consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then +political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of +pure blasphemy—a renunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a +declaration of the independence of the earth. It was a notice to +all churches and priests that thereafter mankind would govern and +protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied +the authority of every "sacred book," and appealed from the +Providence of God to the Providence of Man.</p> +<p>Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Constitution for +the great Republic.</p> +<p>What was the office or purpose of that Constitution?</p> +<p>Admitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, +first, that certain means be adopted for the purpose of +ascertaining the will of the people, and second, it was proper and +convenient to designate certain departments that should exercise +certain powers of the Government. There must be the legislative, +the judicial and the executive departments. Those who make laws +should not execute them. Those who execute laws should not have the +power of absolutely determining their meaning or their +constitutionality. For these reasons, among others, a Constitution +was adopted.</p> +<p>This Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It +marked out the limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement +of passion, men shall not go beyond the point designated in the +calm moment of reason.</p> +<p>When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to reason, it +is well he should define the limits of power, so that the waves +driven by the storm of passion shall not overbear the shore.</p> +<p>A constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is +the chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon +themselves. It defines the limit of power and the limit of +obedience.</p> +<p>It follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that +cannot be enforced by the power of the state—that is, by the +army and navy. Behind every provision of the Constitution should +stand the force of the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every +cannon should be there.</p> +<p>Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge +the existence and supremacy of God—what becomes of the +supremacy of the people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? +A constitution does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by +appropriate legislation. Will it be a crime to deny the existence +of this constitutional God? Can the offender be proceeded against +in the criminal courts? Can his lips be closed by the power of the +state? Would not this be the inauguration of religious +persecution?</p> +<p>And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the +Constitution, the question naturally arises as to which God is to +have this honor. Shall we select the God of the Catholics—he +who has established an infallible church presided over by an +infallible pope, and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and +placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common Latin? Is it the +God of the Presbyterian with the Five Points of Calvinism, who is +ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and responsibility, and who +in some way justifies himself for damning most of his own children? +Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy—of the +Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small +enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body +it inhabited was immersed or sprinkled?</p> +<p>What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the +God of the Old Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who +justified polygamy? If slavery was right then, it is right now; and +if Jehovah was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we to +have the God who issued a commandment against all art—who was +the enemy of investigation and of free speech? Is it the God who +commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because she +differed with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have a God +who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds of offences +with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is to define +this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence, laws +passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be +as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God? +Will there be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?</p> +<p>Of course all persons elected to office will either swear or +affirm to support the Constitution. Men who do not believe in this +God, cannot so swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to +hold any office of trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will +not interfere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a +provision will only exclude honest and conscientious unbelievers. +Intelligent people know that 110 one knows whether there is a God +or not. The existence of such a Being is merely a matter of +opinion. Men who believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to +die for the honor of their country, will be excluded from taking +any part in the administration of its affairs. Such a provision +would place the country under the feet of priests.</p> +<p>To recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country would be +the destruction of religious liberty. The God in the Constitution +would have to be protected. There would be laws against blasphemy, +laws against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against +carrying books and papers in the mails in which this constitutional +God should be attacked. Our land would be filled with theological +spies, with religious eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and +reptiles of the lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious +authority, would uncoil and crawl.</p> +<p>It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and +rightful Governor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that +be. If this God is really the Governor of nations, it is not +necessary to acknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not +add to his power. If he governs all nations now, he has always +controlled the affairs of men. Having this control, why did he not +see to it that he was recognized in the Constitution of the United +States? If he had the supreme authority and neglected to put +himself in the Constitution, is not this, at least, <i>prima +facie</i> evidence that he did not desire to be there?</p> +<p>For one, I am not in favor of the God who has "ordained the +powers that be." What have we to say of Russia—of Siberia? +What can we say of the persecuted and enslaved? What of the kings +and nobles who live on the stolen labor of others? What of the +priest and cardinal and pope who wrest, even from the hand of +poverty, the single coin thrice earned?</p> +<p>Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional +amendment? The Confederate States acknowledged God in their +constitution, and yet they were overwhelmed by a people in whose +organic law no reference to God is made. All the kings of the earth +acknowledge the existence of God, and God is their ally; and this +belief in God is used as a means to enslave and rob, to govern and +degrade the people whom they call their subjects.</p> +<p>The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its +power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God +has nothing whatever to do—and all forms and customs, +inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the +source of authority, should be abandoned. In this country there +should be no oaths—no man should be sworn to tell the truth, +and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A +rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God, +and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness +should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be +considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should +not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the +people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is +outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is +nothing in the Constitution of the United States to justify this +religious impertinence.</p> +<p>For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government +a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon +our money: "In God We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and +navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. +All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the +Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the +Constitution of the United States. We have taken the ground that +the people can govern themselves without the assistance of any +supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are +the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly +declared that the people must determine what is politically right +and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the +supreme law. This leaves no room for national superstition—no +room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings—and this does +away with the necessity for political prayers.</p> +<p>The government of God has been tried. It was tried in Palestine +several thousand years ago, and the God of the Jews was a monster +of cruelty and ignorance, and the people governed by this God lost +their nationality. Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God +was the Governor—the pope was his agent, and every priest and +bishop and cardinal was armed with credentials from the Most +High—and the result was that the noblest and best were in +prisons, the greatest and grandest perished at the stake. The +result was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped +naked through the streets. The result was that hypocrisy swayed the +sceptre of authority, while honesty languished in the dungeons of +the Inquisition.</p> +<p>The government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was +his representative; and under this government of God the flames +climbed around the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, +because he dared to express an honest thought. This government of +God was tried in Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were +sown, that bore, through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre +and assassination. This government of God was established in New +England, and the result was that Quakers were hanged or +burned—the laws of Moses re-enacted and the "witch was not +suffered to live." The result was that investigation was a crime, +and the expression of an honest thought a capital offence. This +government of God was established in Spain, and the Jews were +expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, +and nothing left but the ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this +monster. This government of God was tried in the United States when +slavery was regarded as a divine institution, when men and women +were regarded as criminals because they sought for liberty by +flight, and when others were regarded as criminals because they +gave them food and shelter. The pulpit of that day defended the +buying and selling of women and babes, and the mouths of +slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and +upholding the traffic in human flesh.</p> +<p>We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. +Every effort to really better the condition of mankind has been +opposed by the worshipers of some God. The church in all ages and +among all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human race. +Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the liberty of thought +and expression. It has been the sworn enemy of investigation and of +intellectual development. It has denied the existence of facts, the +tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has always been +carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy. It has erected the +gallows for Genius. It has built the dungeon for Thinkers. And +to-day the orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever was to the +mental freedom of the human race.</p> +<p>Of course, there is a distinction made between churches and +individual members. There have been millions of Christians who have +been believers in liberty and in the freedom of +expression—millions who have fought for the rights of +man—but churches as organizations, have been on the other +side. It is true that churches have fought churches—that +Protestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased +to call the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the +moment these Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this +freedom of conscience to others.</p> +<p>'Let me show you the difference between the theological and the +secular spirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the noblest +of the human race, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the +Catholic Church—that is to say, by the "Triumphant Beast." +This man had committed certain crimes—he had publicly stated +that there were other worlds than this—other constellations +than ours. He had ventured the supposition that other planets might +be peopled. More than this, and worse than this, he had asserted +the heliocentric theory—that the earth made its annual +journey about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that +matter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy to live, +and about his body were piled the fagots of the Catholic Church. +This man, this genius, this pioneer of the science of the +nineteenth century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The +Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They take into +consideration the ignorance and brutality of the times. They +remember that the world was governed by a God who was then the +source of all authority. This is the charity of +Infidelity,—of philosophy. But the church of to-day is so +heartless, is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse +for the murdered.</p> +<p>This is the difference between Theocracy and +Democracy—between God and man.</p> +<p>If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There +is no room for both. If the people of the great Republic become +superstitious enough and ignorant enough to put God in the +Constitution of the United States, the experiment of +self-government will have failed, and the great and splendid +declaration that "all governments derive their just powers from the +consent of the governed" will have been denied, and in its place +will be found this: All power comes from God; priests are his +agents, and the people are their slaves.</p> +<p>Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left +entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its +accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, +government has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon +force, and force should never interfere with the religious opinions +of men. Laws should define the rights of men and their duties +toward each other, and these laws should be for the benefit of man +in this world.</p> +<p>A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel—a nation is +incapable of having opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is +Christian, will all the citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will +they all be damned? Of course it is admitted that the majority of +citizens composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and they may +call the nation what they please. A nation is a corporation. To +repeat a familiar saying, "it has no soul." There can be no such +thing as a Christian corporation. Several Christians may form a +corporation, but it can hardly be said that the corporation thus +formed was included in the atonement. For instance: Seven +Christians form a corporation—that is to say, there are seven +natural persons and one artificial—can it be said that there +are eight souls to be saved?</p> +<p>No human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or +experience enough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into +this darkness Science has not yet carried its torch. No human being +has gone beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence of +the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much, and exactly as +little as another. Upon this question, chimpanzees and cardinals, +apes and popes, are upon exact equality. The smallest insect +discernible only by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar +with this subject, as the greatest genius that has been produced by +the human race.</p> +<p>Governments and laws are for the preservation of rights and the +regulation of conduct. One man should not be allowed to interfere +with the liberty of another. In the metaphysical world there should +be no interference whatever, The same is true in the world of art. +Laws cannot regulate what is or is not music, what is or what is +not beautiful—and constitutions cannot definitely settle and +determine the perfection of statues, the value of paintings, or the +glory and subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions +the brain will think. In every direction consistent with the +well-being and peace of society, there should be freedom. No man +should be compelled to adopt the theology of another; neither +should a minority, however small, be forced to acquiesce in the +opinions of a majority, however large.</p> +<p>If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our +help—we need not waste our energies in his defence. It is +enough for us to give to every other human being the liberty we +claim for ourselves. There may or may not be a Supreme Ruler of the +universe—but we are certain that man exists, and we believe +that freedom is the condition of progress; that it is the sunshine +of the mental and moral world, and that without it man will go back +to the den of savagery, and will become the fit associate of wild +and ferocious beasts.</p> +<p>We have tried the government of priests, and we know that such +governments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, +all the instruments of torture have been invented. If any man +wishes to have God recognized in the Constitution of our country, +let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him remember +that hundreds of millions of men, women and children have been +sacrificed to placate the wrath, or win the approbation of this +God.</p> +<p>There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. +This follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that +"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the +governed." The priest was no longer a necessity. His presence was a +contradiction of the principle on which the Republic was founded. +He represented, not the authority of the people, but of some "Power +from on High," and to recognize this other Power was inconsistent +with free government. The founders of the Republic at that time +parted company with the priests, and said to them: "You may turn +your attention to the other world—we will attend to the +affairs of this." Equal liberty was given to all. But the ultra +theologian is not satisfied with this—he wishes to destroy +the liberty of the people—he wishes a recognition of his God +as the source of authority, to the end that the church may become +the supreme power.</p> +<p>But the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the +United States are intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in +supernatural religion. They are losing confidence in the miracles +and marvels of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free +school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They are believers +in education, in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion +that the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place with +the necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic, and the +professor of the black art.</p> +<p>We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. +When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts +and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To +nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown +arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins—they devoured +crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the +luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the +middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies +than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and +over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value +in the brain of an average man of to-day—of a +master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, +than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years +ago.</p> +<p>These blessings did not fall from the skies, These benefits did +not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not +found in cathedrals or behind altars—neither were they +searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the +closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious +supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of +reason, observation and experience—and for them all, man is +indebted to man.</p> +<p>Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us +insist that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by +the people, and for the people."—The Arena, Boston, Mass., +January, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0004" id="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A REPLY TO BISHOP SPALDING.</h2> +<pre> + * An unfinished reply to Bishop J. L. Spalding's article + "God in the Constitution," which appeared in the Arena. + Boston, Mass., April, 1890. +</pre> +<p>BISHOP SPALDING admits that "The introduction of the question of +religion would not only have brought discord into the +Constitutional convention, but would have also engendered strife +throughout the land." Undoubtedly this is true. I am compelled to +admit this, for the reason that in all times and in all lands the +introduction of the question of religion has brought discord and +has engendered strife.</p> +<p>He also says: "In the presence of such danger, like wise men and +patriots, they avoided irritating subjects"—the irritating +subject being the question of religion. I admit that it always has +been, and promises always to be, an "irritating subject," because +it is not a subject decided by reason, but by ignorance, prejudice, +arrogance and superstition. Consequently he says: "It was prudence, +then, not skepticism, which induced them to leave the question of +religion to the several States." The Bishop admits that it was +prudent for the founders of this Government to leave the question +of religion entirely to the States. It was prudent because the +question of religion is irritating—because religious +questions engender strife and hatred. Now, if it was prudent for +the framers of the Constitution to leave religion out of the +Constitution, and allow that question to be settled by the several +States themselves under that clause preventing the establishment of +religion or the free exercise thereof, why is it not wise +still—why is it not prudent now?</p> +<p>My article was written against the introduction of religion into +the Constitution of the United States. I am opposed to a +recognition of God and of Jesus Christ in that instrument; and the +reason I am opposed to it is, that: "The introduction of the +question of religion would not only bring discord, but would +engender strife throughout the land." I am opposed to it for the +reason that religion is an "irritating subject," and also because +if it was prudent when the Constitution was made, to leave God out, +it is prudent now to keep him out.</p> +<p>The Bishop is mistaken—as bishops usually are—when +he says: "Had our fathers been skeptics, or anti-theists, they +would not have required the President and Vice-President, the +Senators and Representatives in Congress, and all executive and +judicial officers of the United States, to call God to witness that +they intended to perform their duties under the Constitution like +honest men and loyal citizens."</p> +<p>The framers of the Constitution did no such thing. They allowed +every officer, from the President down, either to swear or to +affirm, and those who affirmed did not call God to witness. In +other words, our Constitution allowed every officer to abolish the +oath and to leave God out of the question.</p> +<p>The Bishop informs us, however, that: "The causes which would +have made it unwise to introduce any phase of religious controversy +into the Constitutional convention have long since ceased to +exist." Is there as much division now in the religious world as +then? Has the Catholic Church thrown away the differences between +it and the Protestants? Are we any better friends to-day than we +were in 1789? As a matter of fact, is there not now a cause which +did not to the same extent exist then? Have we not in the United +States, millions of people who believe in no religion whatever, and +who regard all creeds as the work of ignorance and +superstition?</p> +<p>The trouble about putting God in the Constitution in 1789 was, +that they could not agree on the God to go in; and the reason why +our fathers did not unite church and state was, that they could not +agree on which church was to be the bride. The Catholics of +Maryland certainly would not have permitted the nation to take the +Puritan Church, neither would the Presbyterians of Pennsylvania +have agreed to this, nor would the Episcopalians of New York, or of +any Southern State. Each church said: "Marry me, or die a +bachelor."</p> +<p>The Bishop asks whether there are "still reasons why an express +recognition of God's sovereignty and providence should not form +part of the organic law of the land"? I ask, were there any +reasons, in 1789, why an express recognition of God's sovereignty +and providence should not form part of the organic law of the land? +Did not the Bishop say, only a few lines back of that, "that the +introduction of the question of religion into that body would have +brought discord, and would have engendered strife throughout the +land." What is the "question of religion" to which he referred? +Certainly "the recognition of God's sovereignty and providence," +with the addition of describing the God as the author of the +supposed providence. Thomas Jefferson would have insisted on having +a God in the Constitution who was not the author of the Old and New +Testaments. Benjamin Franklin would have asked for the same God; +and on that question John Adams would have voted yes. Others would +have voted for a Catholic God—others for an Episcopalian, and +so on, until the representatives of the various creeds were +exhausted.</p> +<p>I took the ground, and I still take the ground, that there is +nothing in the Constitution that cannot on occasion be enforced by +the army and navy—that is to say, that cannot be defended and +enforced by the sword. Suppose God is acknowledged in the +Constitution, and somebody denies the existence of this +God—what are you to do with him? Every man elected to office +must swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution. Can one +who does not believe in this God, conscientiously take such oath, +or make such affirmation?</p> +<p>The effect, then, of such a clause in the Constitution would be +to drive from public life all except the believers in this God, and +this providence. The Government would be in fact a theocracy and +would resort for its preservation to one of the old forms of +religious persecution.</p> +<p>I took the ground in my article, and still maintain it, that all +intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or +not. This cannot be answered by saying, "that nearly all +intelligent men in every age, including our own, have believed in +God and have held that they had rational grounds for such faith." +This is what is called a departure in pleading—it is a +shifting of the issue. I did not say that intelligent people do not +believe in the existence of God. What I did say is, that +intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or +not.</p> +<p>It is not true that we know the conditions of thought. Neither +is it true that we know that these conditions are unconditioned. +There is no such thing as the unconditioned conditional. We might +as well say that the relative is unrelated—that the unrelated +is the absolute—and therefore that there is no difference +between the absolute and the relative.</p> +<p>The Bishop says we cannot know the relative without knowing the +absolute. The probability is that he means that we cannot know the +relative without admitting the existence of the absolute, and that +we cannot know the phenomenal without taking the noumenal for +granted. Still, we can neither know the absolute nor the noumenal +for the reason that our mind is limited to relations.</p> +<a name="link0005" id="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS.</h2> +<pre> + * "An Address delivered before the State Bar Association at + Albany, N. Y., January 1, 1890." +</pre> +<p>IN this brief address, the object is to suggest—there +being no time to present arguments at length. The subject has been +chosen for the reason that it is one that should interest the legal +profession, because that profession to a certain extent controls +and shapes the legislation of our country and fixes definitely the +scope and meaning of all laws.</p> +<p>Lawyers ought to be foremost in legislative and judicial reform, +and of all men they should understand the philosophy of mind, the +causes of human action, and the real science of government.</p> +<p>It has been said that the three pests of a community are: A +priest without charity; a doctor without knowledge, and, a lawyer +without a sense of justice.</p> +<center>I.</center> +<p>All nations seem to have had supreme confidence in the deterrent +power of threatened and inflicted pain. They have regarded +punishment as the shortest road to reformation. Imprisonment, +torture, death, constituted a trinity under whose protection +society might feel secure.</p> +<p>In addition to these, nations have relied on confiscation and +degradation, on maimings, whippings, brandings, and exposures to +public ridicule and contempt. Connected with the court of justice +was the chamber of torture. The ingenuity of man was exhausted in +the construction of instruments that would surely reach the most +sensitive nerve. All this was done in the interest of +civilization—for the protection of virtue, and the well-being +of states. Curiously it was found that the penalty of death made +little difference. Thieves and highwaymen, heretics and +blasphemers, went on their way. It was then thought necessary to +add to this penalty of death, and consequently, the convicted were +tortured in every conceivable way before execution. They were +broken on the wheel—their joints dislocated on the rack. They +were suspended by their legs and arms, while immense weights were +placed upon their breasts. Their flesh was burned and torn with hot +irons. They were roasted at slow fires. They were buried +alive—given to wild beasts—molten lead was poured in +their ears—their eye-lids were cut off and, the wretches +placed with their faces toward the sun—others were securely +bound, so that they could move neither hand nor foot, and over +their stomachs were placed inverted bowls; under these bowls rats +were confined; on top of the bowls were heaped coals of fire, so +that the rats in their efforts to escape would gnaw into the bowels +of the victims. They were staked out on the sands of the sea, to be +drowned by the slowly rising tide—and every means by which +human nature can be overcome slowly, painfully and terribly, was +conceived and carried into execution. And yet the number of +so-called criminals increased. Enough, the fact is that, no matter +how severe the punishments were, the crimes increased.</p> +<p>For petty offences men were degraded—given to the mercy of +the rabble. Their ears were cut off, their nostrils slit, their +foreheads branded. They were tied to the tails of carts and flogged +from one town to another. And yet, in spite of all, the poor +wretches obstinately refused to become good and useful +citizens.</p> +<p>Degradation has been thoroughly tried, with its maimings and +brandings, and the result was that those who inflicted the +punishments became as degraded as their victims.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago there were more than two hundred offences +in Great Britain punishable by death. The gallows-tree bore fruit +through all the year, and the hangman was the busiest official in +the kingdom—but the criminals increased.</p> +<p>Crimes were committed to punish crimes, and crimes were +committed to prevent crimes. The world has been filled with prisons +and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with +thumbscrews and racks, with hangmen and headsmen—and yet +these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have +accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is +safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than +they have prevented.</p> +<p>Why is it that men will suffer and risk so much for the sake of +stealing? Why will they accept degradation and punishment and +infamy as their portion? Some will answer this question by an +appeal to the dogma of original sin; others by saying that millions +of men and women are under the control of fiends—that they +are actually possessed by devils; and others will declare that all +these people act from choice—that they are possessed of free +wills, of intelligence—that they know and appreciate +consequences, and that, in spite of all, they deliberately prefer a +life of crime.</p> +<center>II.</center> +<p>Have we not advanced far enough intellectually to deny the +existence of chance? Are we not satisfied now that back of every +act and thought and dream and fancy is an efficient cause? Is +anything, or can anything, be produced that is not necessarily +produced? Can the fatherless and motherless exist? Is there not a +connection between all events, and is not every act related to all +other acts? Is it not possible, is it not probable, is it not true, +that the actions of all men are determined by countless causes over +which they have no positive control?</p> +<p>Certain it is that men do not prefer unhappiness to joy.</p> +<p>It can hardly be said that man intends permanently to injure +himself, and that he does what he does in order that he may live a +life of misery. On the other hand, we must take it for granted that +man endeavors to better his own condition, and seeks, although by +mistaken ways, his own well-being. The poorest man would like to be +rich—the sick desire health—and no sane man wishes to +win the contempt and hatred of his fellow-men. Every human being +prefers liberty to imprisonment.</p> +<p>Are the brains of criminals exactly like the brains of honest +men? Have criminals the same ambitions, the same standards of +happiness or of well-being? If a difference exists in brain, will +that in part account for the difference in character? Is there +anything in heredity? Are vices as carefully transmitted by nature +as virtues? Does each man in some degree bear burdens imposed by +ancestors? We know that diseases of flesh and blood are +transmitted—that the child is the heir of physical deformity. +Are diseases of the brain—are deformities of the soul, of the +mind, also transmitted?</p> +<p>We not only admit, but we assert, that in the physical world +there are causes and effects. We insist that there is and can be no +effect without an efficient cause. When anything happens in that +world, we are satisfied that it was naturally and necessarily +produced. The causes may be obscure, but we as implicitly believe +in their existence as when we know positively what they are. In the +physical world we have taken the ground that there is nothing +miraculous—that everything is natural—and if we cannot +explain it, we account for our inability to explain, by our own +ignorance. Is it not possible, is it not probable, that what is +true in the physical world is equally true in the realm of +mind—in that strange world of passion and desire? Is it +possible that thoughts or desires or passions are the children of +chance, born of nothing? Can we conceive of nothing as a force, or +as a cause? If, then, there is behind every thought and desire and +passion an efficient cause, we can, in part at least, account for +the actions of men.</p> +<p>A certain man under certain conditions acts in a certain way. +There are certain temptations that he, with his brain, with his +experience, with his intelligence, with his surroundings cannot +withstand. He is irresistibly led to do, or impelled to do, certain +things; and there are other things that he can not do. If we change +the conditions of this man, his actions will be changed. Develop +his mind, give him new subjects of thought, and you change the man; +and the man being Changed, it follows of necessity that his conduct +will be different.</p> +<p>In civilized countries the struggle for existence is +severe—the competition far sharper than in savage lands. The +consequence is that there are many failures. These failures lack, +it may be, opportunity or brain or moral force or industry, or +something without which, under the circumstances, success is +impossible. Certain lines of conduct are called legal, and certain +others criminal, and the men who fail in one line may be driven to +the other. How do we know that it is possible for all people to be +honest? Are we certain that all people can tell the truth? Is it +possible for all men to be generous or candid or courageous?</p> +<p>I am perfectly satisfied that there are millions of people +incapable of committing certain crimes, and it may be true that +there are millions of others incapable of practicing certain +virtues. We do not blame a man because he is not a sculptor, a +poet, a painter, or a statesman. We say he has not the genius. Are +we certain that it does not require genius to be good? Where is the +man with intelligence enough to take into consideration the +circumstances of each individual case? Who has the mental balance +with which to weigh the forces of heredity, of want, of +temptation,—and who can analyze with certainty the mysterious +motions of the brain? Where and what are the sources of vice and +virtue? In what obscure and shadowy recesses of the brain are +passions born? And what is it that for the moment destroys the +sense of right and wrong?</p> +<p>Who knows to what extent reason becomes the prisoner of +passion—of some strange and wild desire, the seeds of which +were sown, it may be, thousands of years ago in the breast of some +savage? To what extent do antecedents and surroundings affect the +moral sense?</p> +<p>Is it not possible that the tyranny of governments, the +injustice of nations, the fierceness of what is called the law, +produce in the individual a tendency in the same direction? Is it +not true that the citizen is apt to imitate his nation? Society +degrades its enemies—the individual seeks to degrade his. +Society plunders its enemies, and now and then the citizen has the +desire to plunder his. Society kills its enemies, and possibly sows +in the heart of some citizen the seeds of murder.</p> +<center>III.</center> +<p>Is it not true that the criminal is a natural product, and that +society unconsciously produces these children of vice? Can we not +safely take another step, and say that the criminal is a victim, as +the diseased and insane and deformed are victims? We do not think +of punishing a man because he is afflicted with disease—our +desire is to find a cure. We send him, not to the penitentiary, but +to the hospital, to an asylum. We do this because we recognize the +fact that disease is naturally produced—that it is inherited +from parents, or the result of unconscious negligence, or it may be +of recklessness—but instead of punishing, we pity. If there +are diseases of the mind, of the brain, as there are diseases of +the body; and if these diseases of the mind, these deformities of +the brain, produce, and necessarily produce, what we call vice, why +should we punish the-criminal, and pity those who are physically +diseased?</p> +<p>Socrates, in some respects at least one of the wisest of men, +said: "It is strange that you should not be angry when you meet a +man with an ill-conditioned body, and yet be vexed when you +encounter one with an ill-conditioned soul."</p> +<p>We know that there are deformed bodies, and we are equally +certain that there are deformed minds.</p> +<p>Of course, society has the right to protect itself, no matter +whether the persons who attack its well-being are responsible or +not, no matter whether they are sick in mind, or deformed in brain. +The right of self-defence exists, not only in the individual, but +in society. The great question is, How shall this right of +self-defence be exercised? What spirit shall be in the nation, or +in society—the spirit of revenge, a desire to degrade and +punish and destroy, or a spirit born of the recognition of the fact +that criminals are victims?</p> +<p>The world has thoroughly tried confiscation, degradation, +imprisonment, torture and death, and thus far the world has failed. +In this connection I call your attention to the following +statistics gathered in our own country:</p> +<p>In 1850, we had twenty-three millions of people, and between six +and seven thousand prisoners.</p> +<p>In 1860—thirty-one millions of people, and nineteen +thousand prisoners.</p> +<p>In 1870—thirty-eight millions of people, and thirty-two +thousand prisoners.</p> +<p>In 1880—fifty millions of people, and fifty-eight thousand +prisoners.</p> +<p>It may be curious to note the relation between insanity, +pauperism and crime:</p> +<p>In 1850, there were fifteen thousand insane; in 1860, +twenty-four thousand; in 1870, thirty-seven thousand; in 1880, +ninety-one thousand.</p> +<p>In the light of these statistics, we are not succeeding in doing +away with crime. There were in 1880, fifty-eight thousand +prisoners, and in the same year fifty-seven thousand homeless +children, and sixty-six thousand paupers in almshouses.</p> +<p>Is it possible that we must go to the same causes for these +effects?</p> +<center>IV.</center> +<p>There is no reformation in degradation. To mutilate a criminal +is to say to all the world that he is a criminal, and to render his +reformation substantially impossible. Whoever is degraded by +society becomes its enemy. The seeds of malice are sown in his +heart, and to the day of his death he will hate the hand that sowed +the seeds.</p> +<p>There is also another side to this question. A punishment that +degrades the punished will degrade the man who inflicts the +punishment, and will degrade the government that procures the +infliction. The whipping-post pollutes, not only the whipped, but +the whipper, and not only the whipper, but the community at large. +Wherever its shadow falls it degrades.</p> +<p>If, then, there is no reforming power in degradation—no +deterrent power—for the reason that the degradation of the +criminal degrades the community, and in this way produces more +criminals, then the next question is, Whether there is any +reforming power in torture? The trouble with this is that it +hardens and degrades to the last degree the ministers of the law. +Those who are not affected by the agonies of the bad will in a +little time care nothing for the sufferings of the good. There +seems to be a little of the wild beast in men—a something +that is fascinated by suffering, and that delights in inflicting +pain. When a government tortures, it is in the same state of mind +that the criminal was when he committed his crime. It requires as +much malice in those who execute the law, to torture a criminal, as +it did in the criminal to torture and kill his victim. The one was +a crime by a person, the other by a nation.</p> +<p>There is something in injustice, in cruelty, that tends to +defeat itself. There were never as many traitors in England as when +the traitor was drawn and quartered—when he was tortured in +every possible way—when his limbs, torn and bleeding, were +given to the fury of mobs or exhibited pierced by pikes or hung in +chains. These frightful punishments produced intense hatred of the +government, and traitors continued to increase until they became +powerful enough to decide what treason was and who the traitors +were, and to inflict the same torments on others.</p> +<p>Think for a moment of what man has suffered in the cause of +crime. Think of the millions that have been imprisoned, +impoverished and degraded because they were thieves and forgers, +swindlers and cheats. Think for a moment of what they have +endured—of the difficulties under which they have pursued +their calling, and it will be exceedingly hard to believe that they +were sane and natural people possessed of good brains, of minds +well-poised, and that they did what they did from a choice +unaffected by heredity and the countless circumstances that tend to +determine the conduct of human beings.</p> +<p>The other day I was asked these questions: "Has there been as +much heroism displayed for the right as for the wrong? Has virtue +had as many martyrs as vice?"</p> +<p>For hundreds of years the world has endeavored to destroy the +good by force. The expression of honest thought was regarded as the +greatest of crimes. Dungeons were filled by the noblest and the +best, and the blood of the bravest was shed by the sword or +consumed by flame. It was impossible to destroy the longing in the +heart of man for liberty and truth. Is it not possible that brute +force and cruelty and revenge, imprisonment, torture and death are +as impotent to do away with vice as to destroy virtue?</p> +<p>In our country there has been for many years a growing feeling +that convicts should neither be degraded nor tortured. It was +provided in the Constitution of the United States that "cruel and +unusual punishments should not be inflicted." Benjamin Franklin +took great interest in the treatment of prisoners, being a thorough +believer in the reforming influence of justice, having no +confidence whatever in punishment for punishment's sake.</p> +<p>To me it has always been a mystery how the average man, knowing +something of the weakness of human nature, something of the +temptations to which he himself has been exposed—remembering +the evil of his life, the things he would have done had there been +opportunity, had he absolutely known that discovery would be +impossible—should have feelings of hatred toward the +imprisoned.</p> +<p>Is it possible that the average man assaults the criminal in a +spirit of self-defence? Does he wish to convince his neighbors that +the evil thought and impulse were never in his mind? Are his words +a shield that he uses to protect himself from suspicion? For my +part, I sympathize sincerely with all failures, with the victims of +society, with those who have fallen, with the imprisoned, with the +hopeless, with those who have been stained by verdicts of guilty, +and with those who, in the moment of passion have destroyed, as +with a blow, the future of their lives.</p> +<p>How perilous, after all, is the state of man. It is the work of +a life to build a great and splendid character. It is the work of a +moment to destroy it utterly, from turret to foundation stone. How +cruel hypocrisy is!</p> +<p>Is there any remedy? Can anything be done for the reformation of +the criminal?</p> +<p>He should be treated with kindness. Every right should be given +him, consistent with the safety of society. He should neither be +degraded nor robbed. The State should set the highest and noblest +example. The powerful should never be cruel, and in the breast of +the supreme there should be no desire for revenge.</p> +<p>A man in a moment of want steals the property of another, and he +is sent to the penitentiary—first, as it is claimed, for the +purpose of deterring others; and secondly, of reforming him. The +circumstances of each individual case are rarely inquired into. +Investigation stops when the simple fact of the larceny has been +ascertained. No distinctions are made except as between first and +subsequent offences. Nothing is allowed for surroundings.</p> +<p>All will admit that the industrious must be protected. In this +world it is necessary to work. Labor is the foundation of all +prosperity. Larceny is the enemy of industry. Society has the right +to protect itself. The question is, Has it the right to +punish?—has it the right to degrade?—or should it +endeavor to reform the convict?</p> +<p>A man is taken to the penitentiary. He is clad in the garments +of a convict. He is degraded—he loses his name—he is +designated by a number. He is no longer treated as a human +being—he becomes the slave of the State. Nothing is done for +his improvement—nothing for his reformation. He is driven +like a beast of burden; robbed of his labor; leased, it may be, by +the State to a contractor, who gets out of his hands, out of his +muscles, out of his poor brain, all the toil that he can. He is not +allowed to speak with a fellow-prisoner. At night he is alone in +his cell. The relations that should exist between men are +destroyed. He is a convict. He is no longer worthy to associate +even with his keepers. The jailer is immensely his superior, and +the man who turns the key upon him at night regards himself, in +comparison, as a model of honesty, of virtue and manhood. The +convict is pavement on which those who watch him walk. He remains +for the time of his sentence, and when that expires he goes forth a +branded man. He is given money enough to pay his fare back to the +place from whence he came.</p> +<p>What is the condition of this man? Can he get employment? Not if +he honestly states who he is and where he has been. The first thing +he does is to deny his personality, to assume a name. He endeavors +by telling falsehoods to lay the foundation for future good +conduct. The average man does not wish to employ an ex-convict, +because the average man has no confidence in the reforming power of +the penitentiary. He believes that the convict who comes out is +worse than the convict who went in. He knows that in the +penitentiary the heart of this man has been hardened—that he +has been subjected to the torture of perpetual +humiliation—that he has been treated like a ferocious beast; +and so he believes that this ex-convict has in his heart hatred for +society, that he feels he has been degraded and robbed. Under these +circumstances, what avenue is opened to the ex-convict? If he +changes his name, there will be some detective, some officer of the +law, some meddlesome wretch, who will betray his secret. He is then +discharged. He seeks employment again, and he must seek it by again +telling what is not true. He is again detected and again +discharged. And finally he becomes convinced that he cannot live as +an honest man. He naturally drifts back into the society of those +who have had a like experience; and the result is that in a little +while he again stands in the dock, charged with the commission of +another crime. Again he is sent to the penitentiary—and this +is the end. He feels that his day is done, that the future has only +degradation for him.</p> +<p>The men in the penitentiaries do not work for themselves. Their +labor belongs to others. They have no interest in their +toil—no reason for doing the best they can—and the +result is that the product of their labor is poor. This product +comes in competition with the work of mechanics, honest men, who +have families to support, and the cry is that convict labor takes +the bread from the mouths of virtuous people.</p> +<center>VI.</center> +<p>Why should the State take without compensation the labor of +these men; and why should they, after having been imprisoned for +years, be turned out without the means of support? Would it not be +far better, far more economical, to pay these men for their labor, +to lay aside their earnings from day to day, from month to month, +and from year to year—to put this money at interest, so that +when the convict is released after five years of imprisonment he +will have several hundred dollars of his own—not merely money +enough to pay his way back to the place from which he was sent, but +enough to make it possible for him to commence business on his own +account, enough to keep the wolf of crime from the door of his +heart?</p> +<p>Suppose the convict comes out with five hundred dollars. This +would be to most of that class a fortune. It would form a +breastwork, a fortress, behind which the man could fight +temptation. This would give him food and raiment, enable him to go +to some other State or country where he could redeem himself. If +this were done, thousands of convicts would feel under immense +obligation to the Government. They would think of the penitentiary +as the place in which they were saved—in which they were +redeemed—and they would feel that the verdict of guilty +rescued them from the abyss of crime. Under these circumstances, +the law would appear beneficent, and the heart of the poor convict, +instead of being filled with malice, would overflow with gratitude. +He would see the propriety of the course pursued by the Government. +He would recognize and feel and experience the benefits of this +course, and the result would be good, not only to him, but to the +nation as well.</p> +<p>If the convict worked for himself, he would do the best he +could, and the wares produced in the penitentiaries would not +cheapen the labor of other men.</p> +<center>VII.</center> +<p>There are, however, men who pursue crime as a vocation—as +a profession—men who have been convicted again and again, and +who will persist in using the liberty of intervals to prey upon the +rights of others. What shall be done with these men and women?</p> +<p>Put one thousand hardened thieves on an island—compel them +to produce what they eat and use—and I am almost certain that +a large majority would be opposed to theft. Those who worked would +not permit those who did not, to steal the result of their labor. +In other words, self-preservation would be the dominant idea, and +these men would instantly look upon the idlers as the enemies of +their society.</p> +<p>Such a community would be self-supporting. Let women of the same +class be put by themselves. Keep the sexes absolutely apart. Those +who are beyond the power of reformation should not have the liberty +to reproduce themselves. Those who cannot be reached by +kindness—by justice—those who under no circumstances +are willing to do their share, should be separated. They should +dwell apart, and dying, should leave no heirs.</p> +<p>What shall be done with the slayers of their +fellow-men—with murderers? Shall the nation take life?</p> +<p>It has been contended that the death penalty deters +others—that it has far more terror than imprisonment for +life. What is the effect of the example set by a nation? Is not the +tendency to harden and degrade not only those who inflict and those +who witness, but the entire community as well?</p> +<p>A few years ago a man was hanged in Alexandria, Virginia. One +who witnessed the execution, on that very day, murdered a peddler +in the Smithsonian grounds at Washington. He was tried and +executed, and one who witnessed his hanging went home, and on the +same day murdered his wife.</p> +<p>The tendency of the extreme penalty is to prevent conviction. In +the presence of death it is easy for a jury to find a doubt. +Technicalities become important, and absurdities, touched with +mercy, have the appearance for a moment of being natural and +logical. Honest and conscientious men dread a final and irrevocable +step. If the penalty were imprisonment for life, the jury would +feel that if any mistake were made it could be rectified; but where +the penalty is death a mistake is fatal. A conscientious man takes +into consideration the defects of human nature—the +uncertainty of testimony, and the countless shadows that dim and +darken the understanding, and refuses to find a verdict that, if +wrong, cannot be righted.</p> +<p>The death penalty, inflicted by the Government, is a perpetual +excuse for mobs.</p> +<p>The greatest danger in a Republic is a mob, and as long as +States inflict the penalty of death, mobs will follow the example. +If the State does not consider life sacred, the mob, with ready +rope, will strangle the suspected. The mob will say: "The only +difference is in the trial; the State does the same—we know +the man is guilty—why should time be wasted in +technicalities?" In other words, why may not the mob do quickly +that which the State does slowly?</p> +<p>Every execution tends to harden the public heart—tends to +lessen the sacredness of human life. In many States of this Union +the mob is supreme. For certain offences the mob is expected to +lynch the supposed criminal. It is the duty of every +citizen—and as it seems to me especially of every +lawyer—to do what he can to destroy the mob spirit. One would +think that men would be afraid to commit any crime in a community +where the mob is in the ascendency, and yet, such are the +contradictions and subtleties of human nature, that it is exactly +the opposite. And there is another thing in this +connection—the men who constitute the mob are, as a rule, +among the worst, the lowest, and the most depraved.</p> +<p>A few years ago, in Illinois, a man escaped from jail, and, in +escaping, shot the sheriff. He was pursued, +overtaken—lynched. The man who put the rope around his neck +was then out on bail, having been indicted for an assault to +murder. And after the poor wretch was dead, another man climbed the +tree from which he dangled and, in derision, put a cigar in the +mouth of the dead; and this man was on bail, having been indicted +for larceny.</p> +<p>Those who are the fiercest to destroy and hang their fellow-men +for having committed crimes, are, for the most part, at heart, +criminals themselves.</p> +<p>As long as nations meet on the fields of war—as long as +they sustain the relations of savages to each other—as long +as they put the laurel and the oak on the brows of those who +kill—just so long will citizens resort to violence, and the +quarrels of individuals be settled by dagger and revolver.</p> +<center>VIII.</center> +<p>If we are to change the conduct of men, we must change their +conditions. Extreme poverty and crime go hand in hand. Destitution +multiplies temptations and destroys the finer feelings. The bodies +and souls of men are apt to be clad in like garments. If the body +is covered with rags, the soul is generally in the same condition. +Selfrespect is gone—the man looks down—he has neither +hope nor courage. He becomes sinister—he envies the +prosperous—hates the fortunate, and despises himself.</p> +<p>As long as children are raised in the tenement and gutter, the +prisons will be full. The gulf between the rich and poor will grow +wider and wider. One will depend on cunning, the other on force. It +is a great question whether those who live in luxury can afford to +allow others to exist in want. The value of property depends, not +on the prosperity of the few, but on the prosperity of a very large +majority. Life and property must be secure, or that subtle thing +called "value" takes its leave. The poverty of the many is a +perpetual menace. If we expect a prosperous and peaceful country, +the citizens must have homes. The more homes, the more patriots, +the more virtue, and the more security for all that gives worth to +life.</p> +<p>We need not repeat the failures of the old world. To divide +lands among successful generals, or among favorites of the crown, +to give vast estates for services rendered in war, is no worse than +to allow men of great wealth to purchase and hold vast tracts of +land. The result is precisely the same—that is to say, a +nation composed of a few landlords and of many tenants—the +tenants resorting from time to time to mob violence, and the +landlords depending upon a standing army. The property of no man, +however, should be taken for either private or public use without +just compensation and in accordance with law. There is in the State +what is known as the right of eminent domain. The State reserves to +itself the power to take the land of any private citizen for a +public use, paying to that private citizen a just compensation to +be legally ascertained. When a corporation wishes to build a +railway, it exercises this right of eminent domain, and where the +owner of land refuses to sell a right of way, or land for the +establishment of stations or shops, and the corporation proceeds to +condemn the land to ascertain its value, and when the amount thus +ascertained is paid, the property vests in the corporation. This +power is exercised because in the estimation of the people the +construction of a railway is a public good.</p> +<p>I believe that this power should be exercised in another +direction. It would be well as it seems to me, for the Legislature +to fix the amount of land that a private citizen may own, that will +not be subject to be taken for the use of which I am about to +speak. The amount to be thus held will depend upon many local +circumstances, to be decided by each State for itself. Let me +suppose that the amount of land that may be held for a farmer for +cultivation has been fixed at one hundred and sixty acres—and +suppose that A has several thousand acres. B wishes to buy one +hundred and sixty acres or less of this land, for the purpose of +making himself a home. A refuses to sell. Now, I believe that the +law should be so that B can invoke this right of eminent domain, +and file his petition, have the case brought before a jury, or +before commissioners, who shall hear the evidence and determine the +value, and on the payment of the amount the land shall belong to +B.</p> +<p>I would extend the same law to lots and houses in cities and +villages—the object being to fill our country with the owners +of homes, so that every child shall have a fireside, every father +and mother a roof, provided they have the intelligence, the energy +and the industry to acquire the necessary means.</p> +<p>Tenements and flats and rented lands are, in my judgment, the +enemies of civilization. They make the rich richer, and the poor +poorer. They put a few in palaces, but they put many in +prisons.</p> +<p>I would go a step further than this. I would exempt homes of a +certain value not only from levy and sale, but from every kind of +taxation, State and National—so that these poor people would +feel that they were in partnership with nature—that some of +the land was absolutely theirs, and that no one could drive them +from their home—so that mothers could feel secure. If the +home increased in value, and exceeded the limit, then taxes could +be paid on the excess; and if the home were sold, I would have the +money realized exempt for a certain time in order that the family +should have the privilege of buying another home.</p> +<p>The home, after all, is the unit of civilization, of good +government; and to secure homes for a great majority of our +citizens, would be to lay the foundation of our Government deeper +and broader and stronger than that of any nation that has existed +among men.</p> +<center>IX.</center> +<p>No one places a higher value upon the free school than I do; and +no one takes greater pride in the prosperity of our colleges and +universities. But at the same time, much that is called education +simply unfits men successfully to fight the battle of life. +Thousands are to-day studying things that will be of exceedingly +little importance to them or to others. Much valuable time is +wasted in studying languages that long ago were dead, and histories +in which there is no truth.</p> +<p>There was an idea in the olden time—and it is not yet +dead—that whoever was educated ought not to work; that he +should use his head and not his hands. Graduates were ashamed to be +found engaged in manual labor, in ploughing fields, in sowing or in +gathering grain. To this manly kind of independence they preferred +the garret and the precarious existence of an unappreciated poet, +borrowing their money from their friends, and their ideas from the +dead. The educated regarded the useful as degrading—they were +willing to stain their souls to keep their hands white.</p> +<p>The object of all education should be to increase the use +fulness of man—usefulness to himself and others. Every human +being should be taught that his first duty is to take care of +himself, and that to be self-respecting he must be self-supporting. +To live on the labor of others, either by force which enslaves, or +by cunning which robs, or by borrowing or begging, is wholly +dishonorable. Every man should be taught some useful art. His hands +should be educated as well as his head. He should be taught to deal +with things as they are—with life as it is. This would give a +feeling of independence, which is the firmest foundation of honor, +of character. Every man knowing that he is useful, admires +himself.</p> +<p>In all the schools children should be taught to work in wood and +iron, to understand the construction and use of machinery, to +become acquainted with the great forces that man is using to do his +work. The present system of education teaches names, not things. It +is as though we should spend years in learning the names of cards, +without playing a game.</p> +<p>In this way boys would learn their aptitudes—would +ascertain what they were fitted for—what they could do. It +would not be a guess, or an experiment, but a demonstration. +Education should increase a boy's chances for getting a living. The +real good of it is to get food and roof and raiment, opportunity to +develop the mind and the body and live a full and ample life.</p> +<p>The more real education, the less crime—and the more +homes, the fewer prisons.</p> +<center>X.</center> +<p>The fear of punishment may deter some, the fear of exposure +others; but there is no real reforming power in fear or punishment. +Men cannot be tortured into greatness, into goodness. All this, as +I said before, has been thoroughly tried. The idea that punishment +was the only relief, found its limit, its infinite, in the old +doctrine of eternal pain; but the believers in that dogma stated +distinctly that the victims never would be, and never could be, +reformed.</p> +<p>As men become civilized they become capable of greater pain and +of greater joy. To the extent that the average man is capable of +enjoying or suffering, to that extent he has sympathy with others. +The average man, the more enlightened he becomes, the more apt he +is to put himself in the place of another. He thinks of his +prisoner, of his employee, of his tenant—and he even thinks +beyond these; he thinks of the community at large. As man becomes +civilized he takes more and more into consideration circumstances +and conditions. He gradually loses faith in the old ideas and +theories that every man can do as he wills, and in the place of the +word "wills," he puts the word "must." The time comes to the +intelligent man when in the place of punishments he thinks of +consequences, results—that is to say, not something inflicted +by some other power, but something necessarily growing out of what +is done. The clearer men perceive the consequences of actions, the +better they will be. Behind consequences we place no personal will, +and consequently do not regard them as inflictions, or punishments. +Consequences, no matter how severe they may be, create in the mind +no feeling of resentment, no desire for revenge.' We do not feel +bitterly toward the fire because it burns, or the frost that +freezes, or the flood that overwhelms, or the sea that +drowns—because we attribute to these things no motives, good +or bad. So, when through the development of the intellect man +perceives not only the nature, but the absolute certainty of +consequences, he refrains from certain actions, and this may be +called reformation through the intellect—and surely there is +no better reformation than this. Some may be, and probably millions +have been, reformed, through kindness, through gratitude—made +better in the sunlight of charity. In the atmosphere of kindness +the seeds of virtue burst into bud and flower. Cruelty, tyranny, +brute force, do not and can not by any possibility better the heart +of man. He who is forced upon his knees has the attitude, but never +the feeling, of prayer.</p> +<p>I am satisfied that the discipline of the average prison hardens +and degrades. It is for the most part a perpetual exhibition of +arbitrary power. There is really no appeal. The cries of the +convict are not heard beyond the walls. The protests die in cells, +and the poor prisoner feels that the last tie between him and his +fellow-men has been broken. He is kept in ignorance of the outer +world. The prison is a cemetery, and his cell is a grave.</p> +<p>In many of the penitentiaries there are instruments of torture, +and now and then a convict is murdered. Inspections and +investigations go for naught, because the testimony of a convict +goes for naught. He is generally prevented by fear from telling his +wrongs; but if he speaks, he is not believed—he is regarded +as less than a human being, and so the imprisoned remain without +remedy. When the visitors are gone, the convict who has spoken is +prevented from speaking again.</p> +<p>Every manly feeling, every effort toward real reformation, is +trampled under foot, so that when the convict's time is out there +is little left on which to build. He has been humiliated to the +last degree, and his spirit has so long been bent by authority and +fear that even the desire to stand erect has almost faded from the +mind. The keepers feel that they are safe, because no matter what +they do, the convict when released will not tell the story of his +wrongs, for if he conceals his shame, he must also hide their +guilt.</p> +<p>Every penitentiary should be a real reformatory. That should be +the principal object for the establishment of the prison. The men +in charge should be of the kindest and noblest. They should be +filled with divine enthusiasm for humanity, and every means should +be taken to convince the prisoner that his good is +sought—that nothing is done for revenge—nothing for a +display of power, and nothing for the gratification of malice. He +should feel that the warden is his unselfish friend. When a convict +is charged with a violation of the rules—with +insubordination, or with any offence, there should be an +investigation in due and proper form, giving the convict an +opportunity to be heard. He should not be for one moment the victim +of irresponsible power. He would then feel that he had some rights, +and that some little of the human remained in him still. They +should be taught things of value—instructed by competent men. +Pains should be taken, not to punish, not to degrade, but to +benefit and ennoble.</p> +<p>We know, if we know anything, that men in the penitentiaries are +not altogether bad, and that many out are not altogether good; and +we feel that in the brain and heart of all, there are the seeds of +good and bad. We know, too, that the best are liable to fall, and +it may be that the worst, under certain conditions, may be capable +of grand and heroic deeds. Of one thing we may be assured—and +that is, that criminals will never be reformed by being robbed, +humiliated and degraded.</p> +<p>Ignorance, filth, and poverty are the missionaries of crime. As +long as dishonorable success outranks honest effort—as long +as society bows and cringes before the great thieves, there will be +little ones enough to fill the jails.</p> +<center>XI.</center> +<p>All the penalties, all the punishments, are inflicted under a +belief that man can do right under all circumstances—that his +conduct is absolutely under his control, and that his will is a +pilot that can, in spite of winds and tides, reach any port +desired. All this is, in my judgment, a mistake. It is a denial of +the integrity of nature. It is based upon the supernatural and +miraculous, and as long as this mistake remains the corner-stone of +criminal jurisprudence, reformation will be impossible.</p> +<p>We must take into consideration the nature of man—the +facts of mind—the power of temptation—the limitations +of the intellect—the force of habit—the result of +heredity—the power of passion—the domination of +want—the diseases of the brain—the tyranny of +appetite—the cruelty of conditions—the results of +association—the effects of poverty and wealth, of +helplessness and power.</p> +<p>Until these subtle things are understood—until we know +that man, in spite of all, can certainly pursue the highway of the +right, society should not impoverish and degrade, should not chain +and kill those who, after all, may be the helpless victims of +unknown causes that are deaf and blind.</p> +<p>We know something of ourselves—of the average man—of +his thoughts, passions, fears and aspirations—something of +his sorrows and his joys, his weakness, his liability to +fall—something of what he resists—the struggles, the +victories and the failures of his life. We know something of the +tides and currents of the mysterious sea—something of the +circuits of the wayward winds—but we do not know where the +wild storms are born that wreck and rend. Neither do we know in +what strange realm the mists and clouds are formed that darken all +the heaven of the mind, nor from whence comes the tempest of the +brain in which the will to do, sudden as the lightning's flash, +seizes and holds the man until the dreadful deed is done that +leaves a curse upon the soul.</p> +<p>We do not know. Our ignorance should make us hesitate. Our +weakness should make us merciful.</p> +<p>I cannot more fittingly close this address than by quoting the +prayer of the Buddhist: "I pray thee to have pity on the +vicious—thou hast already had pity on the virtuous by making +them so."</p> +<a name="link0006" id="link0006"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A WOODEN GOD.</h2> +<h3>To the Editor:</h3> +<p>To-day Messrs. Wright, Dickey, O'Connor, and Murch, of the +select committee on the causes of the present depression of labor, +presented the majority special report upon Chinese immigration.</p> +<p>These gentlemen are in great fear for the future of our most +holy and perfectly authenticated religion, and have, like faithful +watchmen, from the walls and towers of Zion, hastened to give the +alarm. They have informed Congress that "Joss has his temple of +worship in the Chinese quarters, in San Francisco. Within the walls +of a dilapidated structure is exposed to the view of the faithful +the god of the Chinaman, and here are his altars of worship. Here +he tears up his pieces of paper; here he offers up his prayers; +here he receives his religious consolations, and here is his road +to the celestial land;" that "Joss is located in a long, narrow +room in a building in a back alley, upon a kind of altar;" that "he +is a wooden image, looking as much like an alligator as like a +human being;" that the Chinese "think there is such a place as +heaven;" that "all classes of Chinamen worship idols;" that "the +temple is open every day at all hours;" that "the Chinese have no +Sunday;" that this heathen god has "huge jaws, a big red tongue, +large white teeth, a half-dozen arms, and big, fiery eyeballs. +About him are placed offerings of meat and other eatables—a +sacrificial offering."</p> +<p>*A letter to the Chicago Times, written at Washington, D. C., +March 27,1880.</p> +<p>No wonder that these members of the committee were shocked at +such an image of God, knowing as they did that the only true God +was correctly described by the inspired lunatic of Patmos in the +following words:</p> +<p>"And there sat in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks one +like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, +and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his +hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as +a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they +burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And +he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a +sharp, two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth +in his strength."</p> +<p>Certainly a large mouth filled with white teeth is preferable to +one used as the scabbard of a sharp, two-edged sword. Why should +these gentlemen object to a god with big, fiery eyeballs, when +their own Deity has eyes like a flame of fire?</p> +<p>Is it not a little late in the day to object to people because +they sacrifice meat and other eatables to their god? We all know +that for thousands of years the "real" God was exceedingly fond of +roasted meat; that he loved the savor of burning flesh, and +delighted in the perfume of fresh, warm blood.</p> +<p>The following account of the manner in which the "living God" +desired that his chosen people should sacrifice, tends to show the +degradation and religious blindness of the Chinese:</p> +<p>"Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the +sin offering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron brought +the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put +it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the +bottom of the altar: But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul +above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as +the Lord commanded Moses. And the flesh and the hide he burnt with +fire without the camp. And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's +sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about +upon the altar. * * * And he brought the meat offering, and took a +handful thereof, and burnt it upon the altar. * * * He slew also +the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offering, which +was for the people: and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, +which he sprinkled upon the altar round about, and the fat of the +bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the +inwards and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver, and they put +the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar. And +the breast and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering +before the Lord, as Moses commanded."</p> +<p>If the Chinese only did something like this, we would know that +they worshiped the "living" God. The idea that the supreme head of +the "American system of religion" can be placated with a little +meat and "ordinary eatables" is simply preposterous. He has always +asked for blood, and has always asserted that without the shedding +of blood there is no remission of sin.</p> +<p>The world is also informed by these gentlemen that "the idolatry +of the Chinese produces a demoralizing effect upon our American +youth by bringing sacred things into disrespect, and making +religion a theme of disgust and contempt."</p> +<p>In San Francisco there are some three hundred thousand people. +Is it possible that a few Chinese can bring our "holy religion" +into disgust and contempt? In that city there are fifty times as +many churches as joss-houses. Scores of sermons are uttered every +week; religious books and papers are plentiful as leaves in autumn, +and somewhat dryer; thousands of Bibles are within the reach of +all. And there, too, is the example of a Christian city.</p> +<p>Why should we send missionaries to China if we can not convert +the heathen when they come here? When missionaries go to a foreign +land, the poor, benighted people have to take their word for the +blessings showered upon a Christian people; but when the heathen +come here they can see for themselves. What was simply a story +becomes a demonstrated fact. They come in contact with people who +love their enemies. They see that in a Christian land men tell the +truth; that they will not take advantage of strangers; that they +are just and patient, kind and tender; that they never resort to +force; that they have no prejudice on account of color, race, or +religion; that they look upon mankind as brethren; that they speak +of God as a universal Father, and are willing to work, and even to +suffer, for the good not only of their own countrymen, but of the +heathen as well. All this the Chinese see and know, and why they +still cling to the religion of their country is to me a matter of +amazement.</p> +<p>We all know that the disciples of Jesus do unto others as they +would that others should do unto them, and that those of Confucius +do not unto others anything that they would not that others should +do unto them. Surely, such peoples ought to live together in +perfect peace.</p> +<p>Rising with the subject, growing heated with a kind of holy +indignation, these Christian representatives of a Christian people +most solemnly declare that:</p> +<p>"Anyone who is really endowed with a correct knowledge of our +religious system, which acknowledges the existence of a living God +and an accountability to him, and a future state of reward and +punishment, who feels that he has an apology for this abominable +pagan worship is not a fit person to be ranked as a good citizen of +the American Union. It is absurd to make any apology for its +toleration. It must be abolished, and the sooner the decree goes +forth by the power of this Government the better it will be for the +interests of this land."</p> +<p>I take this, the earliest opportunity, to inform these gentlemen +composing a majority of the committee, that we have in the United +States no "religious system"; that this is a secular Government. +That it has no religious creed; that it does not believe or +disbelieve in a future state of reward and punishment; that it +neither affirms nor denies the existence of a "living God"; and +that the only god, so far as this Government is concerned, is the +legally expressed will of a majority of the people. Under our flag +the Chinese have the same right to worship a wooden god that you +have to worship any other. The Constitution protects equally the +church of Jehovah and the house of Joss. Whatever their relative +positions may be in heaven, they stand upon a perfect equality in +the United States.</p> +<p>This Government is an Infidel Government. We have a Constitution +with man put in and God left out; and it is the glory of this +country that we have such a Constitution.</p> +<p>It may be surprising to you that I have an apology for pagan +worship, yet I have. And it is the same one that I have for the +writers of this report. I account for both by the word +<i>superstition</i>. Why should we object to their worshiping God +as they please? If the worship is improper, the protestation should +come not from a committee of Congress, but from God himself. If he +is satisfied that is sufficient.</p> +<p>Our religion can only be brought into contempt by the actions of +those who profess to be governed by its teachings. This report will +do more in that direction than millions of Chinese could do by +burning pieces of paper before a wooden image. If you wish to +impress the Chinese with the value of your religion, of what you +are pleased to call "The American system," show them that +Christians are better than heathens. Prove to them that what you +are pleased to call the "living God" teaches higher and holier +things, a grander and purer code of morals than can be found upon +pagan pages. Excel these wretches in industry, in honesty, in +reverence for parents, in cleanliness, in frugality; and above all +by advocating the absolute liberty of human thought.</p> +<p>Do not trample upon these people because they have a different +conception of things about which even this committee knows +nothing.</p> +<p>Give them the same privilege you enjoy of making a God after +their own fashion. And let them describe him as they will. Would +you be willing to have them remain, if one of their race, thousands +of years ago, had pretended to have seen God, and had written of +him as follows:</p> +<p>"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his +mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it, * * * and he rode upon a +cherub and did fly."</p> +<p>Why should you object to these people on account of their +religion? Your objection has in it the spirit of hate and +intolerance. Of that spirit the Inquisition was born. That spirit +lighted the fagot, made the thumbscrew, put chains upon the limbs, +and lashes upon the backs of men. The same spirit bought and sold, +captured and kidnapped human beings; sold babes, and justified all +the horrors of slavery.</p> +<p>Congress has nothing to do with the religion of the people. Its +members are not responsible to God for the opinions of their +constituents, and it may tend to the happiness of the constituents +for me to state that they are in no way responsible for the +religion of the members. Religion is an individual, not a national, +matter. And where the nation interferes with the right of +conscience, the liberties of the people are devoured by the monster +superstition.</p> +<p>If you wish to drive out the Chinese, do not make a pretext of +religion. Do not pretend that you are trying to do God a favor. +Injustice in his name is doubly detestable. The assassin can not +sanctify his dagger by falling on his knees, and it does not help a +falsehood if it be uttered as a prayer. Religion, used to intensify +the hatred of men toward men under the pretence of pleasing God, +has cursed this world.</p> +<p>A portion of this most remarkable report is intensely religious. +There is in it almost the odor of sanctity; and when reading it, +one is impressed with the living piety of its authors. But on the +twenty-fifth page there are a few passages that must pain the +hearts of true believers.</p> +<p>Leaving their religious views, the members immediately betake +themselves to philosophy and prediction. Listen:</p> +<p>"The Chinese race and the American citizen, whether native-born +or one who is eligible to our naturalization laws and becomes a +citizen, are in a state of antagonism. They cannot, or will not, +ever meet upon common ground, and occupy together the same social +level. This is impossible. The pagan and the Christian travel +different paths. This one believes in a living God; and that one in +a type of monsters and the worship of wood and stone. Thus in the +religion of the two races of men they are as wide apart as the +poles of the two hemispheres. They cannot now and never will +approach the same religious altar. The Christian will not recede to +barbarism, nor will the Chinese advance to the enlightened belt +(whatever it is) of civilization. * * * He cannot be converted to +those modern ideas of religious worship which have been accepted by +Europe and which crown the American system."</p> +<p>Christians used to believe that through their religion all the +nations of the earth were finally to be blest. In accordance with +that belief missionaries have been sent to every land, and untold +wealth has been expended for what has been called the spread of the +gospel.</p> +<p>I am almost sure that I have read somewhere that "Christ died +for <i>all</i> men," and that "God is no respecter of persons." It +was once taught that it was the duty of Christians to tell all +people the "tidings of great joy." I have never believed these +things myself, but have always contended that an honest merchant +was the best missionary. Commerce makes friends, religion makes +enemies; the one enriches and the other impoverishes; the one +thrives best where the truth is told, the other where falsehoods +are believed. For myself, I have but little confidence in any +business or enterprise or investment that promises dividends only +after the death of the stockholders.</p> +<p>But I am astonished that four Christian statesmen, four members +of Congress, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, who +seriously object to people on account of their religious +convictions, should still assert that the very religion in which +they believe—and the only religion established by the "living +God," head of the American system—is not adapted to the +spiritual needs of one-third of the human race. It is amazing that +these four gentlemen have, in the defence of the Christian +religion, announced the discovery that it is wholly inadequate for +the civilization of mankind; that the light of the cross can never +penetrate the darkness of China; "that all the labors of the +missionary, the example of the good, the exalted character of our +civilization, make no impression upon the pagan life of the +Chinese;" and that even the report of this committee will not tend +to elevate, refine, and Christianize the yellow heathen of the +Pacific coast. In the name of religion these gentlemen have denied +its power, and mocked at the enthusiasm of its founder. Worse than +this, they have predicted for the Chinese a future of ignorance and +idolatry in this world, and, if the "American system" of religion +is true, hell-fire in the next.</p> +<p>For the benefit of these four philosophers and prophets I will +give a few extracts from the writings of Confucius, that will, in +my judgment, compare favorably with the best passages of their +report:</p> +<p>"My doctrine is that man must be true to the principles of his +nature, and the benevolent exercise of them toward others.</p> +<p>With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and with my bended +arm for a pillow, I still have joy.</p> +<p>Riches and honor acquired by injustice are to me but floating +clouds.</p> +<p>The man who, in view of gain, thinks of righteousness; who, in +view of danger, forgets life, and who remembers an old agreement, +however far back it extends, such a man may be reckoned a complete +man.</p> +<p>Recompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.</p> +<p>There is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all +one's life: Reciprocity is that word."</p> +<p>When the ancestors of the four Christian Congressmen were +barbarians, when they lived in caves, gnawed bones, and worshiped +dried snakes, the infamous Chinese were reading these sublime +sentences of Confucius. When the forefathers of these Christian +statesmen were hunting toads to get the jewels out of their heads, +to be used as charms, the wretched Chinese were calculating +eclipses, and measuring the circumference of the earth. When the +progenitors of these representatives of the "American system of +religion" were burning women charged with nursing devils, the +people "incapable of being influenced by the exalted character of +our civilization," were building asylums for the insane.</p> +<p>Neither should it be forgotten that, for thousands of years, the +Chinese have honestly practiced the great principle known as Civil +Service Reform—a something that even the administration of +Mr. Hayes has reached only through the proxy of promise.</p> +<p>If we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let us +reform our treaties with the vast empire from whence they came. For +thousands of years the Chinese secluded themselves from the rest of +the world. They did not deem the Christian nations fit to associate +with. We forced ourselves upon them. We called, not with cards, but +with cannon. The English battered down the door in the names of +opium and Christ. This infamy was regarded as another triumph for +the gospel. At last, in self-defence, the Chinese allowed +Christians to touch their shores. Their wise men, their +philosophers, protested, and prophesied that time would show that +Christians could not be trusted. This report proves that the wise +men were not only philosophers, but prophets.</p> +<p>Treat China as you would England. Keep a treaty while it is in +force. Change it if you will, according to the laws of nations, but +on no account excuse a breach of national faith by pretending that +we are dishonest for God's sake.</p> +<a name="link0007" id="link0007"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SOME INTERROGATION POINTS.</h2> +<p>A NEW party is struggling for recognition—a party with +leaders who are not politicians, with followers who are not seekers +after place. Some of those who suffer and some of those who +sympathize, have combined. Those who feel that they are oppressed +are organized for the purpose of redressing their wrongs. The +workers for wages, and the seekers for work have uttered a protest. +This party is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of certain +things that are very near and very dear to the hearts of many +millions.</p> +<p>The object to be attained is a fairer division of profits +between employers and employed. There is a feeling that in some way +the workers should not want—that the industrious should not +be the indigent. There is a hope that men and women and children +are not forever to be the victims of ignorance and want—that +the tenement house is not always to be the home of the poor, or the +gutter the nursery of their babes.</p> +<p>As yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these aims have +not been agreed upon. Many theories have been advanced and none has +been adopted. The question is so vast, so complex, touching human +interests in so many ways, that no one has yet been great enough to +furnish a solution, or, if any one has furnished a solution, no one +else has been wise enough to understand it.</p> +<p>'The hope of the future is that this question will finally be +understood. It must not be discussed in anger. If a broad and +comprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for hatred or +for prejudice. Capital is not to blame. Labor is not to blame. Both +have been caught in the net of circumstances. The rich are as +generous as the poor would be if they should change places. Men +acquire through the noblest and the tenderest instincts. They work +and save not only for themselves, but for their wives and for their +children. There is but little confidence in the charity of the +world. The prudent man in his youth makes preparation for his age. +The loving father, having struggled himself, hopes to save his +children from drudgery and toil.</p> +<p>In every country there are classes—that is to say, the +spirit of caste, and this spirit will exist until the world is +truly civilized. Persons in most communities are judged not as +individuals, but as members of a class. Nothing is more natural, +and nothing more heartless. These lines that divide hearts on +account of clothes or titles, are growing more and more indistinct, +and the philanthropists, the lovers of the human race, believe that +the time is coming when they will be obliterated. We may do away +with kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich and +poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed, the +industrious and idle, and it may be, the honest and vicious. These +classifications are in the nature of things. They are produced for +the most part by forces that are now beyond the control of +man—but the old rule, that men are disreputable in the +proportion that they are useful, will certainly be reversed. The +idle lord was always held to be the superior of the industrious +peasant, the devourer better than the producer, and the waster +superior to the worker.</p> +<p>While in this country we have no titles of nobility, we have the +rich and the poor—no princes, no peasants, but millionaires +and mendicants. The individuals composing these classes are +continually changing. The rich of to-day may be the poor of +to-morrow, and the children of the poor may take their places. In +this country, the children of the poor are educated substantially +in the same schools with those of the rich. All read the same +papers, many of the same books, and all for many years hear the +same questions discussed. They are continually being educated, not +only at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by +perpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is that +those who are rich in gold are often poor in thought, and many who +have not whereon to lay their heads have within those heads a part +of the intellectual wealth of the world.</p> +<p>Years ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute toward the +education of the children of the poor. The support of schools by +general taxation was defended on the ground that it was a means of +providing for the public welfare, of perpetuating the institutions +of a free country by making better men and women. This policy has +been pursued until at last the schoolhouse is larger than the +church, and the common people through education have become +uncommon. They now know how little is really known by what are +called the upper classes—how little after all is understood +by kings, presidents, legislators, and men of culture. They are +capable not only of understanding a few questions, but they have +acquired the art of discussing those that no one understands. With +the facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make +barricades of statistics, and <i>chevaux-de-frise</i> of inferences +and assertions. They understand the sophistries of those who have +governed.</p> +<p>In some respects these common people are the superiors of the +so-called aristocracy. While the educated have been turning their +attention to the classics, to the dead languages, and the dead +ideas and mistakes that they contain—while they have been +giving their attention to ceramics, artistic decorations, and +compulsory prayers, the common people have been compelled to learn +the practical things—to become acquainted with facts—by +doing the work of the world. The professor of a college is no +longer a match for a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only +understands principles, but their application. He knows things as +they are. He has come in contact with the actual, with realities. +He knows something of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is +the highest and most valuable form of education. The men who make +locomotives, who construct the vast engines that propel ships, +necessarily know more than those who have spent their lives in +conjugating Greek verbs, looking for Hebrew roots, and discussing +the origin and destiny of the universe.</p> +<p>Intelligence increases wants. By education the necessities of +the people become increased. The old wages will not supply the new +wants. Man longs for a harmony between the thought within and the +things without. When the soul lives in a palace the body is not +satisfied with rags and patches. The glaring inequalities among +men, the differences in condition, the suffering and the poverty, +have appealed to the good and great of every age, and there has +been in the brain of the philanthropist a dream—a hope, a +prophecy, of a better day.</p> +<p>It was believed that tyranny was the foundation and cause of the +differences between men—that the rich were all robbers and +the poor all victims, and that if a society or government could be +founded on equal rights and privileges, the inequalities would +disappear, that all would have food and clothes and reasonable work +and reasonable leisure, and that content would be found by every +hearth.</p> +<p>There was a reliance on nature—an idea that men had +interfered with the harmonious action of great principles which if +left to themselves would work out universal wellbeing for the human +race. Others imagined that the inequalities between men were +necessary—that they were part of a divine plan, and that all +would be adjusted in some other world—that the poor here +would be the rich there, and the rich here might be in torture +there. Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and hell +their revenge.</p> +<p>When our Government was established it was declared that all men +are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among +which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was then +believed that if all men had an equal opportunity, if they were +allowed to make and execute their own laws, to levy their own +taxes, the frightful inequalities seen in the despotisms and +monarchies of the old world would entirely disappear. This was the +dream of 1776. The founders of the Government knew how kings and +princes and dukes and lords and barons had lived upon the labor of +the peasants. They knew the history of those ages of want and +crime, of luxury and suffering. But in spite of our Declaration, in +spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal suffrage, the +inequalities still exist. We have the kings and princes, the lords +and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists, corporations, +capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places, and we are +forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot clothe and feed +the world.</p> +<p>For thousands of years men have been talking and writing about +the great law of supply and demand—and insisting that in some +way this mysterious law has governed and will continue to govern +the activities of the human race. It is admitted that this law is +merciless—that when the demand fails, the producer, the +laborer, must suffer, must perish—that the law feels neither +pity nor malice—it simply acts, regardless of consequences. +Under this law capital will employ the cheapest. The single man can +work for less than the married. Wife and children are luxuries not +to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants than +the educated, and for this reason can afford to work for less. The +great law will give employment to the single and to the ignorant in +preference to the married and intelligent. The great law has +nothing to do with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares +nothing for homes, for penitentiaries, or asylums. It simply +acts—and some men triumph, some succeed, some fail, and some +perish.</p> +<p>Others insist that the curse of the world is monopoly. And yet, +as long as some men are stronger than others, as long as some are +more intelligent than others, they must be, to the extent of such +advantage, monopolists. Every man of genius is a monopolist.</p> +<p>We are told that the great remedy against monopoly—that is +to say, against extortion, is free and unrestricted competition. +But after all, the history of this world shows that the brutalities +of competition are equaled only by those of monopoly. The +successful competitor becomes a monopolist, and if competitors fail +to destroy each other, the instinct of self-preservation suggests a +combination. In other words, competition is a struggle between two +or more persons or corporations for the purpose of determining +which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of extortion.</p> +<p>In this country the people have had the greatest reliance on +competition. If a railway company charged too much a rival road was +built. As a matter of fact, we are indebted for half the railroads +of the United States to the extortion of the other half, and the +same may truthfully be said of telegraph lines. As a rule, while +the exactions of monopoly constructed new roads and new lines, +competition has either destroyed the weaker, or produced the pool +which is a means of keeping both monopolies alive, or of producing +a new monopoly with greater needs, supplied by methods more +heartless than the old. When a rival road is built the people +support the rival because the fares and freights are somewhat less. +Then the old and richer monopoly inaugurates war, and the people, +glorying in the benefits of competition, are absurd enough to +support the old. In a little while the new company, unable to +maintain the contest, left by the people at the mercy of the +stronger, goes to the wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to +make the intelligent people pay not only the old price, but enough +in addition to make up for the expenses of the contest.</p> +<p>Is there any remedy for this? None, except with the people +themselves. When the people become intelligent enough to support +the rival at a reasonable price; when they know enough to allow +both roads to live; when they are intelligent enough to recognize a +friend and to stand by that friend as against a known enemy, this +question will be at least on the edge of a solution.</p> +<p>So far as I know, this course has never been pursued except in +one instance, and that is the present war between the Gould and +Mackay cables. The Gould system had been charging from sixty to +eighty cents a word, and the Mackay system charged forty. Then the +old monopoly tried to induce the rival to put the prices back to +sixty. The rival refused, and thereupon the Gould combination +dropped to twelve and a half, for the purpose of destroying the +rival. The Mackay cable fixed the tariff at twenty-five cents, +saying to its customers, "You are intelligent enough to understand +what this war means. If our cables are defeated, the Gould system +will go back not only to the old price, but will add enough to +reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If you really wish +for competition, if you desire a reasonable service at a reasonable +rate, you will support us." Fortunately an exceedingly intelligent +class of people does business by the cables. They are merchants, +bankers, and brokers, dealing with large amounts, with intricate, +complicated, and international questions. Of necessity, they are +used to thinking for themselves. They are not dazzled into +blindness by the glare of the present. They see the future. They +are not duped by the sunshine of a moment or the promise of an +hour. They see beyond the horizon of a penny saved. These people +had intelligence enough to say, "The rival who stands between us +and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not be allowed to +die."</p> +<p>Does not this tend to show that people must depend upon +themselves, and that some questions can be settled by the +intelligence of those who buy, of those who use, and that customers +are not entirely helpless?</p> +<p>Another thing should not be forgotten, and that is this: there +is the same war between monopolies that there is between +individuals, and the monopolies for many years have been trying to +destroy each other. They have unconsciously been working for the +extinction of monopolies. These monopolies differ as individuals +do. You find among them the rich and the poor, the lucky and the +unfortunate, millionaires and tramps. The great monopolies have +been devouring the little ones.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago, the railways in this country were +controlled by local directors and local managers. The people along +the lines were interested in the stock. As a consequence, whenever +any legislation was threatened hostile to the interests of these +railways, they had local friends who used their influence with +legislators, governors and juries. During this time they were +protected, but when the hard times came many of these companies +were unable to pay their interest. They suddenly became Socialists. +They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They felt like +joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about rights and +wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have passed into the +hands of the richer roads—they were seized by the great +monopolies. Now the important railways are owned by persons living +in large cities or in foreign countries. They have no local +friends, and when the time conies, and it may come, for the General +Government to say how much these companies shall charge for +passengers and freight, they will have no local friends. It may be +that the great mass of the people will then be on the other side. +So that after all, the great corporations have been busy settling +the question against themselves.</p> +<p>Possibly a majority of the American people believe to-day that +in some way all these questions between capital and labor can be +settled by constitutions, laws, and judicial decisions. Most people +imagine that a statute is a sovereign specific for any evil. But +while the theory has all been one way, the actual experience has +been the other—just as the free traders have all the +arguments and the protectionists most of the facts.</p> +<p>The truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred years +all real advance in legislation has been made by repealing laws. Of +one thing we must be satisfied, and that is that real monopolies +have never been controlled by law, but the fact that such +monopolies exist, is a demonstration that the law has been +controlled. In our country, legislators are for the most part +controlled by those who, by their wealth and influence, elect them. +The few, in reality, cast the votes of the many, and the few +influence the ones voted for by the many. Special interests, being +active, secure special legislation, and the object of special +legislation is to create a kind of monopoly—that is to say, +to get some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests, and kings ruled, +robbed, destroyed, and duped, and their places have been taken by +corporations, monopolists, and politicians. The large fish still +live on the little ones, and the fine theories have as yet failed +to change the condition of mankind.</p> +<p>Law in this country is effective only when it is the recorded +will of a majority. When the zealous few get control of the +Legislature, and laws are passed to prevent Sabbath-breaking, or +wine-drinking, they succeed only in putting their opinions and +provincial prejudices in legal phrase. There was a time when men +worked from fourteen to sixteen hours a day. These hours have not +been lessened, they have not been shortened by law. The law has +followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader and not a +prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages—just as +impossible as to fix the values of all manufactured things, +including works of art. The field is too great, the problem too +complicated, for the human mind to grasp.</p> +<p>To fix the value of labor is to fix all values—labor being +the foundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be fixed +unless we understand the relations that all things bear to each +other and to man. If labor were a legal tender—if a judgment +for so many dollars could be discharged by so many days of +labor,—and the law was that twelve hours of work should be +reckoned as one day, then the law could change the hours to ten or +eight, and the judgments could be paid in the shortened days. But +it is easy to see that in all contracts made after the passage of +such a law, the difference in hours would be taken into +consideration.</p> +<p>We must remember that law is not a creative force. It produces +nothing. It raises neither corn nor wine. The legitimate object of +law is to protect the weak, to prevent violence and fraud, and to +enforce honest contracts, to the end that each person may be free +to do as he desires, provided only that he does not interfere with +the rights of others. Our fathers tried to make people religious by +law. They failed. Thousands are now trying to make people temperate +in the same manner. Such efforts always have been and probably +always will be failures. People who believe that an infinite God +gave to the Hebrews a perfect code of laws, must admit that even +this code failed to civilize the inhabitants of Palestine.</p> +<p>It seems impossible to make people just or charitable or +industrious or agreeable or successful, by law, any more than you +can make them physically perfect or mentally sound. Of course we +admit that good people intend to make good laws, and that good laws +faithfully and honestly executed, tend to the preservation of human +rights and to the elevation of the race, but the enactment of a law +not in accordance with a sentiment already existing in the minds +and hearts of the people—the very people who are depended +upon to enforce this law—is not a help, but a hindrance. A +real law is but the expression, in an authoritative and accurate +form, of the judgment and desire of the majority. As we become +intelligent and kind, this intelligence and kindness find +expression in law.</p> +<p>But how is it possible to fix the wages of every man? To fix +wages is to fix prices, and a government to do this intelligently, +would necessarily have to have the wisdom generally attributed to +an infinite Being. It would have to supervise and fix the +conditions of every exchange of commodities and the value of every +conceivable thing. Many things can be accomplished by law, +employeers may be held responsible for injuries to the employed. +The mines can be ventilated. Children can be rescued from the +deformities of toil—burdens taken from the backs of wives and +mothers—houses made wholesome, food healthful—that is +to say, the weak can be protected from the strong, the honest from +the vicious, honest contracts can be enforced, and many rights +protected.</p> +<p>The men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance, compete not +only with other men of strength, but with the inventions of genius. +What would doctors say if physicians of iron could be invented with +curious cogs and wheels, so that when a certain button was touched +the proper prescription would be written? How would lawyers feel if +a lawyer could be invented in such a way that questions of law, +being put in a kind of hopper and a crank being turned, decisions +of the highest court could be prophesied without failure? And how +would the ministers feel if somebody should invent a clergyman of +wood that would to all intents and purposes answer the purpose?</p> +<p>Invention has filled the world with the competitors not only of +laborers, but of mechanics—mechanics of the highest skill. +To-day the ordinary laborer is for the most part a cog in a wheel. +He works with the tireless—he feeds the insatiable. When the +monster stops, the man is out of employment, out of bread; He has +not saved anything. The machine that he fed was not feeding him, +was not working for him—the invention was not for his +benefit. The other day I heard a man say that it was almost +impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get employment, and +that, in his judgment, the Government ought to furnish work for the +people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that he was +selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of his machines +could do the work of twenty tailors, and that only the week before +he had sold two to a great house in New York, and that over forty +cutters had been discharged.</p> +<p>On every side men are being discharged and machines are being +invented to take their places. When the great factory shuts down, +the workers who inhabited it and gave it life, as thoughts do the +brain, go away and it stands there like an empty skull. A few +workmen, by the force of habit, gather about the closed doors and +broken windows and talk about distress, the price of food and the +coming winter. They are convinced that they have not had their +share of what their labor created. They feel certain that the +machines inside were not their friends. They look at the mansion of +the employeer and think of the places where they live. They have +saved nothing—nothing but themselves. The employeer seems to +have enough. Even when employeers fail, when they become bankrupt, +they are far better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is +better than the toilers' best.</p> +<p>The capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells the +workingman that he must be economical—and yet, under the +present system, economy would only lessen wages. Under the great +law of supply and demand every saving, frugal, self-denying +workingman is unconsciously doing what little he can to reduce the +compensation of himself and his fellows. The slaves who did not +wish to run away helped fasten chains on those who did. So the +saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough. Does +the great law demand that every worker live on the least possible +amount of bread? Is it his fate to work one day, that he may get +enough food to be able to work another? Is that to be his only +hope—that and death?</p> +<p>Capital has always claimed and still claims the right to +combine. Manufacturers meet and determine upon prices, even in +spite of the great law of supply and demand. Have the laborers the +same right to consult and combine? The rich meet in the bank, the +clubhouse, or parlor. Workingmen, when they combine, gather in the +street. All the organized forces of society are against them. +Capital has the army and the navy, the legislative, the judicial, +and the executive departments. When the rich combine, it is for the +purpose of "exchanging ideas." When the poor combine, it is a +"conspiracy." If they act in concert, if they really do something, +it is a "mob." If they defend themselves, it is "treason." How is +it that the rich control the departments of government? In this +country the political power is equally divided among the men. There +are certainly more poor than there are rich. Why should the rich +control? Why should not the laborers combine for the purpose of +controlling the executive, legislative, and judicial departments? +Will they ever find how powerful they are?</p> +<p>In every country there is a satisfied class—too satisfied +to care. They are like the angels in heaven, who are never +disturbed by the miseries of earth. They are too happy to be +generous. This satisfied class asks no questions and answers none. +They believe the world is as it should be. All reformers are simply +disturbers of the peace. When they talk low, they should not be +listened to; when they talk loud, they should be suppressed.</p> +<p>The truth is to-day what it always has been—what it always +will be—those who feel are the only ones who think. A cry +comes from the oppressed, from the hungry, from the down-trodden, +from the unfortunate, from men who despair and from women who weep. +There are times when mendicants become revolutionists—when a +rag becomes a banner, under which the noblest and bravest battle +for the right.</p> +<p>How are we to settle the unequal contest between men and +machines? Will the machine finally go into partnership with the +laborer? Can these forces of nature be controlled for the benefit +of her suffering children? Will extravagance keep pace with +ingenuity? Will the workers become intelligent enough and strong +enough to be the owners of the machines? Will these giants, these +Titans, shorten or lengthen the hours of labor? Will they give +leisure to the industrious, or will they make the rich richer, and +the poor poorer?</p> +<p>Is man involved in the "general scheme of things"? Is there no +pity, no mercy? Can man become intelligent enough to be generous, +to be just; or does the same law or fact control him that controls +the animal and vegetable world? The great oak steals the sunlight +from the smaller trees. The strong animals devour the +weak—everything eating something else—everything at the +mercy of beak and claw and hoof and tooth—of hand and club, +of brain and greed—inequality, injustice, everywhere.</p> +<p>The poor horse standing in the street with his dray, overworked, +over-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other horses groomed to +mirrors, glittering with gold and silver, scorning with proud feet +the very earth, probably indulges in the usual socialistic +reflections, and this same horse, worn out and old, deserted by his +master, turned into the dusty road, leans his head on the topmost +rail, looks at donkeys in a field of clover, and feels like a +Nihilist.</p> +<p>In the days of savagery the strong devoured the +weak—actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that +man has made, in spite of all advance in science, literature and +art, the strong, the cunning, the heartless still live on the weak, +the unfortunate, and foolish. True, they do not eat their flesh, +they do not drink their blood, but they live on their labor, on +their self-denial, their weariness and want. The poor man who +deforms himself by toil, who labors for wife and child through all +his anxious, barren, wasted life—who goes to the grave +without even having had one luxury—has been the food of +others. He has been devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman +living in the bare and lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing +night and day to keep starvation from a child, is slowly being +eaten by her fellow-men. When I take into consideration the agony +of civilized life—the number of failures, the poverty, the +anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the bitter realities, the +hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame—I am almost +forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most merciful +form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow-man.</p> +<p>Some of the best and purest of our race have advocated what is +known as Socialism. They have not only taught, but, what is much +more to the purpose, have believed that a nation should be a +family; that the government should take care of all its children; +that it should provide work and food and clothes and education for +all, and that it should divide the results of all labor equitably +with all.</p> +<p>Seeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the destitution +and crime, these men were willing to sacrifice, not only their own +liberties, but the liberties of all.</p> +<p>Socialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of +slavery. Nothing, in my judgment, would so utterly paralyze all the +forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to +the civilization of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are +some masters, a few are supposed to be free; but in a socialistic +state all would be slaves.</p> +<p>If the government is to provide work it must decide for the +worker what he must do. It must say who shall chisel statues, who +shall paint pictures, who shall compose music, and who shall +practice the professions. Is any government, or can any government, +be capable of intelligently performing these countless duties? It +must not only control work, it must not only decide what each shall +do, but it must control expenses, because expenses bear a direct +relation to products. Therefore the government must decide what the +worker shall eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed; the kind of +house in which he shall live; the manner in which it shall be +furnished, and, if this government furnishes the work, it must +decide on the days or the hours of leisure. More than this, it must +fix values; it must decide not only who shall sell, but who shall +buy, and the price that must be paid—and it must fix this +value not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be +produced, that can be exchanged or sold.</p> +<p>Is it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this?</p> +<p>The present condition of the world is bad enough, with its +poverty and ignorance, but it is far better than it could by any +possibility be under any government like the one described. There +would be less hunger of the body, but not of the mind. Each man +would simply be a citizen of a large penitentiary, and, as in every +well regulated prison, somebody would decide what each should do. +The inmates of a prison retire early; they rise with the sun; they +have something to eat; they are not dissipated; they have clothes; +they attend divine service; they have but little to say about their +neighbors; they do not suffer from cold; their habits are +excellent, and yet, no one envies their condition. Socialism +destroys the family. The children belong to the state. Certain +officers take the places of parents. Individuality is lost.</p> +<p>The human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for any +possible comfort. You remember the old fable of the fat dog that +met the lean wolf in the forest. The wolf, astonished to see so +prosperous an animal, inquired of the dog where he got his food, +and the dog told him that there was a man who took care of him, +gave him his breakfast, his dinner, and his supper with the utmost +regularity, and that he had all that he could eat and very little +to do. The wolf said, "Do you think this man would treat me as he +does you?" The dog replied, "Yes, come along with me." So they +jogged on together toward the dog's home. On the way the wolf +happened to notice that some hair was worn off the dog's neck, and +he said, "How did the hair become worn?" "That is," said the dog, +"the mark of the collar—my master ties me at night." "Oh," +said the wolf, "Are you chained? Are you deprived of your liberty? +I believe I will go back. I prefer hunger."</p> +<p>It is impossible for any man with a good heart to be satisfied +with this world as it now is. No one can truly enjoy even what he +earns—what he knows to be his own, knowing that millions of +his fellow-men are in misery and want. When we think of the +famished we feel that it is almost heartless to eat. To meet the +ragged and shivering makes one almost ashamed to be well dressed +and warm—one feels as though his heart was as cold as their +bodies.</p> +<p>In a world filled with millions and millions of acres of land +waiting to be tilled, where one man can raise the food for +hundreds, millions are on the edge of famine. Who can comprehend +the stupidity at the bottom of this truth?</p> +<p>Is there to be no change? Are "the law of supply and demand," +invention and science, monopoly and competition, capital and +legislation always to be the enemies of those who toil?</p> +<p>Will the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid enough to +give their earnings for the useless? Will they support millions of +soldiers to kill the sons of other workingmen? Will they always +build temples for ghosts and phantoms, and live in huts and dens +themselves? Will they forever allow parasites with crowns, and +vampires with mitres, to live upon their blood? Will they remain +the slaves of the beggars they support? How long will they be +controlled by friends who seek favors, and by reformers who want +office? Will they always prefer famine in the city to a feast in +the fields? Will they ever feel and know that they have no right to +bring children into this world that they cannot support? Will they +use their intelligence for themselves, or for others? Will they +become wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their own +liberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally see that +every man has a right to choose his trade, his profession, his +employment, and has the right to work when, and for whom, and for +what he will? Will they finally say that the man who has had equal +privileges with all others has no right to complain, or will they +follow the example that has been set by their oppressors? Will they +learn that force, to succeed, must have a thought behind it, and +that anything done, in order that it may endure, must rest upon the +corner-stone of justice?</p> +<p>Will they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish the +spark that sheds a little light in every brain? Will they ever +recognize the fact that labor, above all things, is +honorable—that it is the foundation of virtue? Will they +understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that every healthy +man must earn the right to live? Will honest men stop taking off +their hats to successful fraud? Will industry, in the presence of +crowned idleness, forever fall upon its knees, and will the lips +unstained by lies forever kiss the robed impostor's +hand?—North American Review, March, 1887.</p> +<a name="link0008" id="link0008"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ART AND MORALITY.</h2> +<p>ART is the highest form of expression, and exists for the sake +of expression. Through art thoughts become visible. Back of forms +are the desire, the longing, the brooding creative instinct, the +maternity of mind and the passion that give pose and swell, outline +and color.</p> +<p>Of course there is no such thing as absolute beauty or absolute +morality. We now clearly perceive that beauty and conduct are +relative. We have outgrown the provincialism that thought is back +of substance, as well as the old Platonic absurdity, that ideas +existed before the subjects of thought. So far, at least, as man is +concerned, his thoughts have been produced by his surroundings, by +the action and interaction of things upon his mind; and so far as +man is concerned, things have preceded thoughts. The impressions +that these things make upon us are what we know of them. The +absolute is beyond the human mind. Our knowledge is confined to the +relations that exist between the totality of things that we call +the universe, and the effect upon ourselves.</p> +<p>Actions are deemed right or wrong, according to experience and +the conclusions of reason. Things are beautiful by the relation +that certain forms, colors, and modes of expression bear to us. At +the foundation of the beautiful will be found the fact of +happiness, the gratification of the senses, the delight of +intellectual discovery and the surprise and thrill of appreciation. +That which we call the beautiful, wakens into life through the +association of ideas, of memories, of experiences, of suggestions +of pleasure past and the perception that the prophecies of the +ideal have been and will be fulfilled.</p> +<p>Art cultivates and kindles the imagination, and quickens the +conscience. It is by imagination that we put ourselves in the place +of another. When the wings of that faculty are folded, the master +does not put himself in the place of the slave; the tyrant is not +locked in the dungeon, chained with his victim. The inquisitor did +not feel the flames that devoured the martyr. The imaginative man, +giving to the beggar, gives to himself. Those who feel indignant at +the perpetration of wrong, feel for the instant that they are the +victims; and when they attack the aggressor they feel that they are +defending themselves. Love and pity are the children of the +imagination.</p> +<p>Our fathers read with great approbation the mechanical sermons +in rhyme written by Milton, Young and Pollok. Those theological +poets wrote for the purpose of convincing their readers that the +mind of man is diseased, filled with infirmities, and that poetic +poultices and plasters tend to purify and strengthen the moral +nature of the human race. Nothing to the true artist, to the real +genius, is so contemptible as the "medicinal view."</p> +<p>Poems were written to prove that the practice of virtue was an +investment for another world, and that whoever followed the advice +found in those solemn, insincere and lugubrious rhymes, although he +might be exceedingly unhappy in this world, would with great +certainty be rewarded in the next. These writers assumed that there +was a kind of relation between rhyme and religion, between verse +and virtue; and that it was their duty to call the attention of the +world to all the snares and pitfalls of pleasure. They wrote with a +purpose. They had a distinct moral end in view. They had a plan. +They were missionaries, and their object was to show the world how +wicked it was and how good they, the writers, were. They could not +conceive of a man being so happy that everything in nature partook +of his feeling; that all the birds were singing for him, and +singing by reason of his joy; that everything sparkled and shone +and moved in the glad rhythm of his heart. They could not +appreciate this feeling. They could not think of this joy guiding +the artist's hand, seeking expression in form and color. They did +not look upon poems, pictures, and statues as results, as children +of the brain fathered by sea and sky, by flower and star, by love +and light. They were not moved by gladness. They felt the +responsibility of perpetual duty. They had a desire to teach, to +sermonize, to point out and exaggerate the faults of others and to +describe the virtues practiced by themselves. Art became a +colporteur, a distributer of tracts, a mendicant missionary whose +highest ambition was to suppress all heathen joy.</p> +<p>Happy people were supposed to have forgotten, in a reckless +moment, duty and responsibility. True poetry would call them back +to a realization of their meanness and their misery. It was the +skeleton at the feast, the rattle of whose bones had a rhythmic +sound. It was the forefinger of warning and doom held up in the +presence of a smile.</p> +<p>These moral poets taught the "unwelcome truths," and by the +paths of life put posts on which they painted hands pointing at +graves. They loved to see the pallor on the cheek of youth, while +they talked, in solemn tones, of age, decrepitude and lifeless +clay.</p> +<p>Before the eyes of love they thrust, with eager hands, the skull +of death. They crushed the flowers beneath their feet and plaited +crowns of thorns for every brow.</p> +<p>According to these poets, happiness was inconsistent with +virtue. The sense of infinite obligation should be perpetually +present. They assumed an attitude of superiority. They denounced +and calumniated the reader. They enjoyed his confusion when charged +with total depravity. They loved to paint the sufferings of the +lost, the worthlessness of human life, the littleness of mankind, +and the beauties of an unknown world. They knew but little of the +heart. They did not know that without passion there is no virtue, +and that the really passionate are the virtuous.</p> +<p>Art has nothing to do directly with morality or immorality. It +is its own excuse for being; it exists for itself.</p> +<p>The artist who endeavors to enforce a lesson, becomes a +preacher; and the artist who tries by hint and suggestion to +enforce the immoral, becomes a pander.</p> +<p>There is an infinite difference between the nude and the naked, +between the natural and the undressed. In the presence of the pure, +unconscious nude, nothing can be more contemptible than those forms +in which are the hints and suggestions of drapery, the pretence of +exposure, and the failure to conceal. The undressed is +vulgar—the nude is pure.</p> +<p>The old Greek statues, frankly, proudly nude, whose free and +perfect limbs have never known the sacrilege of clothes, were and +are as free from taint, as pure, as stainless, as the image of the +morning star trembling in a drop of perfumed dew.</p> +<p>Morality is the harmony between act and circumstance. It is the +melody of conduct. A wonderful statue is the melody of proportion. +A great picture is the melody of form and color. A great statue +does not suggest labor; it seems to have been created as a joy. A +great painting suggests no weariness and no effort; the greater, +the easier it seems. So a great and splendid life seems to have +been without effort. There is in it no idea of obligation, no idea +of responsibility or of duty. The idea of duty changes to a kind of +drudgery that which should be, in the perfect man, a perfect +pleasure.</p> +<p>The artist, working simply for the sake of enforcing a moral, +becomes a laborer. The freedom of genius is lost, and the artist is +absorbed in the citizen. The soul of the real artist should be +moved by this melody of proportion as the body is unconsciously +swayed by the rhythm of a symphony. No one can imagine that the +great men who chiseled the statues of antiquity intended to teach +the youth of Greece to be obedient to their parents. We cannot +believe that Michael Angelo painted his grotesque and somewhat +vulgar "Day of Judgment" for the purpose of reforming Italian +thieves. The subject was in all probability selected by his +employeer, and the treatment was a question of art, without the +slightest reference to the moral effect, even upon priests. We are +perfectly certain that Corot painted those infinitely poetic +landscapes, those cottages, those sad poplars, those leafless vines +on weather-tinted walls, those quiet pools, those contented cattle, +those fields flecked with light, over which bend the skies, tender +as the breast of a mother, without once thinking of the ten +commandments. There is the same difference between moral art and +the product of true genius, that there is between prudery and +virtue.</p> +<p>The novelists who endeavor to enforce what they are pleased to +call "moral truths," cease to be artists. They create two kinds of +characters—types and caricatures. The first never has lived, +and the second never will. The real artist produces neither. In his +pages you will find individuals, natural people, who have the +contradictions and inconsistencies inseparable from humanity. The +great artists "hold the mirror up to nature," and this mirror +reflects with absolute accuracy. The moral and the immoral +writers—that is to say, those who have some object besides +that of art—use convex or concave mirrors, or those with +uneven surfaces, and the result is that the images are monstrous +and deformed. The little novelist and the little artist deal either +in the impossible or the exceptional. The men of genius touch the +universal. Their words and works throb in unison with the great ebb +and flow of things. They write and work for all races and for all +time.</p> +<p>It has been the object of thousands of reformers to destroy the +passions, to do away with desires; and could this object be +accomplished, life would become a burden, with but one +desire—that is to say, the desire for extinction. Art in its +highest forms increases passion, gives tone and color and zest to +life. But while it increases passion, it refines. It extends the +horizon. The bare necessities of life constitute a prison, a +dungeon. Under the influence of art the walls expand, the roof +rises, and it becomes a temple.</p> +<p>Art is not a sermon, and the artist is not a preacher. Art +accomplishes by indirection. The beautiful refines. The perfect in +art suggests the perfect in conduct. The harmony in music teaches, +without intention, the lesson of proportion in life. The bird in +his song has no moral purpose, and yet the influence is humanizing. +The beautiful in nature acts through appreciation and sympathy. It +does not browbeat, neither does it humiliate. It is beautiful +without regard to you. Roses would be unbearable if in their red +and perfumed hearts were mottoes to the effect that bears eat bad +boys and that honesty is the best policy.</p> +<p>Art creates an atmosphere in which the proprieties, the +amenities, and the virtues unconsciously grow. The rain does not +lecture the seed. The light does not make rules for the vine and +flower.</p> +<p>The heart is softened by the pathos of the perfect.</p> +<p>The world is a dictionary of the mind, and in this dictionary of +things genius discovers analogies, resemblances, and parallels amid +opposites, likeness in difference, and corroboration in +contradiction. Language is but a multitude of pictures. Nearly +every word is a work of art, a picture represented by a sound, and +this sound represented by a mark, and this mark gives not only the +sound, but the picture of something in the outward world and the +picture of something within the mind, and with these words which +were once pictures, other pictures are made.</p> +<p>The greatest pictures and the greatest statues, the most +wonderful and marvelous groups, have been painted and chiseled with +words. They are as fresh to-day as when they fell from human lips. +Penelope still ravels, weaves, and waits; Ulysses' bow is bent, and +through the level rings the eager arrow flies. Cordelia's tears are +falling now. The greatest gallery of the world is found in +Shakespeare's book. The pictures and the marbles of the Vatican and +Louvre are faded, crumbling things, compared with his, in which +perfect color gives to perfect form the glow and movement of +passion's highest life.</p> +<p>Everything except the truth wears, and needs to wear, a mask. +Little souls are ashamed of nature. Prudery pretends to have only +those passions that it cannot feel. Moral poetry is like a +respectable canal that never overflows its banks. It has weirs +through which slowly and without damage any excess of feeling is +allowed to flow. It makes excuses for nature, and regards love as +an interesting convict. Moral art paints or chisels feet, faces, +and rags. It regards the body as obscene. It hides with drapery +that which it has not the genius purely to portray. Mediocrity +becomes moral from a necessity which it has the impudence to call +virtue. It pretends to regard ignorance as the foundation of purity +and insists that virtue seeks the companionship of the blind.</p> +<p>Art creates, combines, and reveals. It is the highest +manifestation of thought, of passion, of love, of intuition. It is +the highest form of expression, of history and prophecy. It allows +us to look at an unmasked soul, to fathom the abysses of passion, +to understand the heights and depths of love.</p> +<p>Compared with what is in the mind of man, the outward world +almost ceases to excite our wonder. The impression produced by +mountains, seas, and stars is not so great, so thrilling, as the +music of Wagner. The constellations themselves grow small when we +read "Troilus and Cres-sida," "Hamlet," or "Lear." What are seas +and stars in the presence of a heroism that holds pain and death as +naught? What are seas and stars compared with human hearts? What is +the quarry compared with the statue?</p> +<p>Art civilizes because it enlightens, develops, strengthens, +ennobles. It deals with the beautiful, with the passionate, with +the ideal. It is the child of the heart. To be great, it must deal +with the human. It must be in accordance with the experience, with +the hopes, with the fears, and with the possibilities of man. No +one cares to paint a palace, because there is nothing in such a +picture to touch the heart. It tells of responsibility, of the +prison, of the conventional. It suggests a load—it tells of +apprehension, of weariness and ennui. The picture of a cottage, +over which runs a vine, a little home thatched with content, with +its simple life, its natural sunshine and shadow, its trees bending +with fruit, its hollyhocks and pinks, its happy children, its hum +of bees, is a poem—a smile in the desert of this world.</p> +<p>The great lady, in velvet and jewels, makes but a poor picture. +There is not freedom enough in her life. She is constrained. She is +too far away from the simplicity of happiness. In her thought there +is too much of the mathematical. In all art you will find a touch +of chaos, of liberty; and there is in all artists a little of the +vagabond—that is to say, genius.</p> +<p>The nude in art has rendered holy the beauty of woman. Every +Greek statue pleads for mothers and sisters. From these marbles +come strains of music. They have filled the heart of man with +tenderness and worship. They have kindled reverence, admiration and +love. The Venus de Milo, that even mutilation cannot mar, tends +only to the elevation of our race. It is a miracle of majesty and +beauty, the supreme idea of the supreme woman. It is a melody in +marble. All the lines meet in a kind of voluptuous and glad +content. The pose is rest itself. The eyes are filled with thoughts +of love. The breast seems dreaming of a child.</p> +<p>The prudent is not the poetic; it is the mathematical. Genius is +the spirit of abandon; it is joyous, irresponsible. It moves in the +swell and curve of billows; it is careless of conduct and +consequence. For a moment, the chain of cause and effect seems +broken; the soul is free. It gives an account not even to itself. +Limitations are forgotten; nature seems obedient to the will; the +ideal alone exists; the universe is a symphony.</p> +<p>Every brain is a gallery of art, and every soul is, to a greater +or less degree, an artist. The pictures and statues that now enrich +and adorn the walls and niches of the world, as well as those that +illuminate the pages of its literature, were taken originally from +the private galleries of the brain.</p> +<p>The soul—that is to say the artist—compares the +pictures in its own brain with the pictures that have been taken +from the galleries of others and made visible. This soul, this +artist, selects that which is nearest perfection in each, takes +such parts as it deems perfect, puts them together, forms new +pictures, new statues, and in this way creates the ideal.</p> +<p>To express desires, longings, ecstasies, prophecies and passions +in form and color; to put love, hope, heroism and triumph in +marble; to paint dreams and memories with words; to portray the +purity of dawn, the intensity and glory of noon, the tenderness of +twilight, the splendor and mystery of night, with sounds; to give +the invisible to sight and touch, and to enrich the common things +of earth with gems and jewels of the mind—this is +Art.—North American Review, March, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0009" id="link0009"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE DIVIDED HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.</h2> +<p>"Let determined things to destiny hold unbewailed their way." +THERE is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony +that he knows must exist between all known facts. It is hard for +the scientist to implicitly believe anything that he suspects to be +inconsistent with a known fact. He feels that every fact is a key +to many mysteries—that every fact is a detective, not only, +but a perpetual witness. He knows that a fact has a countless +number of sides, and that all these sides will match all other +facts, and he also suspects that to understand one fact +perfectly—like the fact of the attraction of +gravitation—would involve a knowledge of the universe.</p> +<p>It requires not only candor, but courage, to accept a fact. When +a new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and +calumniated by the conservatives until denial becomes absurd, and +then they accept it with the statement that they always supposed it +was true.</p> +<p>The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree +and respectability; it is filled with the spirit of caste; it is +associated with great events, and with great names; it is +intrenched; it has an income—it represents property. Besides, +it has parasites, and the parasites always defend themselves.</p> +<p>Long ago frightened wretches who had by tyranny or piracy +amassed great fortunes, were induced in the moment of death to +compromise with God and to let their money fall from their +stiffening hands into the greedy palms of priests. In this way many +theological seminaries were endowed, and in this way prejudices, +mistakes, absurdities, known as religious truths, have been +perpetuated. In this way the dead hypocrites have propagated and +supported their kind.</p> +<p>Most religions—no matter how honestly they +originated—have been established by brute force. Kings and +nobles have used them as a means to enslave, to degrade and rob. +The priest, consciously and unconsciously, has been the betrayer of +his followers.</p> +<p>Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. +Cattle—twenty or thirty at a time—are driven to the +place of slaughter. This ox leads the way—the others follow. +When the place is reached, this Bishop Dupanloup turns and goes +back for other victims.</p> +<p>This is the worst side: There is a better.</p> +<p>Honest men, believing that they have found the whole +truth—the real and only faith—filled with enthusiasm, +give all for the purpose of propagating the "divine creed." They +found colleges and universities, and in perfect, pious, ignorant +sincerity, provide that the creed, and nothing but the creed, must +be taught, and that if any professor teaches anything contrary to +that, he must be instantly dismissed—that is to say, the +children must be beaten with the bones of the dead.</p> +<p>These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision +to the effect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads +are changed or not, and with the further provision that the +professors who keep and repair the guide-boards must always insist +that the roads have not been changed.</p> +<p>There is still another side.</p> +<p>Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. They love their +families and have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise +between their bread and their brain. On pay-day they +believe—at other times they have their doubts. They settle +with their own consciences by giving old words new meanings. They +take refuge in allegory, hide behind parables, and barricade +themselves with oriental imagery. They give to the most frightful +passages a spiritual meaning—and while they teach the old +creed to their followers, they speak a new philosophy to their +equals.</p> +<p>There is still another side.</p> +<p>A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied. +They have no doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did. +The "scheme of salvation" suits them because they are satisfied +that they are embraced within its terms. They give themselves no +trouble. They believe because they do not understand. They have no +doubts because they do not think. They regard doubt as a thorn in +the pillow of orthodox slumber. Their souls are asleep, and they +hate only those who disturb their dreams. These people keep their +creeds for future use. They intend to have them ready at the moment +of dissolution. They sustain about the same relation to daily life +that the small-boats carried by steamers do to ordinary +navigation—they are for the moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like +life-preservers, are to be used in disaster.</p> +<p>We must also remember that everything in nature—bad as +well as good—has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies +go armed, and all mistakes carry concealed weapons. Driven to the +last corner, even non-resistance appeals to the dagger.</p> +<p>Vast interests—political, social, artistic, and +individual—are interwoven with all creeds. Thousands of +millions of dollars have been invested; many millions of people +obtain their bread by the propagation and support of certain +religious doctrines, and many millions have been educated for that +purpose and for that alone. Nothing is more natural than that they +should defend themselves—that they should cling to a creed +that gives them roof and raiment.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It +included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy +satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology +of its own; it answered all questions with the same readiness and +the same inaccuracy; it had within its sacred volumes the history +of the past, and the prophecies of all the future; it pretended to +know all that was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being +of the human race, here and hereafter.</p> +<p>When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth +of everything that was generally believed that did not interfere +with his system. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and +for the sake of the accomplishment of that end, it will admit the +truth of anything and everything that does not endanger its +success.</p> +<p>The writers of all sacred books—the inspired +prophets—had no reason for disagreeing with the common people +about the origin of things, the creation of the world, the rising +and setting of the sun, and the uses of the stars, and consequently +the sacred books of all ages have indorsed the belief general at +the time. You will find in our sacred books the astronomy, the +geology, the philosophy and the morality of the ancient barbarians. +The religionist takes these general ideas as his foundation, and +upon them builds the supernatural structure. For many centuries the +astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our Bible were +accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that the world +was too ignorant to question.</p> +<p>A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new +world was discovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. +The arts were born again. The world was filled with adventure; +millions became self-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old +theories were put aside—and suddenly, the old leaders of +thought were found to be ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The +literature of the classic world was discovered and translated into +modern languages. The world was circumnavigated; Copernicus +discovered the true relation sustained by our earth to the solar +system, and about the beginning of the seventeenth century many +other wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609, a Hollander found +that two lenses placed in a certain relation to each other +magnified objects seen through them. This discovery was the +foundation of astronomy. In a little while it came to the knowledge +of Galileo; the result was a telescope, with which man has read the +volume of the skies.</p> +<p>On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of +his three laws. These were the first great blows struck for the +enfranchisement of the human mind. A few began to suspect that the +ancient Hebrews were not astronomers. From that moment the church +became the enemy of science. In every possible way the inspired +ignorance was defended—the lash, the sword, the chain, the +fagot and the dungeon were the arguments used by the infuriated +church.</p> +<p>To such an extent was the church prejudiced against the new +philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused to look +through the telescope of Galileo.</p> +<p>At last it became evident to the intelligent world that the +inspired writings, literally translated, did not contain the +truth—the Bible was in danger of being driven from the +heavens.</p> +<p>The church also had its geology. The time when the earth was +created had been definitely fixed and was certainly known. This +fact had not only been stated by inspired writers, but their +statement had been indorsed by priests, by bishops, cardinals, +popes and ecumenical councils; that was settled.</p> +<p>But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some +eyes not always closed in prayer. They looked at the things about +them; they observed channels that had been worn in solid rock by +streams; they saw the vast territories that had been deposited by +rivers; their attention was called to the slow inroads upon +continents by seas—to the deposits by volcanoes—to the +sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that had been built by +the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of the lapse of +time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had been +pursuing its course about the sun for millions and millions of +ages.</p> +<p>The church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to +every device that cunning could suggest or ingenuity execute, but +the conflict could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology +was concerned, was in danger of being driven from the earth.</p> +<p>Beaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate, to +evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, +falsehood having failed to harmonize the guesses of barbarians with +the discoveries of genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the +Bible was not written to teach astronomy, was not written to teach +geology, and that it was not a scientific book, but that it was +written in the language of the people, and that as to unimportant +things it contained the general beliefs of its time.</p> +<p>The ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its +science, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its +account of the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all +that it had to say on the subject of religion.</p> +<p>The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in +everything within its lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The +priest became less arrogant. The church was forced to explain. The +pulpit had one language for the faithful and another for the +philosophical, i. e., it became dishonest with both.</p> +<p>The next question that arose was as to the origin of man.</p> +<p>The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the +stars was against the sacred volume. The church had also been +forced to admit that the world was not created at the time +mentioned in the Bible—so that the very stones of the earth +rose and united with the stars in giving testimony against the +sacred volume.</p> +<p>As to the creation of the world, the church resorted to the +artifice of saying that "days" in reality meant long periods of +time; so that no matter how old the earth was, the time could be +spanned by six periods—in other words, that the years could +not be too numerous to be divided by six.</p> +<p>But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion, or +artifice, was impossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation +of man, because it gives the age at which the first man died, and +then it gives the generations from Adam to the flood, and from the +flood to the birth of Christ, and in many instances the actual age +of the principal ancestor is given. So that, according to this +account—according to the inspired figures—man has +existed upon the earth only about six thousand years. There is no +room left for any people beyond Adam.</p> +<p>If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man; +consequently, we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long +man has lived and labored and suffered on this earth.</p> +<p>The church cannot and dare not give up the account of the +creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the +rib of the man. The church cannot give up the story of the Garden +of Eden—the serpent—the fall and the expulsion; these +must be defended because they are vital. Without these absurdities, +the system known as Christianity cannot exist. Without the fall, +the atonement is a <i>non sequitur.</i> Facts bearing upon these +questions were discovered and discussed by the greatest and most +thoughtful of men. Lamarck, Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, +Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is not a +special creation. If anything can be established by observation, by +reason, then the fact has been established that man is related to +all life below him—that he has been slowly produced through +countless years—that the story of Eden is a childish +myth—that the fall of man is an infinite absurdity.</p> +<p>If anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has +existed upon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if +we know anything, that people not only existed before Adam, but +that they existed in a highly civilized state; that thousands of +years before the Garden of Eden was planted men communicated to +each other their ideas by language, and that artists clothed the +marble with thoughts and passions.</p> +<p>This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old +Testament is untrue—that the account was written by the +ignorance, the prejudice and the egotism of the olden time.</p> +<p>So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know +that civilization is a growth—that man did not commence a +perfect being, and then degenerate, but that from small beginnings +he has slowly risen, to the intellectual height he now +occupies.</p> +<p>The church, however, has not been willing to accept these +truths, because they contradict the sacred word. Some of the most +ingenious of the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show +that there is no conflict—that the account in Genesis is in +perfect harmony with the theories of Charles Darwin, and these +clergymen in some way manage to retain their creed and to accept a +philosophy that utterly destroys it.</p> +<p>But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit +that the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or +in its anthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers +knew nothing of the sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the +earth, nothing of the origin of man—in other words, nothing +of any particular value to the human race.</p> +<p>It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its +morality. Let us examine this question.</p> +<p>We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if +conscience is more than a word, if there is such a thing as right +and such a thing as wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must +admit that slavery is immoral. If we are honest, we must also admit +that the Old Testament upholds slavery. It will be cheerfully +admitted that Jehovah was opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew +by another. Christians may quote the commandment "Thou shalt not +steal" as being opposed to human slavery, but after that +commandment was given, Jehovah himself told his chosen people that +they might "buy their bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen round +about, and that they should be their bondmen and their bondwomen +forever." So all that Jehovah meant by the commandment "Thou shalt +not steal" was that one Hebrew should not steal from another +Hebrew, but that all Hebrews might steal from the people of any +other race or creed.</p> +<p>It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made +only for the Jews, not for the world, because the author of these +commandments commanded the people to whom they were given to +violate them nearly all as against the surrounding people.</p> +<p>A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that +slavery was wrong. It was upheld by the church. Ministers bought +and sold the very people for whom they declared that Christ had +died. Clergymen of the English church owned stock in slave-ships, +and the man who denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of +morality, and thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus +Christ. Churches were built with the results of labor stolen from +colored Christians. Babes were sold from mothers and a part of the +money given to send missionaries from America to heathen lands with +the tidings of great joy. Now every intelligent man on the earth, +every decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human +slavery.</p> +<p>So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is +immoral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, +to do away with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to +cover the hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of +polygamy. The Jehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that +institution.</p> +<p>Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality? +Consider for a moment the manner in which, under the direction of +Jehovah, wars were waged. Remember the atrocities that were +committed. Think of a war where everything was the food of the +sword. Think for a moment of a deity capable of committing the +crimes that are described and gloated over in the Old Testament. +The civilized man has outgrown the sacred cruelties and +absurdities.</p> +<p>There is still another side to this question.</p> +<p>A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural. +Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days, +that which actually occurred was not regarded of sufficient +importance to be recorded. A religion without miracles would have +excited derision. A creed that did not fill the horizon—that +did not account for everything—that could not answer every +question, would have been regarded as worthless.</p> +<p>After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by +the leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had +the power of working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in +partnership with God, what excuse could have been made for the +Reformation? The Protestants took the ground that the age of +miracles had passed. This was to justify the new faith. But +Protestants could not say that miracles had never been performed, +because that would take the foundation not only from the Catholics +but from themselves; consequently they were compelled to admit that +miracles were performed in the apostolic days, but to insist that, +in their time, man must rely upon the facts in nature. Protestants +were compelled to carry on two kinds of war; they had to contend +with those who insisted that miracles had never been performed; and +in that argument they were forced to insist upon the necessity for +miracles, on the probability that they were performed, and upon the +truthfulness of the apostles. A moment afterward, they had to +answer those who contended that miracles were performed at that +time; then they brought forward against the Catholics the same +arguments that their first opponents had brought against them.</p> +<p>This has made every Protestant brain "a house divided against +itself." This planted in the Reformation the "irrepressible +conflict."</p> +<p>But we have learned more and more about what we call +Nature—about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the +mind that force is indestructible—that we cannot imagine +force as existing apart from matter—that we cannot even think +of matter existing apart from force—that we cannot by any +possibility conceive of a cause without an effect, of an effect +without a cause, of an effect that is not also a cause. We find no +room between the links of cause and effect for a miracle. We now +perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that it can +have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an +impossibility.</p> +<p>The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous.</p> +<p>Most ministers are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to +explain miracles, and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to +exist. Few congregations could keep from smiling were the minister +to seriously assert the truth of the Old Testament miracles.</p> +<p>Miracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the +religious world. The evidence accumulates every day, in every +possible direction in which the human mind can investigate, that +the miraculous is simply the impossible.</p> +<p>Confidence in the eternal constancy of Nature increases day by +day. The scientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of +gravitation—in chemical affinities—in the great fact of +evolution, and feels absolutely certain that the nature of things +will remain forever the same.</p> +<p>We have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly +understood; that there is nothing mysterious about them; that they +are simply transparent falsehoods.</p> +<p>The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain +the attraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and +light become the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why +water runs, or why the magnetic needle points to the north. The +facts in nature are the eternal and the only mysteries. There is +nothing strange about the miracles of superstition. They are +nothing but the mistakes of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods +framed by those who wished to live on the labor of others.</p> +<p>In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, +take the exact ground occupied by the Deists. They dare not defend +in the open field the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and +the absurdities of the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as +though the serpent was still there. They have nothing to say about +the fall of man. They are silent as to the laws upholding slavery +and polygamy. They are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk +about these things to Sunday schools and to the elderly members of +their congregations; but when doing battle for the faith, they +misstate the position of their opponents and then insist that there +must be a God, and that the soul is immortal.</p> +<p>We may admit the existence of an infinite Being; we may admit +the immortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the +Scriptures and the divine origin of the Christian religion. These +doctrines, or these dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world +believed in God and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas +are far older than Christianity, and they have been almost +universal.</p> +<p>Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the +inspiration of the Bible, on the fall of man, on the atonement, on +the dogma of the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his +resurrection from the dead, on his ascension into heaven.</p> +<p>Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the +soul—not simply the immortality of joy—but it teaches +the immortality of pain, the eternity of sorrow. It insists that +evil, that wickedness, that immorality and that every form of vice +are and must be perpetuated forever. It believes in immortal +convicts, in eternal imprisonment and in a world of unending pain. +It has a serpent for every breast and a curse for nearly every +soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope of the human heart, +and he who attacks it is denounced as the most infamous of men.</p> +<p>Let us see what the church, within a few years, has been +compelled substantially to abandon,—that is to say, what it +is now almost ashamed to defend.</p> +<p>First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures; second, the +geology; third, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the +doctrine of original sin, the fall of the human race; fifth, the +mathematical contradiction known as the Trinity; sixth, the +atonement—because it was only on the ground that man is +accountable for the sin of another, that he could be justified by +reason of the righteousness of another; seventh, that the +miraculous is either the misunderstood or the impossible; eighth, +that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that +slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of +extermination are not merciful, and that nothing can be more +immoral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of the +guilty; and ninth, the divinity of Christ.</p> +<p>All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those +not afraid to think, by those who have the courage of their +convictions and the candor to express their thoughts. What then is +left?</p> +<p>Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true, is left; +it still remains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often +that the truth needs no inspiration; neither can it be said too +often that inspiration cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble +sentiment uttered in the Bible is still good and noble. Every fact +remains. All that is good in the Sermon on the Mount is retained. +The Lord's Prayer is not affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the +nobility of forgiveness, and the ineffable splendor of mercy are +with us still. And besides, there remains the great hope for all +the human race.</p> +<p>What is lost? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the +absurdities, all the cruelties and all the curses contained in the +Scriptures. We have almost lost the "hope" of eternal +pain—the "consolation" of perdition; and in time we shall +lose the frightful shadow that has fallen upon so many hearts, that +has darkened so many lives.</p> +<p>The great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that +the clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the +old creed. They have been educated in the universities of the +Sacred Mistake—universities that Bruno would call "the widows +of true learning." They have been taught to measure with a false +standard; they have weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they +became convinced of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon +them by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe. The +enthusiasm of life's morning was misdirected. They went out into +the world knowing nothing of value. They preached a creed outgrown. +Having been for so many years entirely certain of their position, +they met doubt with a spirit of irritation—afterward with +hatred. They are hardly courageous enough to admit that they are +wrong.</p> +<p>Once the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By +its side was the sword of the state, with the hilt toward its hand. +Now it is apologized for—it carries a weight. It is now like +a living man to whom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend +the old, and it has not accepted the new. In some strange way it +imagines that morality cannot live except in partnership with the +sanctified follies and falsehoods of the past.</p> +<p>The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not +within the circumference of reason—they are not embraced in +any of the facts within the experience of man. All the subterfuges +have been exposed; all the excuses have been shown to be shallow, +and at last the church must meet, and fairly meet, the objections +of our time.</p> +<p>Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer +sacred. People are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. +Truth is more important than belief—far better than creeds, +vastly more useful than superstitions. The church must accept the +truths of the present, must admit the demonstrations of science, or +take its place in the mental museums with the fossils and +monstrosities of the past.</p> +<p>The time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be +determined by ascertaining the character of the disputants; +epithets are no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the +church produces laughter; theological slander is no longer a +weapon; argument must be answered with argument, and the church +must appeal to reason, and by that standard it must stand or fall. +The theories and discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the +resolutions of synods, or by quotations from the Old Testament.</p> +<p>The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We must +go back to the book—it cannot come to us—or we must +leave it forever. In order to remain orthodox we must forget the +discoveries, the inventions, the intellectual efforts of many +centuries; we must go back until our knowledge—or rather our +ignorance—will harmonize with the barbaric creeds.</p> +<p>It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally +produced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same +religions would again ensnare the human race. It is also admitted +that under the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by +the great and intellectual of every age to break the chains of +superstition.</p> +<p>There is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat +error. We should hate hypocrisy, but not the +hypocrite—larceny, but not the thief—superstition, but +not its victim. We should do all within our power to inform, to +educate, and to benefit our fellow-men.</p> +<p>There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation +in punishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of +kindness, in the sunlight of intelligence.</p> +<p>We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the +conclusions of our reason.</p> +<p>For many centuries the church has insisted that man is totally +depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural +desires are contrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it +was solemnly asserted that our senses were originally honest, true +and faithful, but having been debauched by original sin, were now +cheats and liars; that they constantly deceived and misled the +soul; that they were traps and snares; that no man could be safe +who relied upon his senses, or upon his reason;—he must +simply rely upon faith; in other words, that the only way for man +to really see was to put out his eyes.</p> +<p>There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. +The improvement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the +reason that religion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by +fear, by prejudice and by law. It was considered sacred. It was +illegal to call its truth in question. Whoever disputed the priest +became a criminal; whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, +became a blasphemer, a scoffer, a moral leper.</p> +<p>The church defended its mistakes by every means within its +power.</p> +<p>But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there +are enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us +to measure the distance that has been traveled by sensible +people.</p> +<p>The world is beginning to see that a minister should be a +teacher, and that "he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular +system of dogmas, but to prepare his hearers for exercising their +own judgments."</p> +<p>As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they +are not "spiritual"—that they are "of the earth, +earthy"—that they cannot perceive that which is spiritual. +They insist that "God is a spirit, and must be worshiped in +spirit."</p> +<p>But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual? In order to be +really spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of +another? Were the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and +children for the miserable purpose of saving their own little +souls, spiritual? Were those who put their fellow-men in dungeons, +or burned them at the state* on account of a difference of opinion, +all spiritual people? Did John Calvin give evidence of his +spirituality by burning Servetus? Were they spiritual people who +invented and used instruments of torture—who denied the +liberty of thought and expression—who waged wars for the +propagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who insisted +that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children +forever? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to +understand the meaning of the word spiritual? Is it necessary to +hate those who disagree with you, and to calumniate those whose +argument you cannot answer, in order to be spiritual? Must you hold +a demonstrated fact in contempt; must you deny or avoid what you +know to be true, in order to substantiate the fact that you are +spiritual?</p> +<p>What is it to be spiritual? Is the man spiritual who searches +for the truth—who lives in accordance with his highest +ideal—who loves his wife and children—who discharges +his obligations—who makes a happy fireside for the ones he +loves—who succors the oppressed—who gives his honest +opinions—who is guided by principle—who is merciful and +just?</p> +<p>Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful—who is +thrilled by music, and touched to tears in the presence of the +sublime, the heroic and the self-denying? Is the man spiritual who +endeavors by thought and deed to ennoble the human race?</p> +<p>The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know +that the foundations are insecure.</p> +<p>They should have the courage to defend, or the candor to +abandon. If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its +defenders must admit that Jehovah knew the facts not only about the +earth, but about the stars, and that the Creator of the universe +knew all about geology and astronomy even four thousand years +ago.</p> +<p>The champions of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the +truth about the creation of man, the Garden of Eden, the +temptation, the fall and the flood. They must take the ground that +the sacred book is historically correct; that the events related +really happened; that the miracles were actually performed; that +the laws promulgated from Sinai were and are wise and just, and +that nothing is upheld, commanded, indorsed, or in any way approved +or sustained that is not absolutely right. In other words, if they +insist that a being of infinite goodness and intelligence is the +author of the Bible, they must be ready to show that it is +absolutely perfect. They must defend its astronomy, geology, +history, miracle and morality.</p> +<p>If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a +special creation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions +of ages ago, to deceive the scientific world of to-day.</p> +<p>If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go +back to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible' is true, +polygamy is the highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, +nature has a master, and the miraculous is independent of and +superior to cause and effect. If the Bible is true, most of the +children of men are destined to suffer eternal pain. If the Bible +is true, the science known as astronomy is a collection of +mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is a +luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology +is false and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.</p> +<p>The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to +candidly answer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible +inspired? Second, Is the Bible true? And when they answer these +questions, they should remember that if the Bible is true, it needs +no inspiration, and that if not true, inspiration can do it no +good.—North American Review, August, 1888.</p> +<a name="link0010" id="link0010"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?</h2> +<h3>I.</h3> +<p>"With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls."</p> +<p>THE same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious +questions as in others. There is no subject—and can be +none—concerning which any human being is under any obligation +to believe without evidence. Neither is there any intelligent being +who can, by any possibility, be flattered by the exercise of +ignorant credulity. The man who, without prejudice, reads and +understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox +Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any +country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a +believer.</p> +<p>Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is +not God, that the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the +Christian religion, like other religions, is the creation of man, +usually say: "There must be a Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his +name, and the Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an +over-ruling Providence or Power."</p> +<p>This position is just as untenable as the other. He who cannot +harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, +cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and +wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account +for pestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, +for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the countless +victories of injustice. He will find it impossible to account for +martyrs—for the burning of the good, the noble, the loving, +by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous.</p> +<p>How can the Deist satisfactorily account for the sufferings of +women and children? In what way will he justify religious +persecution—the flame and sword of religious hatred? Why did +his God sit idly on his throne and allow his enemies to wet their +swords in the blood of his friends? Why did he not answer the +prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless? And when he heard the +lash upon the naked back of the slave, why did he not also hear the +prayer of the slave? And when children were sold from the breasts +of mothers, why was he deaf to the mother's cry?</p> +<p>It seems to me that the man who knows the limitations of the +mind, who gives the proper value to human testimony, is necessarily +an Agnostic. He gives up the hope of ascertaining first or final +causes, of comprehending the supernatural, or of conceiving of an +infinite personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and +Providence, all meaning falls.</p> +<p>The mind of man pursues the path of least resistance, and the +conclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature and +structure of his mind, on his experience, on hereditary drifts and +tendencies, and on the countless things that constitute the +difference in minds. One man, finding himself in the midst of +mysterious phenomena, comes to the conclusion that all is the +result of design; that back of all things is an infinite +personality—that is to say, an infinite man; and he accounts +for all that is by simply saying that the universe was created and +set in motion by this infinite personality, and that it is +miraculously and supernaturally governed and preserved. This man +sees with perfect clearness that matter could not create itself, +and therefore he imagines a creator of matter. He is perfectly +satisfied that there is design in the world, and that consequently +there must have been a designer. It does not occur to him that it +is necessary to account for the existence of an infinite +personality. He is perfectly certain that there can be no design +without a designer, and he is equally certain that there can be a +designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that +it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that +matter was created and that its creator was not. He assumes that a +creator existed from eternity, without cause, and created what is +called matter out of nothing; or, whereas there was nothing, this +creator made the something that we call substance.</p> +<p>Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite +personality? Can it imagine a beginningless being, infinitely +powerful and intelligent? If such a being existed, then there must +have been an eternity during which nothing did exist except this +being; because, if the Universe was created, there must have been a +time when it was not, and back of that there must have been an +eternity during which nothing but an infinite personality existed. +Is it possible to imagine an infinite intelligence dwelling for an +eternity in infinite nothing? How could such a being be +intelligent? What was there to be intelligent about? There was but +one thing to know, namely, that there was nothing except this +being. How could such a being be powerful? There was nothing to +exercise force upon. There was nothing in the universe to suggest +an idea. Relations could not exist—except the relation +between infinite intelligence and infinite nothing.</p> +<p>The next great difficulty is the act of creation. My mind is so +that I cannot conceive of something being created out of nothing. +Neither can I conceive of anything being created without a cause. +Let me go one step further. It is just as difficult to imagine +something being created with, as without, a cause. To postulate a +cause does not in the least lessen the difficulty. In spite of all, +this lever remains without a fulcrum.</p> +<p>We cannot conceive of the destruction of substance. The stone +can be crushed to powder, and the powder can be ground to such a +fineness that the atoms can only be distinguished by the most +powerful microscope, and we can then imagine these atoms being +divided and subdivided again and again and again; but it is +impossible for us to conceive of the annihilation of the least +possible imaginable fragment of the least atom of which we can +think. Consequently the mind can imagine neither creation nor +destruction. From this point it is very easy to reach the +generalization that the indestructible could not have been +created.</p> +<p>These questions, however, will be answered by each individual +according to the structure of his mind, according to his +experience, according to his habits of thought, and according to +his intelligence or his ignorance, his prejudice or his genius.</p> +<p>Probably a very large majority of mankind believe in the +existence of supernatural beings, and a majority of what are known +as the civilized nations, in an infinite personality. In the realm +of thought majorities do not determine. Each brain is a kingdom, +each mind is a sovereign.</p> +<p>The universality of a belief does not even tend to prove its +truth. A large majority of mankind have believed in what is known +as God, and an equally large majority have as implicitly believed +in what is known as the Devil. These beings have been inferred from +phenomena. They were produced for the most part by ignorance, by +fear, and by selfishness. Man in all ages has endeavored to account +for the mysteries of life and death, of substance, of force, for +the ebb and flow of things, for earth and star. The savage, +dwelling in his cave, subsisting on roots and reptiles, or on +beasts that could be slain with club and stone, surrounded by +countless objects of terror, standing by rivers, so far as he knew, +without source or end, by seas with but one shore, the prey of +beasts mightier than himself, of diseases strange and fierce, +trembling at the voice of thunder, blinded by the lightning, +feeling the earth shake beneath him, seeing the sky lurid with the +volcano's glare,—fell prostrate and begged for the protection +of the Unknown.</p> +<p>In the long night of savagery, in the midst of pestilence and +famine, through the long and dreary winters, crouched in dens of +darkness, the seeds of superstition were sown in the brain of man. +The savage believed, and thoroughly believed, that everything +happened in reference to him; that he by his actions could excite +the anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of the Unseen. He +resorted to flattery and prayer. To the best of his ability he put +in stone, or rudely carved in wood, his idea of this god. For this +idol he built a hut, a hovel, and at last a cathedral. Before these +images he bowed, and at these shrines, whereon he lavished his +wealth, he sought protection for himself and for the ones he loved. +The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They pretended to have +received messages from the Unknown. They stood between the helpless +multitude and the gods. They were the carriers of flags of truce. +At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man, and upon +the labor of the deceived they lived.</p> +<p>The Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who bowed before +his idol; and yet it must be confessed that the god of stone +answered prayer and protected his worshipers precisely as the +Christian's God answers prayer and protects his worshipers +to-day.</p> +<p>My mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that substance +is eternal; that the universe was without beginning and will be +without end; that it is the one eternal existence; that relations +are transient and evanescent; that organisms are produced and +vanish; that forms change,—but that the substance of things +is from eternity to eternity. It may be that planets are born and +die, that constellations will fade from the infinite spaces, that +countless suns will be quenched,—but the substance will +remain.</p> +<p>The questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond the powers +of the human mind.</p> +<p>Heredity is on the side of superstition. All our ignorance +pleads for the old. In most men there is a feeling that their +ancestors were exceedingly good and brave and wise, and that in all +things pertaining to religion their conclusions should be followed. +They believe that their fathers and mothers were of the best, and +that that which satisfied them should satisfy their children. With +a feeling of reverence they say that the religion of their mother +is good enough and pure enough and reasonable enough for them. In +this way the love of parents and the reverence for ancestors have +unconsciously bribed the reason and put out, or rendered +exceedingly dim, the eyes of the mind.</p> +<p>There is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to live and +die where their parents lived and died—a tendency to go back +to the homes of their youth. Around the old oak of manhood grow and +cling these vines. Yet it will hardly do to say that the religion +of my mother is good enough for me, any more than to say the +geology or the astronomy or the philosophy of my mother is good +enough for me. Every human being is entitled to the best he can +obtain; and if there has been the slightest improvement on the +religion of the mother, the son is entitled to that improvement, +and he should not deprive himself of that advantage by the mistaken +idea that he owes it to his mother to perpetuate, in a reverential +way, her ignorant mistakes.</p> +<p>If we are to follow the religion of our fathers and mothers, our +fathers and mothers should have followed the religion of theirs. +Had this been done, there could have been no improvement in the +world of thought. The first religion would have been the last, and +the child would have died as ignorant as the mother. Progress would +have been impossible, and on the graves of ancestors would have +been sacrificed the intelligence of mankind.</p> +<p>We know, too, that there has been the religion of the tribe, of +the community, and of the nation, and that there has been a feeling +that it was the duty of every member of the tribe or community, and +of every citizen of the nation, to insist upon it that the religion +of that tribe, of that community, of that nation, was better than +that of any other. We know that all the prejudices against other +religions, and all the egotism of nation and tribe, were in favor +of the local superstition. Each citizen was patriotic enough to +denounce the religions of other nations and to stand firmly by his +own. And there is this peculiarity about man: he can see the +absurdities of other religions while blinded to those of his own. +The Christian can see clearly enough that Mohammed was an impostor. +He is sure of it, because the people of Mecca who were acquainted +with him declared that he was no prophet; and this declaration is +received by Christians as a demonstration that Mohammed was not +inspired. Yet these same Christians admit that the people of +Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ rejected him; and this +rejection they take as proof positive that Christ was the Son of +God.</p> +<p>The average man adopts the religion of his country, or, rather, +the religion of his country adopts him. He is dominated by the +egotism of race, the arrogance of nation, and the prejudice called +patriotism. He does not reason—he feels. He does not +investigate—he believes. To him the religions of other +nations are absurd and infamous, and their gods monsters of +ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average man is taught, +first, that there is a supreme being; second, that he has made +known his will; third, that he will reward the true believer; +fourth, that he will punish the unbeliever, the scoffer, and the +blasphemer; fifth, that certain ceremonies are pleasing to this +god; sixth, that he has established a church; and seventh, that +priests are his representatives on earth. And the average man has +no difficulty in determining that the God of his nation is the true +God; that the will of this true God is contained in the sacred +scriptures of his nation; that he is one of the true believers, and +that the people of other nations—that is, believing other +religions—are scoffers; that the only true church is the one +to which he belongs; and that the priests of his country are the +only ones who have had or ever will have the slightest influence +with this true God. All these absurdities to the average man seem +self-evident propositions; and so he holds all other creeds in +scorn, and congratulates himself that he is a favorite of the one +true God.</p> +<p>If the average Christian had been born in Turkey, he would have +been a Mohammedan; and if the average Mohammedan had been born in +New England and educated at Andover, he would have regarded the +damnation of the heathen as the "tidings of great joy."</p> +<p>Nations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and hallucinations, +and these find expression in their laws, customs, ceremonies, +morals, and religions. And these are in great part determined by +soil, climate, and the countless circumstances that mould and +dominate the lives and habits of insects, individuals, and nations. +The average man believes implicitly in the religion of his country, +because he knows nothing of any other and has no desire to know. It +fits him because he has been deformed to fit it, and he regards +this fact of fit as an evidence of its inspired truth.</p> +<p>Has a man the right to examine, to investigate, the religion of +his own country—the religion of his father and mother? +Christians admit that the citizens of all countries not Christian +have not only this right, but that it is their solemn duty. +Thousands of missionaries are sent to heathen countries to persuade +the believers in other religions not only to examine their +superstitions, but to renounce them, and to adopt those of the +missionaries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard the religion +of his country and to hold in contempt the creed of his father and +of his mother. If the citizens of heathen nations have the right to +examine the foundations of their religion, it would seem that the +citizens of Christian nations have the same right. Christians, +however, go further than this; they say to the heathen: You must +examine your religion, and not only so, but you must reject it; +and, unless you do reject it, and, in addition to such rejection, +adopt ours, you will be eternally damned. Then these same +Christians say to the inhabitants of a Christian country: You must +not examine; you must not investigate; but whether you examine or +not, you must believe, or you will be eternally damned.</p> +<p>If there be one true religion, how is it possible to ascertain +which of all the religions the true one is? There is but one way. +We must impartially examine the claims of all. The right to examine +involves the necessity to accept or reject. Understand me, not the +right to accept or reject, but the necessity. From this conclusion +there is no possible escape. If, then, we have the right to +examine, we have the right to tell the conclusion reached. +Christians have examined other religions somewhat, and they have +expressed their opinion with the utmost freedom—that is to +say, they have denounced them all as false and fraudulent; have +called their gods idols and myths, and their priests impostors.</p> +<p>The Christian does not deem it worth while to read the Koran. +Probably not one Christian in a thousand ever saw a copy of that +book. And yet all Christians are perfectly satisfied that the Koran +is the work of an impostor, No Presbyterian thinks it is worth his +while to examine the religious systems of India; he knows that the +Brahmins are mistaken, and that all their miracles are falsehoods. +No Methodist cares to read the life of Buddha, and no Baptist will +waste his time studying the ethics of Confucius. Christians of +every sort and kind take it for granted that there is only one true +religion, and that all except Christianity are absolutely without +foundation. The Christian world believes that all the prayers of +India are unanswered; that all the sacrifices upon the countless +altars of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome were without effect. They +believe that all these mighty nations worshiped their gods in vain; +that their priests were deceivers or deceived; that their +ceremonies were wicked or meaningless; that their temples were +built by ignorance and fraud, and that no God heard their songs of +praise, their cries of despair, their words of thankfulness; that +on account of their religion no pestilence was stayed; that the +earthquake and volcano, the flood and storm went on their ways of +death—while the real God looked on and laughed at their +calamities and mocked at their fears.</p> +<p>We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not +upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence of some +god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, +industry, and courage of the people, upon the development of the +mind, on the spread of education, on the liberty of thought and +action; and that in this mighty panorama of national life, reason +has built and superstition has destroyed.</p> +<p>Being satisfied that all believe precisely as they must, and +that religions have been naturally produced, I have neither praise +nor blame for any man. Good men have had bad creeds, and bad men +have had good ones. Some of the noblest of the human race have +fought and died for the wrong. The brain of man has been the +trysting-place of contradictions.</p> +<p>Passion often masters reason, and "the state of man, like to a +little kingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrection."</p> +<p>In the discussion of theological or religious questions, we have +almost passed the personal phase, and we are now weighing arguments +instead of exchanging epithets and curses. They who really seek for +truth must be the best of friends. Each knows that his desire can +never take the place of fact, and that, next to finding truth, the +greatest honor must be won in honest search.</p> +<p>We see that many ships are driven in many ways by the same wind. +So men, reading the same book, write many creeds and lay out many +roads to heaven. To the best of my ability, I have examined the +religions of many countries and the creeds of many sects. They are +much alike, and the testimony by which they are substantiated is of +such a character that to those who believe is promised an eternal +reward. In all the sacred books there are some truths, some rays of +light, some words of love and hope. The face of savagery is +sometimes softened by a smile—the human triumphs, and the +heart breaks into song. But in these books are also found the words +of fear and hate, and from their pages crawl serpents that coil and +hiss in all the paths of men.</p> +<p>For my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has not +claimed. Such is the nature of my brain that Shakespeare gives me +greater joy than all the prophets of the ancient world. There are +thoughts that satisfy the hunger of the mind. I am convinced that +Humboldt knew more of geology than the author of Genesis; that +Darwin was a greater naturalist than he who told the story of the +flood; that Laplace was better acquainted with the habits of the +sun and moon than Joshua could have been, and that Haeckel, Huxley, +and Tyndall know more about the earth and stars, about the history +of man, the philosophy of life—more that is of use, ten +thousand times—than all the writers of the sacred books.</p> +<p>I believe in the religion of reason—the gospel of this +world; in the development of the mind, in the accumulation of +intellectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from +superstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the +forces of nature to feed and clothe the world.</p> +<p>Let us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of countless +mysteries; standing beneath the boundless heaven sown thick with +constellations; knowing that each grain of sand, each leaf, each +blade of grass, asks of every mind the answer-less question; +knowing that the simplest thing defies solution; feeling that we +deal with the superficial and the relative, and that we are forever +eluded by the real, the absolute,—let us admit the +limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage and the +candor to say: We do not know.</p> +<p>North American Review, December, 1889.</p> +<center>II.</center> +<p>THE Christian religion rests on miracles. There are no miracles +in the realm of science. The real philosopher does not seek to +excite wonder, but to make that plain which was wonderful. He does +not endeavor to astonish, but to enlighten. He is perfectly +confident that there are no miracles in nature. He knows that the +mathematical expression of the same relations, contents, areas, +numbers and proportions must forever remain the same. He knows that +there are no miracles in chemistry; that the attractions and +repulsions, the loves and hatreds, of atoms are constant. Under +like conditions, he is certain that like will always happen; that +the product ever has been and forever will be the same; that the +atoms or particles unite in definite, unvarying +proportions,—so many of one kind mix, mingle, and harmonize +with just so many of another, and the surplus will be forever cast +out. There are no exceptions. Substances are always true to their +natures. They have no caprices, no prejudices, that can vary or +control their action. They are "the same yesterday, to-day, and +forever."</p> +<p>In this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity, the +intelligent man has absolute confidence. It is useless to tell him +that there was a time when fire would not consume the combustible, +when water would not flow in obedience to the attraction of +gravitation, or that there ever was a fragment of a moment during +which substance had no weight.</p> +<p>Credulity should be the servant of intelligence. The ignorant +have not credulity enough to believe the actual, because the actual +appears to be contrary to the evidence of their senses. To them it +is plain that the sun rises and sets, and they have not credulity +enough to believe in the rotary motion of the earth—that is +to say, they have not intelligence enough to comprehend the +absurdities involved in their belief, and the perfect harmony +between the rotation of the earth and all known facts. They trust +their eyes, not their reason. Ignorance has always been and always +will be at the mercy of appearance. Credulity, as a rule, believes +everything except the truth. The semi-civilized believe in +astrology, but who could convince them of the vastness of +astronomical spaces, the speed of light, or the magnitude and +number of suns and constellations? If Hermann, the magician, and +Humboldt, the philosopher, could have appeared before savages, +which would have been regarded as a god?</p> +<p>When men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of the correlation +of force, and of its indestructibility, they were believers in +perpetual motion. So when chemistry was a kind of sleight-of-hand, +or necromancy, something accomplished by the aid of the +supernatural, people talked about the transmutation of metals, the +universal solvent, and the philosopher's stone. Perpetual motion +would be a mechanical miracle; and the transmutation of metals +would be a miracle in chemistry; and if we could make the result of +multiplying two by two five, that would be a miracle in +mathematics. No one expects to find a circle the diameter of which +is just one fourth of the circumference. If one could find such a +circle, then there would be a miracle in geometry.</p> +<p>In other words, there are no miracles in any science. The moment +we understand a question or subject, the miraculous necessarily +disappears. If anything actually happens in the chemical world, it +will, under like conditions, happen again.</p> +<p>No one need take an account of this result from the mouths of +others: all can try the experiment for themselves. There is no +caprice, and no accident.</p> +<p>It is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that the age +of miracles has passed away, and, consequently, miracles cannot at +present be established by miracles; they must be substantiated by +the testimony of witnesses who are said by certain +writers—or, rather, by uncertain writers—to have lived +several centuries ago; and this testimony is given to us, not by +the witnesses themselves, not by persons who say that they talked +with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did not give the +sources of their information.</p> +<p>The question is: Can miracles be established except by miracles? +We know that the writers may have been mistaken. It is possible +that they may have manufactured these accounts themselves. The +witnesses may have told what they knew to be untrue, or they may +have been honestly deceived, or the stories may have been true as +at first told. Imagination may have added greatly to them, so that +after several centuries of accretion a very simple truth was +changed to a miracle.</p> +<p>We must admit that all probabilities must be against miracles, +for the reason that that which is probable cannot by any +possibility be a miracle. Neither the probable nor the possible, so +far as man is concerned, can be miraculous. The probability +therefore says that the writers and witnesses were either mistaken +or dishonest.</p> +<p>We must admit that we have never seen a miracle ourselves, and +we must admit that, according to our experience, there are no +miracles. If we have mingled with the world, we are compelled to +say that we have known a vast number of persons—including +ourselves—to be mistaken, and many others who have failed to +tell the exact truth. The probabilities are on the side of our +experience, and, consequently, against the miraculous; and it is a +necessity that the free mind moves along the path of least +resistance.</p> +<p>The effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and honesty +of the witness and the intelligence of him who weighs. A man living +in a community where the supernatural is expected, where the +miraculous is supposed to be of almost daily occurrence, will, as a +rule, believe that all wonderful things are the result of +supernatural agencies. He will expect providential interference, +and, as a consequence, his mind will pursue the path of least +resistance, and will account for all phenomena by what to him is +the easiest method. Such people, with the best intentions, honestly +bear false witness. They have been imposed upon by appearances, and +are victims of delusion and illusion.</p> +<p>In an age when reading and writing were substantially unknown, +and when history itself was but the vaguest hearsay handed down +from dotage to infancy, nothing was rescued from oblivion except +the wonderful, the miraculous. The more marvelous the story, the +greater the interest excited. Narrators and hearers were alike +ignorant and alike honest. At that time nothing was known, nothing +suspected, of the orderly course of nature—of the unbroken +and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. The world was governed +by caprice. Everything was at the mercy of a being, or beings, who +were themselves controlled by the same passions that dominated man. +Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and the deductions +drawn were honest and monstrous.</p> +<p>It is probably certain that all of the religions of the world +have been believed, and that all the miracles have found credence +in countless brains; otherwise they could not have been +perpetuated. They were not all born of cunning. Those who told were +as honest as those who heard. This being so, nothing has been too +absurd for human credence.</p> +<p>All religions, so far as I know, claim to have been miraculously +founded, miraculously preserved, and miraculously propagated. The +priests of all claimed to have messages from God, and claimed to +have a certain authority, and the miraculous has always been +appealed to for the purpose of substantiating the message and the +authority.</p> +<p>If men believe in the supernatural, they will account for all +phenomena by an appeal to supernatural means or power. We know that +formerly everything was accounted for in this way except some few +simple things with which man thought he was perfectly acquainted. +After a time men found that under like conditions like would +happen, and as to those things the supposition of supernatural +interference was abandoned; but that interference was still active +as to all the unknown world. In other words, as the circle of man's +knowledge grew, supernatural interference withdrew and was active +only just beyond the horizon of the known.</p> +<p>Now, there are some believers in universal special +providence—that is, men who believe in perpetual interference +by a supernatural power, this interference being for the purpose of +punishing or rewarding, of destroying or preserving, individuals +and nations.</p> +<p>Others have abandoned the idea of providence in ordinary +matters, but still believe that God interferes on great occasions +and at critical moments, especially in the affairs of nations, and +that his presence is manifest in great disasters. This is the +compromise position. These people believe that an infinite being +made the universe and impressed upon it what they are pleased to +call "laws," and then left it to run in accordance with those laws +and forces; that as a rule it works well, and that the divine maker +interferes only in cases of accident, or at moments when the +machine fails to accomplish the original design.</p> +<p>There are others who take the ground that all is natural; that +there never has been, never will be, never can be any interference +from without, for the reason that nature embraces all, and that +there can be no without or beyond.</p> +<p>The first class are Theists pure and simple; the second are +Theists as to the unknown, Naturalists as to the known; and the +third are Naturalists without a touch or taint of superstition.</p> +<p>What can the evidence of the first class be worth? This question +is answered by reading the history of those nations that believed +thoroughly and implicitly in the supernatural. There is no +conceivable absurdity that was not established by their testimony. +Every law or every fact in nature was violated. Children were bom +without parents; men lived for thousands of years; others subsisted +without food, without sleep; thousands and thousands were possessed +with evil spirits controlled by ghosts and ghouls; thousands +confessed themselves guilty of impossible offences, and in courts, +with the most solemn forms, impossibilities were substantiated by +the oaths, affirmations, and confessions of men, women, and +children.</p> +<p>These delusions were not confined to ascetics and peasants, but +they took possession of nobles and kings; of people who were at +that time called intelligent; of the then educated. No one denied +these wonders, for the reason that denial was a crime punishable +generally with death. Societies, nations, became +insane—victims of ignorance, of dreams, and, above all, of +fears. Under these conditions human testimony is not and cannot be +of the slightest value. We now know that nearly all of the history +of the world is false, and we know this because we have arrived at +that phase or point of intellectual development where and when we +know that effects must have causes, that everything is naturally +produced, and that, consequently, no nation could ever have been +great, powerful, and rich unless it had the soil, the people, the +intelligence, and the commerce. Weighed in these scales, nearly all +histories are found to be fictions.</p> +<p>The same is true of religions. Every intelligent American is +satisfied that the religions of India, of Egypt, of Greece and +Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles +on which they rest are mistakes. Our religion alone is excepted. +Every intelligent Hindoo discards all religions and all miracles +except his own. The question is: When will people see the defects +in their own theology as clearly as they perceive the same defects +in every other?</p> +<p>All the so-called false religions were substantiated by +miracles, by signs and wonders, by prophets and martyrs, precisely +as our own. Our witnesses are no better than theirs, and our +success is no greater. If their miracles were false, ours cannot be +true. Nature was the same in India and in Palestine.</p> +<p>One of the corner-stones of Christianity is the miracle of +inspiration, and this same miracle lies at the foundation of all +religions. How can the fact of inspiration be established? How +could even the inspired man know that he was inspired? If he was +influenced to write, and did write, and did express thoughts and +facts that to him were absolutely new, on subjects about which he +had previously known nothing, how could he know that he had been +influenced by an infinite being? And if he could know, how could he +convince others?</p> +<p>What is meant by inspiration? Did the one inspired set down only +the thoughts of a supernatural being? Was he simply an instrument, +or did his personality color the message received and given? Did he +mix his ignorance with the divine information, his prejudices and +hatreds with the love and justice of the Deity? If God told him not +to eat the flesh of any beast that dieth of itself, did the same +infinite being also tell him to sell this meat to the stranger +within his gates?</p> +<p>A man says that he is inspired—that God appeared to him in +a dream, and told him certain things. Now, the things said to have +been communicated may have been good and wise; but will the fact +that the communication is good or wise establish the inspiration? +If, on the other hand, the communication is absurd or wicked, will +that conclusively show that the man was not inspired? Must we judge +from the communication? In other words, is our reason to be the +final standard?</p> +<p>How could the inspired man know that the communication was +received from God? If God in reality should appear to a human +being, how could this human being know who had appeared? By what +standard would he judge? Upon this question man has no experience; +he is not familiar enough with the supernatural to know gods even +if they exist. Although thousands have pretended to receive +messages, there has been no message in which there was, or is, +anything above the invention of man. There are just as wonderful +things in the uninspired as in the inspired books, and the +prophecies of the heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of +the Judean prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot +certainly know that he is inspired, how is it possible for him to +demonstrate his inspiration to others? The last solution of this +question is that inspiration is a miracle about which only the +inspired can have the least knowledge, or the least evidence, and +this knowledge and this evidence not of a character to absolutely +convince even the inspired.</p> +<p>There is certainly nothing in the Old or the New Testament that +could not have been written by uninspired human beings. To me there +is nothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. I do not know +of a solitary scientific truth contained in the five books commonly +attributed to Moses. There is not, as far as I know, a line in the +book of Genesis calculated to make a human being better. The laws +contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for +the most part puerile and cruel. Surely there is nothing in any of +these books that could not have been produced by uninspired men. +Certainly there is nothing calculated to excite intellectual +admiration in the book of Judges or in the wars of Joshua; and the +same may be said of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. The history is +extremely childish, full of repetitions of useless details, without +the slightest philosophy, without a generalization bom of a wide +survey. Nothing is known of other nations; nothing imparted of the +slightest value; nothing about education, discovery, or invention. +And these idle and stupid annals are interspersed with myth and +miracle, with flattery for kings who supported priests, and with +curses and denunciations for those who would not hearken to the +voice of the prophets. If all the historic books of the Bible were +blotted from the memory of mankind, nothing of value would be +lost.</p> +<p>Is it possible that the writer or writers of First and Second +Kings were inspired, and that Gibbon wrote "The Decline and Fall of +the Roman Empire" without supernatural assistance? Is it possible +that the author of Judges was simply the instrument of an infinite +God, while John W. Draper wrote "The Intellectual Development of +Europe" without one ray of light from the other world? Can we +believe that the author of Genesis had to be inspired, while Darwin +experimented, ascertained, and reached conclusions for himself.</p> +<p>Ought not the work of a God to be vastly superior to that of a +man? And if the writers of the Bible were in reality inspired, +ought not that book to be the greatest of books? For instance, if +it were contended that certain statues had been chiselled by +inspired men, such statues should be superior to any that +uninspired man has made. As long as it is admitted that the Venus +de Milo is the work of man, no one will believe in inspired +sculptors—at least until a superior statue has been found. So +in the world of painting. We admit that Corot was uninspired. +Nobody claims that Angelo had supernatural assistance. Now, if some +one should claim that a certain painter was simply the +instrumentality of God, certainly the pictures produced by that +painter should be superior to all others.</p> +<p>I do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human being +to conclude that the Song of Solomon is the work of God, and that +the tragedy of Lear was the work of an uninspired man. We are all +liable to be mistaken, but the Iliad seems to me a greater work +than the Book of Esther, and I prefer it to the writings of Haggai +and Hosea. �?schylus is superior to Jeremiah, and +Shakespeare rises immeasurably above all the sacred books of the +world.</p> +<p>It does not seem possible that any human being ever tried to +establish a truth—anything that really happened—by what +is called a miracle. It is easy to understand how that which was +common became wonderful by accretion,—by things added, and by +things forgotten,—and it is easy to conceive how that which +was wonderful became by accretion what was called supernatural. But +it does not seem possible that any intelligent, honest man ever +endeavored to prove anything by a miracle.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people who +demanded no evidence; else how could they have believed the +miracle? It also appears to be certain that, even if miracles had +been performed, it would be impossible to establish that fact by +human testimony. In other words, miracles can only be established +by miracles, and in no event could miracles be evidence except to +those who were actually present; and in order for miracles to be of +any value, they would have to be perpetual. It must also be +remembered that a miracle actually performed could by no +possibility shed any light on any moral truth, or add to any human +obligation.</p> +<p>If any man has, ever been inspired, this is a secret miracle, +known to no person, and suspected only by the man claiming to be +inspired. It would not be in the power of the inspired to give +satisfactory evidence of that fact to anybody else.</p> +<p>The testimony of man is insufficient to establish the +supernatural. Neither the evidence of one man nor of twelve can +stand when contradicted by the experience of the intelligent world. +If a book sought to be proved by miracles is true, then it makes no +difference whether it was inspired or not; and if it is not true, +inspiration cannot add to its value.</p> +<p>The truth is that the church has always—unconsciously, +perhaps—offered rewards for falsehood. It was founded upon +the supernatural, the miraculous, and it welcomed all statements +calculated to support the foundation. It rewarded the traveller who +found evidences of the miraculous, who had seen the pillar of salt +into which the wife of Lot had been changed, and the tracks of +Pharaoh's chariots on the sands of the Red Sea. It heaped honors on +the historian who filled his pages with the absurd and impossible. +It had geologists and astronomers of its own who constructed the +earth and the constellations in accordance with the Bible. With +sword and flame it destroyed the brave and thoughtful men who told +the truth. It was the enemy of investigation and of reason. Faith +and fiction were in partnership.</p> +<p>To-day the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous. +Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of +Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric +must fall. The natural is true. The miraculous is false.</p> +<p>North American Review, March, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0011" id="link0011"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.</h2> +<center>PROFESSOR HUXLEY AND AGNOSTICISM.</center> +<p>IN the February number of the Nineteenth Century, 1889, is an +article by Professor Huxley, entitled "Agnosticism." It seems that +a church congress was held at Manchester in October, 1888, and that +the Principal of King's College brought the topic of Agnosticism +before the assembly and made the following statement:</p> +<p>"But if this be so, for a man to urge as an escape from this +article of belief that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of +an unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference +from Christians lies, not in the fact that he has no knowledge of +these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which +they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an Agnostic, but his +real name is an older one—he is an infidel; that is to say, +an unbeliever. The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant +significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, and it +ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly +that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."</p> +<p>Let us examine this statement, putting it in language that is +easily understood; and for that purpose we will divide it into +several paragraphs.</p> +<p>First.—"For a man to urge that he has no means of a +scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is +irrelevant."</p> +<p>Is there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge? Are +there several kinds of knowing? Is there such a thing as scientific +ignorance? If a man says, "I know nothing of the unseen world +because I have no knowledge upon that subject," is the fact that he +has no knowledge absolutely irrelevant? Will the Principal of +King's College say that having no knowledge is the reason he knows? +When asked to give your opinion upon any subject, can it be said +that your ignorance of that subject is irrelevant? If this be true, +then your knowledge of the subject is also irrelevant?</p> +<p>Is it possible to put in ordinary English a more perfect +absurdity? How can a man obtain any knowledge of the unseen world? +He certainly cannot obtain it through the medium of the senses. It +is not a world that he can visit. He cannot stand upon its shores, +nor can he view them from the ocean of imagination. The Principal +of King's College, however, insists that these impossibilities are +irrelevant.</p> +<p>No person has come back from the unseen world. No authentic +message has been delivered. Through all the centuries, not one +whisper has broken the silence that lies beyond the grave. +Countless millions have sought for some evidence, have listened in +vain for some word.</p> +<p>It is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove the +non-existence of another world—all this does not demonstrate +that death ends all. But it is the justification of the Agnostic, +who candidly says, "I do not know."</p> +<p>Second.—The Principal of King's College states that the +difference between an Agnostic and a Christian "lies, not in the +fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not +believe the authority on which they are stated."</p> +<p>Is this a difference in knowledge, or a difference in +belief—that is to say, a difference in credulity?</p> +<p>The Christian believes the Mosaic account. He reverently hears +and admits the truth of all that he finds within the Scriptures. Is +this knowledge? How is it possible to know whether the reputed +authors of the books of the Old Testament were the real ones? The +witnesses are dead. The lips that could testify are dust. Between +these shores roll the waves of many centuries. Who knows whether +such a man as Moses existed or not? Who knows the author of Kings +and Chronicles? By what testimony can we substantiate the +authenticity of the prophets, or of the prophecies, or of the +fulfillments? Is there any difference between the knowledge of the +Christian and of the Agnostic? Does the Principal of King's College +know any more as to the truth of the Old Testament than the man who +modestly calls for evidence? Has not a mistake been made? Is not +the difference one of belief instead of knowledge? And is not this +difference founded on the difference in credulity? Would not an +infinitely wise and good being—where belief is a condition to +salvation—supply the evidence? Certainly the Creator of +man—if such exist—knows the exact nature of the human +mind—knows the evidence necessary to convince; and, +consequently, such a being would act in accordance with such +conditions.</p> +<p>There is a relation between evidence and belief. The mind is so +constituted that certain things, being in accordance with its +nature, are regarded as reasonable, as probable.</p> +<p>There is also this fact that must not be overlooked: that is, +that just in the proportion that the brain is developed it requires +more evidence, and becomes less and less credulous. Ignorance and +credulity go hand in hand. Intelligence understands something of +the law of average, has an idea of probability. It is not swayed by +prejudice, neither is it driven to extremes by suspicion. It takes +into consideration personal motives. It examines the character of +the witnesses, makes allowance for the ignorance of the +time,—for enthusiasm, for fear,—and comes to its +conclusion without fear and without passion.</p> +<p>What knowledge has the Christian of another world? The senses of +the Christian are the same as those of the Agnostic.</p> +<p>He hears, sees, and feels substantially the same. His vision is +limited. He sees no other shore and hears nothing from another +world.</p> +<p>Knowledge is something that can be imparted. It has a foundation +in fact. It comes within the domain of the senses. It can be told, +described, analyzed, and, in addition to all this, it can be +classified. Whenever a fact becomes the property of one mind, it +can become the property of the intellectual world. There are words +in which the knowledge can be conveyed.</p> +<p>The Christian is not a supernatural person, filled with +supernatural truths. He is a natural person, and all that he knows +of value can be naturally imparted. It is within his power to give +all that he has to the Agnostic.</p> +<p>The Principal of King's College is mistaken when he says that +the difference between the Agnostic and the Christian does not lie +in the fact that the Agnostic has no knowledge, "but that he does +not believe the authority on which these things are stated."</p> +<p>The real difference is this: the Christian says that he has +knowledge; the Agnostic admits that he has none; and yet the +Christian accuses the Agnostic of arrogance, and asks him how he +has the impudence to admit the limitations of his mind. To the +Agnostic every fact is a torch, and by this light, and this light +only, he walks.</p> +<p>It is also true that the Agnostic does not believe the authority +relied on by the Christian. What is the authority of the Christian? +Thousands of years ago it is supposed that certain men, or, rather, +uncertain men, wrote certain things. It is alleged by the Christian +that these men were divinely inspired, and that the words of these +men are to be taken as absolutely true, no matter whether or not +they are verified by modern discovery and demonstration.</p> +<p>How can we know that any human being was divinely inspired? +There has been no personal revelation to us to the effect that +certain people were inspired—it is only claimed that the +revelation was to them. For this we have only their word, and about +that there is this difficulty: we know nothing of them, and, +consequently, cannot, if we desire, rely upon their character for +truth. This evidence is not simply hearsay—it is far weaker +than that. We have only been told that they said these things; we +do not know whether the persons claiming to be inspired wrote these +things or not; neither are we certain that such persons ever +existed. We know now that the greatest men with whom we are +acquainted are often mistaken about the simplest matters. We also +know that men saying something like the same things, in other +countries and in ancient days, must have been impostors. The +Christian has no confidence in the words of Mohammed; the +Mohammedan cares nothing about the declarations of Buddha; and the +Agnostic gives to the words of the Christian the value only of the +truth that is in them. He knows that these sayings get neither +truth nor worth from the person who uttered them. He knows that the +sayings themselves get their entire value from the truth they +express. So that the real difference between the Christian and the +Agnostic does not lie in their knowledge,—for neither of them +has any knowledge on this subject,—but the difference does +lie in credulity, and in nothing else. The Agnostic does not rely +on the authority of Moses and the prophets. He finds that they were +mistaken in most matters capable of demonstration. He finds that +their mistakes multiply in the proportion that human knowledge +increases. He is satisfied that the religion of the ancient Jews +is, in most things, as ignorant and cruel as other religions of the +ancient world. He concludes that the efforts, in all ages, to +answer the questions of origin and destiny, and to account for the +phenomena of life, have all been substantial failures.</p> +<p>In the presence of demonstration there is no opportunity for the +exercise of faith. Truth does not appeal to credulity—it +appeals to evidence, to established facts, to the constitution of +the mind. It endeavors to harmonize the new fact with all that we +know, and to bring it within the circumference of human +experience.</p> +<p>The church has never cultivated investigation. It has never +said: Let him who has a mind to think, think; but its cry from the +first until now has been: Let him who has ears to hear, hear.</p> +<p>The pulpit does not appeal to the reason of the pew; it speaks +by authority and it commands the pew to believe, and it not only +commands, but it threatens.</p> +<p>The Agnostic knows that the testimony of man is not sufficient +to establish what is known as the miraculous. We would not believe +to-day the testimony of millions to the effect that the dead had +been raised. The church itself would be the first to attack such +testimony. If we cannot believe those whom we know, why should we +believe witnesses who have been dead thousands of years, and about +whom we know nothing?</p> +<p>Third.—The Principal of King's College, growing somewhat +severe, declares that "he may prefer to call himself an Agnostic, +but his real name is an older one—he is an infidel; that is +to say, an unbeliever."</p> +<p>This is spoken in a kind of holy scorn. According to this +gentleman, an unbeliever is, to a certain extent, a disreputable +person.</p> +<p>In this sense, what is an unbeliever? He is one whose mind is so +constituted that what the Christian calls evidence is not +satisfactory to him. Is a person accountable for the constitution +of his mind, for the formation of his brain? Is any human being +responsible for the weight that evidence has upon him? Can he +believe without evidence? Is the weight of evidence a question of +choice? Is there such a thing as honestly weighing testimony? Is +the result of such weighing necessary? Does it involve moral +responsibility? If the Mosaic account does not convince a man that +it is true, is he a wretch because he is candid enough to tell the +truth? Can he preserve his manhood only by making a false +statement?</p> +<p>The Mohammedan would call the Principal of King's College an +unbeliever,—so would the tribes of Central Africa,—and +he would return the compliment, and all would be equally justified. +Has the Principal of King's College any knowledge that he keeps +from the rest of the world? Has he the confidence of the Infinite? +Is there anything praiseworthy in believing where the evidence is +sufficient, or is one to be praised for believing only where the +evidence is insufficient? Is a man to be blamed for not agreeing +with his fellow-citizen? Were the unbelievers in the pagan world +better or worse than their neighbors? It is probably true that some +of the greatest Greeks believed in the gods of that nation, and it +is equally true that some of the greatest denied their existence. +If credulity is a virtue now, it must have been in the days of +Athens. If to believe without evidence entities one to eternal +reward in this century, certainly the same must have been true in +the days of the Pharaohs.</p> +<p>An infidel is one who does not believe in the prevailing +religion. We now admit that the infidels of Greece and Rome were +right. The gods that they refused to believe in are dead. Their +thrones are empty, and long ago the sceptres dropped from their +nerveless hands. To-day the world honors the men who denied and +derided these gods.</p> +<p>Fourth.—The Principal of King's College ventures to +suggest that "the word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant +significance; perhaps it is right that it should."</p> +<p>A few years ago the word infidel did carry "an unpleasant +significance." A few years ago its significance was so unpleasant +that the man to whom the word was applied found himself in prison +or at the stake. In particularly kind communities he was put in the +stocks, pelted with offal, derided by hypocrites, scorned by +ignorance, jeered by cowardice, and all the priests passed by on +the other side.</p> +<p>There was a time when Episcopalians were regarded as infidels; +when a true Catholic looked upon a follower of Henry VIII. as an +infidel, as an unbeliever; when a true Catholic held in detestation +the man who preferred a murderer and adulterer—a man who +swapped religions for the sake of exchanging wives—to the +Pope, the head of the universal church.</p> +<p>It is easy enough to conceive of an honest man denying the +claims of a church based on the caprice of an English king. The +word infidel "carries an unpleasant significance" only where the +Christians are exceedingly ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, cruel, +and unmannerly.</p> +<p>The real gentleman gives to others the rights that he claims for +himself. The civilized man rises far above the bigotry of one who +has been "born again." Good breeding is far gentler than "universal +love."</p> +<p>It is natural for the church to hate an unbeliever—natural +for the pulpit to despise one who refuses to subscribe, who refuses +to give. It is a question of revenue instead of religion. The +Episcopal Church has the instinct of self-preservation. It uses its +power, its influence, to compel contribution. It forgives the +giver.</p> +<p>Fifth.—The Principal of King's College insists that "it +is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to +say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ."</p> +<p>Should it be an unpleasant thing for a man to say plainly what +he believes? Can this be unpleasant except in an uncivilized +community—a community in which an uncivilized church has +authority?</p> +<p>Why should not a man be as free to say that he does not believe +as to say that he does believe? Perhaps the real question is +whether all men have an equal right to express their opinions. Is +it the duty of the minority to keep silent? Are majorities always +right? If the minority had never spoken, what to-day would have +been the condition of this world? Are the majority the pioneers of +progress, or does the pioneer, as a rule, walk alone? Is it his +duty to close his lips? Must the inventor allow his inventions to +die in the brain? Must the discoverer of new truths make of his +mind a tomb? Is man under any obligation to his fellows? Was the +Episcopal religion always in the majority? Was it at any time in +the history of the world an unpleasant thing to be called a +Protestant? Did the word Protestant "carry an unpleasant +significance"? Was it "perhaps right that it should"? Was Luther a +misfortune to the human race?</p> +<p>If a community is thoroughly civilized, why should it be an +unpleasant thing for a man to express his belief in respectful +language? If the argument is against him, it might be unpleasant; +but why should simple numbers be the foundation of unpleasantness? +If the majority have the facts,—if they have the +argument,—why should they fear the mistakes of the minority? +Does any theologian hate the man he can answer?</p> +<p>It is claimed by the Episcopal Church that Christ was in fact +God; and it is further claimed that the New Testament is an +inspired account of what that being and his disciples did and said. +Is there any obligation resting on any human being to believe this +account? Is it within the power of man to determine the influence +that testimony shall have upon his mind?</p> +<p>If one denies the existence of devils, does he, for that reason, +cease to believe in Jesus Christ? Is it not possible to imagine +that a great and tender soul living in Palestine nearly twenty +centuries ago was misunderstood? Is it not within the realm of the +possible that his words have been inaccurately reported? Is it not +within the range of the probable that legend and rumor and +ignorance and zeal have deformed his life and belittled his +character?</p> +<p>If the man Christ lived and taught and suffered, if he was, in +reality, great and noble, who is his friend—the one who +attributes to him feats of jugglery, or he who maintains that these +stories were invented by zealous ignorance and believed by +enthusiastic credulity?</p> +<p>If he claimed to have wrought miracles, he must have been either +dishonest or insane; consequently, he who denies miracles does what +little he can to rescue the reputation of a great and splendid +man.</p> +<p>The Agnostic accepts the good he did, the truth he said, and +rejects only that which, according to his judgment, is inconsistent +with truth and goodness.</p> +<p>The Principal of King's College evidently believes in the +necessity of belief. He puts conviction or creed or credulity in +place of character. According to his idea, it is impossible to win +the approbation of God by intelligent investigation and by the +expression of honest conclusions. He imagines that the Infinite is +delighted with credulity, with belief without evidence, faith +without question.</p> +<p>Man has but little reason, at best; but this little should be +used. No matter how small the taper is, how feeble the ray of light +it casts, it is better than darkness, and no man should be rewarded +for extinguishing the light he has.</p> +<p>We know now, if we know anything, that man in this, the +nineteenth century, is better capable of judging as to the +happening of any event, than he ever was before. We know that the +standard is higher to-day—we know that the intellectual light +is greater—we know that the human mind is better equipped to +deal with all questions of human interest, than at any other time +within the known history of the human race.</p> +<p>It will not do to say that "our Lord and his apostles must at +least be regarded as honest men." Let this be admitted, and what +does it prove? Honesty is not enough. Intelligence and honesty must +go hand in hand. We may admit now that "our Lord and his apostles" +were perfectly honest men; yet it does not follow that we have a +truthful account of what they said and of what they did. It is not +pretended that "our Lord" wrote anything, and it is not known that +one of the apostles ever wrote a word. Consequently, the most that +we can say is that somebody has written something about "our Lord +and his apostles." Whether that somebody knew or did not know is +unknown to us. As to whether what is written is true or false, we +must judge by that which is written.</p> +<p>First of all, is it probable? is it within the experience of +mankind? We should judge of the gospels as we judge of other +histories, of other biographies. We know that many biographies +written by perfectly honest men are not correct. We know, if we +know anything, that honest men can be mistaken, and it is not +necessary to believe everything that a man writes because we +believe he was honest. Dishonest men may write the truth.</p> +<p>At last the standard or criterion is for each man to judge +according to what he believes to be human experience. We are +satisfied that nothing more wonderful has happened than is now +happening. We believe that the present is as wonderful as the past, +and just as miraculous as the future. If we are to believe in the +truth of the Old Testament, the word evidence loses its meaning; +there ceases to be any standard of probability, and the mind simply +accepts or denies without reason.</p> +<p>We are told that certain miracles were performed for the purpose +of attesting the mission and character of Christ. How can these +miracles be verified? The miracles of the Middle Ages rest upon +substantially the same evidence. The same may be said of the +wonders of all countries and of all ages. How is it a virtue to +deny the miracles of Mohammed and to believe those attributed to +Christ?</p> +<p>You may say of St. Augustine that what he said was true or +false. We know that much of it was false; and yet we are not +justified in saying that he was dishonest. Thousands of errors have +been propagated by honest men. As a rule, mistakes get their wings +from honest people. The testimony of a witness to the happening of +the impossible gets no weight from the honesty of the witness. The +fact that falsehoods are in the New Testament does not tend to +prove that the writers were knowingly untruthful. No man can be +honest enough to substantiate, to the satisfaction of reasonable +men, the happening of a miracle.</p> +<p>For this reason it makes not the slightest difference whether +the writers of the New Testament were honest or not. Their +character is not involved. Whenever a man rises above his +contemporaries, whenever he excites the wonder of his fellows, his +biographers always endeavor to bridge over the chasm between the +people and this man, and for that purpose attribute to him the +qualities which in the eyes of the multitude are desirable.</p> +<p>Miracles are demanded by savages, and, consequently, the savage +biographer attributes miracles to his hero. What would we think now +of a man who, in writing the life of Charles Darwin, should +attribute to him supernatural powers? What would we say of an +admirer of Humboldt who should claim that the great German could +cast out devils? We would feel that Darwin and Humboldt had been +belittled; that the biographies were written for children and by +men who had not outgrown the nursery.</p> +<p>If the reputation of "our Lord" is to be preserved—if he +is to stand with the great and splendid of the earth—if he is +to continue a constellation in the intellectual heavens, all claim +to the miraculous, to the supernatural, must be abandoned.</p> +<p>No one can overestimate the evils that have been endured by the +human race by reason of a departure from the standard of the +natural. The world has been governed by jugglery, by +sleight-of-hand. Miracles, wonders, tricks, have been regarded as +of far greater importance than the steady, the sublime and unbroken +march of cause and effect. The improbable has been established by +the impossible. Falsehood has furnished the foundation for +faith.</p> +<p>Is the human body at present the residence of evil spirits, or +have these imps of darkness perished from the world? Where are +they? If the New Testament establishes anything, it is the +existence of innumerable devils, and that these satanic beings +absolutely took possession of the human mind. Is this true? Can +anything be more absurd? Does any intellectual man who has examined +the question believe that depraved demons live in the bodies of +men? Do they occupy space? Do they live upon some kind of food? Of +what shape are they? Could they be classified by a naturalist? Do +they run or float or fly? If to deny the existence of these +supposed beings is to be an infidel, how can the word infidel +"carry an unpleasant significance"?</p> +<p>Of course it is the business of the principals of most colleges, +as well as of bishops, cardinals, popes, priests, and clergymen to +insist upon the existence of evil spirits. All these gentlemen are +employeed to counteract the influence of these supposed demons. Why +should they take the bread out of their own mouths? Is it to be +expected that they will unfrock themselves?</p> +<p>The church, like any other corporation, has the instinct of +self-preservation. It will defend itself; it will fight as long as +it has the power to change a hand into a fist.</p> +<p>The Agnostic takes the ground that human experience is the basis +of morality. Consequently, it is of no importance who wrote the +gospels, or who vouched or vouches for the genuineness of the +miracles. In his scheme of life these things are utterly +unimportant. He is satisfied that "the miraculous" is the +impossible. He knows that the witnesses were wholly incapable of +examining the questions involved, that credulity had possession of +their minds, that "the miraculous" was expected, that it was their +daily food.</p> +<p>All this is very clearly and delightfully stated by Professor +Huxley, and it hardly seems possible that any intelligent man can +read what he says without feeling that the foundation of all +superstition has been weakened. The article is as remarkable for +its candor as for its clearness. Nothing is +avoided—everything is met. No excuses are given.. He has left +all apologies for the other side. When you have finished what +Professor Huxley has written, you feel that your mind has been in +actual contact with the mind of another, that nothing has been +concealed; and not only so, but you feel that this mind is not only +willing, but anxious, to know the actual truth.</p> +<p>To me, the highest uses of philosophy are, first, to free the +mind of fear, and, second, to avert all the evil that can be +averted, through intelligence—that is to say, through a +knowledge of the conditions of well-being.</p> +<p>We are satisfied that the absolute is beyond our vision, beneath +our touch, above our reach. We are now convinced that we can deal +only with phenomena, with relations, with appearances, with things +that impress the senses, that can be reached by reason, by the +exercise of our faculties. We are satisfied that the reasonable +road is "the straight road," the only "sacred way."</p> +<p>Of course there is faith in the world—faith in this +world—and always will be, unless superstition succeeds in +every land. But the faith of the wise man is based upon facts. His +faith is a reasonable conclusion drawn from the known. He has faith +in the progress of the race, in the triumph of intelligence, in the +coming sovereignty of science. He has faith in the development of +the brain, in the gradual enlightenment of the mind. And so he +works for the accomplishment of great ends, having faith in the +final victory of the race.</p> +<p>He has honesty enough to say that he does not know. He perceives +and admits that the mind has limitations. He doubts the so-called +wisdom of the past. He looks for evidence, and he endeavors to keep +his mind free from prejudice. He believes in the manly virtues, in +the judicial spirit, and in his obligation to tell his honest +thoughts.</p> +<p>It is useless to talk about a destruction of consolations. That +which is suspected to be untrue loses its power to console. A man +should be brave enough to bear the truth.</p> +<p>Professor Huxley has stated with great clearness the attitude of +the Agnostic. It seems that he is somewhat severe on the Positive +Philosophy, While it is hard to see the propriety of worshiping +Humanity as a being, it is easy to understand the splendid dream of +August Comte. Is the human race worthy to be worshiped by +itself—that is to say, should the individual worship himself? +Certainly the religion of humanity is better than the religion of +the inhuman. The Positive Philosophy is better far than +Catholicism. It does not fill the heavens with monsters, nor the +future with pain.</p> +<p>It may be said that Luther and Comte endeavored to reform the +Catholic Church. Both were mistaken, because the only reformation +of which that church is capable is destruction. It is a mass of +superstition.</p> +<p>The mission of Positivism is, in the language of its founder, +"to generalize science and to systematize sociality." It seems to +me that Comte stated with great force and with absolute truth the +three phases of intellectual evolution or progress.</p> +<p>First.—"In the supernatural phase the mind seeks +causes—aspires to know the essence of things, and the How and +Why of their operation. In this phase, all facts are regarded as +the productions of supernatural agents, and unusual phenomena are +interpreted as the signs of the pleasure or displeasure of some +god."</p> +<p>Here at this point is the orthodox world of to-day. The church +still imagines that phenomena should be interpreted as the signs of +the pleasure or displeasure of God. Nearly every history is +deformed with this childish and barbaric view.</p> +<p>Second.—The next phase or modification, according to +Comte, is the metaphysical. "The supernatural agents are dispensed +with, and in their places we find abstract forces or entities +supposed to inhere in substances and capable of engendering +phenomena."</p> +<p>In this phase people talk about laws and principles as though +laws and principles were forces capable of producing phenomena.</p> +<p>Third.—"The last stage is the Positive. The mind, +convinced of the futility of all enquiry into causes and essences, +restricts itself to the observation and classification of +phenomena, and to the discovery of the invariable relations of +succession and similitude—in a word, to the discovery of the +relations of phenomena."</p> +<p>Why is not the Positive stage the point reached by the Agnostic? +He has ceased to inquire into the origin of things. He has +perceived the limitations of the mind. He is thoroughly convinced +of the uselessness and futility and absurdity of theological +methods, and restricts himself to the examination of phenomena, to +their relations, to their effects, and endeavors to find in the +complexity of things the true conditions of human happiness.</p> +<p>Although I am not a believer in the philosophy of Auguste Comte, +I cannot shut my eyes to the value of his thought; neither is it +possible for me not to applaud his candor, his intelligence, and +the courage it required even to attempt to lay the foundation of +the Positive Philosophy.</p> +<p>Professor Huxley and Frederic Harrison are splendid soldiers in +the army of Progress. They have attacked with signal success the +sacred and solemn stupidities of superstition. Both have appealed +to that which is highest and noblest in man. Both have been the +destroyers of prejudice. Both have shed light, and both have won +great victories on the fields of intellectual conflict. They cannot +afford to waste time in attacking each other.</p> +<p>After all, the Agnostic and the Positivist have the same end in +view—both believe in living for this world.</p> +<p>The theologians, finding themselves unable to answer the +arguments that have been urged, resort to the old +subterfuge—to the old cry that Agnosticism takes something of +value from the life of man. Does the Agnostic take any consolation +from the world? Does he blot out, or dim, one star in the heaven of +hope? Can there be anything more consoling than to feel, to know, +that Jehovah is not God—that the message of the Old Testament +is not from the infinite?</p> +<p>Is it not enough to fill the brain with a happiness unspeakable +to know that the words, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into +everlasting fire," will never be spoken to one of the children of +men?</p> +<p>Is it a small thing to lift from the shoulders of industry the +burdens of superstition? Is it a little thing to drive the monster +of fear from the hearts of men?—North American Review, April, +1889.</p> +<a name="link0012" id="link0012"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>ERNEST RENAN.</h2> +<pre> + "Blessed are those + Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled + That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger + To sound what stop she please." +</pre> +<p>ERNEST RENAN is dead. Another source of light; another force of +civilization; another charming personality; another brave soul, +graceful in thought, generous in deed; a sculptor in speech, a +colorist in words—clothing all in the poetry born of a +delightful union of heart and brain—has passed to the realm +of rest.</p> +<p>Reared under the influences of Catholicism, educated for the +priesthood, yet by reason of his natural genius, he began to think. +Forces that utterly subjugate and enslave the mind of mediocrity +sometimes rouse to thought and action the superior soul.</p> +<p>Renan began to think—a dangerous thing for a Catholic to +do. Thought leads to doubt, doubt to investigation, investigation +to truth—the enemy of all superstition.</p> +<p>He lifted the Catholic extinguisher from the light and flame of +reason. He found that his mental vision was improved. He read the +Scriptures for himself, examined them as he did other books not +claiming to be inspired. He found the same mistakes, the same +prejudices, the same miraculous impossibilities in the book +attributed to God that he found in those known to have been written +by men.</p> +<p>Into the path of reason, or rather into the highway, Renan was +led by Henriette, his sister, to whom he pays a tribute that has +the perfume of a perfect flower.</p> +<p>"I was," writes Renan, "brought up by women and priests, and +therein lies the whole explanation of my good qualities and of my +defects." In most that he wrote is the tenderness of woman, only +now and then a little touch of the priest showing itself, mostly in +a reluctance to spoil the ivy by tearing down some prison built by +superstition.</p> +<p>In spite of the heartless "scheme" of things he still found it +in his heart to say, "When God shall be complete, He will be just," +at the same time saying that "nothing proves to us that there +exists in the world a central consciousness—a soul of the +universe—and nothing proves the contrary." So, whatever was +the verdict of his brain, his heart asked for immortality. He +wanted his dream, and he was willing that others should have +theirs. Such is the wish and will of all great souls.</p> +<p>He knew the church thoroughly and anticipated what would finally +be written about him by churchmen: "Having some experience of +ecclesiastical writers I can sketch out in advance the way my +biography will be written in Spanish in some Catholic review, of +Santa Fé, in the year 2,000. Heavens! how black I shall be! +I shall be so all the more, because the church when she feels that +she is lost will end with malice. She will bite like a mad +dog."</p> +<p>He anticipated such a biography because he had thought for +himself, and because he had expressed his thoughts—because he +had declared that "our universe, within the reach of our +experience, is not governed by any intelligent reason. God, as the +common herd understand him, the living God, the acting +God—the God-Providence, does not show himself in the +universe"—because he attacked the mythical and the miraculous +in the life of Christ and sought to rescue from the calumnies of +ignorance and faith a serene and lofty soul.</p> +<p>The time has arrived when Jesus must become a myth or a man. The +idea that he was the infinite God must be abandoned by all who are +not religiously insane. Those who have given up the claim that he +was God, insist that he was divinely appointed and illuminated; +that he was a perfect man—the highest possible type of the +human race and, consequently, a perfect example for all the +world.</p> +<p>As time goes on, as men get wider or grander or more complex +ideas of life, as the intellectual horizon broadens, the idea that +Christ was perfect may be modified.</p> +<p>The New Testament seems to describe several individuals under +the same name, or at least one individual who passed through +several stages or phases of religious development. Christ is +described as a devout Jew, as one who endeavored to comply in all +respects with the old law. Many sayings are attributed to him +consistent with this idea. He certainly was a Hebrew in belief and +feeling when he said, "Swear not by Heaven, because it is God's +throne, nor by earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, +for it is his holy city." These reasons were in exact accordance +with the mythology of the Jews. God was regarded simply as an +enormous man, as one who walked in the garden in the cool of the +evening, as one who had met man face to face, who had conversed +with Moses for forty days upon Mount Sinai, as a great king, with a +throne in the heavens, using the earth to rest his feet upon, and +regarding Jerusalem as his holy city.</p> +<p>Then we find plenty of evidence that he wished to reform the +religion of the Jews; to fulfill the law, not to abrogate it Then +there is still another change: he has ceased his efforts to reform +that religion and has become a destroyer. He holds the Temple in +contempt and repudiates the idea that Jerusalem is the holy city. +He concludes that it is unnecessary to go to some mountain or some +building to worship or to find God, and insists that the heart is +the true temple, that ceremonies are useless, that all pomp and +pride and show are needless, and that it is enough to worship God +under heaven's dome, in spirit and in truth.</p> +<p>It is impossible to harmonize these views unless we admit that +Christ was the subject of growth and change; that in consequence of +growth and change he modified his views; that, from wanting to +preserve Judaism as it was, he became convinced that it ought to be +reformed. That he then abandoned the idea of reformation, and made +up his mind that the only reformation of which the Jewish religion +was capable was destruction. If he was in fact a man, then the +course he pursued was natural; but if he was God, it is perfectly +absurd. If we give to him perfect knowledge, then it is impossible +to account for change or growth. If, on the other hand, the ground +is taken that he was a perfect man, then, it might be asked, Was he +perfect when he wished to preserve, or when he wished to reform, or +when he resolved to destroy, the religion of the Jews? If he is to +be regarded as perfect, although not divine, when did he reach +perfection?</p> +<p>It is perfectly evident that Christ, or the character that bears +that name, imagined that the world was about to be destroyed, or at +least purified by fire, and that, on account of this curious +belief, he became the enemy of marriage, of all earthly ambition +and of all enterprise. With that view in his mind, he said to +himself, "Why should we waste our energies in producing food for +destruction? Why should we endeavor to beautify a world that is so +soon to perish?" Filled with the thought of coming change, he +insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for +each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for the ties of +kindred, nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of +the coming disaster. He should take care of himself. He endeavored, +as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the +dead, bury the dead, and follow him. He told his disciples, or +those he wished to make his disciples, according to the Testament, +that it was their duty to desert wife and child and property, and +if they would so desert kindred and wealth, he would reward them +here and hereafter.</p> +<p>We know now—if we know anything—that Jesus was +mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was +greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing +that the end was near, he said, "Take no thought for the morrow, +what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be +clothed." It was in view of the destruction of the world that he +called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not +and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of its raiment. Having made +this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say +that he was perfect in knowledge.</p> +<p>He is regarded by many millions as the impersonation of +patience, of forbearance, of meekness and mercy, and yet, according +to the account, he said many extremely bitter words, and threatened +eternal pain.</p> +<p>We also know, if the account be true, that he claimed to have +supernatural power, to work miracles, to cure the blind and to +raise the dead, and we know that he did nothing of the kind. So if +the writers of the New Testament tell the truth as to what Christ +claimed, it is absurd to say that he was a perfect man. If honest, +he was deceived, and those who are deceived are not perfect.</p> +<p>There is nothing in the New Testament, so far as we know, that +touches on the duties of nation to nation, or of nation to its +citizens; nothing of human liberty; not one word about education; +not the faintest hint that there is such a thing as science; +nothing calculated to stimulate industry, commerce, or invention; +not one word in favor of art, of music or anything calculated to +feed or clothe the body, nothing to develop the brain of man.</p> +<p>When it is assumed that the life of Christ, as described in the +New Testament, is perfect, we at least take upon ourselves the +burden of deciding what perfection is. People who asserted that +Christ was divine, that he was actually God, reached the +conclusion, without any laborious course of reasoning, that all he +said and did was absolute perfection. They said this because they +had first been convinced that he was divine. The moment his +divinity is given up and the assertion is made that he was perfect, +we are not permitted to reason in that way. They said he was God, +therefore perfect. Now, if it is admitted that he was human, the +conclusion that he was perfect does not follow. We then take the +burden upon ourselves of deciding what perfection is. To decide +what is perfect is beyond the powers of the human mind.</p> +<p>Renan, in spite of his education, regarded Christ as a man, and +did the best he could to account for the miracles that had been +attributed to him, for the legends that had gathered about his +name, and the impossibilities connected with his career, and also +tried to account for the origin or birth of these miracles, of +these legends, of these myths, including the resurrection and +ascension. I am not satisfied with all the conclusions he reached +or with all the paths he traveled. The refraction of light caused +by passing through a woman's tears is hardly a sufficient +foundation for a belief in so miraculous a miracle as the bodily +ascension of Jesus Christ.</p> +<p>There is another thing attributed to Christ that seems to me +conclusive evidence against the claim of perfection. Christ is +reported to have said that all sins could be forgiven except the +sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin, however, is not defined. +Although Christ died for the whole world, that through him all +might be saved, there is this one terrible exception: There is no +salvation for those who have sinned, or who may hereafter sin, +against the Holy Ghost. Thousands of persons are now in asylums, +having lost their reason because of their fear that they had +committed this unknown, this undefined, this unpardonable sin.</p> +<p>It is said that a Roman Emperor went through a form of +publishing his laws or proclamations, posting them so high on +pillars that they could not be read, and then took the lives of +those who ignorantly violated these unknown laws. He was regarded +as a tyrant, as a murderer. And yet, what shall we say of one who +declared that the sin against the Holy Ghost was the only one that +could not be forgiven, and then left an ignorant world to guess +what that sin is? Undoubtedly this horror is an interpolation.</p> +<p>There is something like it in the Old Testament. It is asserted +by Christians that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all +law and of all civilization, and you will find lawyers insisting +that the Mosaic Code was the first information that man received on +the subject of law; that before that time the world was without any +knowledge of justice or mercy. If this be true the Jews had no +divine laws, no real instruction on any legal subject until the Ten +Commandments were given. Consequently, before that time there had +been proclaimed or published no law against the worship of other +gods or of idols. Moses had been on Mount Sinai talking with +Jehovah. At the end of the dialogue he received the Tables of Stone +and started down the mountain for the purpose of imparting this +information to his followers. When he reached the camp he heard +music. He saw people dancing, and he found that in his absence +Aaron and the rest of the people had cast a molten calf which they +were then worshiping. This so enraged Moses that he broke the +Tables of Stone and made preparations for the punishment of the +Jews. Remember that they knew nothing about this law, and, +according to the modern Christian claims, could not have known that +it was wrong to melt gold and silver and mould it in the form of a +calf. And yet Moses killed about thirty thousand of these people +for having violated a law of which they had never heard; a law +known only to one man and one God. Nothing could be more unjust, +more ferocious, than this; and yet it can hardly be said to exceed +in cruelty the announcement that a certain sin was unpardonable and +then fail to define the sin. Possibly, to inquire what the sin is, +is the sin.</p> +<p>Renan regards Jesus as a man, and his work gets its value from +the fact that it is written from a human standpoint. At the same +time he, consciously or unconsciously, or may be for the purpose of +sprinkling a little holy water on the heat of religious +indignation, now and then seems to speak of him as more than human, +or as having accomplished something that man could not.</p> +<p>He asserts that "the Gospels are in part legendary; that they +contain many things not true; that they are full of miracles and of +the supernatural." At the same time he insists that these legends, +these miracles, these supernatural things do not affect the truth +of the probable things contained in these writings. He sees, and +sees clearly, that there is no evidence that Matthew or Mark or +Luke or John wrote the books attributed to them; that, as a matter +of fact, the mere title of "according to Matthew," "according to +Mark," shows that they were written by others who claimed them to +be in accordance with the stories that had been told by Matthew or +by Mark. So Renan takes the ground that the Gospel of Luke is +founded on anterior documents and "is the work of a man who +selected, pruned and combined, and that the same man wrote the Acts +of the Apostles and in the same way."</p> +<p>The gospels were certainly written long after the events +described, and Renan finds the reason for this in the fact that the +Christians believed that the world was about to end; that, +consequently, there was no need of composing books; it was only +necessary for them to preserve in their hearts during the little +margin of time that remained a lively image of Him whom they soon +expected to meet in the clouds. For this reason the gospels +themselves had but little authority for 150 years, the Christians +relying on oral traditions. Renan shows that there was not the +slightest scruple about inserting additions in the gospels, +variously combining them, and in completing some by taking parts +from others; that the books passed from hand to hand, and that each +one transcribed in the margin of his copy the words and parables he +had found elsewhere which touched him; that it was not until human +tradition became weakened that the text bearing the names of the +apostles became authoritative.</p> +<p>Renan has criticised the gospels somewhat in the same spirit +that he would criticise a modern work. He saw clearly that the +metaphysics filling the discourses of John were deformities and +distortions, full of mysticism, having nothing to do really with +the character of Jesus. He shows too "that the simple idea of the +Kingdom of God, at the time the Gospel according to St. John was +written, had faded away; that the hope of the advent of Christ was +growing dim, and that from belief the disciples passed into +discussion, from discussion to dogma, from dogma to ceremony," and, +finding that the new Heaven and the new Earth were not coming as +expected, they turned their attention to governing the old Heaven +and the old Earth. The disciples were willing to be humble for a +few days, with the expectation of wearing crowns forever. They were +satisfied with poverty, believing that the wealth of the world was +to be theirs. The coming of Christ, however, being for some +unaccountable reason delayed, poverty and humility grew irksome, +and human nature began to assert itself.</p> +<p>In the Gospel of John you will find the metaphysics of the +church. There you find the Second Birth. There you find the +doctrine of the atonement clearly set forth. There you find that +God died for the whole world, and that whosoever believeth not in +him is to be damned. There is nothing of the kind in Matthew. +Matthew makes Christ say that, if you will forgive others, God will +forgive you. The Gospel "according to Mark" is the same. So is the +Gospel "according to Luke." There is nothing about salvation +through belief, nothing about the atonement. In Mark, in the last +chapter, the apostles are told to go into all the world and preach +the gospel, with the statement that whoever believed and was +baptised should be saved, and whoever failed to believe should be +damned. But we now know that that is an interpolation. +Consequently, Matthew, Mark and Luke never had the faintest +conception of the "Christian religion." They knew nothing of the +atonement, nothing of salvation by faith—nothing. So that if +a man had read only Matthew, Mark and Luke, and had strictly +followed what he found, he would have found himself, after death, +in perdition.</p> +<p>Renan finds that certain portions of the Gospel "according to +John" were added later; that the entire twenty-first chapter is an +interpolation; also, that many places bear the traces of erasures +and corrections. So he says that it would be "impossible for any +one to compose a life of Jesus, with any meaning in it, from the +discourses which John attributes to him, and he holds that this +Gospel of John is full of preaching, Christ demonstrating himself; +full of argumentation, full of stage effect, devoid of simplicity, +with long arguments after each miracle, stiff and awkward +discourses, the tone of which is often false and unequal." He also +insists that there are evidently "artificial portions, variations +like that of a musician improvising on a given theme."</p> +<p>In spite of all this, Renan, willing to soothe the prejudice of +his time, takes the ground that the four canonical gospels are +authentic, that they date from the first century, that the authors +were, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed; but he +insists that their historic value is very diverse. This is a +back-handed stroke. Admitting, first, that they are authentic; +second, that they were written about the end of the first century; +third, that they are not of equal value, disposes, so far as he is +concerned, of the dogma of inspiration.</p> +<p>One is at a loss to understand why four gospels should have been +written. As a matter of fact there can be only one true account of +any occurrence, or of any number of occurrences. Now, it must be +taken for granted, that an inspired account is true. Why then +should there be four inspired accounts? It may be answered that all +were not to write the entire story. To this the reply is that all +attempted to cover substantially the same ground.</p> +<p>Many years ago the early fathers thought it necessary to say why +there were four inspired books, and some of them said, because +there were four cardinal directions and the gospels fitted the +north, south, east and west. Others said that there were four +principal winds—a gospel for each wind. They might have added +that some animals have four legs.</p> +<p>Renan admits that the narrative portions have not the same +authority; "that many legends proceeded from the zeal of the second +Christian generation; that the narrative of Luke is historically +weak; that sentences attributed to Jesus have been distorted and +exaggerated; that the book was written outside of Palestine and +after the siege of Jerusalem; that Luke endeavors to make the +different narratives agree, changing them for that purpose; that he +softens the passages which had become embarrassing; that he +exaggerated the marvelous, omitted errors in chronology; that he +was a compiler, a man who had not been an eye-witness himself, and +who had not seen eye-witnesses, but who labors at texts and wrests +their sense to make them agree." This certainly is very far from +inspiration. So "Luke interprets the documents according to his own +idea; being a kind of anarchist, opposed to property, and persuaded +that the triumph of the poor was approaching; that he was +especially fond of the anecdotes showing the conversion of sinners, +the exaltation of the humble, and that he modified ancient +traditions to give them this meaning."</p> +<p>Renan reached the conclusion that the gospels are neither +biographies after the manner of Suetonius nor fictitious legends in +the style of Philostratus, but that they are legendary biographies +like the legends of the saints, the lives of Plotinus and Isidore, +in which historical truth and the desire to present models of +virtue are combined in various degrees; that they are "inexact" +that they "contain numerous errors and discordances." So he takes +the ground that twenty or thirty years after Christ, his reputation +had greatly increased, that "legends had begun to gather about Him +like clouds," that "death added to His perfection, freeing Him from +all defects in the eyes of those who had loved Him, that His +followers wrested the prophecies so that they might fit Him. They +said, 'He is the Messiah.' The Messiah was to do certain things; +therefore Jesus did certain things. Then an account would be given +of the doing." All of which of course shows that there can be +maintained no theory of inspiration.</p> +<p>It is admitted that where individuals are witnesses of the same +transaction, and where they agree upon the vital points and +disagree upon details, the disagreement may be consistent with +their honesty, as tending to show that they have not agreed upon a +story; but if the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no +reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree +it is a demonstration that they were not inspired, but it is not a +demonstration that they are not honest. While perfect agreement may +be evidence of rehearsal, a failure to perfectly agree is not a +demonstration of the truth or falsity of a story; but if the +witnesses claim to be inspired, the slightest disagreement is a +demonstration that they were not inspired.</p> +<p>Renan reaches the conclusion, proving every step that he takes, +that the four principal documents—that is to say, the four +gospels—are in "flagrant contradiction one with another." He +attacks, and with perfect success, the miracles of the Scriptures, +and upon this subject says: "Observation, which has never once been +falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen, but in times and +countries in which they are believed and before persons disposed to +believe them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men +capable of testing its miraculous character." He further takes the +ground that no contemporary miracle will bear inquiry, and that +consequently it is probable that the miracles of antiquity which +have been performed in popular gatherings would be shown to be +simple illusion, were it possible to criticise them in detail. In +the name of universal experience he banishes miracles from history. +These were brave things to do, things that will bear good fruit. As +long as men believe in miracles, past or present they remain the +prey of superstition. The Catholic is taught that miracles were +performed anciently not only, but that they are still being +performed. This is consistent inconsistency. Protestants teach a +double doctrine: That miracles used to be performed, that the laws +of nature used to be violated, but that no miracle is performed +now. No Protestant will admit that any miracle was performed by the +Catholic Church. Otherwise, Protestants could not be justified in +leaving a church with whom the God of miracles dwelt. So every +Protestant has to adopt two kinds of reasoning: that the laws of +Nature used to be violated and that miracles used to be performed, +but that since the apostolic age Nature has had her way and the +Lord has allowed facts to exist and to hold the field. A +supernatural account, according to Renan, "always implies credulity +or imposture,"—probably both.</p> +<p>It does not seem possible to me that Christ claimed for himself +what the Testament claims for him. These claims were made by +admirers, by followers, by missionaries.</p> +<p>When the early Christians went to Rome they found plenty of +demigods. It was hard to set aside the religion of a demigod by +telling the story of a man from Nazareth. These missionaries, not +to be outdone in ancestry, insisted—and this was after the +Gospel "according to St. John" had been written—that Christ +was the Son of God. Matthew believed that he was the son of David, +and the Messiah, and gave the genealogy of Joseph, his father, to +support that claim.</p> +<p>In the time of Christ no one imagined that he was of divine +origin. This was an after-growth. In order to place themselves on +an equality with Pagans they started the claim of divinity, and +also took the second step requisite in that country: First, a god +for his father, and second, a virgin for his mother. This was the +Pagan combination of greatness, and the Christians added to this +that Christ was God.</p> +<p>It is hard to agree with the conclusion reached by Renan, that +Christ formed and intended to form a church. Such evidence, it +seems to me, is hard to find in the Testament. Christ seemed to +satisfy himself, according to the Testament, with a few statements, +some of them exceedingly wise and tender, some utterly +impracticable and some intolerant.</p> +<p>If we accept the conclusions reached by Renan we will throw +away, the legends without foundation; the miraculous legends; and +everything inconsistent with what we know of Nature. Very little +will be left—a few sayings to be found among those attributed +to Confucius, to Buddha, to Krishna, to Epictetus, to Zeno, and to +many others. Some of these sayings are full of wisdom, full of +kindness, and others rush to such extremes that they touch the +borders of insanity. When struck on one cheek to turn the other, is +really joining a conspiracy to secure the triumph of brutality. To +agree not to resist evil is to become an accomplice of all +injustice. We must not take from industry, from patriotism, from +virtue, the right of self-defence.</p> +<p>Undoubtedly Renan gave an honest transcript of his mind, the +road his thought had followed, the reasons in their order that had +occurred to him, the criticisms born of thought, and the +qualifications, softening phrases, children of old sentiments and +emotions that had not entirely passed away. He started, one might +say, from the altar and, during a considerable part of the journey, +carried the incense with him. The farther he got away, the greater +was his clearness of vision and the more thoroughly he was +convinced that Christ was merely a man, an idealist. But, +remembering the altar, he excused exaggeration in the "inspired" +books, not because it was from heaven, not because it was in +harmony with our ideas of veracity, but because the writers of the +gospel were imbued with the Oriental spirit of exaggeration, a +spirit perfectly understood by the people who first read the +gospels, because the readers knew the habits of the writers.</p> +<p>It had been contended for many years that no one could pass +judgment on the veracity of the Scriptures who did not understand +Hebrew. This position was perfectly absurd. No man needs to be a +student of Hebrew to know that the shadow on the dial did not go +back several degrees to convince a petty king that a boil was not +to be fatal. Renan, however, filled the requirement. He was an +excellent Hebrew scholar. This was a fortunate circumstance, +because it answered a very old objection.</p> +<p>The founder of Christianity was, for his own sake, taken from +the divine pedestal and allowed to stand like other men on the +earth, to be judged by what he said and did, by his theories, by +his philosophy, by his spirit.</p> +<p>No matter whether Renan came to a correct conclusion or not, his +work did a vast deal of good. He convinced many that implicit +reliance could not be placed upon the gospels, that the gospels +themselves are of unequal worth; that they were deformed by +ignorance and falsehood, or, at least, by mistake; that if they +wished to save the reputation of Christ they must not rely wholly +on the gospels, or on what is found in the New Testament, but they +must go farther and examine all legends touching him. Not only so, +but they must throw away the miraculous, the impossible and the +absurd.</p> +<p>He also has shown that the early followers of Christ endeavored +to add to the reputation of their Master by attributing to him the +miraculous and the foolish; that while these stories added to his +reputation at that time, since the world has advanced they must be +cast aside or the reputation of the Master must suffer.</p> +<p>It will not do now to say that Christ himself pretended to do +miracles. This would establish the fact at least that he was +mistaken. But we are compelled to say that his disciples insisted +that he was a worker of miracles. This shows, either that they were +mistaken or untruthful.</p> +<p>We all know that a sleight-of-hand performer could gain a +greater reputation among savages than Darwin or Humboldt; and we +know that the world in the time of Christ was filled with +barbarians, with people who demanded the miraculous, who expected +it; with people, in fact, who had a stronger belief in the +supernatural than in the natural; people who never thought it worth +while to record facts. The hero of such people, the Christ of such +people, with his miracles, cannot be the Christ of the thoughtful +and scientific.</p> +<p>Renan was a man of most excellent temper; candid; not striving +for victory, but for truth; conquering, as far as he could, the old +superstitions; not entirely free, it may be, but believing himself +to be so. He did great good. He has helped to destroy the fictions +of faith. He has helped to rescue man from the prison of +superstition, and this is the greatest benefit that man can bestow +on man.</p> +<p>He did another great service, not only to Jews, but to +Christendom, by writing the history of "The People of Israel." +Christians for many centuries have persecuted the Jews. They have +charged them with the greatest conceivable crime—with having +crucified an infinite God. This absurdity has hardened the hearts +of men and poisoned the minds of children. The persecution of the +Jews is the meanest, the most senseless and cruel page in history. +Every civilized Christian should feel on his cheeks the red spots +of shame as he reads the wretched and infamous story.</p> +<p>The flame of this prejudice is fanned and fed in the Sunday +schools of our day, and the orthodox minister points proudly to the +atrocities perpetrated against the Jews by the barbarians of Russia +as evidences of the truth of the inspired Scriptures. In every +wound God puts a tongue to proclaim the truth of his book.</p> +<p>If the charge that the Jews killed God were true, it is hardly +reasonable to hold those who are now living responsible for what +their ancestors did nearly nineteen centuries ago.</p> +<p>But there is another point in connection with this matter: If +Christ was God, then the Jews could not have killed him without his +consent; and, according to the orthodox creed, if he had not been +sacrificed, the whole world would have suffered eternal pain. +Nothing can exceed the meanness of the prejudice of Christians +against the Jewish people. They should not be held responsible for +their savage ancestors, or for their belief that Jehovah was an +intelligent and merciful God, superior to all other gods. Even +Christians do not wish to be held responsible for the Inquisition, +for the Torquemadas and the John Calvins, for the witch-burners and +the Quaker-whippers, for the slave-traders and child-stealers, the +most of whom were believers in our "glorious gospel," and many of +whom had been bom the second time.</p> +<p>Renan did much to civilize the Christians by telling the truth +in a charming and convincing way about the "People of Israel." Both +sides are greatly indebted to him: one he has ably defended, and +the other greatly enlightened.</p> +<p>Having done what good he could in giving what he believed was +light to his fellow-men, he had no fear of becoming a victim of +God's wrath, and so he laughingly said: "For my part I imagine that +if the Eternal in his severity were to send me to hell I should +succeed in escaping from it. I would send up to my Creator a +supplication that would make him smile. The course of reasoning by +which I would prove to him that it was through his fault that I was +damned would be so subtle that he would find some difficulty in +replying. The fate which would suit me best is Purgatory—a +charming place, where many delightful romances begun on earth must +be continued."</p> +<p>Such cheerfulness, such good philosophy, with cap and bells, +such banter and blasphemy, such sound and solid sense drive to +madness the priest who thinks the curse of Rome can fright the +world. How the snake of superstition writhes when he finds that his +fangs have lost their poison.</p> +<p>He was one of the gentlest of men—one of the fairest in +discussion, dissenting from the views of others with modesty, +presenting his own with clearness and candor. His mental manners +were excellent. He was not positive as to the "unknowable." He said +"Perhaps." He knew that knowledge is good if it increases the +happiness of man; and he felt that superstition is the assassin of +liberty and civilization. He lived a life of cheerfulness, of +industry, devoted to the welfare of mankind.</p> +<p>He was a seeker of happiness by the highway of the natural, a +destroyer of the dogmas of mental deformity, a worshiper of Liberty +and the Ideal. As he lived, he died—hopeful and +serene—and now, standing in imagination by his grave, we ask: +Will the night be eternal? The brain says, Perhaps; while the heart +hopes for the Dawn.—North American Review, November, +1892.</p> +<a name="link0013" id="link0013"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>TOLSTOÏ AND "THE KREUTZER SONATA."</h2> +<p>COUNT TOLSTOÏ is a man of genius. He is acquainted with +Russian life from the highest to the lowest—that is to say, +from the worst to the best. He knows the vices of the rich and the +virtues of the poor. He is a Christian, a real believer in the Old +and New Testaments, an honest follower of the Peasant of Palestine. +He denounces luxury and ease, art and music; he regards a flower +with suspicion, believing that beneath every blossom lies a coiled +serpent. He agrees with Lazarus and denounces Dives and the +tax-gatherers. He is opposed, not only to doctors of divinity, but +of medicine.</p> +<p>From the Mount of Olives he surveys the world.</p> +<p>He is not a Christian like the Pope in the Vatican, or a +cardinal in a palace, or a bishop with revenues and retainers, or a +millionaire who hires preachers to point out the wickedness of the +poor, or the director of a museum who closes the doors on Sunday. +He is a Christian something like Christ.</p> +<p>To him this life is but a breathing-spell between the verdict +and the execution; the sciences are simply sowers of the seeds of +pride, of arrogance and vice. Shocked by the cruelties and +unspeakable horrors of war, he became a non-resistant and averred +that he would not defend his own body or that of his daughter from +insult and outrage. In this he followed the command of his Master: +"Resist not evil." He passed, not simply from war to peace, but +from one extreme to the other, and advocated a doctrine that would +leave the basest of mankind the rulers of the world. This was and +is the error of a great and tender soul.</p> +<p>He did not accept all the teachings of Christ at once. His +progress has been, judging from his writings, somewhat gradual; but +by accepting one proposition he prepared himself for the acceptance +of another. He is not only a Christian, but has the courage of his +convictions, and goes without hesitation to the logical conclusion. +He has another exceedingly rare quality; he acts in accordance with +his belief. His creed is translated into deed. He opposes the +doctors of divinity, because they darken and deform the teachings +of the Master. He denounces the doctors of medicine, because he +depends on Providence and the promises of Jesus Christ. To him that +which is called progress is, in fact, a profanation, and property +is a something that the organized few have stolen from the +unorganized many. He believes in universal labor, which is good, +each working for himself. He also believes that each should have +only the necessaries of life—which is bad. According to his +idea, the world ought to be filled with peasants. There should be +only arts enough to plough and sow and gather the harvest, to build +huts, to weave coarse cloth, to fashion clumsy and useful garments, +and to cook the simplest food. Men and women should not adorn their +bodies. They should not make themselves desirable or beautiful.</p> +<p>But even under such circumstances they might, like the Quakers, +be proud of humility and become arrogantly meek.</p> +<p>Tolstoi would change the entire order of human development. As a +matter of fact, the savage who adorns himself or herself with +strings of shells, or with feathers, has taken the first step +towards civilization. The tatooed is somewhat in advance of the +unfrescoed. At the bottom of all this is the love of approbation, +of the admiration of their fellows, and this feeling, this love, +cannot be torn from the human heart.</p> +<p>In spite of ourselves we are attracted by what to us is +beautiful, because beauty is associated with pleasure, with +enjoyment. The love of the well-formed, of the beautiful, is +prophetic of the perfection of the human race. It is impossible to +admire the deformed. They may be loved for their goodness or +genius, but never because of their deformity. There is within us +the love of proportion. There is a physical basis for the +appreciation of harmony, which is also a kind of proportion.</p> +<p>The love of the beautiful is shared with man by most animals. +The wings of the moth are painted by love, by desire. This is the +foundation of the bird's song. This love of approbation, this +desire to please, to be admired, to be loved, is in some way the +cause of all heroic, self-denying, and sublime actions.</p> +<p>Count Tolstoï, following parts of the New Testament, +regards love as essentially impure. He seems really to think that +there is a love superior to human love; that the love of man for +woman, of woman for man, is, after all, a kind of glittering +degradation; that it is better to love God than woman; better to +love the invisible phantoms of the skies than the children upon our +knees—in other words, that it is far better to love a heaven +somewhere else than to make one here. He seems to think that women +adorn themselves simply for the purpose of getting in their power +the innocent and unsuspecting men. He forgets that the best and +purest of human beings are controlled, for the most part +unconsciously, by the hidden, subtle tendencies of nature. He seems +to forget the great fact of "natural selection," and that the +choice of one in preference to all others is the result of forces +beyond the control of the individual. To him there seems to be no +purity in love, because men are influenced by forms, by the beauty +of women; and women, knowing this fact, according to him, act, and +consequently both are equally guilty. He endeavors to show that +love is a delusion; that at best it can last but for a few days; +that it must of necessity be succeeded by indifference, then by +disgust, lastly by hatred; that in every Garden of Eden is a +serpent of jealousy, and that the brightest days end with the yawn +of ennui.</p> +<p>Of course he is driven to the conclusion that life in this world +is without value, that the race can be perpetuated only by vice, +and that the practice of the highest virtue would leave the world +without the form of man. Strange as it may sound to some, this is +the same conclusion reached by his Divine Master: "They did eat, +they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the +day that Noe entered the ark and the flood came and destroyed them +all." "Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or +sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for +my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit +everlasting life."</p> +<p>According to Christianity, as it really is and really was, the +Christian should have no home in this world—at least none +until the earth has been purified by fire. His affections should be +given to God; not to wife and children, not to friends or country. +He is here but for a time on a journey, waiting for the summons. +This life is a kind of dock running out into the sea of eternity, +on which he waits for transportation. Nothing here is of any +importance; the joys of life are frivolous and corrupting, and by +losing these few gleams of happiness in this world he will bask +forever in the unclouded rays of infinite joy. Why should a man +risk an eternity of perfect happiness for the sake of enjoying +himself a few days with his wife and children? Why should he become +an eternal outcast for the sake of having a home and fireside +here?</p> +<p>The "Fathers" of the church had the same opinion of marriage. +They agreed with Saint Paul, and Tolstoï agrees with them. +They had the same contempt for wives and mothers, and uttered the +same blasphemies against that divine passion that has filled the +world with art and song.</p> +<p>All this is to my mind a kind of insanity; nature soured or +withered—deformed so that celibacy is mistaken for virtue. +The imagination becomes polluted, and the poor wretch believes that +he is purer than his thoughts, holier than his desires, and that to +outrage nature is the highest form of religion. But nature +imprisoned, obstructed, tormented, always has sought for and has +always found revenge. Some of these victims, regarding the passions +as low and corrupting, feeling humiliated by hunger and thirst, +sought through maimings and mutilations the purification of the +soul.</p> +<p>Count Tolstoi in "The Kreutzer Sonata," has drawn, with a free +hand, one of the vilest and basest of men for his hero. He is +suspicious, jealous, cruel, infamous. The wife is infinitely too +good for such a wild unreasoning beast, and yet the writer of this +insane story seems to justify the assassin. If this is a true +picture of wedded life in Russia, no wonder that Count Tolstoï +looks forward with pleasure to the extinction of the human +race.</p> +<p>Of all passions that can take possession of the heart or brain +jealousy is the worst. For many generations the chemists sought for +the secret by which all metals could be changed to gold, and +through which the basest could become the best. Jealousy seeks +exactly the opposite. It endeavors to transmute the very gold of +love into the dross of shame and crime.</p> +<p>The story of "The Kreutzer Sonata" seems to have been written +for the purpose of showing that woman is at fault; that she has no +right to be attractive, no right to be beautiful; and that she is +morally responsible for the contour of her throat, for the pose of +her body, for the symmetry of her limbs, for the red of her lips, +and for the dimples in her cheeks.</p> +<p>The opposite of this doctrine is nearer true. It would be far +better to hold people responsible for their ugliness than for their +beauty. It may be true that the soul, the mind, in some wondrous +way fashions the body, and that to that extent every individual is +responsible for his looks. It may be that the man or woman thinking +high thoughts will give, necessarily, a nobility to expression and +a beauty to outline.</p> +<p>It is not true that the sins of man can be laid justly at the +feet of woman. Women are better than men; they have greater +responsibilities; they bear even the burdens of joy. This is the +real reason why their faults are considered greater.</p> +<p>Men and women desire each other, and this desire is a condition +of civilization, progress, and happiness, and of everything of real +value. But there is this profound difference in the sexes: in man +this desire is the foundation of love, while in woman love is the +foundation of this desire.</p> +<p>Tolstoï seems to be a stranger to the heart of woman.</p> +<p>Is it not wonderful that one who holds self-denial in such high +esteem should say, "That life is embittered by the fear of one's +children, and not only on account of their real or imaginary +illnesses, but even by their very presence"?</p> +<p>Has the father no real love for the children? Is he not paid a +thousand times through their caresses, their sympathy, their love? +Is there no joy in seeing their minds unfold, their affections +develop? Of course, love and anxiety go together. That which we +love we wish to protect. The perpetual fear of death gives love +intensity and sacredness. Yet Count Tolstoï gives us the +feelings of a father incapable of natural affection; of one who +hates to have his children sick because the orderly course of his +wretched life is disturbed. So, too, we are told that modern +mothers think too much of their children, care too much for their +health, and refuse to be comforted when they die. Lest these words +may be thought libellous, the following extract is given;</p> +<p>"In old times women consoled themselves with the belief, The +Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name +of the Lord. They consoled themselves with the thought that the +soul of the departed had returned to him who gave it; that it was +better to die innocent than to live in sin. If women nowadays had +such a comfortable faith to support them, they might take their +misfortunes less hard."</p> +<p>The conclusion reached by the writer is that without faith in +God, woman's love grovels in the mire.</p> +<p>In this case the mire is made by the tears of mothers falling on +the clay that hides their babes.</p> +<p>The one thing constant, the one peak that rises above all +clouds, the one window in which the light forever burns, the one +star that darkness cannot quench, is woman's love.</p> +<p>This one fact justifies the existence and the perpetuation of +the human race. Again I say that women are better than men; their +hearts are more unreservedly given; in the web of their lives +sorrow is inextricably woven with the greatest joys; self-sacrifice +is a part of their nature, and at the behest of love and maternity +they walk willingly and joyously down to the very gates of +death.</p> +<p>Is there nothing in this to excite the admiration, the +adoration, of a modern reformer? Are the monk and nun superior to +the father and mother?</p> +<p>The author of "The Kreutzer Sonata" is unconsciously the enemy +of mankind. He is filled with what might be called a merciless +pity, a sympathy almost malicious. Had he lived a few centuries +ago, he might have founded a religion; but the most he can now do +is, perhaps, to create the necessity for another asylum.</p> +<p>Count Tolstoi objects to music—not the ordinary kind, but +to great music, the music that arouses the emotions, that +apparently carries us beyond the limitations of life, that for the +moment seems to break the great chain of cause and effect, and +leaves the soul soaring and free. "Emotion and duty," he declares, +"do not go hand in hand." All art touches and arouses the emotional +nature. The painter, the poet, the sculptor, the composer, the +orator, appeal to the emotions, to the passions, to the hopes and +fears. The commonplace is transfigured; the cold and angular facts +of existence take form and color; the blood quickens; the fancies +spread their wings; the intellect grows sympathetic; the river of +life flows full and free; and man becomes capable of the noblest +deeds. Take emotion from the heart of man and the idea of +obligation would be lost; right and wrong would lose their meaning, +and the word "ought" would never again be spoken. We are subject to +conditions, liable to disease, pain, and death. We are capable of +ecstasy. Of these conditions, of these possibilities, the emotions +are born.</p> +<p>Only the conditionless can be the emotionless.</p> +<p>We are conditioned beings; and if the conditions are changed, +the result may be pain or death or greater joy. We can only live +within certain degrees of heat. If the weather were a few degrees +hotter or a few degrees colder, we could not exist. We need food +and roof and raiment. Life and happiness depend on these +conditions. We do not certainly know what is to happen, and +consequently our hopes and fears are constantly active—that +is to say, we are emotional beings. The generalization of +Tolstoï, that emotion never goes hand in hand with duty, is +almost the opposite of the truth. The idea of duty could not exist +without emotion. Think of men and women without love, without +desires, without passions? Think of a world without art or +music—a world without beauty, without emotion.</p> +<p>And yet there are many writers busy pointing out the +loathsomeness of love and their own virtues. Only a little while +ago an article appeared in one of the magazines in which all women +who did not dress according to the provincial prudery of the writer +were denounced as impure. Millions of refined and virtuous wives +and mothers were described as dripping with pollution because they +enjoyed dancing and were so well formed that they were not obliged +to cover their arms and throats to avoid the pity of their +associates. And yet the article itself is far more indelicate than +any dance or any dress, or even lack of dress. What a curious +opinion dried apples have of fruit upon the tree!</p> +<p>Count Tolstoï is also the enemy of wealth, of luxury. In +this he follows the New Testament. "It is easier for a camel to go +through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the +Kingdom of Heaven." He gathers his inspiration from the +commandment, "Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."</p> +<p>Wealth is not a crime any more than health or bodily or +intellectual strength. The weak might denounce the strong, the +sickly might envy the healthy, just as the poor may denounce or +envy the rich. A man is not necessarily a criminal because he is +wealthy. He is to be judged, not by his wealth, but by the way he +uses his wealth. The strong man can use his strength, not only for +the benefit of himself, but for the good of others. So a man of +intelligence can be a benefactor of the human race. Intelligence is +often used to entrap the simple and to prey upon the unthinking, +but we do not wish to do away with intelligence. So strength is +often used to tyrannize over the weak, and in the same way wealth +may be used to the injury of mankind. To sell all that you have and +give to the poor is not a panacea for poverty. The man of wealth +should help the poor man to help himself. Men cannot receive +without giving some consideration, and if they have not labor or +property to give, they give their manhood, their self-respect. +Besides, if all should obey this injunction, "Sell what thou hast +and give to the poor," who would buy? We know that thousands and +millions of rich men lack generosity and have but little feeling +for their fellows. The fault is not in the money, not in the +wealth, but in the individuals. They would be just as bad were they +poor. The only difference is that they would have less power. The +good man should regard wealth as an instrumentality, as an +opportunity, and he should endeavor to benefit his fellow-men, not +by making them the recipients of his charity, but by assisting them +to assist themselves. The desire to clothe and feed, to educate and +protect, wives and children, is the principal reason for making +money—one of the great springs of industry, prudence, and +economy.</p> +<p>Those who labor have a right to live. They have a right to what +they earn. He who works has a right to home and fireside and to the +comforts of life. Those who waste the spring, the summer, and the +autumn of their lives must bear the winter when it comes. Many of +our institutions are absurdly unjust. Giving the land to the few, +making tenants of the many, is the worst possible form of +socialism—of paternal government. In most of the nations of +our day the idlers and non-producers are either beggars or +aristocrats, paupers or princes, and the great middle laboring +class support them both. Rags and robes have a liking for each +other. Beggars and kings are in accord; they are all parasites, +living on the same blood, stealing the same labor—one by +beggary, the other by force. And yet in all this there can be found +no reason for denouncing the man who has accumulated. One who +wishes to tear down his bams and build greater has laid aside +something to keep the wolf of want from the door of home when he is +dead.</p> +<p>Even the beggars see the necessity of others working, and the +nobility see the same necessity with equal clearness. But it is +hardly reasonable to say that all should do the same kind of work, +for the reason that all have not the same aptitudes, the same +talents. Some can plough, others can paint; some can reap and mow, +while others can invent the instruments that save labor; some +navigate the seas; some work in mines; while others compose music +that elevates and refines the heart of the world.</p> +<p>But the worst thing in "The Kreutzer Sonata" is the declaration +that a husband can by force compel the wife to love and obey him. +Love is not the child of fear; it is not the result of force. No +one can love on compulsion. Even Jehovah found that it was +impossible to compel the Jews to love him. He issued his command to +that effect, coupled with threats of pain and death, but his chosen +people failed to respond.</p> +<p>Love is the perfume of the heart; it is not subject to the will +of husbands or kings or God.</p> +<p>Count Tolstoï would establish slavery in every house; he +would make every husband a tyrant and every wife a trembling serf. +No wonder that he regards such marriage as a failure. He is in +exact harmony with the curse of Jehovah when he said unto the +woman: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in +sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be +unto thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."</p> +<p>This is the destruction of the family, the pollution of home, +the crucifixion of love.</p> +<p>Those who are truly married are neither masters nor servants. +The idea of obedience is lost in the desire for the happiness of +each. Love is not a convict, to be detained with bolts and chains. +Love is the highest expression of liberty. Love neither commands +nor obeys.</p> +<p>The curious thing is that the orthodox world insists that all +men and women should obey the injunctions of Christ; that they +should take him as the supreme example, and in all things follow +his teachings. This is preached from countless pulpits, and has +been for many centuries. And yet the man who does follow the +Savior, who insists that he will not resist evil, who sells what he +has and gives to the poor, who deserts his wife and children for +the love of God, is regarded as insane.</p> +<p>Tolstoï, on most subjects, appears to be in accord with the +founder of Christianity, with the apostles, with the writers of the +New Testament, and with the Fathers of the church; and yet a +Christian teacher of a Sabbath school decides, in the capacity of +Postmaster-General, that "The Kreutzer Sonata" is unfit to be +carried in the mails.</p> +<p>Although I disagree with nearly every sentence in this book, +regard the story as brutal and absurd, the view of life presented +as cruel, vile, and false, yet I recognize the right of Count +Tolstoï to express his opinions on all subjects, and the right +of the men and women of America to read for themselves.</p> +<p>As to the sincerity of the author, there is not the slightest +doubt. He is willing to give all that he has for the good of his +fellow-men. He is a soldier in what he believes to be a sacred +cause, and he has the courage of his convictions. He is endeavoring +to organize society in accordance with the most radical utterances +that have been attributed to Jesus Christ. The philosophy of +Palestine is not adapted to an industrial and commercial age. +Christianity was born when the nation that produced it was dying. +It was a requiem—a declaration that life was a failure, that +the world was about to end, and that the hopes of mankind should be +lifted to another sphere. Tolstoï stands with his back to the +sunrise and looks mournfully upon the shadow. He has uttered many +tender, noble, and inspiring words. There are many passages in his +works that must have been written when his eyes were filled with +tears. He has fixed his gaze so intently on the miseries and +agonies of life that he has been driven to the conclusion that +nothing could be better than the effacement of the human race.</p> +<p>Some men, looking only at the faults and tyrannies of +government, have said: "Anarchy is better." Others, looking at the +misfortunes, the poverty, the crimes, of men, have, in a kind of +pitying despair, reached the conclusion that the best of all is +death. These are the opinions of those who have dwelt in +gloom—of the self-imprisoned.</p> +<p>By comparing long periods of time, we see that, on the whole, +the race is advancing; that the world is growing steadily, and +surely, better; that each generation enjoys more and suffers less +than its predecessor. We find that our institutions have the faults +of individuals. Nations must be composed of men and women; and as +they have their faults, nations cannot be perfect. The institution +of marriage is a failure to the extent, and only to the extent, +that the human race is a failure. Undoubtedly it is the best and +the most important institution that has been established by the +civilized world. If there is unhappiness in that relation, if there +is tyranny upon one side and misery upon the other, it is not the +fault of marriage. Take homes from the world and only wild beasts +are left.</p> +<p>We cannot cure the evils of our day and time by a return to +savagery. It is not necessary to become ignorant to increase our +happiness. The highway of civilization leads to the light. The time +will come when the human race will be truly enlightened, when labor +will receive its due reward, when the last institution begotten of +ignorance and savagery will disappear. The time will come when the +whole world will say that the love of man for woman, of woman for +man, of mother for child, is the highest, the noblest, the purest, +of which the heart is capable.</p> +<p>Love, human love, love of men and women, love of mothers +fathers, and babes, is the perpetual and beneficent force. Not the +love of phantoms, the love that builds cathedrals and dungeons, +that trembles and prays, that kneels and curses; but the real love, +the love that felled the forests, navigated the seas, subdued the +earth, explored continents, built countless homes, and founded +nations—the love that kindled the creative flame and wrought +the miracles of art, that gave us all there is of music, from the +cradle-song that gives to infancy its smiling sleep to the great +symphony that bears the soul away with wings of fire—the real +love, mother of every virtue and of every joy.—North American +Review, September, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0014" id="link0014"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THOMAS PAINE.</h2> +<h3>A MAGAZINE ARTICLE.</h3> +<pre> + "A great man's memory may outlive his life half a year, + But, by'r lady, he must build churches then." +</pre> +<p>EIGHTY-THREE years ago Thomas Paine ceased to defend himself. +The moment he became dumb all his enemies found a tongue. He was +attacked on every hand. The Tories of England had been waiting for +their revenge. The believers in kings, in hereditary government, +the nobility of every land, execrated his memory. Their greatest +enemy was dead. The believers in human slavery, and all who +clamored for the rights of the States as against the sovereignty of +a Nation, joined in the chorus of denunciation. In addition to +this, the believers in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the +occupants of orthodox pulpits, the professors in Christian +colleges, and the religious historians, were his sworn and +implacable foes.</p> +<p>This man had gratified no ambition at the expense of his +fellow-men; he had desolated no country with the flame and sword of +war; he had not wrung millions from the poor and unfortunate; he +had betrayed no trust, and yet he was almost universally despised. +He gave his life for the benefit of mankind. Day and night for +many, many weary years, he labored for the good of others, and gave +himself body and soul to the great cause of human liberty. And yet +he won the hatred of the people for whose benefit, for whose +emancipation, for whose civilization, for whose exaltation he gave +his life.</p> +<p>Against him every slander that malignity could coin and +hypocrisy pass was gladly and joyously taken as genuine, and every +truth with regard to his career was believed to be counterfeit. He +was attacked by thousands where he was defended by one, and the one +who defended him was instantly attacked, silenced, or +destroyed.</p> +<p>At last his life has been written by Moncure D. Conway, and the +real history of Thomas Paine, of what he attempted and +accomplished, of what he taught and suffered, has been +intelligently, truthfully and candidly given to the world. +Henceforth the slanderer will be without excuse.</p> +<p>He who reads Mr. Conway's pages will find that Thomas Paine was +more than a patriot—that he was a philanthropist—a +lover not only of his country, but of all mankind. He will find +that his sympathies were with those who suffered, without regard to +religion or race, country or complexion. He will find that this +great man did not hesitate to attack the governing class of his +native land—to commit what was called treason against the +king, that he might do battle for the rights of men; that in spite +of the prejudices of birth, he took the side of the American +Colonies; that he gladly attacked the political abuses and +absurdities that had been fostered by altars and thrones for many +centuries; that he was for the people against nobles and kings, and +that he put his life in pawn for the good of others.</p> +<p>In the winter of 1774, Thomas Paine came to America. After a +time he was employeed as one of the writers on the <i>Pennsylvania +Magazine.</i></p> +<p>Let us see what he did, calculated to excite the hatred of his +fellow-men.</p> +<p>The first article he ever wrote in America, and the first ever +published by him anywhere, appeared in that magazine on the 8th of +'March, 1775. It was an attack on American slavery—a plea for +the rights of the negro. In that article will be found +substantially all the arguments that can be urged against that most +infamous of all institutions. Every is full of humanity, pity, +tenderness, and love of justice.</p> +<p>Five days after this article appeared the American Anti-Slavery +Society was formed. Certainly this should not excite our hatred. +To-day the civilized world agrees with the essay written by Thomas +Paine in 1775.</p> +<p>At that time great interests were against him. The owners of +slaves became his enemies, and the pulpits, supported by slave +labor, denounced this abolitionist.</p> +<p>The next article published by Thomas Paine, in the same +magazine, and for the next month, was an attack on the practice of +dueling, showing that it was barbarous, that it did not even tend +to settle the right or wrong of a dispute, that it could not be +defended on any just grounds, and that its influence was degrading +and cruel. The civilized world now agrees with the opinions of +Thomas Paine upon that barbarous practice.</p> +<p>In May, 1775, appeared in the same magazine another article +written by Thomas Paine, a Protest Against Cruelty to Animals. He +began the work that was so successfully and gloriously carried out +by Henry Bergh, one of the noblest, one of the grandest, men that +this continent has produced.</p> +<p>The good people of this world agree with Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>In August of the same year he wrote a plea for the Rights of +Woman, the first ever published in the New World. Certainly he +should not be hated for that.</p> +<p>He was the first to suggest a union of the colonies. Before the +Declaration of Independence was issued, Paine had written of and +about the Free and Independent States of America. He had also +spoken of the United Colonies as the "Glorious Union," and he was +the first to write these words: "The United States of America."</p> +<p>In May, 1775, Washington said: "If you ever hear of me joining +in any such measure (as separation from Great Britain) you have my +leave to set me down for everything wicked." He had also said; "It +is not the wish or interest of the government (meaning +Massachusetts), or of any other upon this continent, separately or +collectively, to set up for independence." And in the same year +Benjamin Franklin assured Chatham that no one in America was in +favor of separation. As a matter of fact, the people of the +colonies wanted a redress of their grievances—they were not +dreaming of separation, of independence.</p> +<p>In 1775 Paine wrote the pamphlet known as "Common Sense." This +was published on the 10th of January, 1776. It was the first appeal +for independence, the first cry for national life, for absolute +separation. No pamphlet, no book, ever kindled such a sudden +conflagration,—a purifying flame, in which the prejudices and +fears of millions were consumed. To read it now, after the lapse of +more than a hundred years, hastens the blood. It is but the meagre +truth to say that Thomas Paine did more for the cause of +separation, to sow the seeds of independence, than any other man of +his time. Certainly we should not despise him for this. The +Declaration of Independence followed, and in that declaration will +be found not only the thoughts, but some of the expressions of +Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>During the war, and in the very darkest hours, Paine wrote what +is called "The Crisis," a series of pamphlets giving from time to +time his opinion of events, and his prophecies. These marvelous +publications produced an effect nearly as great as the pamphlet +"Common Sense." These strophes, written by the bivouac fires, had +in them the soul of battle.</p> +<p>In all he wrote, Paine was direct and natural. He touched the +very heart of the subject. He was not awed by names or titles, by +place or power. He never lost his regard for truth, for +principle—never wavered in his allegiance to reason, to what +he believed to be right. His arguments were so lucid, so +unanswerable, his comparisons and analogies so apt, so unexpected, +that they excited the passionate admiration of friends and the +unquenchable hatred of enemies. So great were these appeals to +patriotism, to the love of liberty, the pride of independence, the +glory of success, that it was said by some of the best and greatest +of that time that the American cause owed as much to the pen of +Paine as to the sword of Washington.</p> +<p>On the 2d day of November, 1779, there was introduced into the +Assembly of Pennsylvania an act for the abolition of slavery. The +preamble was written by Thomas Paine. To him belongs the honor and +glory of having written the first Proclamation of Emancipation in +America—Paine the first, Lincoln the last.</p> +<p>Paine, of all others, succeeded in getting aid for the +struggling colonies from France. "According to Lamartine, the King, +Louis XVI., loaded Paine with favors, and a gift of six millions +was confided into the hands of Franklin and Paine. On the 25th of +August, 1781, Paine reached Boston bringing two million five +hundred thousand livres in silver, and in convoy a ship laden with +clothing and military stores."</p> +<p>"In November, 1779, Paine was elected clerk to the General +Assembly of Pennsylvania. In 1780, the Assembly received a letter +from General Washington in the field, saying that he feared the +distresses in the army would lead to mutiny in the ranks. This +letter was read by Paine to the Assembly. He immediately wrote to +Blair McClenaghan, a Philadelphia merchant, explaining the urgency, +and inclosing five hundred dollars, the amount of salary due him as +clerk, as his contribution towards a relief fund. The merchant +called a meeting the next day, and read Paine's letter. A +subscription list was immediately circulated, and in a short time +about one million five hundred thousand dollars was raised. With +this capital the Pennsylvania bank—afterwards the bank of +North America—was established for the relief of the +army."</p> +<p>In 1783 "Paine wrote a memorial to Chancellor Livingston, +Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Robert Morris, Minister of Finance, +and his assistant, urging the necessity of adding a Continental +Legislature to Congress, to be elected by the several States. +Robert Morris invited the Chancellor and a number of eminent men to +meet Paine at dinner, where his plea for a stronger Union was +discussed and approved. This was probably the earliest of a series +of consultations preliminary to the Constitutional Convention."</p> +<p>"On the 19th of April, 1783, it being the eighth anniversary of +the Battle of Lexington, Paine printed a little pamphlet entitled +'Thoughts on Peace and the Probable Advantages Thereof.'" In this +pamphlet he pleads for "a supreme Nationality absorbing all +cherished sovereignties." Mr. Conway calls this pamphlet Paine's +"Farewell Address," and gives the following extract:</p> +<p>"It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force +with which it struck my mind, and the dangerous condition in which +the country was in, by courting an impossible and an unnatural +reconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, +instead of striking out into the only line that could save +her,—a Declaration of Independence.—made it impossible +for me, feeling as I did, to be silent; and if, in the course of +more than seven years, I have rendered her any service, I have +likewise added something to the reputation of literature, by freely +and disinterestedly employing it in the great cause of mankind.... +But as the scenes of war are closed, and every man preparing for +home and happier times, I therefore take leave of the subject. I +have most sincerely followed it from beginning to end, and through +all its turns and windings; and whatever country I may hereafter be +in, I shall always feel an honest pride at the part I have taken +and acted, and a gratitude to nature and providence for putting it +in my power to be of some use to mankind."</p> +<p>Paine had made some enemies, first, by attacking African +slavery, and, second, by insisting upon the sovereignty of the +Nation.</p> +<p>During the Revolution our forefathers, in order to justify +making war on Great Britain, were compelled to take the ground that +all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. +In no other way could they justify their action. After the war, the +meaner instincts began to take possession of the mind, and those +who had fought for their own liberty were perfectly willing to +enslave others. We must also remember that the Revolution was begun +and carried on by a noble minority—that the majority were +really in favor of Great Britain and did what they dared to prevent +the success of the American cause. The minority, however, had +control of affairs. They were active, energetic, enthusiastic, and +courageous, and the majority were overawed, shamed, and suppressed. +But when peace came, the majority asserted themselves and the +interests of trade and commerce were consulted. Enthusiasm slowly +died, and patriotism was mingled with the selfishness of +traffic.</p> +<p>But, after all, the enemies of Paine were few, the friends were +many. He had the respect and admiration of the greatest and the +best, and was enjoying the fruits of his labor.</p> +<p>The Revolution was ended, the colonies were free. They had been +united, they formed a Nation, and the United States of America had +a place on the map of the world.</p> +<p>Paine was not a politician. He had not labored for seven years +to get an office. His services were no longer needed in America. He +concluded to educate the English people, to inform them of their +rights, to expose the pretences, follies and fallacies, the crimes +and cruelties of nobles, kings, and parliaments. In the brain and +heart of this man were the dream and hope of the universal +republic. He had confidence in the people. He hated tyranny and +war, despised the senseless pomp and vain show of crowned robbers, +laughed at titles, and the "honorable" badges worn by the +obsequious and servile, by fawners and followers; loved liberty +with all his heart, and bravely fought against those who could give +the rewards of place and gold, and for those who could pay only +with thanks.</p> +<p>Hoping to hasten the day of freedom, he wrote the "Rights of +Man"—a book that laid the foundation for all the real liberty +that the English now enjoy—a book that made known to +Englishmen the Declaration of Nature, and convinced millions that +all are children of the same mother, entitled to share equally in +her gifts. Every Englishman who has outgrown the ideas of 1688 +should remember Paine with love and reverence. Every Englishman who +has sought to destroy abuses, to lessen or limit the prerogatives +of the crown, to extend the suffrage, to do away with "rotten +boroughs," to take taxes from knowledge, to increase and protect +the freedom of speech and the press, to do away with bribes under +the name of pensions, and to make England a government of +principles rather than of persons, has been compelled to adopt the +creed and use the arguments of Thomas Paine. In England every step +toward freedom has been a triumph of Paine over Burke and Pitt. No +man ever rendered a greater service to his native land.</p> +<p>The book called the "Rights of Man" was the greatest +contribution that literature had given to liberty. It rests on the +bed-rock. No attention is paid to precedents except to show that +they are wrong. Paine was not misled by the proverbs that wolves +had written for sheep. He had the intelligence to examine for +himself, and the courage to publish his conclusions. As soon as the +"Rights of Man" was published the Government was alarmed. Every +effort was made to suppress it. The author was indicted; those who +published, and those who sold, were arrested and imprisoned. But +the new gospel had been preached—a great man had shed +light—a new force had been born, and it was beyond the power +of nobles and kings to undo what the author-hero had done.</p> +<p>To avoid arrest and probable death, Paine left England. He had +sown with brave hand the seeds of thought, and he knew that he had +lighted a fire that nothing could extinguish until England should +be free.</p> +<p>The fame of Thomas Paine had reached France in many +ways—principally through Lafayette. His services in America +were well known. The pamphlet "Common Sense" had been published in +French, and its effect had been immense. "The Rights of Man" that +had created, and was then creating, such a stir in England, was +also known to the French. The lovers of liberty everywhere were the +friends and admirers of Thomas Paine. In America, England, +Scotland, Ireland, and France he was known as the defender of +popular rights. He had preached a new gospel. He had given a new +Magna Charta to the people.</p> +<p>So popular was Paine in France that he was elected by three +constituencies to the National Convention. He chose to represent +Calais. From the moment he entered French territory he was received +with almost royal honors. He at once stood with the foremost, and +was welcomed by all enlightened patriots. As in America, so in +France, he knew no idleness—he was an organizer and worker. +The first thing he did was to found the first Republican Society, +and the next to write its Manifesto, in which the ground was taken +that France did not need a king; that the people should govern +themselves. In this Manifesto was this argument:</p> +<p>"What kind of office must that be in a government which requires +neither experience nor ability to execute? that may be abandoned to +the desperate chance of birth; that may be filled with an idiot, a +madman, a tyrant, with equal effect as with the good, the virtuous, +the wise? An office of this nature is a mere nonentity; it is a +place of show, not of use."</p> +<p>He said:</p> +<p>"I am not the personal enemy of kings. Quite the contrary. No +man wishes more heartily than myself to see them all in the happy +and honorable state of private individuals; but I am the avowed, +open and intrepid enemy of what is called monarchy; and I am such +by principles which nothing can either alter or corrupt, by my +attachment to humanity, by the anxiety which I feel within myself +for the dignity and honor of the human race."</p> +<p>One of the grandest things done by Thomas Paine was his effort +to save the life of Louis XVI. The Convention was in favor of +death. Paine was a foreigner. His career had caused some +jealousies. He knew the danger he was in—that the tiger was +already crouching for a spring—but he was true to his +principles. He was opposed to the death penalty. He remembered that +Louis XVI. had been the friend of America, and he very cheerfully +risked his life, not only for the good of France, not only to save +the king, but to pay a debt of gratitude. He asked the Convention +to exile the king to the United States. He asked this as a member +of the Convention and as a citizen of the United States. As an +American he felt grateful not only to the king, but to every +Frenchman. He, the adversary of all kings, asked the Convention to +remember that kings were men, and subject to human frailties. He +took still another step, and said: "As France has been the first of +European nations to abolish royalty, let us also be the first to +abolish the punishment of death."</p> +<p>Even after the death of Louis had been voted, Paine made another +appeal. With a courage born of the highest possible sense of duty +he said:</p> +<p>"France has but one ally—the United States of America. +That is the only nation that can furnish France with naval +provisions, for the kingdoms of Northern Europe are, or soon will +be, at war with her. It happens that the person now under +discussion is regarded in America as a deliverer of their country. +I can assure you that his execution will there spread universal +sorrow, and it is in your power not thus to wound the feelings of +your ally. Could I speak the French language I would descend to +your bar, and in their name become your petitioner to respite the +execution of your sentence on Louis. Ah, citizens, give not the +tyrant of England the triumph of seeing the man perish on the +scaffold who helped my dear brothers of America to break his +chains."</p> +<p>This was worthy of the man who had said: "Where Liberty is +<i>not</i>, there is my country."</p> +<p>Paine was second on the committee to prepare the draft of a +constitution for France to be submitted to the Convention. He was +the real author, not only of the draft of the Constitution, but of +the Declaration of Rights.</p> +<p>In France, as in America, he took the lead. His first thoughts +seemed to be first principles. He was clear because he was +profound. People without ideas experience great difficulty in +finding words to express them.</p> +<p>From the moment that Paine cast his vote in favor of +mercy—in favor of life—the shadow of the guillotine was +upon him. He knew that when he voted for the King's life, he voted +for his own death. Paine remembered that the king had been the +friend of America, and to him ingratitude seemed the worst of +crimes. He worked to destroy the monarch, not the man; the king, +not the friend. He discharged his duty and accepted death. This was +the heroism of goodness—the sublimity of devotion.</p> +<p>Believing that his life was near its close, he made up his mind +to give to the world his thoughts concerning "revealed religion." +This he had for some time intended to do, but other matters had +claimed his attention. Feeling that there was no time to be lost, +he wrote the first part of the "Age of Reason," and gave the +manuscript to Joel Barlow. Six hours after, he was arrested. The +second part was written in prison while he was waiting for +death.</p> +<p>Paine clearly saw that men could not be really free, or defend +the freedom they had, unless they were free to think and speak. He +knew that the church was the enemy of liberty, that the altar and +throne were in partnership, that they helped each other and divided +the spoils.</p> +<p>He felt that, being a man, he had the right to examine the +creeds and the Scriptures for himself, and that, being an honest +man, it was his duty and his privilege to tell his fellow-men the +conclusions at which he arrived.</p> +<p>He found that the creeds of all orthodox churches were absurd +and cruel, and that the Bible was no better. Of course he found +that there were some good things in the creeds and in the Bible. +These he defended, but the infamous, the inhuman, he attacked.</p> +<p>In matters of religion he pursued the same course that he had in +things political. He depended upon experience, and above all on +reason. He refused to extinguish the light in his own soul. He was +true to himself, and gave to others his honest thoughts. He did not +seek wealth, or place, or fame. He sought the truth.</p> +<p>He had felt it to be his duty to attack the institution of +slavery in America, to raise his voice against dueling, to plead +for the rights of woman, to excite pity for the sufferings of +domestic animals, the speechless friends of man; to plead the cause +of separation, of independence, of American nationality, to attack +the abuses and crimes of mon-archs, to do what he could to give +freedom to the world.</p> +<p>He thought it his duty to take another step. Kings asserted that +they derived their power, their right to govern, from God. To this +assertion Paine replied with the "Rights of Man." Priests pretended +that they were the authorized agents of God. Paine replied with the +"Age of Reason."</p> +<p>This book is still a power, and will be as long as the +absurdities and cruelties of the creeds and the Bible have +defenders. The "Age of Reason" affected the priests just as the +"Rights of Man" affected nobles and kings. The kings answered the +arguments of Paine with laws, the priests with lies. Kings appealed +to force, priests to fraud. Mr. Conway has written in regard to the +"Age of Reason" the most impressive and the most interesting +chapter in his book.</p> +<p>Paine contended for the rights of the individual,—tor the +jurisdiction of the soul. Above all religions he placed Reason, +above all kings, Men, and above all men, Law.</p> +<p>The first part of the "Age of Reason" was written in the shadow +of a prison, the second part in the gloom of death. From that +shadow, from that gloom, came a flood of light. This testament, by +which the wealth of a marvelous brain, the love of a great and +heroic heart were given to the world, was written in the presence +of the scaffold, when the writer believed he was giving his last +message to his fellow-men.</p> +<p>The "Age of Reason" was his crime.</p> +<p>Franklin, Jefferson, Sumner and Lincoln, the four greatest +statesmen that America has produced, were believers in the creed of +Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>The Universalists and Unitarians have found their best weapons, +their best arguments, in the "Age of Reason."</p> +<p>Slowly, but surely, the churches are adopting not only the +arguments, but the opinions of the great Reformer.</p> +<p>Theodore Parker attacked the Old Testament and Calvinistic +theology with the same weapons and with a bitterness excelled by no +man who has expressed his thoughts in our language.</p> +<p>Paine was a century in advance of his time. If he were living +now his sympathy would be with Savage, Chadwick, Professor Briggs +and the "advanced theologians." He, too, would talk about the +"higher criticism" and the latest definition of "inspiration." +These advanced thinkers substantially are repeating the "Age of +Reason." They still wear the old uniform—clinging to the +toggery of theology—but inside of their religious rags they +agree with Thomas Paine.</p> +<p>Not one argument that Paine urged against the inspiration of the +Bible, against the truth of miracles, against the barbarities and +infamies of the Old Testament, against the pretensions of priests +and the claims of kings, has ever been answered.</p> +<p>His arguments in favor of the existence of what he was pleased +to call the God of Nature were as weak as those of all Theists have +been. But in all the affairs of this world, his clearness of +vision, lucidity of expression, cogency of argument, aptness of +comparison, power of statement and comprehension of the subject in +hand, with all its bearings and consequences, have rarely, if ever, +been excelled.</p> +<p>He had no reverence for mistakes because they were old. He did +not admire the castles of Feudalism even when they were covered +with ivy. He not only said that the Bible was not inspired, but he +demonstrated that it could not all be true. This was "brutal." He +presented arguments so strong, so clear, so convincing, that they +could not be answered. This was "vulgar."</p> +<p>He stood for liberty against kings, for humanity against creeds +and gods. This was "cowardly and low." He gave his life to free and +civilize his fellow-men. This was "infamous."</p> +<p>Paine was arrested and imprisoned in December, 1793. He was, to +say the least, neglected by Gouverneur Morris and Washington. He +was released through the efforts of James Monroe, in November, +1794. He was called back to the Convention, but too late to be of +use. As most of the actors had suffered death, the tragedy was +about over and the curtain was falling. Paine remained in Paris +until the "Reign of Terror" was ended and that of the Corsican +tyrant had commenced.</p> +<p>Paine came back to America hoping to spend the remainder of his +life surrounded by those for whose happiness and freedom he had +labored so many years. He expected to be rewarded with the love and +reverence of the American people.</p> +<p>In 1794 James Monroe had written to Paine these words:</p> +<p>"It is unnecessary for me to tell you how much all your +countrymen, I speak of the great mass of the people, are interested +in your welfare. They have not forgot the history of their own +Revolution and the difficult scenes through which they passed; nor +do they review its several stages without reviving in their bosoms +a due sensibility of the merits of those who served them in that +great and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has not yet +stained, and I hope never will stain, our national character. You +are considered by them as not only having rendered important +services in our own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive +scale the friend of human rights and a distinguished and able +advocate of public liberty. To the welfare of Thomas Paine we are +not and cannot be indifferent."</p> +<p>In the same year Mr. Monroe wrote a letter to the Committee of +General Safety, asking for the release of Mr. Paine, in which, +among other things, he said:</p> +<p>"The services Thomas Paine rendered to his country in its +struggle for freedom have implanted in the hearts of his countrymen +a sense of gratitude never to be effaced as long as they shall +deserve the title of a just and generous people."</p> +<p>On reaching America, Paine found that the sense of gratitude had +been effaced. He found that the Federalists hated him with all +their hearts because he believed in the rights of the people and +was still true to the splendid principles advocated during the +darkest days of the Revolution. In almost every pulpit he found a +malignant and implacable foe, and the pews were filled with his +enemies. The slaveholders hated him. He was held responsible even +for the crimes of the French Revolution. He was regarded as a +blasphemer, an Atheist, an enemy of God and man. The ignorant +citizens of Bordentown, as cowardly as orthodox, longed to mob the +author of "Common Sense" and "The Crisis." They thought he had sold +himself to the Devil because he had defended God against the +slanderous charges that he had inspired the writers of the +Bible—because he had said that a being of infinite goodness +and purity did not establish slavery and polygamy.</p> +<p>Paine had insisted that men had the right to think for +themselves. This so enraged the average American citizen that he +longed for revenge.</p> +<p>In 1802 the people of the United States had exceedingly crude +ideas about the liberty of thought and expression Neither had they +any conception of religious freedom. Their highest thought on that +subject was expressed by the word "toleration," and even this +toleration extended only to the various Christian sects. Even the +vaunted religious liberty of colonial Maryland was only to the +effect that one kind of Christian should not fine, imprison and +kill another kind of Christian, but all kinds of Christians had the +right, and it was their duty, to brand, imprison and kill Infidels +of every kind.</p> +<p>Paine had been guilty of thinking for himself and giving his +conclusions to the world without having asked the consent of a +priest—just as he had published his political opinions +without leave of the king. He had published his thoughts on +religion and had appealed to reason—to the light in every +mind, to the humanity, the pity, the goodness which he believed to +be in every heart. He denied the right of kings to make laws and of +priests to make creeds. He insisted that the people should make +laws, and that every human being should think for himself. While +some believed in the freedom of religion, he believed in the +religion of freedom.</p> +<p>If Paine had been a hypocrite, if he had concealed his opinions, +if he had defended slavery with quotations from the "sacred +Scriptures"—if he had cared nothing for the liberties of men +in other lands—if he had said that the state could not live +without the church—if he had sought for place instead of +truth, he would have won wealth and power, and his brow would have +been crowned with the laurel of fame.</p> +<p>He made what the pious call the "mistake" of being true to +himself—of living with an unstained soul. He had lived and +labored for the people. The people were untrue' to him. They +returned evil for good, hatred for benefits received, and yet this +great chivalric soul remembered their ignorance and loved them with +all his heart, and fought their oppressors with all his +strength.</p> +<p>We must remember what the churches and creeds were in that day, +what the theologians really taught, and what the people believed. +To save a few in spite of their vices, and to damn the many without +regard to their virtues, and all for the glory of the +Damner:—<i>this was Calvinism</i>. "He that hath ears to +hear, let him hear," but he that hath a brain to think must not +think. He that believeth without evidence is good, and he that +believeth in spite of evidence is a saint. Only the wicked doubt, +only the blasphemer denies. <i>This was orthodox +Christianity</i>.</p> +<p>Thomas Paine had the courage, the sense, the heart, to denounce +these horrors, these absurdities, these infinite infamies. He did +what he could to drive these theological vipers, these Calvinistic +cobras, these fanged and hissing serpents of superstition from the +heart of man.</p> +<p>A few civilized men agreed with him then, and the world has +progressed since 1809. Intellectual wealth has accumulated; vast +mental estates have been left to the world. Geologists have forced +secrets from the rocks, astronomers from the stars, historians from +old records and lost languages. In every direction the thinker and +the investigator have ventured and explored, and even the pews have +begun to ask questions of the pulpits. Humboldt has lived, and +Darwin and Haeckel and Huxley, and the armies led by them, have +changed the thought of the world.</p> +<p>The churches of 1809 could not be the friends of Thomas Paine. +No church asserting that belief is necessary to salvation ever was, +or ever will be, the champion of true liberty. A church founded on +slavery—that is to say, on blind obedience, worshiping +irresponsible and arbitrary power, must of necessity be the enemy +of human freedom.</p> +<p>The orthodox churches are now anxious to save the little that +Paine left of their creed. If one now believes in God, and lends a +little financial aid, he is considered a good and desirable member. +He need not define God after the manner of the catechism. He may +talk about a "Power that works for righteousness," or the tortoise +Truth that beats the rabbit Lie in the long run, or the +"Unknowable," or the "Unconditioned," or the "Cosmic Force," or the +"Ultimate Atom," or "Protoplasm," or the "What"—provided he +begins this word with a capital.</p> +<p>We must also remember that there is a difference between +independence and liberty. Millions have fought for +independence—to throw off some foreign yoke—and yet +were at heart the enemies of true liberty. A man in jail, sighing +to be free, may be said to be in favor of liberty, but not from +principle; but a man who, being free, risks or gives his life to +free the enslaved, is a true soldier of liberty.</p> +<p>Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one +most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. +Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred—his +virtues denounced as vices—his services forgotten—his +character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his +soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained +unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still +tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting +for his death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their +friend—the friend of the whole world—with all their +hearts.</p> +<p>On the 8th of June, 1809, death came—Death, almost his +only friend.</p> +<p>At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no +military display. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived +on the bounty of the dead—On horseback, a Quaker, the +humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head—and, +following on foot, two negroes filled with +gratitude—constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas +Paine.</p> +<p>He who had received the gratitude of many millions, the thanks +of generals and statesmen—he who had been the friend and +companion of the wisest and best—he who had taught a people +to be free, and whose words had inspired armies and enlightened +nations, was thus given back to Nature, the mother of us all.</p> +<p>If the people of the great Republic knew the life of this +generous, this chivalric man, the real story of his services, his +sufferings and his triumphs—of what he did to compel the +robed and crowned, the priests and kings, to give back to the +people liberty, the jewel of the soul; if they knew that he was the +first to write, "The Religion of Humanity"; if they knew that he, +above all others, planted and watered the seeds of independence, of +union, of nationality, in the hearts of our forefathers—that +his words were gladly repeated by the best and bravest in many +lands; if they knew that he attempted, by the purest means, to +attain the noblest and loftiest ends—that he was original, +sincere, intrepid, and that he could truthfully say: "The world is +my country, to do good my religion"—if the people only knew +all this—the truth—they would repeat the words of +Andrew Jackson: "Thomas Paine needs no monument made with hands; he +has erected a monument in the hearts of all lovers of +liberty."—North American Review, August, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0015" id="link0015"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS.</h2> +<pre> + "Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail, + And say there is no sin but to be rich." +</pre> +<p>MR. A. lived in the kingdom of————. He +was a sincere professional philanthropist. He was absolutely +certain that he loved his fellow-men, and that his views were +humane and scientific. He concluded to turn his attention to taking +care of people less fortunate than himself.</p> +<p>With this object in view he investigated the common people that +lived about him, and he found that they were extremely ignorant, +that many of them seemed to take no particular interest in life or +in business, that few of them had any theories of their own, and +that, while many had muscle, there was only now and then one who +had any mind worth speaking of. Nearly all of them were destitute +of ambition. They were satisfied if they got something to eat, a +place to sleep, and could now and then indulge in some form of +dissipation. They seemed to have great confidence in +to-morrow—trusted to luck, and took no thought for the +future. Many of them were extravagant, most of them dissipated, and +a good many dishonest.</p> +<p>Mr. A. found that many of the husbands not only failed to +support their families, but that some of them lived on the labor of +their wives; that many of the wives were careless of their +obligations, knew nothing about the art of cooking; nothing about +keeping house; and that parents, as a general thing, neglected +their children or treated them with cruelty. He also found that +many of the people were so shiftless that they died of want and +exposure.</p> +<p>After having obtained this information Mr. A. made up his mind +to do what little he could to better their condition. He petitioned +the king to assist him, and asked that he be allowed to take +control of five hundred people in consideration that he would pay a +certain amount into the treasury of the kingdom. The king being +satisfied that Mr. A. could take care of these people better than +they were taking care of themselves, granted the petition.</p> +<p>Mr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took these people +from their old homes and haunts to a plantation of his own. He +divided them into groups, and over each group placed a +superintendent. He made certain rules and regulations for their +conduct. They were only compelled to work from twelve to fourteen +hours a day, leaving ten hours for sleep and recreation. Good and +substantial food was provided. Their houses were comfortable and +their clothing sufficient. Their work was laid out from day to day +and from month to month, so that they knew exactly what they were +to do in each hour of every day. These rules were made for the good +of the people, to the end that they might not interfere with each +other, that they might attend to their duties, and enjoy themselves +in a reasonable way. They were not allowed to waste their time, or +to use stimulants or profane language. They were told to be +respectful to the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A.; to be +obedient, and, above all, to accept the position in which +Providence had placed them, without complaining, and to cheerfully +perform their tasks.</p> +<p>Mr. A. had found out all that the five hundred persons had +earned the year before they were taken control of by him—just +how much they had added to the wealth of the world. He had +statistics taken for the year before with great care showing the +number of deaths, the cases of sickness and of destitution, the +number who had committed suicide, how many had been convicted of +crimes and misdemeanors, how many days they had been idle, and how +much time and money they had spent in drink and for worthless +amusements.</p> +<p>During the first year of their enslavement he kept like +statistics. He found that they had earned several times as much; +that there had been no cases of destitution, no drunkenness; that +no crimes had been committed; that there had been but little +sickness, owing to the regular course of their lives; that few had +been guilty of misdemeanors, owing to the certainty of punishment; +and that they had been so watched and superintended that for the +most part they had traveled the highway of virtue and industry.</p> +<p>Mr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride showed these +statistics to his friends. He not only demonstrated that the five +hundred people were better off than they had been before, but that +his own income was very largely increased. He congratulated himself +that he had added to the well-being of these people not only, but +had laid the foundation of a great fortune for himself. On these +facts and these figures he claimed not only to be a philanthropist, +but a philosopher; and all the people who had a mind to go into the +same business agreed with him.</p> +<p>Some denounced the entire proceeding as unwarranted, as contrary +to reason and justice. These insisted that the five hundred people +had a right to live in their own way provided they did not +interfere with others; that they had the right to go through the +world with little food and with poor clothes, and to live in huts, +if such was their choice. But Mr. A. had no trouble in answering +these objectors. He insisted that well-being is the only good, and +that every human being is under obligation, not only to take care +of himself, but to do what little he can towards taking care of +others; that where five hundred people neglect to take care of +themselves, it is the duty of somebody else, who has more +intelligence and more means, to take care of them; that the man who +takes five hundred people and improves their condition, gives them +on the average better food, better clothes, and keeps them out of +mischief, is a benefactor.</p> +<p>"These people," said Mr. A., "were tried. They were found +incapable of taking care of themselves. They lacked intelligence or +will or honesty or industry or ambition or something, so that in +the struggle for existence they fell behind, became stragglers, +dropped by the wayside, died in gutters; while many were destined +to end their days either in dungeons or on scaffolds. Besides all +this, they were a nuisance to their prosperous fellow-citizens, a +perpetual menace to the peace of society. They increased the burden +of taxation; they filled the ranks of the criminal classes, they +made it necessary to build more jails, to employ more policemen and +judges; so that I, by enslaving them, not only assisted them, not +only protected them against themselves, not only bettered their +condition, not only added to the well-being of-society at large, +but greatly increased my own fortune."</p> +<p>Mr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by giving him +superior intelligence, the genius of command, the aptitude for +taking charge of others, had made it his duty to exercise these +faculties for the well-being of the people and for the glory of +God. Mr. A. frequently declared that he was God's steward. He often +said he thanked God that he was not governed by a sickly sentiment, +but that he was a man of sense, of judgment, of force of character, +and that the means employeed by him were in accordance with the +logic of facts.</p> +<p>Some of the people thus enslaved objected, saying that they had +the same right to control themselves that Mr. A. had to control +himself. But it only required a little discipline to satisfy them +that they were wrong. Some of the people were quite happy, and +declared that nothing gave them such perfect contentment as the +absence of all responsibility. Mr. A. insisted that all men had not +been endowed with the same capacity; that the weak ought to be +cared for by the strong; that such was evidently the design of the +Creator, and that he intended to do what little he could to carry +that design into effect.</p> +<p>Mr. A. was very successful. In a few years he had several +thousands of men, women, and children working for him. He amassed a +large fortune. He felt that he had been intrusted with this money +by Providence. He therefore built several churches, and once in a +while gave large sums to societies for the spread of civilization. +He passed away regretted by a great many people—not including +those who had lived under his immediate administration. He was +buried with great pomp, the king being one of the pall-bearers, and +on his tomb was this:</p> +<center>HE WAS THE PROVIDENCE OF THE POOR.</center> +<center>II.</center> +<pre> + "And, being rich, my virtue then shall be + To say there is no vice but beggary." +</pre> +<p>Mr. B. did not believe in slavery. He despised the institution +with every drop of his blood, and was an advocate of universal +freedom. He held all the ideas of Mr. A. in supreme contempt, and +frequently spent whole evenings in denouncing the inhumanity and +injustice of the whole business. He even went so far as to contend +that many of A.'s slaves had more intelligence than A. himself, and +that, whether they had intelligence or not, they had the right to +be free. He insisted that Mr. A.'s philanthropy was a sham; that he +never bought a human being for the purpose of bettering that +being's condition; that he went into the business simply to make +money for himself; and that his talk about his slaves committing +less crime than when they were free was simply to justify the crime +committed by himself in enslaving his fellow-men.</p> +<p>Mr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employeed some five or six +thousand men. He used to say that these men were not forced to work +for him; that they were at perfect liberty to accept or reject the +terms; that, so far as he was concerned, he would just as soon +commit larceny or robbery as to force a man to work for him. "Every +laborer under my roof," he used to say, "is as free to choose as I +am."</p> +<p>Mr B. believed in absolutely free trade; thought it an outrage +to interfere with the free interplay of forces; said that every man +should buy, or at least have the privilege of buying, where he +could buy cheapest, and should have the privilege of selling where +he could get the most. He insisted that a man who has labor to sell +has the right to sell it to the best advantage, and that the +purchaser has the right to buy it at the lowest price. He did not +enslave men—he hired them. Some said that he took advantage +of their necessities; but he answered that he created no +necessities, that he was not responsible for their condition, that +he did not make them poor, that he found them poor and gave them +work, and gave them the same wages that he could employ others for. +He insisted that he was absolutely just to all; he did not give one +man more than another, and he never refused to employ a man on +account of the man's religion or politics; all that he did was +simply to employ that man if the man wished to be employed, and +give him the wages, no more and no less, that some other man of +like capacity was willing to work for.</p> +<p>Mr. B. also said that the price of the article manufactured by +him fixed the wages of the persons employed, and that he, Mr. B., +was not responsible for the price of the article he manufactured; +consequently he was not responsible for the wages of the workmen. +He agreed to pay them a certain price, he taking the risk of +selling his articles, and he paid them regularly just on the day he +agreed to pay them, and if they were not satisfied with the wages, +they were at perfect liberty to leave. One of his private sayings +was: "The poor ye have always with you." And from this he argued +that some men were made poor so that others could be generous. +"Take poverty and suffering from the world," he said, "and you +destroy sympathy and generosity."</p> +<p>Mr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of his workmen +complained that their wages did not allow them to live in comfort. +Many had large families, and therefore but little to eat. Some of +them lived in crowded rooms. Many of the children were carried off +by disease; but Mr. B. took the ground that all these people had +the right to go, that he did not force them to remain, that if they +were not healthy it was not his fault, and that whenever it pleased +Providence to remove a child, or one of the parents, he, Mr. B., +was not responsible.</p> +<p>Mr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were extravagant; that +they bought things that they did not need; that they wasted in beer +and tobacco, money that they should save for funerals; that many of +them visited places of amusement when they should have been +thinking about death, and that others bought toys to please the +children when they hardly had bread enough to eat. He felt that he +was in no way accountable for this extravagance, nor for the fact +that their wages did not give them the necessaries of life, because +he not only gave them the same wages that other manufacturers gave, +but the same wages that other workmen were willing to work for.</p> +<p>Mr. B. said,—and he always said this as though it ended +the argument,—and he generally stood up to say it: "The great +law of supply and demand is of divine origin; it is the only law +that will work in all possible or conceivable cases; and this law +fixes the price of all labor, and from it there is no appeal. If +people are not satisfied with the operation of the law, then let +them make a new world for themselves."</p> +<p>Some of Mr. B.'s friends reported that on several occasions, +forgetting what he had said on others, he did declare that his +confidence was somewhat weakened in the law of supply and demand; +but this was only when there seemed to be an over-production of the +things he was engaged in manufacturing, and at such times he seemed +to doubt the absolute equity of the great law.</p> +<p>Mr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A., because when his +workmen got old he did not have to care for them, when they were +sick he paid no doctors, and when their children died he bought no +coffins. In this way he was relieved of a large part of the +expenses that had to be borne by Mr. A. When his workmen became too +old, they were sent to the poorhouse; when they were sick, they +were assisted by charitable societies; and when they died, they +were buried by pity.</p> +<p>In a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many millions. He also +considered himself as one of God's stewards; felt that Providence +had given him the intelligence to combine interests, to carry out +great schemes, and that he was specially raised up to give +employment to many thousands of people. He often regretted that he +could do no more for his laborers without lessening his own +profits, or, rather, without lessening his fund for the blessing of +mankind—the blessing to begin immediately after his death. He +was so anxious to be the providence of posterity that he was +sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with contemporaries. He +felt that it was necessary for him to be economical, to save every +dollar that he could, because in this way he could increase the +fund that was finally to bless mankind. He also felt that in this +way he could lay the foundations of a permanent fame—that he +could build, through his executors, an asylum to be called the "B. +Asylum," that he could fill a building with books to be called the +"B. Library," and that he could also build and endow an institution +of learning to be called the "B. College," and that, in addition, a +large amount of money could be given for the purpose of civilizing +the citizens of less fortunate countries, to the end that they +might become imbued with that spirit of combination and manufacture +that results in putting large fortunes in the hands of those who +have been selected by Providence, on account of their talents, to +make a better distribution of wealth than those who earned it could +have done.</p> +<p>Mr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure such +legislation as would protect him from foreign competition. He did +not believe the law of supply and demand would work when interfered +with by manufacturers living in other countries.</p> +<p>Mr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He had what is +called a level head, was not easily turned aside from his purpose, +and felt that he was in accord with the general sentiment of his +time. By his own exertions he rose from poverty to wealth. He was +born in a hut and died in a palace. He was a patron of art and +enriched his walls with the works of the masters. He insisted that +others could and should follow his example. For those who failed or +refused he had no sympathy. He accounted for their poverty and +wretchedness by saying: "These paupers have only themselves to +blame." He died without ever having lost a dollar. His funeral was +magnificent, and clergymen vied with each other in laudations of +the dead. Over his dust rises a monument of marble with the +words:</p> +<center>HE LIVED FOR OTHERS.</center> +<center>III</center> +<pre> + "But there are men who steal, and vainly try + To gild the crime with pompous charity." +</pre> +<p>There was another man, Mr. C., who also had the genius for +combination. He understood the value of capital, the value of +labor; knew exactly how much could be done with machinery; +understood the economy of things; knew how to do everything in the +easiest and shortest way. And he, too, was a manufacturer and had +in his employ many thousands of men, women, and children. He was +what is called a visionary, a sentimentalist, rather weak in his +will, not very obstinate, had but little egotism; and it never +occurred to him that he had been selected by Providence, or any +supernatural power, to divide the property of others. It did not +seem to him that he had any right to take from other men their +labor without giving them a full equivalent. He felt that if he had +more intelligence than his fellow-men he ought to use that +intelligence not only for his own good but for theirs; that he +certainly ought not to use it for the purpose of gaining an +advantage over those who were his intellectual inferiors. He used +to say that a man strong intellectually had no more right to take +advantage of a man weak intellectually than the physically strong +had to rob the physically weak.</p> +<p>He also insisted that we should not take advantage of each +other's necessities; that you should not ask a drowning man a +greater price for lumber than you would if he stood on the shore; +that if you took into consideration the necessities of your +fellow-man, it should be only to lessen the price of that which you +would sell to him, not to increase it. He insisted that honest men +do not take advantage of their fellows. He was so weak that he had +not perfect confidence in the great law of supply and demand as +applied to flesh and blood. He took into consideration another law +of supply and demand; he knew that the workingman had to be +supplied with food, and that his nature demanded something to eat, +a house to live in, clothes to wear.</p> +<p>Mr. C. used to think about this law of supply and demand as +applicable to individuals. He found that men would work for +exceedingly small wages when pressed for the necessaries of life; +that under some circumstances they would give their labor for half +of what it was worth to the employer, because they were in a +position where they must do something for wife or child. He +concluded that he had no right to take advantage of the necessities +of others, and that he should in the first place honestly find what +the work was worth to him, and then give to the man who did the +work that amount.</p> +<p>Other manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substantially insane, +while most of his workmen looked upon him as an exceedingly +good-natured man, without any particular genius for business. Mr. +C., however, cared little about the opinions of others, so long as +he maintained his respect for himself.</p> +<p>At the end of the first year he found that he had made a large +profit, and thereupon he divided this profit with the people who +had earned it. Some of his friends said to him that he ought to +endow some public institution; that there should be a college in +his native town; but Mr. C. was of such a peculiar turn of mind +that he thought justice ought to go before charity, and a little in +front of egotism, and a desire to immortalize one's self. He said +that it seemed to him that of all persons in the world entitled to +this profit were the men who had earned it, the men who had made it +by their labor, by days of actual toil. He insisted that, as they +had earned it, it was really theirs, and if it was theirs, they +should have it and should spend it in their own way. Mr. C. was +told that he would make the workmen in other factories +dissatisfied, that other manufacturers would become his enemies, +and that his course would scandalize some of the greatest men who +had done so much for the civilization of the world and for the +spread of intelligence. Mr. C. became extremely unpopular with men +of talent, with those who had a genius for business. He, however, +pursued his way, and carried on his business with the idea that the +men who did the work were entitled to a fair share of the profits; +that, after all, money was not as sacred as men, and that the law +of supply and demand, as understood, did not apply to flesh and +blood.</p> +<p>Mr. C. said: "I cannot be happy if those who work for me are +defrauded. If I feel I am taking what belongs to them, then my life +becomes miserable. To feel that I have done justice is one of the +necessities of my nature. I do not wish to establish colleges. I +wish to establish no public institution. My desire is to enable +those who work for me to establish a few thousand homes for +themselves. My ambition is to enable them to buy the books they +really want to read. I do not wish to establish a hospital, but I +want to make it possible for my workmen to have the services of the +best physicians—physicians of their own choice.</p> +<p>"It is not for me to take their money and use it for the good of +others or for my own glory. It is for me to give what they have +earned to them. After I have given them the money that belongs to +them, I can give them my advice—I can tell them how I hope +they will use it; and after I have advised them, they will use it +as they please. You cannot make great men and great women by +suppression. Slavery is not the school in which genius is born. +Every human being must make his own mistakes for himself, must +learn for himself, must have his own experience; and if the world +improves, it must be from choice, not from force; and every man who +does justice, who sets the example of fair dealing, hastens the +coming of universal honesty, of universal civilization."</p> +<p>Mr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent, honestly +and faithfully. When he died, there were at the funeral those who +had worked for him, their wives and their children. Their tears +fell upon his grave. They planted flowers and paid to him the +tribute of their love. Above his silent dust they erected a +monument with this inscription:</p> +<center>HE ALLOWED OTHERS TO LIVE FOR THEMSELVES.</center> +<p>North American Review, December, 1831.</p> +<a name="link0016" id="link0016"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SHOULD THE CHINESE BE EXCLUDED?</h2> +<p>THE average American, like the average man of any country, has +but little imagination. People who speak a different language, or +worship some other god, or wear clothing unlike his own, are beyond +the horizon of his sympathy. He cares but little or nothing for the +sufferings or misfortunes of those who are of a different +complexion or of another race. His imagination is not powerful +enough to recognize the human being, in spite of peculiarities. +Instead of this he looks upon every difference as an evidence of +inferiority, and for the inferior he has but little if any feeling. +If these "inferior people" claim equal rights he feels insulted, +and for the purpose of establishing his own superiority tramples on +the rights of the so-called inferior.</p> +<p>In our own country the native has always considered himself as +much better than the immigrant, and as far superior to all people +of a different complexion. At one time our people hated the Irish, +then the Germans, then the Italians, and now the Chinese. The Irish +and Germans, however, became numerous. They became citizens, and, +most important of all, they had votes. They combined, became +powerful, and the political parties sought their aid. They had +something to give in exchange for protection—in exchange for +political rights. In consequence of this they were flattered by +candidates, praised by the political press, and became powerful +enough not only to protect themselves, but at last to govern the +principal cities in the United States. As a matter of fact the +Irish and the Germans drove the native Americans out of the trades +and from the lower forms of labor. They built the railways and +canals. They became servants. Afterward the Irish and the Germans +were driven from the canals and railways by the Italians.</p> +<p>The Irish and Germans improved their condition. They went into +other businesses, into the higher and more lucrative trades. They +entered the professions, turned their attention to politics, became +merchants, brokers, and professors in colleges. They are not now +building railroads or digging on public works. They are +contractors, legislators, holders of office, and the Italians and +Chinese are doing the old work.</p> +<p>If matters had been allowed to work in a natural way, without +the interference of mobs or legislators, the Chinese would have +driven the Italians to better employments, and all menial labor +would, in time, be done by the Mongolians.</p> +<p>In olden times each nation hated all others. This was considered +natural and patriotic. Spain, after many centuries of war, expelled +the Moors, then the Moriscoes, and then the Jews. And Spain, in the +name of religion and patriotism, succeeded in driving from its +territory its industry, its taste and its intelligence, and by +these mistakes became poor, ignorant and weak. France started on +the same path when the Huguenots were expelled, and even England at +one time deported the Jews. In those days a difference of race or +religion was sufficient to justify any absurdity and any +cruelty.</p> +<p>In our country, as a matter of fact, there is but little +prejudice against emigrants coming from Europe, except among +naturalized citizens; but nearly all foreign-born citizens are +united in their prejudice against the Chinese.</p> +<p>The truth is that the Chinese came to this country by +invitation. Under the Burlingame Treaty, China and the United +States recognized:</p> +<p>"The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home +and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and +emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one +country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as +permanent residents."</p> +<p>And it was provided:</p> +<p>"That the citizens of the United States visiting or residing in +China and Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United +States should reciprocally enjoy the same privileges, immunities +and exemptions, in respect to travel or residence, as shall be +enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, in +the country in which they shall respectively be visiting or +residing."</p> +<p>So, by the treaty of 1880, providing for the limitation or +suspension of emigration of Chinese labor, it was declared:</p> +<p>"That the limitation or suspension should apply only to Chinese +who emigrated to the United States as laborers; but that Chinese +laborers who were then in the United States should be allowed to go +and come of their own free will and should be accorded all the +rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions, which were accorded +to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nations."</p> +<p>It will thus be seen that all Chinese laborers who came to this +country prior to the treaty of 1880 were to be treated the same as +the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation; that is to +say, they were to be protected by our laws the same as we protect +our own citizens.</p> +<p>These Chinese laborers are inoffensive, peaceable and +law-abiding. They are honest, keeping their contracts, doing as +they agree. They are exceedingly industrious, always ready to work +and always giving satisfaction to their employers. They do not +interfere with other people. They cannot become citizens. They have +no voice in the making or the execution of the laws. They attend to +their own business. They have their own ideas, customs, religion +and ceremonies—about as foolish as our own; but they do not +try to make converts or to force their dogmas on others. They are +patient, uncomplaining, stoical and philosophical. They earn what +they can, giving reasonable value for the money they receive, and +as a rule, when they have amassed a few thousand dollars, they go +back to their own country. They do not interfere with our ideas, +our ways or customs. They are silent workers, toiling without any +object, except to do their work and get their pay. They do not +establish saloons and run for Congress. Neither do they combine for +the purpose of governing others. Of all the people on our soil they +are the least meddlesome. Some of them smoke opium, but the +opium-smoker does not beat his wife. Some of them play games of +chance, but they are not members of the Stock Exchange. They eat +the bread that they earn; they neither beg nor steal, but they are +of no use to parties or politicians except as they become fuel to +supply the flame of prejudice. They are not citizens and they +cannot vote. Their employers are about the only friends they +have.</p> +<p>In the Pacific States the lowest became their enemies and asked +for their expulsion. They denounced the Chinese and those who gave +them work. The patient followers of Confucius were treated as +outcasts—stoned by boys in the streets and mobbed by the +fathers. Few seemed to have any respect for their rights or their +feelings. They were unlike us. They wore different clothes. They +dressed their hair in a peculiar way, and therefore they were +beyond our sympathies. These ideas, these practices, demoralized +many communities; the laboring people became cruel and the small +politicians infamous.</p> +<p>When the rights of even one human being are held in contempt the +rights of all are in danger. We cannot destroy the liberties of +others without losing our own. By exciting the prejudices of the +ignorant we at last produce a contempt for law and justice, and sow +the seeds of violence and crime.</p> +<p>Both of the great political parties pandered to the leaders of +the crusade against the Chinese for the sake of electoral votes, +and in the Pacific States the friends of the Chinese were forced to +keep still or to publicly speak contrary to their convictions. The +orators of the "Sand Lots" were in power, and the policy of the +whole country was dictated by the most ignorant and prejudiced of +our citizens. Both of the great parties ratified the outrages +committed by the mobs, and proceeded with alacrity to violate the +treaties and solemn obligations of the Government. These treaties +were violated, these obligations were denied, and thousands of +Chinamen were deprived of their rights, of their property, and +hundreds were maimed or murdered. They were driven from their +homes. They were hunted like wild beasts. All this was done in a +country that sends missionaries to China to tell the benighted +savages of the blessed religion of the United States.</p> +<p>At first a demand was made that the Chinese should be driven +out, then that no others should be allowed to come, and laws with +these objects in view were passed, in spite of the treaties, +preventing the coming of any more. For a time that satisfied the +haters of the Mongolian. Then came a demand for more stringent +legislation, so that many of the Chinese already here could be +compelled to leave. The answer or response to this demand is what +is known as the Geary Law.</p> +<p>By this act it is provided, among other things, that any +Chinaman convicted of not being lawfully in the country shall be +removed to China, after having been imprisoned at hard labor for +not exceeding one year. This law also does away with bail on +<i>habeas corpus</i>, proceedings where the right to land has been +denied to a Chinaman. It also compels all Chinese laborers to +obtain, within one year after the passage of the law, certificates +of residence from the revenue collectors, and if found without such +certificate they shall be held to be unlawfully in the United +States.</p> +<p>It is further provided that if a Chinaman claims that he failed +to get such certificate by "accident, sickness or other unavoidable +cause," then he must clearly establish such claim to the +satisfaction of the judge "by at least one credible white +witness."</p> +<p>If we were at war with China then we might legally consider +every Chinaman as an enemy, but we were and are at peace with that +country. The Geary Act was passed by Congress and signed by the +President simply for the sake of votes. The Democrats in Congress +voted for it to save the Pacific States to the Democratic column; +and a Republican President signed it so that the Pacific States +should vote the Republican ticket. Principle was forgotten, or +rather it was sacrificed, in the hope of political success. It was +then known, as now, that China is a peaceful nation, that it does +not believe in war as a remedy, that it relies on negotiation and +treaty. It is also known that the Chinese in this country were +helpless, without friends, without power to defend themselves. It +is possible that many members of Congress voted in favor of the Act +believing that the Supreme Court would hold it unconstitutional, +and that in the meantime it might be politically useful.</p> +<p>The idea of imprisoning a man at hard labor for a year, and this +man a citizen of a friendly nation, for the crime of being found in +this country without a certificate of residence, must be abhorrent +to the mind of every enlightened man. Such punishment for such an +"offence" is barbarous and belongs to the earliest times of which +we know. This law makes industry a crime and puts one who works for +his bread on a level with thieves and the lowest criminals, treats +him as a felon, and clothes him in the stripes of a +convict,—and all this is done at the demand of the ignorant, +of the prejudiced, of the heartless, and because the Chinese are +not voters and have no political power.</p> +<p>The Chinese are not driven away because there is no room for +them. Our country is not crowded. There are many millions of acres +waiting for the plow. There is plenty of room here under our flag +for five hundred millions of people. These Chinese that we wish to +oppress and imprison are people who understand the art of +irrigation. They can redeem the deserts. They are the best of +gardeners. They are modest and willing to occupy the lowest seats. +They only ask to be day-laborers, washers and ironers. They are +willing to sweep and scrub. They are good cooks. They can clear +lands and build railroads. They do not ask to be masters—they +wish only to serve. In every capacity they are faithful; but in +this country their virtues have made enemies, and they are hated +because of their patience, their honesty and their industry.</p> +<p>The Geary Law, however, failed to provide the ways and means for +carrying it into effect, so that the probability is it will remain +a dead letter upon the statute book. The sum of money required to +carry it out is too large, and the law fails to create the +machinery and name the persons authorized to deport the Chinese. +Neither is there any mode of trial pointed out. According to the +law there need be no indictment by a grand jury, no trial by a +jury, and the person found guilty of being here without a +certificate of residence can be imprisoned and treated as a felon +without the ordinary forms of trial.</p> +<p>This law is contrary to the laws and customs of nations. The +punishment is unusual, severe, and contrary to our Constitution, +and under its provisions aliens—citizens of a friendly +nation—can be imprisoned without due process of law. The law +is barbarous, contrary to the spirit and genius of American +institutions, and was passed in violation of solemn treaty +stipulations.</p> +<p>The Congress-that passed it is the same that closed the gates of +the World's Fair on the "blessed Sabbath," thinking it wicked to +look at statues and pictures on that day. These representatives of +the people seem to have had more piety than principle.</p> +<p>After the passage of such a law by the United States is it not +indecent for us to send missionaries to China? Is there not work +enough for them at home? We send ministers to China to convert the +heathen; but when we find a Chinaman on our soil, where he can be +saved by our example, we treat him as a criminal.</p> +<p>It is to the interest of this country to maintain friendly +relations with China. We want the trade of nearly one-fourth of the +human race. We want to pay for all we get from that country in +articles of our own manufacture. We lost the trade of Mexico and +the South American Republics because of slavery, because we hated +people in whose veins was found a drop of African blood, and now we +are losing the trade of China by pandering to the prejudices of the +ignorant and cruel.</p> +<p>After all, it pays to do right. This is a hard truth to +learn—especially for a nation. A great nation should be bound +by the highest conception of justice and honor. Above all things it +should be true to its treaties, its contracts, its obligations. It +should remember that its responsibilities are in accordance with +its power and intelligence.</p> +<p>Our Government is founded on the equality of human +rights—on the idea, the sacred truth, that all are entitled +to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our country is an +asylum for the oppressed of all nations—of all races. Here, +the Government gets its power from the consent of the governed. +After the abolition of slavery these great truths were not only +admitted, but they found expression in our Constitution and +laws.</p> +<p>Shall we now go back to barbarism?</p> +<p>Russia is earning the hatred of the civilized world by driving +the Jews from their homes. But what can the United States say? Our +mouths are closed by the Geary Law. We are in the same business. +Our law is as inhuman as the order or ukase of the Czar.</p> +<p>Let us retrace our steps, repeal the law and accomplish what we +justly desire by civilized means. Let us treat China as we would +England; and, above all, let us respect the rights of +men,—North American Review, July, 1893.</p> +<a name="link0017" id="link0017"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A WORD ABOUT EDUCATION.</h2> +<p>THE end of life—the object of life—is happiness. +Nothing can be better than that—nothing higher. In order to +be really happy, man must be in harmony with his surroundings, with +the conditions of well-being. In order to know these surroundings, +he must be educated, and education is of value only as it +contributes to the wellbeing of man, and only that is education +which increases the power of man to gratify his real +wants—wants of body and of mind.</p> +<p>The educated man knows the necessity of finding out the facts in +nature, the relations between himself and his fellow-men, between +himself and the world, to the end that he may take advantage of +these facts and relations for the benefit of himself and others. He +knows that a man may understand Latin and Greek, Hebrew and +Sanscrit, and be as ignorant of the great facts and forces in +nature as a native of Central Africa.</p> +<p>The educated man knows something that he can use, not only for +the benefit of himself, but for the benefit of others. Every +skilled mechanic, every good farmer, every man who knows some of +the real facts in nature that touch him, is to that extent an +educated man. The skilled mechanic and the intelligent farmer may +not be what we call "scholars," and what we call scholars may not +be educated men.</p> +<p>Man is in constant need. He must protect himself from cold and +heat, from sun and storm. He needs food and raiment for the body, +and he needs what we call art for the development and gratification +of his brain. Beginning with what are called the necessaries of +life, he rises to what are known as the luxuries, and the luxuries +become necessaries, and above luxuries he rises to the highest +wants of the soul.</p> +<p>The man who is fitted to take care of himself, in the conditions +he may be placed, is, in a very important sense, an educated man. +The savage who understands the habits of animals, who is a good +hunter and fisher, is a man of education, taking into consideration +his circumstances. The graduate of a university who cannot take +care of himself—no matter how much he may have +studied—is not an educated man.</p> +<p>In our time, an educated man, whether a mechanic, a farmer, or +one who follows a profession, should know something about what the +world has discovered. He should have an idea of the outlines of the +sciences. He should have read a little, at least, of the best that +has been written. He should know something of mechanics, a little +about politics, commerce, and metaphysics; and in addition to all +this, he should know how to make something. His hands should be +educated, so that he can, if necessary, supply his own wants by +supplying the wants of others.</p> +<p>There are mental misers—men who gather learning all their +lives and keep it to themselves. They are worse than hoarders of +gold, because when they die their learning dies with them, while +the metal miser is compelled to leave his gold for others.</p> +<p>The first duty of man is to support himself—to see to it +that he does not become a burden. His next duty is to help others +if he has a surplus, and if he really believes they deserve to be +helped.</p> +<p>It is not necessary to have what is called a university +education in order to be useful or to be happy, any more than it is +necessary to be rich, to be happy. Great wealth is a great burden, +and to have more than you can use, is to care for more than you +want. The happiest are those who are prosperous, and who by +reasonable endeavor can supply their reasonable wants and have a +little surplus year by year for the winter of their lives.</p> +<p>So, it is no use to learn thousands and thousands of useless +facts, or to fill the brain with unspoken tongues. This is +burdening yourself with more than you can use. The best way is to +learn the useful.</p> +<p>We all know that men in moderate circumstances cau have just as +comfortable houses as the richest, just as comfortable clothing, +just as good food. They can see just as fine paintings, just as +marvelous statues, and they can hear just as good music. They can +attend the same theatres and the same operas. They can enjoy the +same sunshine, and above all, can love and be loved just as well as +kings and millionaires.</p> +<p>So the conclusion of the whole matter is, that he is educated +who knows how to take care of himself; and that the happy man is +the successful man, and that it is only a burden to have more than +you want, or to learn those things that you cannot use.—The +High School Register, Omaha, Nebraska, January. 1891.</p> +<a name="link0018" id="link0018"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WHAT I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS.</h2> +<p>IF I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next +Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow +the people to govern themselves.</p> +<p>I would have all the nobility drop their titles and give their +lands back to the people. I would have the Pope throw away his +tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and admit that he is not +acting for God—is not infallible—but is just an +ordinary Italian. I would have all the cardinals, archbishops, +bishops, priests and clergymen admit that they know nothing about +theology, nothing about hell or heaven, nothing about the destiny +of the human race, nothing about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. +I would have them tell all their "flocks" to think for themselves, +to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their power to +increase the sum of human happiness.</p> +<p>I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in +schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree +that they would teach only what they know, that they would not palm +off guesses as demonstrated truths.</p> +<p>I would like to see all the politicians changed to +statesmen,—to men who long to make their country great and +free,—to men who care more for public good than private +gain—men who long to be of use.</p> +<p>I would like to see all the editors of papers and magazines +agree to print the truth and nothing but the truth, to avoid all +slander and misrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of +the people alone.</p> +<p>I would like to see drunkenness and prohibition both +abolished.</p> +<p>I would like to see corporal punishment done away with in every +home, in every school, in every asylum, reformatory, and prison. +Cruelty hardens and degrades, kindness reforms and ennobles.</p> +<p>I would like to see the millionaires unite and form a trust for +the public good.</p> +<p>I would like to see a fair division of profits between capital +and labor, so that the toiler could save enough to mingle a little +June with the December of his life.</p> +<p>I would like to see an international court established in which +to settle disputes between nations, so that armies could be +disbanded and the great navies allowed to rust and rot in perfect +peace.</p> +<p>I would like to see the whole world free—free from +injustice—free from superstition.</p> +<p>This will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may +want more.—The Arena, Boston, December, 1897.</p> +<a name="link0019" id="link0019"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>FOOL FRIENDS.</h2> +<h3>NOTHING hurts a man, nothing hurts a party so terribly as fool +friends.</h3> +<p>A fool friend is the sewer of bad news, of slander and all base +and unpleasant things.</p> +<p>A fool friend always knows every mean thing that has been said +against you and against the party.</p> +<p>He always knows where your party is losing, and the other is +making large gains.</p> +<p>He always tells you of the good luck your enemy has had.</p> +<p>He implicitly believes every story against you, and kindly +suspects your defence.</p> +<p>A fool friend is always full of a kind of stupid candor.</p> +<p>He is so candid that he always believes the statement of an +enemy.</p> +<p>He never suspects anything on your side.</p> +<p>Nothing pleases him like being shocked by horrible news +concerning some good man.</p> +<p>He never denies a lie unless it is in your favor.</p> +<p>He is always finding fault with his party, and is continually +begging pardon for not belonging to the other side.</p> +<p>He is frightfully anxious that all his candidates should stand +well with the opposition.</p> +<p>He is forever seeing the faults of his party and the virtues of +the other.</p> +<p>He generally shows his candor by scratching the ticket.</p> +<p>He always searches every nook and comer of his conscience to +find a reason for deserting a friend or a principle.</p> +<p>In the moment of victory he is magnanimously on your side.</p> +<p>In defeat he consoles you by repeating prophecies made after the +event.</p> +<p>The fool friend regards your reputation as common prey for all +the vultures, hyenas and jackals.</p> +<p>He takes a sad pleasure in your misfortunes.</p> +<p>He forgets his principles to gratify your enemies.</p> +<p>He forgives your maligner, and slanders you with all his +heart.</p> +<p>He is so friendly that you cannot kick him.</p> +<p>He generally talks for you but always bets the other way.</p> +<a name="link0020" id="link0020"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>INSPIRATION</h2> +<p>WE are told that we have in our possession the inspired will of +God. What is meant by the word "inspired" is not exactly known; but +whatever else it may mean, certainly it means that the "inspired" +must be the true. If it is true, there is in fact no need of its +being inspired—the truth will take care of itself.</p> +<p>The church is forced to say that the Bible differs from all +other books; it is forced to say that it contains the actual will +of God. Let us then see what inspiration really is. A man looks at +the sea, and the sea says something to him. It makes an impression +upon his mind. It awakens memory, and this impression depends upon +the man's experience—upon his intellectual capacity. Another +looks upon the same sea. He has a different brain; he has had a +different experience. The sea may speak to him of joy; to the other +of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the same thing to any two +human beings, because no two human beings have had the same +experience.</p> +<p>Another, standing upon the shore, listening to what the great +Greek tragedian called "The multitudinous laughter of the sea," may +say: Every drop has visited all the shores of the earth; every one +has been frozen in the vast and icy North; every one has fallen in +snow, has been whirled by storms around mountain peaks; every one +has been kissed to vapor by the sun; every one has worn the +seven-hued garment of light; every one has fallen in pleasant rain, +gurgled from springs and laughed in brooks while lovers wooed upon +the banks, and every one has rushed with mighty rivers back to the +sea's embrace. Everything in Nature tells a different story to all +eyes that see, and to all ears that hear.</p> +<p>Once in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley deliver a +lecture. I think the title was "Across the Continent." At last he +reached the mammoth trees of California, and I thought, "Here is an +opportunity for the old man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees +that have outlived a thousand human governments. There are limbs +above his head older than the pyramids. While man was emerging from +barbarism to something like civilization, these trees were growing. +Older than history, every one appeared to be a memory, a witness, +and a prophecy. The same wind that filled the sails of the +Argonauts had swayed these trees." But these trees said nothing of +this kind to Mr. Greeley. Upon these subjects not a word was told +him. Instead, he took his pencil, and after figuring awhile, +remarked: "One of these trees, sawed into inch boards, would make +more than three hundred thousand feet of lumber."</p> +<p>I was once riding in the cars in Illinois. There had been a +violent thunder storm. The rain had ceased, the sun was going down. +The great clouds had floated toward the west, and there they +assumed most wonderful architectural shapes. There were temples and +palaces domed and turreted, and they were touched with silver, with +amethyst and gold. They looked like the homes of the Titans, or the +palaces of the gods. A man was sitting near me. I touched him and +said, "Did you ever see anything so beautiful?" He looked out. He +saw nothing of the cloud, nothing of the sun, nothing of the color; +he saw only the country, and replied, "Yes, it is beautiful; I +always did like rolling land."</p> +<p>On another occasion I was riding in a stage. There had been a +snow, and after the snow a sleet, and all the trees were bent, and +all the boughs were arched. Every fence, every log cabin, had been +transfigured, touched with a glory almost beyond this world. The +great fields were a pure and perfect white; the forests, drooping +beneath their load of gems, made wonderful caves, from which one +almost expected to see troops of fairies come. The whole world +looked like a bride, jeweled from head to foot. A German on the +back seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations of wonder, leaned +forward, looked out of the stage window, and said, "Y-a-a-s; it +looks like a clean table cloth!"</p> +<p>So, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or +a violet, the more we know, the more we have experienced, the more +we have thought, the more we remember,—the more the statue, +the star, the painting, the violet, has to tell. Nature says to me +all that I am capable of understanding—gives all that I can +receive.</p> +<p>As with star or flower or sea, so with a book. A man reads +Shakespeare. What does he get from him? All that he has the mind to +understand. He gets his little cup full. Let another read him who +knows nothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of +passion, and what does he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a +different story for each reader. He is a world in which each +recognizes his acquaintances—he may know a few—he may +know all.</p> +<p>The impression that Nature makes upon the mind, the stories told +by sea and star and flower, must be the natural food of thought. +Leaving out for the moment the impression gained from ancestors, +the hereditary fears and drifts and trends—the natural food +of thought must be the impression made upon the brain by coming in +contact, through the medium of the five senses, with what we call +the outward world. The brain is natural. Its food is natural. The +result—thought—must be natural. The supernatural can be +constructed with no material except the natural. Of the +supernatural we can have no conception.</p> +<p>"Thought" may be deformed, and the thought of one may be strange +to, and denominated as unnatural by, another; but it cannot be +supernatural. It may be weak, it may be insane, but it is not +supernatural. Above the natural, man cannot rise. There can be +deformed ideas, as there are deformed persons. There can be +religious monstrosities and misshapen, but they must be naturally +produced. Some people have ideas about what they are pleased to +call the supernatural; what they call the supernatural is simply +the deformed. The world is to each man according to each man. It +takes the world as it really is, and that man to make that man's +world, and that man's world cannot exist without that man.</p> +<p>You may ask, and what of all this? I reply: As with everything +in Nature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each +reader. Is then, the Bible a different book to every human being +who reads it? It is. Can God, then, through the Bible, make the +same revelation to two persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who +reads it is the man who inspires. Inspiration is in the man, as +well as in the book. God should have "inspired" readers as well as +writers.</p> +<p>You may reply, God knew that his book would be understood +differently by each one; really intended that it should be +understood as it is understood by each. If this is so, then my +understanding of the Bible is the real revelation to me. If this is +so, I have no right to take the understanding of another. I must +take the revelation made to me through my understanding, and by +that revelation I must stand. Suppose, then, that I do read this +Bible honestly, carefully, and when I get through I am compelled to +say, "The book is not true!"</p> +<p>If this is the honest result, then you are compelled to say, +either that God has made no revelation to me, or that the +revelation that it is not true is the revelation made to me, and by +which I am bound. If the book and my brain are both the work of the +same infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and the brain do +not agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my brain, +or should have made my brain to fit his book.</p> +<p>The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of him +who reads.—The Truth Seeker Annual, New York, 1885.</p> +<a name="link0021" id="link0021"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.</h2> +<p>THOUSANDS of Christians have asked: How was it possible for +Christ and his apostles to deceive the people of Jerusalem? How +came the miracles to be believed? Who had the impudence to say that +lepers had been cleansed, and that the dead had been raised? How +could such impostors have escaped exposure?</p> +<p>I ask: How did Mohammed deceive the people of Mecca? How has the +Catholic Church imposed upon millions of people? Who can account +for the success of falsehood?</p> +<p>Millions of people are directly interested in the false. They +live by lying. To deceive is the business of their lives. Truth is +a cripple; lies have wings. It is almost impossible to overtake and +kill and bury a lie. If you do, some one will erect a monument over +the grave, and the lie is born again as an epitaph. Let me give you +a case in point.</p> +<p>A few days ago the Matlock <i>Register</i>, a paper published in +England, printed the following:</p> +<center>CONVERSION OF THE ARCH ATHEIST.</center> +<p>"Mr. Isaac Loveland, of Shoreham, desires us to insert the +following:—</p> +<p>"November 27, 1886.</p> +<p>"Dear Mr. Loveland.—A day or two since, I received from +Mr. Hine the exhilarating intelligence that through his lectures on +the 'Identity of the British Nation with Lost Israel,' in Canada +and the United States, that Col. Bob Ingersoll, the arch Atheist, +has been converted to Christianity, and has joined the Episcopal +Church. Praise the Lord!!! 5,000 of his followers <i>have been won +for Christ</i> through Mr. Hine's grand mission work, the other +side of the Atlantic. The Colonel's cousin, the Rev. Mr. Ingersoll, +wrote to Mr. Hine soon after he began lecturing in America, +informing him that his lectures had made a great impression on the +Colonel and other Atheists. I noted it at the time in the +Messenger. Bradlaugh will yet be converted; his brother has been, +and has joined a British Israel Identity Association. This is +progress, and shows what an energetic, determined man (like Mr. +Hine), who is earnest in his faith, can do.</p> +<p>"Very faithfully yours,</p> +<center>"H. HODSON RUGG.</center> +<p>"Grove-road, St. John's Wood, London."</p> +<p>How can we account for an article like that? Who made up this +story? Who had the impudence to publish it?</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, I never saw Mr. Hine, never heard of him +until this extract was received by me in the month of December. I +never read a word about the "Identity of Lost Israel with the +British Nation." It is a question in which I never had, and never +expect to have, the slightest possible interest.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more preposterous than that the Englishman in +whose veins can be found the blood of the Saxon, the Dane, the +Norman, the Piet, the Scot and the Celt, is the descendant of +"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." The English language does not bear the +remotest resemblance to the Hebrew, and yet it is claimed by the +Reverend Hod-son Rugg that not only myself, but five thousand other +Atheists, were converted by the Rev. Mr. Hine, because of his +theory that Englishmen and Americans are simply Jews in +disguise.</p> +<p>This letter, in my judgment, was published to be used by +missionaries in China, Japan, India and Africa.</p> +<p>If stories like this can be circulated about a living man, what +may we not expect concerning the dead who have opposed the +church?</p> +<p>Countless falsehoods have been circulated about all the +opponents of superstition. Whoever attacks the popular falsehoods +of his time will find that a lie defends itself by telling other +lies. Nothing is so prolific, nothing can so multiply itself, +nothing can lay and hatch as many eggs, as a good, healthy, +religious lie.</p> +<p>And nothing is more wonderful than the credulity of the +believers in the supernatural. They feel under a kind of obligation +to believe everything in favor of their religion, or against any +form of what they are pleased to call "Infidelity."</p> +<p>The old falsehoods about Voltaire, Paine, Hume, Julian, Diderot +and hundreds of others, grow green every spring. They are answered; +they are demonstrated to be without the slightest foundation; but +they rarely die. And when one does die there seems to be a kind of +Cæsarian operation, so that in each instance although the +mother dies the child lives to undergo, if necessary, a like +operation, leaving another child, and sometimes two.</p> +<p>There are thousands and thousands of tongues ready to repeat +what the owners know to be false, and these lies are a part of the +stock in trade, the valuable assets, of superstition. No church can +afford to throw its property away. To admit that these stories are +false now, is to admit that the church has been busy lying for +hundreds of years, and it is also to admit that the word of the +church is not and cannot be taken as evidence of any fact.</p> +<p>A few years ago, I had a little controversy with the editor of +the New York <i>Observer</i>, the Rev. Irenaeus Prime, (who is now +supposed to be in heaven enjoying the bliss of seeing Infidels in +hell), as to whether Thomas Paine recanted his religious opinions. +I offered to deposit a thousand dollars for the benefit of a +charity, if the reverend doctor would substantiate the charge that +Paine recanted. I forced the New York <i>Observer</i> to admit that +Paine did not recant, and compelled that paper to say that "Thomas +Paine died a blaspheming Infidel."</p> +<p>A few months afterward an English paper was sent to me—a +religious paper—and in that paper was a statement to the +effect that the editor of the New York <i>Observer</i> had claimed +that Paine recanted; that I had offered to give a thousand dollars +to any charity that Mr. Prime might select, if he would establish +the fact that Paine did recant; and that so overwhelming was the +testimony brought forward by Mr. Prime, that I admitted that Paine +did recant, and paid the thousand dollars.</p> +<p>This is another instance of what might be called the truth of +history.</p> +<p>I wrote to the editor of that paper, telling the exact facts, +and offering him advertising rates to publish the denial, and in +addition, stated that if he would send me a copy of his paper with +the denial, I would send him twenty-five dollars for his trouble. I +received no reply, and the lie is in all probability still on its +travels, going from Sunday school to Sunday school, from pulpit to +pulpit, from hypocrite to savage,—that is to say, from +missionary to Hottentot—without the slightest evidence of +fatigue—fresh and strong, and in its cheeks the roses and +lilies of perfect health.</p> +<p>Some person, expecting to add another gem to his crown of glory, +put in circulation the story that one of my daughters had joined +the Presbyterian Church,—a story without the slightest +foundation—and although denied a hundred times, it is still +being printed and circulated for the edification of the faithful. +Every few days I receive some letter of inquiry as to this charge, +and I have industriously denied it for years, but up to the present +time, it shows no signs of death—not even of weakness.</p> +<p>Another religious gentleman put in print the charge that my son, +having been raised in the atmosphere of Infidelity, had become +insane and died in an asylum. Notwithstanding the fact that I never +had a son, the story still goes right on, and is repeated day after +day without the semblance of a blush.</p> +<p>Now, if all this is done while I am alive and well, and while I +have all the facilities of our century for spreading the denials, +what will be done after my lips are closed?</p> +<p>The mendacity of superstition is almost enough to make a man +believe in the supernatural.</p> +<p>And so I might go on for a hundred columns. Billions of +falsehoods have been told and there are trillions yet to come. The +doctrines of Malthus have nothing to do with this particular kind +of reproduction.</p> +<p>"And there are also many other falsehoods which the church has +told, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that +even the world itself could not contain the books that should be +written."—The Truth Seeker, New York, February, 19,1887.</p> +<a name="link0022" id="link0022"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HOW TO EDIT A LIBERAL PAPER.</h2> +<h3>A LIBERAL paper should be edited by a Liberal man.</h3> +<p>And by the word Liberal I mean, not only free, not only one who +thinks for himself, not only one who has escaped from the prisons +of customs and creed, but one who is candid, intelligent and +kind.</p> +<p>This Liberal editor should not forever play upon one string, no +matter how wonderful the music. He should not have his attention +forever fixed upon one question—that is to say, he should not +look through a reversed telescope and narrow his horizon to that +degree that he sees only one thing.</p> +<p>To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, +to know that it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural +does not and cannot exist—all this is but the beginning of +wisdom. This only lays the foundation for unprejudiced observation. +To kill weeds, to fell forests, to drive away or exterminate wild +beasts—this is preparatory to doing something of greater +value. Of course the weeds must be killed, the forests must be +felled, and the beasts must be destroyed before the building of +homes and the cultivation of fields.</p> +<p>A Liberal paper should not discuss theological questions alone. +Intelligent people everywhere have given up most of the old +superstitions. They have pretty well made up their minds what is +false, and they want to know some others.</p> +<p>That is to say, liberal toward everything that is true. For this +reason, a Liberal paper should keep abreast of the discoveries of +the human mind. No science should be neglected; no fact should be +overlooked. Inventions should be described and understood. And not +only this, but the beautiful in thought, in form and color, should +be preserved. The paper should be filled with things calculated to +interest thoughtful, intelligent and serious people. There should +be a column for children as well as for men.</p> +<p>Above all, it should be perfectly kind and candid. In discussion +there is no place for hatred, no opportunity for slander. A +personality is always out of place. An angry man can neither reason +himself, nor perceive the reason of what another says. The orthodox +world has always dealt in personalities. Every minister can answer +the argument of an opponent by attacking the character of the +opponent. This example should never be followed by a Liberal man. +Nobody can be bad enough to prove that the Bible is uninspired, and +nobody can be good enough to prove that it is the word of God. +These facts have no relation. They neither stand nor fall +together.</p> +<p>Nothing should be asserted that is not known. Nothing should be +denied, the falsity of which has not been, or cannot be, +demonstrated. Opinions are simply given for what they are worth. +They are guesses, and one guesser should give to another guesser +all the right of guessing that he claims for himself. Upon the +great questions of origin, of destiny, of immortality, of +punishment and reward in other worlds, every honest man must say, +"I do not know." Upon these questions, this is the creed of +intelligence. Nothing is harder to bear than the egotism of +ignorance and the arrogance of superstition. The man who has some +knowledge of the difficulties surrounding these subjects, who knows +something of the limitations of the human mind, must, of necessity, +be mentally modest. And this condition of mental modesty is the +only one consistent with individual progress.</p> +<p>Above all, and over all, a Liberal paper should teach the +absolute freedom of the mind, the utter independence of the +individual, the perfect liberty of speech. We should remember that +the world is as it must be; that the present is the necessary +offspring of the past; that the future must be what the present +makes it, and that the real work of the reformer, of the +philanthropist, is to change the conditions of the present, to the +end that the future may be better.</p> +<p>Secular Thought, Toronto, January 8,1887.</p> +<a name="link0023" id="link0023"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SECULARISM.</h2> +<p>SEVERAL people have asked me the meaning of this term.</p> +<p>Secularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the affairs +of this world; it is interested in everything that touches the +welfare of a sentient being; it advocates attention to the +particular planet in which we happen to live; it means that each +individual counts for something; it is a declaration of +intellectual independence; it means that the pew is superior to the +pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have the profits and +that they who fill the purse shall hold the strings. It is a +protest against theological oppression, against ecclesiastical +tyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom, +or of the priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting +this life for the sake of one that we know not of. It proposes to +let the gods take care of themselves. It is another name for common +sense; that is to say, the adaptation of means to such ends as are +desired and understood.</p> +<p>Secularism believes in building a home here, in this world. It +trusts to individual effort, to energy, to intelligence, to +observation and experience rather than to the unknown and the +supernatural. It desires to be happy on this side of the grave.</p> +<p>Secularism means food and fireside, roof and raiment, reasonable +work and reasonable leisure, the cultivation of the tastes, the +acquisition of knowledge, the enjoyment of the arts, and it +promises for the human race comfort, independence, intelligence, +and above all, liberty. It means the abolition of sectarian feuds, +of theological hatreds. It means the cultivation of friendship and +intellectual hospitality. It means the living for ourselves and +each other; for the present instead of the past, for this world +rather than for another. It means the right to express your thought +in spite of popes, priests, and gods. It means that impudent +idleness shall no longer live upon the labor of honest men. It +means the destruction of the business of those who trade in fear. +It proposes to give serenity and content to the human soul. It will +put out the fires of eternal pain. It is striving to do away with +violence and vice, with ignorance, poverty and disease. It lives +for the ever present to-day, and the ever coming to-morrow. It does +not believe in praying and receiving, but in earning and deserving. +It regards work as worship, labor as prayer, and wisdom as the +savior of mankind. It says to every human being, Take care of +yourself so that you may be able to help others; adorn your life +with the gems called good deeds; illumine your path with the +sunlight called friendship and love.</p> +<p>Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It has +no mysteries, no mummeries, no priests, no ceremonies, no +falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions. It considers the +lilies of the field, and takes thought for the morrow. It says to +the whole world, Work that you may eat, drink, and be clothed; work +that you may enjoy; work that you may not want; work that you may +give and never need.—The Independent Pulpit, Waco, Texas, +1887.</p> +<a name="link0024" id="link0024"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CRITICISM OF "ROBERT ELSMERE," "JOHN WARD, PREACHER," AND "AN +AFRICAN FARM."</h2> +<p>IF one wishes to know what orthodox religion really is—I +mean that religion unsoftened by Infidelity, by doubt—let him +read "John Ward, Preacher." This book shows exactly what the love +of God will do in the heart of man. This shows what the effect of +the creed of Christendom is, when absolutely believed. In this case +it is the woman who is free and the man who is enslaved. In "Robert +Els-mere" the man is breaking chains, while the woman prefers the +old prison with its ivy-covered walls.</p> +<p>Why should a man allow human love to stand between his soul and +the will of God—between his soul and eternal joy? Why should +not the true believer tear every blossom of pity, of charity, from +his heart, rather than put in peril his immortal soul?</p> +<p>An orthodox minister has a wife with a heart. Having a heart she +cannot believe in the orthodox creed. She thinks God better than he +is. She flatters the Infinite. This endangers the salvation of her +soul. If she is upheld in this the souls of others may be lost. Her +husband feels not only accountable for her soul, but for the souls +of others that may be injured by what she says, and by what she +does. He is compelled to choose between his wife and his duty, +between the woman and God. He is not great enough to go with his +heart. He is selfish enough to side with the administration, with +power. He lives a miserable life and dies a miserable death.</p> +<p>The trouble with Christianity is that it has no element of +compromise—it allows no room for charity so far as belief is +concerned. Honesty of opinion is not even a mitigating +circumstance. You are not asked to understand—you are +commanded to believe. There is no common ground. The church carries +no flag of truce. It does not say, Believe you must, but, You must +believe. No exception can be made in favor of wife or mother, +husband or child. All human relations, all human love must, if +necessary, be sacrificed with perfect cheerfulness. "Let the dead +bury their dead—follow thou me. Desert wife and child. Human +love is nothing—nothing but a snare. You must love God better +than wife, better than child." John Ward endeavored to live in +accordance with this heartless creed.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more repulsive than an orthodox life—than +one who lives in exact accordance with the creed. It is hard to +conceive of a more terrible character than John Calvin. It is +somewhat difficult to understand the Puritans, who made themselves +unhappy by way of recreation, and who seemed to enjoy themselves +when admitting their utter worthlessness and in telling God how +richly they deserved to be eternally damned. They loved to pluck +from the tree of life every bud, every blossom, every leaf. The +bare branches, naked to the wrath of God, excited their admiration. +They wondered how birds could sing, and the existence of the +rainbow led them to suspect the seriousness of the Deity. How can +there be any joy if man believes that he acts and lives under an +infinite responsibility, when the only business of this life is to +avoid the horrors of the next? Why should the lips of men feel the +ripple of laughter if there is a bare possibility that the creed of +Christendom is true?</p> +<p>I take it for granted that all people believe as they +must—that all thoughts and dreams have been naturally +produced—that what we call the unnatural is simply the +uncommon. All religions, poems, statues, vices and virtues, have +been wrought by nature with the instrumentalities called men. No +one can read "John Ward, Preacher," without hating with all his +heart the creed of John Ward; and no one can read the creed of John +Ward, preacher, without pitying with all his heart John Ward; and +no one can read this book without feeling how much better the wife +was than the husband—how much better the natural sympathies +are than the religions of our day, and how much superior common +sense is to what is called theology.</p> +<p>When we lay down the book we feel like saying: No matter whether +God exists or not; if he does, he can take care of himself; if he +does, he does not take care of us; and whether he lives or not we +must take care of ourselves. Human love is better than any +religion. It is better to love your wife than to love God. It is +better to make a happy home here than to sunder hearts with creeds. +This book meets the issues far more frankly, with far greater +candor. This book carries out to its logical sequence the Christian +creed. It shows how uncomfortable a true believer must be, and how +uncomfortable he necessarily makes those with whom he comes in +contact. It shows how narrow, how hard, how unsympathetic, how +selfish, how unreasonable, how unpoetic, the creed of the orthodox +church is.</p> +<p>In "Robert Elsmere" there is plenty of evidence of reading and +cultivation, of thought and talent. So in "John Ward, Preacher," +there is strength, purpose, logic, power of statement, directness +and courage. But "The Story of an African Farm" has but little in +common with the other two.</p> +<p>It is a work apart—belonging to no school, and not to be +judged by the ordinary rules and canons of criticism. There are +some puerilities and much philosophy, trivialities and some of the +profoundest reflections. In addition to this, there is a vast and +wonderful sympathy.</p> +<p>The following upon love is beautiful and profound: "There is a +love that begins in the head and goes down to the heart, and grows +slowly, but it lasts till death and asks less than it gives. There +is another love that blots out wisdom, that is sweet with the +sweetness of life and bitter with the bitterness of death, lasting +for an hour; but it is worth having lived a whole life for that +hour. It is a blood-red flower, with the color of sin, but there is +always the scent of a god about it."</p> +<p>There is no character in "Robert Elsmere" or in "John Ward, +Preacher," comparable for a moment to Lyndall in the "African +Farm." In her there is a splendid courage. She does not blame +others for her own faults; she accepts. There is that splendid +candor that you find in Juliet in "Measure for Measure." She is +asked:</p> +<p>"Love you the man that wronged you?"</p> +<p>And she replies:</p> +<p>"Yes; as I love the woman that wronged him."</p> +<p>The death of this wonderful girl is extremely pathetic.</p> +<p>None but an artist could have written it:</p> +<p>"Then slowly, without a sound, the beautiful eyes closed. The +dead face that the glass reflected was a thing of marvellous beauty +and tranquillity. The gray dawn crept in over it and saw it lying +there."</p> +<p>So the story of the hunter is wonderfully told. This hunter +climbs above his fellows—day by day getting away from human +sympathy, away from ignorance. He lost at last his fellow-men, and +truth was just as far away as ever. Here he found the bones of +another hunter, and as he looked upon the poor remains the wild +faces said:</p> +<p>"So he lay down here, for he was very tired. He went to sleep +forever. He put himself to sleep. Sleep is very tranquil. You are +not lonely when you are asleep, neither do your hands ache nor your +heart."</p> +<p>So the death of Waldo is most wonderfully told. The book is +filled with thought, and with thoughts of the writer—nothing +is borrowed. It is original, true and exceedingly sad. It has the +pathos of real life. There is in it the hunger of the heart, the +vast difference between the actual and the ideal:</p> +<p>"I like to feel that strange life beating up against me. I like +to realize forms of life utterly unlike my own. When my own life +feels small and I am oppressed with it, I like to crush together +and see it in a picture, in an instant, a multitude of +disconnected, unlike phases of human life—a mediaeval monk +with his string of beads pacing the quiet orchard, and looking up +from the grass at his feet to the heavy fruit trees; little Malay +boys playing naked on a shining sea-beach; a Hindoo philosopher +alone under his banyan tree, thinking, thinking, thinking, so that +in the thought of God he may lose himself; a troop of Bacchanalians +dressed in white, with crowns of vine-leaves, dancing along the +Roman streets; a martyr on the night of his death looking through +the narrow window to the sky and feeling that already he has the +wings that shall bear him up; an epicurean discoursing at a Roman +bath to a knot of his disciples on the nature of happiness; a Kafir +witch-doctor seeking for herbs by moonlight, while from the huts on +the hillside come the sound of dogs barking and the voices of women +and children; a mother giving bread and milk to her children in +little wooden basins and singing the evening song. I like to see it +all; I feel it run through me—that life belongs to me; it +makes my little life larger, it breaks down the narrow walls that +shut me in."</p> +<p>The author, Olive Schreiner, has a tropic zone in her heart. She +sometimes prattles like a child, then suddenly, and without +warning, she speaks like a philosopher—like one who had +guessed the riddle of the Sphinx. She, too, is overwhelmed with the +injustice of the world—with the negligence of +nature—and she finds that it is impossible to find repose for +heart or brain in any Christian creed.</p> +<p>These books show what the people are thinking—the tendency +of modern thought. Singularly enough the three are written by +women. Mrs. Ward, the author of "Robert Elsmere," to say the least +is not satisfied with the Episcopal Church. She feels sure that its +creed is not true. At the same time, she wants it denied in a +respectful tone of voice, and she really pities people who are +compelled to give up the consolation of eternal punishment, +although she has thrown it away herself and the tendency of her +book is to make other people do so. It is what the orthodox call "a +dangerous book." It is a flank movement calculated to suggest a +doubt to the unsuspecting reader, to some sheep who has strayed +beyond the shepherd's voice.</p> +<p>It is hard for any one to read "John Ward, Preacher," without +hating Puritanism with all his heart and without feeling certain +that nothing is more heartless than the "scheme of salvation;" and +whoever finishes "The Story of an African Farm" will feel that he +has been brought in contact with a very great, passionate and +tender soul. Is it possible that women, who have been the +Caryatides of the church, who have borne its insults and its +burdens, are to be its destroyers?</p> +<p>Man is a being capable of pleasure and pain. The fact that he +can enjoy himself—that he can obtain good—gives him +courage—courage to defend what he has, courage to try to get +more. The fact that he can suffer pain sows in his mind the seeds +of fear. Man is also filled with curiosity. He examines. He is +astonished by the uncommon. He is forced to take an interest in +things because things affect him. He is liable at every moment to +be injured. Countless things attack him. He must defend himself. As +a consequence his mind is at work; his experience in some degree +tells him what may happen; he prepares; he defends himself from +heat and cold. All the springs of action lie in the fact that he +can suffer and enjoy. The savage has great confidence in his +senses. He has absolute confidence in his eyes and ears. It +requires many years of education and experience before he becomes +satisfied that things are not always what they appear. It would be +hard to convince the average barbarian that the sun does not +actually rise and set—hard to convince him that the earth +turns. He would rely upon appearances and would record you as +insane.</p> +<p>As man becomes civilized, educated, he finally has more +confidence in his reason than in his eyes. He no longer believes +that a being called Echo exists. He has found out the theory of +sound, and he then knows that the wave of air has been returned to +his ear, and the idea of a being who repeats his words fades from +his mind; he begins then to rely, not upon appearances, but upon +demonstration, upon the result of investigation. At last he finds +that he has been deceived in a thousand ways, and he also finds +that he can invent certain instruments that are far more accurate +than his senses—instruments that add power to his sight, to +his hearing and to the sensitiveness of his touch. Day by day he +gains confidence in himself.</p> +<p>There is in the life of the individual, as in the life of the +race, a period of credulity, when not only appearances are accepted +without question, but the declarations of others. The child in the +cradle or in the lap of its mother, has implicit confidence in +fairy stories—believes in giants and dwarfs, in beings who +can answer wishes, who create castles and temples and gardens with +a thought. So the race, in its infancy, believed in such beings and +in such creations. As the child grows, facts take the place of the +old beliefs, and the same is true of the race.</p> +<p>As a rule, the attention of man is drawn first, not to his own +mistakes, not to his own faults, but to the mistakes and faults of +his neighbors. The same is true of a nation—it notices first +the eccentricities and peculiarities of other nations. This is +especially true of religious systems. Christians take it for +granted that their religion is true, that there can be about that +no doubt, no mistake. They begin to examine the religions of other +nations. They take it for granted that all these other religions +are false. They are in a frame of mind to notice contradictions, to +discover mistakes and to apprehend absurdities. In examining other +religions they use their common sense. They carry in the hand the +lamp of probability. The miracles of other Christs, or of the +founders of other religions, appear unreasonable—they find +that they are not supported by evidence. Most of the stories excite +their laughter. Many of the laws seem cruel, many of the ceremonies +absurd. These Christians satisfy themselves that they are right in +their first conjecture—that is, that other religions are all +made by men. Afterward the same arguments they have used against +other religions were found to be equally forcible against their +own. They find that the miracles of Buddha rest upon the same kind +of evidence as the miracles in the Old Testament, as the miracles +in the New—that the evidence in the one case is just as weak +and unreliable as in the other. They also find that it is just as +easy to account for the existence of Christianity as for the +existence of any other religion, and they find that the human mind +in all countries has traveled substantially the same road and has +arrived at substantially the same conclusions.</p> +<p>It may be truthfully said that Christianity by the examination +of other religions laid the foundation for its own destruction. The +moment it examined another religion it became a doubter, a sceptic, +an investigator. It began to call for proof. This course being +pursued in the examination of Christianity itself, reached the +result that had been reached as to other religions. In other words, +it was impossible for Christians successfully to attack other +religions without showing that their own religion could be +destroyed. The fact that only a few years ago we were all +provincial should be taken into consideration. A few years ago +nations were unacquainted with each other—no nation had any +conception of the real habits, customs, religions and ideas of any +other. Each nation imagined itself to be the favored of +heaven—the only one to whom God had condescended to make +known his will—the only one in direct communication with +angels and deities. Since the circumnavigation of the globe, since +the invention of the steam engine, the discovery of electricity, +the nations of the world have become acquainted with each other, +and we now know that the old ideas were born of egotism, and that +egotism is the child of ignorance and savagery.</p> +<p>Think of the egotism of the ancient Jews, who imagined that they +were "the chosen people"—the only ones in whom God took the +slightest interest! Imagine the egotism of the Catholic Church, +claiming that it is the only church—that it is continually +under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and that the pope is +infallible and occupies the place of God. Think of the egotism of +the Presbyterian, who imagines that he is one of "the elect," and +that billions of ages before the world was created, God, in the +eternal counsel of his own good pleasure, picked out this +particular Presbyterian, and at the same time determined to send +billions and billions to the pit of eternal pain. Think of the +egotism of the man who believes in special providence. The old +philosophy, the old religion, was made in about equal parts of +ignorance and egotism. This earth was the universe. The sun rose +and set simply for the benefit of "God's chosen people." The moon +and stars were made to beautify the night, and all the countless +hosts of heaven were for no other purpose than to decorate what +might be called the ceiling of the earth. It was also believed that +this firmament was solid—that up there the gods lived, and +that they could be influenced by the prayers and desires of +men.</p> +<p>We have now found that the earth is only a grain of sand, a +speck, an atom in an infinite universe. We now know that the sun is +a million times larger than the earth, and that other planets are +millions of times larger than the sun; and when we think of these +things, the old stories of the Garden of Eden and Sinai and Calvary +seem infinitely out of proportion.</p> +<p>At last we have reached a point where we have the candor and the +intelligence to examine the claims of our own religion precisely as +we examine those of other countries. We have produced men and women +great enough to free themselves from the prejudices born of +provincialism—from the prejudices, we might almost say, of +patriotism. A few people are great enough not to be controlled by +the ideas of the dead—great enough to know that they are not +bound by the mistakes of their ancestors—and that a man may +actually love his mother without accepting her belief. We have even +gone further than this, and we are now satisfied that the only way +to really honor parents is to tell our best and highest thoughts. +These thoughts ought to be in the mind when reading the books +referred to. There are certain tendencies, certain trends of +thought, and these tendencies—these trends—bear fruit; +that is to say, they produce the books about which I have spoken as +well as many others.</p> +<a name="link0025" id="link0025"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE LIBEL LAWS</h2> +<p>Question. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to +remodeling the libel laws?</p> +<p>Answer. I believe that every article appearing in a paper should +be signed by the writer. If it is libelous, then the writer and the +publisher should both be held responsible in damages. The law on +this subject, if changed, should throw greater safeguards around +the reputation of the citizen. It does not seem to me that the +papers have any right to complain. Probably a good many suits are +brought that should not be instituted, but just think of the suits +that are not brought.</p> +<p>Personally I have no complaint to make, as it would be very hard +to find anything in any paper against me, but it has never occurred +to me that the press needed any greater liberty than it now +enjoys.</p> +<p>It might be a good thing for a paper to publish each week, a +list of mistakes, if this could be done without making that edition +too large. But certainly when a false and scandalous charge has +been made by mistake or as the result of imposition, great pains +should be taken to give the retraction at once and in a way to +attract attention.</p> +<p>I suppose the papers are liable to be imposed upon—liable +to print thousands of articles to which the attention of the editor +or proprietor was not called. Still, that is not the fault of the +man whose character is attacked. On the whole I think the papers +have the advantage of the average citizen as the law now is.</p> +<p>If all articles had to be signed by the writer, I am satisfied +the writer would be more careful and less liable to write anything +of a libelous nature. I am willing to admit that I have given but +little attention to the subject, probably for the reason that I +have never been a sufferer.</p> +<p>It would hardly do to hold only the writer responsible. Suppose +a man writes a libelous article, leaves the country, and then the +article is published; is there no remedy? A suit for libel is not +much of a remedy, I admit, but it is some. It is like the bayonet +in war. Very few are injured by bayonets, but a good many are +afraid that they may be.</p> +<p>—The Herald, New York, October 26,1888.</p> +<a name="link0026" id="link0026"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>REV. DR. NEWTON'S SERMON ON A NEW RELIGION.</h2> +<p>I HAVE read the report of the Rev. R. Heber Newton's sermon and +I am satisfied, first, that Mr. Newton simply said what he +thoroughly believes to be true, and second, that some of the +conclusions at which he arrives are certainly correct. I do not +regard Mr. Newton as a heretic or sceptic. Every man who reads the +Bible must, to a greater or less extent, think for himself. He need +not tell his thoughts; he has the right to keep them to himself. +But if he undertakes to tell them, then he should be absolutely +honest.</p> +<p>The Episcopal creed is a few ages behind the thought of the +world. For many, years the foremost members and clergymen in that +church have been giving some new meanings to the old words and +phrases. Words are no more exempt from change than other things in +nature. A word at one time rough, jagged, harsh and cruel, is +finally worn smooth. A word known as slang, picked out of the +gutter, is cleaned, educated, becomes respectable and finally is +found in the mouths of the best and purest.</p> +<p>We must remember that in the world of art the picture depends +not alone on the painter, but on the one who sees it. So words must +find some part of their meaning in the man who hears or the man who +reads. In the old times the word "hell" gave to the hearer or +reader the picture of a vast pit filled with an ocean of molten +brimstone, in which innumerable souls were suffering the torments +of fire, and where millions of devils were engaged in the cheerful +occupation of increasing the torments of the damned. This was the +real old orthodox view.</p> +<p>As man became civilized, however, the picture grew less and less +vivid. Finally, some expressed their doubts about the brimstone, +and others began to think that if the Devil was, and is, really an +enemy of God he would not spend his time punishing sinners to +please God. Why should the Devil be in partnership with his enemy, +and why should he inflict torments on poor souls who were his own +friends, and who shared with him the feeling of hatred toward the +Almighty?</p> +<p>As men became more and more civilized, the idea began to dawn in +their minds that an infinitely good and wise being would not have +created persons, knowing that they would be eternal failures, or +that they were to suffer eternal punishment, because there could be +no possible object in eternal punishment—no reformation, no +good to be accomplished—and certainly the sight of all this +torment would not add to the joy of heaven, neither would it tend +to the happiness of God.</p> +<p>So the more civilized adopted the idea that punishment is a +consequence and not an infliction. Then they took another step and +concluded that every soul, in every world, in every age, should +have at least the chance of doing right. And yet persons so +believing still used the word "hell," but the old meaning had +dropped out.</p> +<p>So with regard to the atonement. At one time it was regarded as +a kind of bargain in which so much blood was shed for so many +souls. This was a barbaric view. Afterward, the mind developing a +little, the idea got in the brain that the life of Christ was worth +its moral effect. And yet these people use the word "atonement," +but the bargain idea has been lost.</p> +<p>Take for instance the word "justice." The meaning that is given +to that word depends upon the man who uses it—depends for the +most part on the age in which he lives, the country in which he was +born. The same is true of the word "freedom." Millions and millions +of people boasted that they were the friends of freedom, while at +the same time they enslaved their fellow-men. So, in the name of +justice every possible crime has been perpetrated and in the name +of mercy every instrument of torture has been used.</p> +<p>Mr. Newton realizes the fact that everything in the world +changes; that creeds are influenced by civilization, by the +acquisition of knowledge, by the progress of the sciences and +arts—in other words, that there is a tendency in man to +harmonize his knowledge and to bring about a reconciliation between +what he knows and what he believes. This will be fatal to +superstition, provided the man knows anything.</p> +<p>Mr. Newton, moreover, clearly sees that people are losing +confidence in the morality of the gospel; that its foundation lacks +common sense; that the doctrine of forgiveness is unscientific, and +that it is impossible to feel that the innocent can rightfully +suffer for the guilty, or that the suffering of innocence can in +any way justify the crimes of the wicked. I think he is mistaken, +however, when he says that the early church softened or weakened +the barbaric passions. I think the early church was as barbarous as +any institution that ever gained a footing in this world. I do not +believe that the creed of the early church, as understood, could +soften anything. A church that preaches the eternity of punishment +has within it the seed of all barbarism and the soil to make it +grow.</p> +<p>So Mr. Newton is undoubtedly right when he says that the +organized Christianity of to-day is not the leader in social +progress. No one now goes to a synod to find a fact in science or +on any subject. A man in doubt does not ask the average minister; +he regards him as behind the times. He goes to the scientist, to +the library. He depends upon the untrammelled thought of fearless +men.</p> +<p>The church, for the most part, is in the control of the rich, of +the respectable, of the well-to-do, of the unsympathetic, of the +men who, having succeeded themselves, think that everybody ought to +succeed. The spirit of caste is as well developed in the church as +it is in the average club. There is the same exclusive feeling, and +this feeling in the next world is to be heightened and deepened to +such an extent that a large majority of our fellow-men are to be +eternally excluded.</p> +<p>The peasants of Europe—the workingmen—do not go to +the church for sympathy. If they do they come home empty, or rather +empty hearted. So, in our own country the laboring classes, the +mechanics, are not depending on the churches to right their wrongs. +They do not expect the pulpits to increase their wages. The +preachers get their money from the well-to-do—from the +employeer class—and their sympathies are with those from whom +they receive their wages.</p> +<p>The ministers attack the pleasures of the world. They are not so +much scandalized by murder and forgery as by dancing and eating +meat on Friday. They regard unbelief as the greatest of all sins. +They are not touching the real, vital issues of the day, and their +hearts do not throb in unison with the hearts of the struggling, +the aspiring, the enthusiastic and the real believers in the +progress of the human race.</p> +<p>It is all well enough to say that we should depend on +Providence, but experience has taught us that while it may do no +harm to say it, it will do no good to do it. We have found that man +must be the Providence of man, and that one plow will do more, +properly pulled and properly held, toward feeding the world, than +all the prayers that ever agitated the air.</p> +<p>So, Mr. Newton is correct in saying, as I understand him to say, +that the hope of immortality has nothing to do with orthodox +religion. Neither, in my judgment, has the belief in the existence +of a God anything in fact to do with real religion. The old +doctrine that God wanted man to do something for him, and that he +kept a watchful eye upon all the children of men; that he rewarded +the virtuous and punished the wicked, is gradually fading from the +mind. We know that some of the worst men have what the world calls +success. We know that some of the best men lie upon the straw of +failure. We know that honesty goes hungry, while larceny sits at +the banquet. We know that the vicious have every physical comfort, +while the virtuous are often clad in rags.</p> +<p>Man is beginning to find that he must take care of himself; that +special providence is a mistake. This being so, the old religions +must go down, and in their place man must depend upon intelligence, +industry, honesty; upon the facts that he can ascertain, upon his +own experience, upon his own efforts. Then religion becomes a thing +of this world—a religion to put a roof above our heads, a +religion that gives to every man a home, a religion that rewards +virtue here.</p> +<p>If Mr. Newton's sermon is in accordance with the Episcopal +creed, I congratulate the creed. In any event, I think Mr. Newton +deserves great credit for speaking his thought. Do not understand +that I imagine that he agrees with me. The most I will say is that +in some things I agree with him, and probably there is a little too +much truth and a little too much humanity in his remarks to please +the bishop.</p> +<p>There is this wonderful fact, no man has ever yet been +persecuted for thinking God bad. When any one has said that he +believed God to be so good that he would, in his own time and way, +redeem the entire human race, and that the time would come when +every soul would be brought home and sit on an equality with the +others around the great fireside of the universe, that man has been +denounced as a poor, miserable, wicked wretch.—New York +Herald, December 13,1888.</p> +<a name="link0027" id="link0027"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>AN ESSAY ON CHRISTMAS.</h2> +<p>MY family and I regard Christmas as a holiday—that is to +say, a day of rest and pleasure—a day to get acquainted with +each other, a day to recall old memories, and for the cultivation +of social amenities. The festival now called Christmas is far older +than Christianity. It was known and celebrated for thousands of +years before the establishment of what is known as our religion. It +is a relic of sun-worship. It is the day on which the sun triumphs +over the hosts of darkness, and thousands of years before the New +Testament was written, thousands of years before the republic of +Rome existed, before one stone of Athens was laid, before the +Pharaohs ruled in Egypt, before the religion of Brahma, before +Sanscrit was spoken, men and women crawled out of their caves, +pushed the matted hair from their eyes, and greeted the triumph of +the sun over the powers of the night.</p> +<p>There are many relics of this worship—among which is the +shaving of the priest's head, leaving the spot shaven surrounded by +hair, in imitation of the rays of the sun. There is still another +relic—the ministers of our day close their eyes in prayer. +When men worshiped the sun—when they looked at that luminary +and implored its assistance—they shut their eyes as a matter +of necessity. Afterward the priests looking at their idols +glittering with gems, shut their eyes in flattery, pretending that +they could not bear the effulgence of the presence; and to-day, +thousands of years after the old ideas have passed away, the modern +parson, without knowing the origin of the custom, closes his eyes +when he prays.</p> +<p>There are many other relics and souvenirs of the dead worship of +the sun, and this festival was adopted by Egyptians, Greeks, +Romans, and by Christians. As a matter of fact, Christianity +furnished new steam for an old engine, infused a new spirit into an +old religion, and, as a matter of course, the old festival +remained.</p> +<p>For all of our festivals you will find corresponding pagan +festivals. For instance, take the eucharist, the communion, where +persons partake of the body and blood of the Deity. This is an +exceedingly old custom. Among the ancients they ate cakes made of +corn, in honor of Ceres and they called these cakes the flesh of +the goddess, and they drank wine in honor of Bacchus, and called +this the blood of their god. And so I could go on giving the pagan +origin of every Christian ceremony and custom. The probability is +that the worship of the sun was once substantially universal, and +consequently the festival of Christ was equally wide spread.</p> +<p>As other religions have been produced, the old customs have been +adopted and continued, so that the result is, this festival of +Christmas is almost world-wide. It is popular because it is a +holiday. Overworked people are glad of days that bring rest and +recreation and allow them to meet their families and their friends. +They are glad of days when they give and receive +gifts—evidences of friendship, of remembrance and love. It is +popular because it is really human, and because it is interwoven +with our customs, habits, literature, and thought.</p> +<p>For my part I am willing to have two or three a year—the +more holidays the better. Many people have an idea that I am +opposed to Sunday. I am perfectly willing to have two a week. All I +insist on is that these days shall be for the benefit of the +people, and that they shall be kept not in a way to make folks +miserable or sad or hungry, but in a way to make people happy, and +to add a little to the joy of life. Of course, I am in favor of +everybody keeping holidays to suit himself, provided he does not +interfere with others, and I am perfectly willing that everybody +should go to church on that day, provided he is willing that I +should go somewhere else.—The Tribune, New York, December, +1889.</p> +<a name="link0028" id="link0028"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>HAS FREETHOUGHT A CONSTRUCTIVE SIDE?</h2> +<p>THE object of the Freethinker is to ascertain the +truth—the conditions of well-being—to the end that this +life will be made of value. This is the affirmative, positive, and +constructive side.</p> +<p>Without liberty there is no such thing as real happiness. There +may be the contentment of the slave—of one who is glad that +he has passed the day without a beating—one who is happy +because he has had enough to eat—but the highest possible +idea of happiness is freedom.</p> +<p>All religious systems enslave the mind. Certain things are +demanded—certain things must be believed—certain things +must be done—and the man who becomes the subject or servant +of this superstition must give up all idea of individuality or hope +of intellectual growth and progress.</p> +<p>The religionist informs us that there is somewhere in the +universe an orthodox God, who is endeavoring to govern the world, +and who for this purpose resorts to famine and flood, to earthquake +and pestilence—and who, as a last resort, gets up a revival +of religion. That is called "affirmative and positive."</p> +<p>The man of sense knows that no such God exists, and thereupon he +affirms that the orthodox doctrine is infinitely absurd. This is +called a "negation." But to my mind it is an affirmation, and is a +part of the positive side of Freethought.</p> +<p>A man who compels this Deity to abdicate his throne renders a +vast and splendid service to the human race.</p> +<p>As long as men believe in tyranny in heaven they will practice +tyranny on earth. Most people are exceedingly imitative, and +nothing is so gratifying to the average orthodox man as to be like +his God.</p> +<p>These same Christians tell us that nearly everybody is to be +punished forever, while a few fortunate Christians who were elected +and selected billions of ages before the world was created, are to +be happy. This they call the "tidings of great joy." The +Freethinker denounces this doctrine as infamous beyond the power of +words to express. He says, and says clearly, that a God who would +create a human being, knowing that that being was to be eternally +miserable, must of necessity be an infinite fiend.</p> +<p>The free man, into whose brain the serpent of superstition has +not crept, knows that the dogma of eternal pain is an infinite +falsehood. He also knows—if the dogma be true—that +every decent human being should hate, with every drop of his blood, +the creator of the universe. He also knows—if he knows +anything—that no decent human being could be happy in heaven +with a majority of the human race in hell. He knows that a mother +could not enjoy the society of Christ with her children in +perdition; and if she could, he knows that such a mother is simply +a wild beast. The free man knows that the angelic hosts, under such +circumstances, could not enjoy themselves unless they had the +hearts of boa-constrictors.</p> +<p>It will thus be seen that there is an affirmative, a positive, a +constructive side to Freethought.</p> +<p>What is the positive side?</p> +<p>First: A denial of all orthodox falsehoods—an exposure of +all superstitions. This is simply clearing the ground, to the end +that seeds of value may be planted. It is necessary, first, to fell +the trees, to destroy the poisonous vines, to drive out the wild +beasts. Then comes another phase—another kind of work. The +Freethinker knows that the universe is natural—that there is +no room, even in infinite space, for the miraculous, for the +impossible. The Freethinker knows, or feels that he knows, that +there is no sovereign of the universe, who, like some petty king or +tyrant, delights in showing his authority. He feels that all in the +universe are conditioned beings, and that only those are happy who +live in accordance with the conditions of happiness, and this fact +or truth or philosophy embraces all men and all gods—if there +be gods.</p> +<p>The positive side is this: That every good action has good +consequences—that it bears good fruit forever—and that +every bad action has evil consequences, and bears bad fruit. The +Freethinker also asserts that every man must bear the consequences +of his actions—that he must reap what he sows, and that he +cannot be justified by the goodness of another, or damned for the +wickedness of another.</p> +<p>There is still another side, and that is this: The Freethinker +knows that all the priests and cardinals and popes know nothing of +the supernatural—they know nothing about gods or angels or +heavens or hells—nothing about inspired books or Holy Ghosts, +or incarnations or atonements. He knows that all this is +superstition pure and simple. He knows also that these +people—from pope to priest, from bishop to parson, do not the +slightest good in this world—that they live upon the labor of +others—that they earn nothing themselves—that they +contribute nothing toward the happiness, or well-being, or the +wealth of mankind. He knows that they trade and traffic in +ignorance and fear, that they make merchandise of hope and +grief—and he also knows that in every religion the priest +insists on five things—First: There is a God. Second: He has +made known his will. Third: He has selected me to explain this +message. Fourth: We will now take up a collection; and Fifth: Those +who fail to subscribe will certainly be damned.</p> +<p>The positive side of Freethought is to find out the +truth—the facts of nature—to the end that we may take +advantage of those truths, of those facts—for the purpose of +feeding and clothing and educating mankind.</p> +<p>In the first place, we wish to find that which will lengthen +human life—that which will prevent or kill disease—that +which will do away with pain—that which will preserve or give +us health.</p> +<p>We also want to go in partnership with these forces of nature, +to the end that we may be well fed and clothed—that we may +have good houses that protect us from heat and cold. And beyond +this—beyond these simple necessities—there are still +wants and aspirations, and free-thought will give us the highest +possible in art—the most wonderful and thrilling in +music—the greatest paintings, the most marvelous +sculpture—in other words, free-thought will develop the brain +to its utmost capacity. Freethought is the mother of art and +science, of morality and happiness.</p> +<p>It is charged by the worshipers of the Jewish myth, that we +destroy, that we do not build.</p> +<p>What have we destroyed? We have destroyed the idea that a +monster created and governs this world—the declaration that a +God of infinite mercy and compassion upheld slavery and polygamy +and commanded the destruction of men, women, and babes. We have +destroyed the idea that this monster created a few of his children +for eternal joy, and the vast majority for everlasting pain. We +have destroyed the infinite absurdity that salvation depends upon +belief, that investigation is dangerous, and that the torch of +reason lights only the way to hell. We have taken a grinning devil +from every grave, and the curse from death—and in the place +of these dogmas, of these infamies, we have put that which is +natural and that which commends itself to the heart and brain.</p> +<p>Instead of loving God, we love each other. Instead of the +religion of the sky—the religion of this world—the +religion of the family—the love of husband for wife, of wife +for husband—the love of all for children. So that now the +real religion is: Let us live for each other; let us live for this +world, without regard for the past and without fear for the future. +Let us use our faculties and our powers for the benefit of +ourselves and others, knowing that if there be another world, the +same philosophy that gives us joy here will make us happy +there.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more absurd than the idea that we can do +something to please or displease an infinite Being. If our thoughts +and actions can lessen or increase the happiness of God, then to +that extent God is the slave and victim of man.</p> +<p>The energies of the world have been wasted in the service of a +phantom—millions of priests have lived on the industry of +others and no effort has been spared to prevent the intellectual +freedom of mankind.</p> +<p>We know, if we know anything, that supernatural religion has no +foundation except falsehood and mistake. To expose these +falsehoods—to correct these mistakes—to build the +fabric of civilization on the foundation of demonstrated +truth—is the task of the Freethinker. To destroy guide-boards +that point in the wrong direction—to correct charts that lure +to reef and wreck—to drive the fiend of fear from the +mind—to protect the cradle from the serpent of superstition +and dispel the darkness of ignorance with the sun of +science—is the task of the Freethinker.</p> +<p>What constructive work has been done by the church? Christianity +gave us a flat world a few thousand years ago—a heaven above +it where Jehovah dwells and a hell below it where most people will +dwell. Christianity took the ground that a certain belief was +necessary to salvation and that this belief was far better and of +more importance than the practice of all the virtues. It became the +enemy of investigation—the bitter and relentless foe of +reason and the liberty of thought. It committed every crime and +practiced every cruelty in the propagation of its creed. It drew +the sword against the freedom of the world. It established schools +and universities for the preservation of ignorance. It claimed to +have within its keeping the source and standard of all truth. If +the church had succeeded the sciences could not have existed.</p> +<p>Freethought has given us all we have of value. It has been the +great constructive force. It is the only discoverer, and every +science is its child.—The Truth Seeker, New York 1890.</p> +<a name="link0029" id="link0029"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE IMPROVED MAN.</h2> +<p>THE Improved Man will be in favor of universal liberty, that is +to say, he will be opposed to all kings and nobles, to all +privileged classes. He will give to all others the rights he claims +for himself. He will neither bow nor cringe, nor accept bowing and +cringing from others. He will be neither master nor slave, neither +prince nor peasant—simply man.</p> +<p>He will be the enemy of all caste, no matter whether its +foundation be wealth, title or power, and of him it will be said: +"Blessed is that man who is afraid of no man and of whom no man is +afraid."</p> +<p>The Improved Man will be in favor of universal education. He +will believe it the duty of every person to shed all the light he +can, to the end that no child may be reared in darkness. By +education he will mean the gaining of useful knowledge, the +development of the mind along the natural paths that lead to human +happiness.</p> +<p>He will not waste his time in ascertaining the foolish theories +of extinct peoples or in studying the dead languages for the sake +of understanding the theologies of ignorance and fear, but he will +turn his attention to the affairs of life, and will do his utmost +to see to it that every child has an opportunity to learn the +demonstrated facts of science, the true history of the world, the +great principles of right and wrong applicable to human +conduct—the things necessary to the preservation of the +individual and of the state, and such arts and industries as are +essential to the preservation of all.</p> +<p>He will also endeavor to develop the mind in the direction of +the beautiful—of the highest art—so that the palace in +which the mind dwells may be enriched and rendered beautiful, to +the end that these stones, called facts, may be changed into +statues.</p> +<p>The Improved Man will believe only in the religion of this +world. He will have nothing to do with the miraculous and +supernatural. He will find that there is no room in the universe +for these things. He will know that happiness is the only good, and +that everything that tends to the happiness of sentient beings is +good, and that to do the things—and no other—that add +to the happiness of man is to practice the highest possible +religion. His motto will be: "Sufficient unto each world is the +evil thereof." He will know that each man should be his own priest, +and that the brain is the real cathedral. He will know that in the +realm of mind there is no authority—that majorities in this +mental world can settle nothing—that each soul is the +sovereign of its own world, and that it cannot abdicate without +degrading itself. He will not bow to numbers or force; to antiquity +or custom. He, standing under the flag of nature, under the blue +and stars, will decide for himself. He will not endeavor by prayers +and supplication, by fastings and genuflections, to change the mind +of the "Infinite" or alter the course of nature, neither will he +employ others to do those things in his place. He will have no +confidence in the religion of idleness, and will give no part of +what he earns to support parson or priest, archbishop or pope. He +will know that honest labor is the highest form of prayer. He will +spend no time in ringing bells or swinging censers, or in chanting +the litanies of barbarism, but he will appreciate all that is +artistic—that is beautiful—that tends to refine and +ennoble the human race. He will not live a life of fear. He will +stand in awe neither of man nor ghosts. He will enjoy not only the +sunshine of life, but will bear with fortitude the darkest days. He +will have no fear of death. About the grave, there will be no +terrors, and his life will end as serenely as the sun rises.</p> +<p>The Improved Man will be satisfied that the supernatural does +not exist—that behind every fact, every thought and dream is +an efficient cause. He will know that every human action is a +necessary product, and he will also know that men cannot be +reformed by punishment, by degradation or by revenge. He will +regard those who violate the laws of nature and the laws of States +as victims of conditions, of circumstances, and he will do what he +can for the wellbeing of his fellow-men.</p> +<p>The Improved Man will not give his life to the accumulation of +wealth. He will find no happiness in exciting the envy of his +neighbors. He will not care to live in a palace while others who +are good, industrious and kind are compelled to huddle in huts and +dens. He will know that great wealth is a great burden, and that to +accumulate beyond the actual needs of a reasonable human being is +to increase not wealth, but responsibility and trouble.</p> +<p>The Improved Man will find his greatest joy in the happiness of +others and he will know that the home is the real temple. He will +believe in the democracy of the fireside, and will reap his +greatest reward in being loved by those whose lives he has +enriched.</p> +<p>The Improved Man will be self-poised, independent, candid and +free. He will be a scientist. He will observe, investigate, +experiment and demonstrate. He will use his sense and his senses. +He will keep his mind open as the day to the hints and suggestions +of nature. He will always be a student, a learner and a +listener—a believer in intellectual hospitality. In the world +of his brain there will be continuous summer, perpetual seed-time +and harvest. Facts will be the foundation of his faith. In one hand +he will carry the torch of truth, and with the other raise the +fallen.—The World, New York, February 28,1890.</p> +<a name="link0030" id="link0030"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>EIGHT HOURS MUST COME.</h2> +<p>I HARDLY know enough on the subject to give an opinion as to the +time when eight hours are to become a day's work, but I am +perfectly satisfied that eight hours will become a labor day.</p> +<p>The working people should be protected by law; if they are not, +the capitalists will require just as many hours as human nature can +bear. We have seen here in America street-car drivers working +sixteen and seventeen hours a day. It was necessary to have a +strike in order to get to fourteen, another strike to get to +twelve, and nobody could blame them for keeping on striking till +they get to eight hours.</p> +<p>For a man to get up before daylight and work till after dark, +life is of no particular importance. He simply earns enough one day +to prepare himself to work another. His whole life is spent in want +and toil, and such a life is without value.</p> +<p>Of course, I cannot say that the present effort is going to +succeed—all I can say is that I hope it will. I cannot see +how any man who does nothing—who lives in idleness—can +insist that others should work ten or twelve hours a day. Neither +can I see how a man who lives on the luxuries of life can find it +in his heart, or in his stomach, to say that the poor ought to be +satisfied with the crusts and crumbs they get.</p> +<p>I believe there is to be a revolution in the relations between +labor and capital. The laboring people a few generations ago were +not very intellectual. There were no schoolhouses, no teachers +except the church, and the church taught obedience and +faith—told the poor people that although they had a hard time +here, working for nothing, they would be paid in Paradise with a +large interest. Now the working people are more +intelligent—they are better educated—they read and +write. In order to carry on the works of the present, many of them +are machinists of the highest order. They must be reasoners. Every +kind of mechanism insists upon logic. The working people are +reasoners—their hands and heads are in partnership. They know +a great deal more than the capitalists. It takes a thousand times +the brain to make a locomotive that it does to run a store or a +bank. Think of the intelligence in a steamship and in all the +thousand machines and devices that are now working for the world. +These working people read. They meet together—they discuss. +They are becoming more and more independent in thought. They do not +believe all they hear. They may take their hats off their heads to +the priests, but they keep their brains in their heads for +themselves.</p> +<p>The free school in this country has tended to put men on an +equality, and the mechanic understands his side of the case, and is +able to express his views. Under these circumstances there must be +a revolution. That is to say, the relations between capital and +labor must be changed, and the time must come when they who do the +work—they who make the money—will insist on having some +of the profits.</p> +<p>I do not expect this remedy to come entirely from the +Government, or from Government interference. I think the Government +can aid in passing good and wholesome laws—laws fixing the +length of a labor day; laws preventing the employment of children; +laws for the safety and security of workingmen in mines and other +dangerous places. But the laboring people must rely upon +themselves; on their intelligence, and especially on their +political power. They are in the majority in this country. They can +if they wish—if they will stand together—elect +Congresses and Senates, Presidents and Judges. They have it in +their power to administer the Government of the United States.</p> +<p>The laboring man, however, ought to remember that all who labor +are their brothers, and that all women who labor are their sisters, +and whenever one class of workingmen or working women is oppressed +all other laborers ought to stand by the oppressed class. Probably +the worst paid people in the world are the working-women. Think of +the sewing women in this city—and yet we call ourselves +civilized! I would like to see all working people unite for the +purpose of demanding justice, not only for men, but for women.</p> +<p>All my sympathies are on the side of those who toil—of +those who produce the real wealth of the world—of those who +carry the burdens of mankind.</p> +<p>Any man who wishes to force his brother to work—to +toil—more than eight hours a day is not a civilized man.</p> +<p>My hope for the workingman has its foundation in the fact that +he is growing more and more intelligent. I have also the same hope +for the capitalist. The time must come when the capitalist will +clearly and plainly see that his interests are identical with those +of the laboring man. He will finally become intelligent enough to +know that his prosperity depends on the prosperity of those who +labor. When both become intelligent the matter will be settled.</p> +<p>Neither labor nor capital should resort to force.—The +Morning Journal, April 27, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0031" id="link0031"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE JEWS.</h2> +<p>WHEN I was a child, I was taught that the Jews were an +exceedingly hard-hearted and cruel people, and that they were so +destitute of the finer feelings that they had a little while before +that time crucified the only perfect man who had appeared upon the +earth; that this perfect man was also perfect God, and that the +Jews had really stained their hands with the blood of the +Infinite.</p> +<p>When I got somewhat older, I found that nearly all people had +been guilty of substantially the same crime—that is, that +they had destroyed the progressive and the thoughtful; that +religionists had in all ages been cruel; that the chief priests of +all people had incited the mob, to the end that heretics—that +is to say, philosophers—that is to say, men who knew that the +chief priests were hypocrites—might be destroyed.</p> +<p>I also found that Christians had committed more of these crimes +than all other religionists put together.</p> +<p>I also became acquainted with a large number of Jewish people, +and I found them like other people, except that, as a rule, they +were more industrious, more temperate, had fewer vagrants among +them, no beggars, very few criminals; and in addition to all this, +I found that they were intelligent, kind to their wives and +children, and that, as a rule, they kept their contracts and paid +their debts.</p> +<p>The prejudice was created almost entirely by religious, or +rather irreligious, instruction. All children in Christian +countries are taught that all the Jews are to be eternally damned +who die in the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; that it is not +enough to believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament—not +enough to obey the Ten Commandments—not enough to believe the +miracles performed in the days of the prophets, but that every Jew +must accept the New Testament and must be a believer in +Christianity—that is to say, he must be regenerated—or +he will simply be eternal kindling wood.</p> +<p>The church has taught, and still teaches, that every Jew is an +outcast; that he is to-day busily fulfilling prophecy; that he is a +wandering witness in favor of "the glad tidings of great joy;" that +Jehovah is seeing to it that the Jews shall not exist as a +nation—that they shall have no abiding place, but that they +shall remain scattered, to the end that the inspiration of the +Bible may be substantiated.</p> +<p>Dr. John Hall of this city, a few years ago, when the Jewish +people were being persecuted in Russia, took the ground that it was +all fulfillment of prophecy, and that whenever a Jewish maiden was +stabbed to death, God put a tongue in every wound for the purpose +of declaring the truth of the Old Testament.</p> +<p>Just as long as Christians take these positions, of course they +will do what they can to assist in the fulfillment of what they +call prophecy, and they will do their utmost to keep the Jewish +people in a state of exile, and then point to that fact as one of +the corner-stones of Christianity.</p> +<p>My opinion is that in the early days of Christianity all +sensible Jews were witnesses against the faith, and in this way +excited the hostility of the orthodox. Every sensible Jew knew that +no miracles had been performed in Jerusalem. They all knew that the +sun had not been darkened, that the graves had not given up their +dead, that the veil of the temple had not been rent in +twain—and they told what they knew. They were then denounced +as the most infamous of human beings, and this hatred has pursued +them from that day to this.</p> +<p>There is no other chapter in history so infamous, so bloody, so +cruel, so relentless, as the chapter in which is told the manner in +which Christians—those who love their enemies—have +treated the Jewish people. This story is enough to bring the blush +of shame to the cheek, and the words of indignation to the lips of +every honest man.</p> +<p>Nothing can be more unjust than to generalize about +nationalities, and to speak of a race as worthless or vicious, +simply because you have met an individual who treated you unjustly. +There are good people and bad people in all races, and the +individual is not responsible for the crimes of the nation, or the +nation responsible for the actions of the few. Good men and honest +men are found in every faith, and they are not honest or dishonest +because they are Jews or Gentiles, but for entirely different +reasons.</p> +<p>Some of the best people I have ever known are Jews, and some of +the worst people I have known are Christians. The Christians were +not bad simply because they were Christians, neither were the Jews +good because they were Jews. A man is far above these badges of +faith and race. Good Jews are precisely the same as good +Christians, and bad Christians are wonderfully like bad Jews.</p> +<p>Personally, I have either no prejudices about religion, or I +have equal prejudice against all religions. The consequence is that +I judge of people not by their creeds, not by their rites, not by +their mummeries, but by their actions.</p> +<p>In the first place, at the bottom of this prejudice lies the +coiled serpent of superstition. In other words, it is a religious +question. It seems impossible for the people of one religion to +like the people believing in another religion. They have different +gods, different heavens, and a great variety of hells. For the +followers of one god to treat the followers of another god decently +is a kind of treason. In order to be really true to his god, each +follower must not only hate all other gods, but the followers of +all other gods.</p> +<p>The Jewish people should outgrow their own superstitions. It is +time for them to throw away the idea of inspiration. The +intelligent jew of to-day knows that the Old Testament was written +by barbarians., and he knows that the rites and ceremonies are +simply absurd. He knows that no intelligent man should care +anything about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three dead barbarians. In +other words, the Jewish people should leave their superstition and +rely on science and philosophy.</p> +<p>The Christian should do the same. He, by this time, should know +that his religion is a mistake, that his creed has no foundation in +the eternal verities. The Christian certainly should give up the +hopeless task of converting the Jewish people, and the Jews should +give up the useless task of converting the Christians. There is no +propriety in swapping superstitions—neither party can afford +to give any boot.</p> +<p>When the Christian throws away his cruel and heartless +superstitions, and when the Jew throws away his, then they can meet +as man to man.</p> +<p>In the meantime, the world will go on in its blundering way, and +I shall know and feel that everybody does as he must, and that the +Christian, to the extent that he is prejudiced, is prejudiced by +reason of his ignorance, and that consequently the great lever with +which to raise all mankind into the sunshine of philosophy, is +intelligence.</p> +<a name="link0032" id="link0032"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CRUMBLING CREEDS.</h2> +<p>THERE is a desire in each brain to harmonize the knowledge that +it has. If a man knows, or thinks he knows, a few facts, he will +naturally use those facts for the purpose of determining the +accuracy of his opinions on other subjects. This is simply an +effort to establish or prove the unknown by the known—a +process that is constantly going on in the minds of all intelligent +people.</p> +<p>It is natural for a man not governed by fear, to use what he +knows in one department of human inquiry, in every other department +that he investigates. The average of intelligence has in the last +few years greatly increased. Man may have as much credulity as he +ever had, on some subjects, but certainly on the old subjects he +has less. There is not as great difference to-day between the +members of the learned professions and the common people. Man is +governed less and less by authority. He cares but little for the +conclusions of the universities. He does not feel bound by the +actions of synods or ecumenical councils—neither does he bow +to the decisions of the highest tribunals, unless the reasons given +for the decision satisfy his intellect. One reason for this is, +that the so-called "learned" do not agree among +themselves—that the universities dispute each +other—that the synod attacks the ecumenical +council—that the parson snaps his fingers at the priest, and +even the Protestant bishop holds the pope in contempt. If the +learned cau thus disagree, there is no reason why the common people +should hold to one opinion. They are at least called upon to decide +as between the universities or synods; and in order to decide, they +must examine both sides, and having examined both sides, they +generally have an opinion of their own.</p> +<p>There was a time when the average man knew nothing of +medicine—he simply opened his mouth and took the dose. If he +died, it was simply a dispensation of Providence—if he got +well, it was a triumph of science. Now this average man not only +asks the doctor what is the matter with him—not only asks +what medicine will be good for him,—but insists on knowing +the philosophy of the cure—asks the doctor why he gives +it—what result he expects—and, as a rule, has a +judgment of his own.</p> +<p>So in law. The average business man has an exceedingly good idea +of the law affecting his business. There is nothing now mysterious +about what goes on in courts or in the decisions of +judges—they are published in every direction, and all +intelligent people who happen to read these opinions have their +ideas as to whether the opinions are right or wrong. They are no +longer the victims of doctors, or of lawyers, or of courts.</p> +<p>The same is true in the world of art and literature. The average +man has an opinion of his own. He is no longer a parrot repeating +what somebody else says. He not only has opinions, but he has the +courage to express them. In literature the old models fail to +satisfy him. He has the courage to say that Milton is +tiresome—that Dante is prolix—that they deal with +subjects having no human interest. He laughs at Young's "Night +Thoughts" and Pollok's "Course of Time"—knowing that both are +filled with hypocrisies and absurdities. He no longer falls upon +his knees before the mechanical poetry of Mr. Pope. He +chooses—and stands by his own opinion. I do not mean that he +is entirely independent, but that he is going in that +direction.</p> +<p>The same is true of pictures. He prefers the modern to the old +masters. He prefers Corot to Raphael. He gets more real pleasure +from Millet and Troyon than from all the pictures of all the saints +and donkeys of the Middle Ages.</p> +<p>In other words, the days of authority are passing away.</p> +<p>The same is true in music. The old no longer satisfies, and +there is a breadth, color, wealth, in the new that makes the old +poor and barren in comparison.</p> +<p>To a far greater extent this advance, this individual +independence, is seen in the religious world. The religion of our +day—that is to say, the creeds—at the time they were +made, were in perfect harmony with the knowledge, or rather with +the ignorance, of man in all other departments of human inquiry. +All orthodox creeds agreed with the sciences of their +day—with the astronomy and geology and biology and political +conceptions of the Middle Ages. These creeds were declared to be +the absolute and eternal truth. They could not be changed without +abandoning the claim that made them authority. The priests, through +a kind of unconscious self-defence, clung to every word. They +denied the truth of all discovery. They measured every assertion in +every other department by their creeds. At last the facts against +them became so numerous—their congregations became so +intelligent—that it was necessary to give new meanings to the +old words. The cruel was softened—the absurd was partially +explained, and they kept these old words, although the original +meanings had fallen out. They became empty purses, but they +retained them still.</p> +<p>Slowly but surely came the time when this course could not +longer be pursued. The words must be thrown away—the creeds +must be changed—they were no longer believed—only +occasionally were they preached. The ministers became a little +ashamed—they began to apologize. Apology is the prelude to +retreat.</p> +<p>Of all the creeds, the Presbyterian, the old Congregational, +were the most explicit, and for that reason the most absurd. When +these creeds were written, those who wrote them had perfect +confidence in their truth. They did not shrink because of their +cruelty. They cared nothing for what others called absurdity. They +failed not to declare what they believed to be "the whole counsel +of God."</p> +<p>At that time, cruel punishments were inflicted by all +governments. People were torn asunder, mutilated, burned. Every +atrocity was perpetrated in the name of justice, and the limit of +pain was the limit of endurance. These people imagined that God +would do as they would do. If they had had it in their power to +keep the victim alive for years in the flames, they would most +cheerfully have supplied the fagots. They believed that God could +keep the victim alive forever, and that therefore his punishment +would be eternal. As man becomes civilized he becomes merciful, and +the time came when civilized Presbyterians and Congregationalists +read their own creeds with horror.</p> +<p>I am not saying that the Presbyterian creed is any worse than +the Catholic. It is only a little more specific. Neither am I +saying that it is more horrible than the Episcopal. It is not. All +orthodox creeds are alike infamous. All of them have good things, +and all of them have bad things. You will find in every creed the +blossom of mercy and the oak of justice, but under the one and +around the other are coiled the serpents of infinite cruelty.</p> +<p>The time came when orthodox Christians began dimly to perceive +that God ought at least to be as good as they were. They felt that +they were incapable of inflicting eternal pain, and they began to +doubt the propriety of saying that God would do that which a +civilized Christian would be incapable of.</p> +<p>We have improved in all directions for the same reasons. We have +better laws now because we have a better sense of justice. We are +believing more and more in the government of the people. +Consequently we are believing more and more in the education of the +people, and from that naturally results greater individuality and a +greater desire to hear the honest opinions of all.</p> +<p>The moment the expression of opinion is allowed in any +department, progress begins. We are using our knowledge in every +direction. The tendency is to test all opinions by the facts we +know. All claims are put in the crucible of investigation—the +object being to separate the true from the false. He who objects to +having his opinions thus tested is regarded as a bigot.</p> +<p>If the professors of all the sciences had claimed that the +knowledge they had was given by inspiration—that it was +absolutely true, and that there was no necessity of examining +further, not only, but that it was a kind of blasphemy to +doubt—all the sciences would have remained as stationary as +religion has. Just to the extent that the Bible was appealed to in +matters of science, science was retarded; and just to the extent +that science has been appealed to in matters of religion, religion +has advanced—so that now the object of intelligent +religionists is to adopt a creed that will bear the test and +criticism of science.</p> +<p>Another thing may be alluded to in this connection. All the +countries of the world are now, and have been for years, open to +us. The ideas of other people—their theories, their +religions—are now known; and we have ascertained that the +religions of all people have exactly the same foundation as our +own—that they all arose in the same way, were substantiated +in the same way, were maintained by the same means, having +precisely the same objects in view.</p> +<p>For many years, the learned of the religious world were +examining the religions of other countries, and in that work they +established certain rules of criticism—pursued certain lines +of argument—by which they overturned the claims of those +religions to supernatural origin. After this had been successfully +done, others, using the same methods on our religion, pursuing the +same line of argument, succeeded in overturning ours. We have found +that all miracles rest on the same basis—that all wonders +were born of substantially the same ignorance and the same +fear.</p> +<p>The intelligence of the world is far better distributed than +ever before. The historical outlines of all countries are well +known. The arguments for and against all systems of religion are +generally understood. The average of intelligence is far higher +than ever before. All discoveries become almost immediately the +property of the whole civilized world, and all thoughts are +distributed by the telegraph and press with such rapidity, that +provincialism is almost unknown. The egotism of ignorance and +seclusion is passing away. The prejudice of race and religion is +growing feebler, and everywhere, to a greater extent than ever +before, the light is welcome.</p> +<p>These are a few of the reasons why creeds are crumbling, and why +such a change has taken place in the religious world.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago the pulpit was an intellectual power. The +pews listened with wonder, and accepted without question. There was +something sacred about the preacher. He was different from other +mortals. He had bread to eat which they knew not of. He was +oracular, solemn, dignified, stupid.</p> +<p>The pulpit has lost its position. It speaks no longer with +authority. The pews determine what shall be preached. They pay only +for that which they wish to buy—for that which they wish to +hear. Of course in every church there is an advance guard and a +conservative party, and nearly every minister is obliged to preach +a little for both. He now and then says a radical thing for one +part of his congregation, and takes it mostly back on the next +Sabbath, for the sake of the others. Most of them ride two horses, +and their time is taken up in urging one forward and in holding the +other back.</p> +<p>The great reason why the orthodox creeds have become unpopular +is, that all teach the dogma of eternal pain.</p> +<p>In old times, when men were nearly wild beasts, it was natural +enough for them to suppose that God would do as they would do in +his place, and so they attributed to this God infinite cruelty, +infinite revenge. This revenge, this cruelty, wore the mask of +justice. They took the ground that God, having made man, had the +right to do with him as he pleased. At that time they were not +civilized to the extent of seeing that a God would not have the +right to make a failure, and that a being of infinite wisdom and +power would be under obligation to do the right, and that he would +have no right to create any being whose life would not be a +blessing. The very fact that he made man, would put him under +obligation to see to it that life should not be a curse.</p> +<p>The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with +the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in +harmony with torture, with flaying alive and with burnings. The men +who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would +burn his enemies forever.</p> +<p>No civilized men ever believed in this dogma. The belief in +eternal punishment has driven millions from the church. It was easy +enough for people to imagine that the children of others had gone +to hell; that foreigners had been doomed to eternal pain; but when +it was brought home—when fathers and mothers bent above their +dead who had died in their sins—when wives shed their tears +on the faces of husbands who had been born but once—love +suggested doubts and love fought the dogma of eternal revenge.</p> +<p>This doctrine is as cruel as the hunger of hyenas, and is +infamous beyond the power of any language to express—yet a +creed with this doctrine has been called "the glad tidings of great +joy"—a consolation to the weeping world. It is a source of +great pleasure to me to know that all intelligent people are +ashamed to admit that they believe it—that no intelligent +clergyman now preaches it, except with a preface to the effect that +it is probably untrue.</p> +<p>I have been blamed for taking this consolation from the +world—for putting out, or trying to put out, the fires of +hell; and many orthodox people have wondered how I could be so +wicked as to deprive the world of this hope.</p> +<p>The church clung to the doctrine because it seemed a necessary +excuse for the existence of the church. The ministers said: "No +hell, no atonement; no atonement, no fall of man; no fall of man, +no inspired book; no inspired book, no preachers; no preachers, no +salary; no hell, no missionaries; no sulphur, no salvation."</p> +<p>At last, the people are becoming enlightened enough to ask for a +better philosophy. The doctrine of hell is now only for the poor, +the ragged, the ignorant. Well-dressed people won't have it. Nobody +goes to hell in a carriage—they foot it. Hell is for +strangers and tramps. No soul leaves a brown-stone front for +hell—they start from the tenements, from jails and +reformatories. In other words, hell is for the poor. It is easier +for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor man +to get into heaven, or for a rich man to get into hell. The +ministers stand by their supporters. Their salaries are paid by the +well-to-do, and they can hardly afford to send the subscribers to +hell. Every creed in which is the dogma of eternal pain is doomed. +Every church teaching the infinite lie must fall, and the sooner +the better.—The Twentieth Century, N, Y., April 21,1890.</p> +<a name="link0033" id="link0033"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>OUR SCHOOLS.</h2> +<p>I BELIEVE that education is the only lever capable of raising +mankind. If we wish to make the future of the Republic glorious we +must educate the children of the present. The greatest blessing +conferred by our Government is the free school. In importance it +rises above everything else that the Government does. In its +influence it is far greater.</p> +<p>The schoolhouse is infinitely more important than the church, +and if all the money wasted in the building of churches could be +devoted to education we should become a civilized people. Of +course, to the extent that churches disseminate thought they are +good, and to the extent that they provoke discussion they are of +value, but the real object should be to become acquainted with +nature—with the conditions of happiness—to the end that +man may take advantage of the forces of nature. I believe in the +schools for manual training, and that every child should be taught +not only to think, but to do, and that the hand should be educated +with the brain. The money expended on schools is the best +investment made by the Government.</p> +<p>The schoolhouses in New York are not sufficient. Many of them +are small, dark, unventilated, and unhealthy. They should be the +finest public buildings in the city. It would be far better for the +Episcopalians to build a university than a cathedral. Attached to +all these schoolhouses there should be grounds for the +children—places for air and sunlight. They should be given +the best. They are the hope of the Republic and, in my judgment, of +the world.</p> +<p>We need far more schoolhouses than we have, and while money is +being wasted in a thousand directions, thousands of children are +left to be educated in the gutter. It is far cheaper to build +schoolhouses than prisons, and it is much better to have scholars +than convicts.</p> +<p>The Kindergarten system should be adopted, especially for the +young; attending school is then a pleasure—the children do +not run away from school, but to school. We should educate the +children not simply in mind, but educate their eyes and hands, and +they should be taught something that will be of use, that will help +them to make a living, that will give them independence, +confidence—that is to say, character.</p> +<p>The cost of the schools is very little, and the cost of +land—giving the children, as I said before, air and +light—would amount to nothing.</p> +<p>There is another thing: Teachers are poorly paid. Only the best +should be employeed, and they should be well paid. Men and women of +the highest character should have charge of the children, because +there is a vast deal of education in association, and it is of the +utmost importance that the children should associate with real +gentlemen—that is to say, with real men; with real +ladies—that is to say, with real women.</p> +<p>Every schoolhouse should be inviting, clean, well ventilated, +attractive. The surroundings should be delightful. Children forced +to school, learn but little. The schoolhouse should not be a prison +or the teachers turnkeys.</p> +<p>I believe that the common school is the bread of life, and all +should be commanded to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. +It would have been far better to have expelled those who refused to +eat.</p> +<p>The greatest danger to the Republic is ignorance. Intelligence +is the foundation of free government.—The World, New York, +September 7, 1800.</p> +<a name="link0034" id="link0034"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>VIVISECTION.</h2> +<pre> + *A letter written to Philip G. Peabody. May 27, 1800. +</pre> +<p>VIVISECTION is the Inquisition—the Hell—of +Science.</p> +<p>All the cruelty which the human—or rather the +inhuman—heart is capable of inflicting, is in this one word. +Below this there is no depth. This word lies like a coiled serpent +at the bottom of the abyss.</p> +<p>We can excuse, in part, the crimes of passion. We take into +consideration the fact that man is liable to be caught by the +whirlwind, and that from a brain on fire the soul rushes to a +crime. But what excuse can ingenuity form for a man who +deliberately—with an unaccelerated pulse—with the +calmness of John Calvin at the murder of Servetus—seeks, with +curious and cunning knives, in the living, quivering flesh of a +dog, for all the throbbing nerves of pain? The wretches who commit +these infamous crimes pretend that they are working for the good of +man; that they are actuated by philanthropy; and that their pity +for the sufferings of the human race drives out all pity for the +animals they slowly torture to death. But those who are incapable +of pitying animals are, as a matter of fact, incapable of pitying +men. A physician who would cut a living rabbit in +pieces—laying bare the nerves, denuding them with knives, +pulling them out with forceps—would not hesitate to try +experiments with men and women for the gratification of his +curiosity.</p> +<p>To settle some theory, he would trifle with the life of any +patient in his power. By the same reasoning he will justify the +vivisection of animals and patients. He will say that it is better +that a few animals should suffer than that one human being should +die; and that it is far better that one patient should die, if +through the sacrifice of that one, several may be saved.</p> +<p>Brain without heart is far more dangerous than heart without +brain.</p> +<p>Have these scientific assassins discovered anything of value? +They may have settled some disputes as to the action of some organ, +but have they added to the useful knowledge of the race?</p> +<p>It is not necessary for a man to be a specialist in order to +have and express his opinion as to the right or wrong of +vivisection. It is not necessary to be a scientist or a naturalist +to detest cruelty and to love mercy. Above all the discoveries of +the thinkers, above all the inventions of the ingenious, above all +the victories won on fields of intellectual conflict, rise human +sympathy and a sense of justice.</p> +<p>I know that good for the human race can never be accomplished by +torture. I also know that all that has been ascertained by +vivisection could have been done by the dissection of the dead. I +know that all the torture has been useless. All the agony inflicted +has simply hardened the hearts of the criminals, without +enlightening their minds.</p> +<p>It may be that the human race might be physically improved if +all the sickly and deformed babes were killed, and if all the +paupers, liars, drunkards, thieves, villains, and vivisectionists +were murdered. All this might, in a few ages, result in the +production of a generation of physically perfect men and women; but +what would such beings be worth,—men and women healthy and +heartless, muscular and cruel—that is to say, intelligent +wild beasts?</p> +<p>Never can I be the friend of one who vivisects his +fellow-creatures. I do not wish to touch his hand.</p> +<p>When the angel of pity is driven from the heart; when the +fountain of tears is dry,—the soul becomes a serpent crawling +in the dust of a desert.</p> +<a name="link0035" id="link0035"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR'S OFFICIAL CATECHISM.</h2> +<p>I SUPPOSE the Government has a right to ask all of these +questions, and any more it pleases, but undoubtedly the citizen +would have the right to refuse to answer them. Originally the +census was taken simply for the purpose of ascertaining the number +of people—first, as a basis of representation; second, as a +basis of capitation tax; third, as a basis to arrive at the number +of troops that might be called from each State; and it may be for +some other purposes, but I imagine that all are embraced in the +foregoing.</p> +<p>The Government has no right to invade the privacy of the +citizen; no right to inquire into his financial condition, as +thereby his credit might be injured; no right to pry into his +affairs, into his diseases, or his deformities; and, while the +Government may have the right to ask these questions, I think it +was foolish to instruct the enumerators to ask them, and that the +citizens have a perfect right to refuse to answer them. Personally, +I have no objection to answering any of these questions, for the +reason that nothing is the matter with me that money will not +cure.</p> +<p>I know that it is thought advisable by many to find out the +amount of mortgages in the United States, the rate of interest that +is being paid, the general indebtedness of individuals, counties, +cities and States, and I see no impropriety in finding this out in +any reasonable way. But I think it improper to insist on the debtor +exposing his financial condition. My opinion is that Mr. Porter +only wants what is perfectly reasonable, and if left to himself, +would ask only those questions that all people would willingly +answer.</p> +<p>I presume we can depend on medical statistics—on the +reports of hospitals, etc., in regard to diseases and deformities, +without interfering with the patients. As to the financial standing +of people, there are already enough of spies in this country +attending to that business. I don't think there is any danger of +the courts compelling a man to answer these questions. Suppose a +man refuses to tell whether he has a chronic disease or not, and he +is brought up before a United States Court for contempt. In my +opinion the judge would decide that the man could not be compelled +to answer. It is bad enough to have a chronic disease without +publishing it to the world. All intelligent people, of course, will +be desirous of giving all useful information of a character that +cannot be used to their injury, but can be used for the benefit of +society at large.</p> +<p>If, however, the courts shall decide that the enumerators have +the right to ask these questions, and that everybody must answer +them, I doubt if the census will be finished for many years. There +are hundreds and thousands of people who delight in telling all +about their diseases, when they were attacked, what they have +taken, how many doctors have given them up to die, etc., and if the +enumerators will stop to listen, the census of 1890 will not be +published until the next century.—The World, New York, June +8, 1890.</p> +<a name="link0036" id="link0036"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE AGNOSTIC CHRISTMAS</h2> +<p>AGAIN we celebrate the victory of Light over Darkness, of the +God of day over the hosts of night. Again Samson is victorious over +Delilah, and Hercules triumphs once more over Omphale. In the +embrace of Isis, Osiris rises from the dead, and the scowling +Typhon is defeated once more. Again Apollo, with unerring aim, with +his arrow from the quiver of light, destroys the serpent of shadow. +This is the festival of Thor, of Baldur and of Prometheus. Again +Buddha by a miracle escapes from the tyrant of Madura, Zoroaster +foils the King, Bacchus laughs at the rage of Cadmus, and Chrishna +eludes the tyrant.</p> +<p>This is the festival of the sun-god, and as such let its +observance be universal.</p> +<p>This is the great day of the first religion, the mother of all +religions—the worship of the sun.</p> +<p>Sun worship is not only the first, but the most natural and most +reasonable of all. And not only the most natural and the most +reasonable, but by far the most poetic, the most beautiful.</p> +<p>The sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of warmth, +of happiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing, the all-pitying, +the all-loving.</p> +<p>This bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never sought for +revenge.</p> +<p>All evil qualities were in the breast of the God of darkness, of +shadow, of night. And so I say again, this is the festival of +Light. This is the anniversary of the triumph of the Sun over the +hosts of Darkness.</p> +<p>Let us all hope for the triumph of Light—of Right and +Reason—for the victory of Fact over Falsehood, of Science +over Superstition.</p> +<p>And so hoping, let us celebrate the venerable festival of the +Sun.—The Journal, New York, December 25,1892.</p> +<a name="link0037" id="link0037"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SPIRITUALITY.</h2> +<p>IF there is an abused word in our language, it is +"spirituality."</p> +<p>It has been repeated over and over for several hundred years by +pious pretenders and snivelers as though it belonged exclusively to +them.</p> +<p>In the early days of Christianity, the "spiritual" renounced the +world with all its duties and obligations. They deserted their +wives and children. They became hermits and dwelt in caves. They +spent their useless years in praying for their shriveled and +worthless souls. They were too "spiritual" to love women, to build +homes and to labor for children. They were too "spiritual" to earn +their bread, so they became beggars and stood by the highways of +Life and held out their hands and asked alms of Industry and +Courage. They were too "spiritual" to be merciful. They preached +the dogma of eternal pain and gloried in "the wrath to come." They +were too "spiritual" to be civilized, so they persecuted their +fellow-men for expressing their honest thoughts. They were so +"spiritual" that they invented instruments of torture, founded the +Inquisition, appealed to the whip, the rack, the sword and the +fagot. They tore the flesh of their fellow-men with hooks of iron, +buried their neighbors alive, cut off their eyelids, dashed out the +brains of babes and cut off the breasts of mothers. These +"spiritual" wretches spent day and night on their knees, praying +for their own salvation and asking God to curse the best and +noblest of the world.</p> +<p>John Calvin was intensely "spiritual" when he warmed his +fleshless hands at the flames that consumed Servetus.</p> +<p>John Knox was constrained by his "spirituality" to utter low and +loathsome calumnies against all women. All the witch-burners and +Quaker-maimers and mutilators were so "spiritual" that they +constantly looked heavenward and longed for the skies.</p> +<p>These lovers of God—these haters of men—looked upon +the Greek marbles as unclean, and denounced the glories of Art as +the snares and pitfalls of perdition.</p> +<p>These "spiritual" mendicants hated laughter and smiles and +dimples, and exhausted their diseased and polluted imaginations in +the effort to make love loathsome.</p> +<p>From almost every pulpit was heard the denunciation of all that +adds to the wealth, the joy and glory of life. It became the +fashion for the "spiritual" to malign every hope and passion that +tends to humanize and refine the heart. Man was denounced as +totally depraved. Woman was declared to be a perpetual +temptation—her beauty a snare and her touch pollution.</p> +<p>Even in our own time and country some of the ministers, no +matter how radical they claim to be, retain the aroma, the odor, or +the smell of the "spiritual."</p> +<p>They denounce some of the best and greatest—some of the +benefactors of the race—for having lived on the low plane of +usefulness—and for having had the pitiful ambition to make +their fellows happy in this world.</p> +<p>Thomas Paine was a groveling wretch because he devoted his life +to the preservation of the rights of man, and Voltaire lacked the +"spiritual" because he abolished torture in France and attacked, +with the enthusiasm of a divine madness, the monster that was +endeavoring to drive the hope of liberty from the heart of man.</p> +<p>Humboldt was not "spiritual" enough to repeat with closed eyes +the absurdities of superstition, but was so lost to all the "skyey +influences" that he was satisfied to add to the intellectual wealth +of the world.</p> +<p>Darwin lacked "spirituality," and in its place had nothing but +sincerity, patience, intelligence, the spirit of investigation and +the courage to give his honest conclusions to the world. He +contented himself with giving to his fellow-men the greatest and +the sublimest truths that man has spoken since lips have uttered +speech.</p> +<p>But we are now told that these soldiers of science, these heroes +of liberty, these sculptors and painters, these singers of songs, +these composers of music, lack "spirituality" and after all were +only common clay.</p> +<p>This word "spirituality" is the fortress, the breastwork, the +rifle-pit of the Pharisee. It sustains the same relation to +sincerity that Dutch metal does to pure gold.</p> +<p>There seems to be something about a pulpit that poisons the +occupant—that changes his nature—that causes him to +denounce what he really loves and to laud with the fervor of +insanity a joy that he never felt—a rapture that never +thrilled his soul. Hypnotized by his surroundings, he unconsciously +brings to market that which he supposes the purchasers desire.</p> +<p>In every church, whether orthodox or radical, there are two +parties—one conservative, looking backward, one radical, +looking forward, and generally a minister "spiritual" enough to +look both ways.</p> +<p>A minister who seems to be a philosopher on the street, or in +the home of a sensible man, cannot withstand the atmosphere of the +pulpit. The moment he stands behind the Bible cushion, like Bottom, +he is "translated" and the Titania of superstition "kisses his +large, fair ears."</p> +<p>Nothing is more amusing than to hear a clergyman denounce +worldliness—ask his hearers what it will profit them to build +railways and palaces and lose their own souls—inquire of the +common folks before him why they waste their precious years in +following trades and professions, in gathering treasures that moths +corrupt and rust devours, giving their days to the vulgar business +of making money,—and then see him take up a collection, +knowing perfectly well that only the worldly, the very people he +has denounced, can by any possibility give a dollar.</p> +<p>"Spirituality" for the most part is a mask worn by idleness, +arrogance and greed.</p> +<p>Some people imagine that they are "spiritual" when they are +sickly.</p> +<p>It may be well enough to ask: What is it to be really +spiritual?</p> +<p>The spiritual man lives to his ideal. He endeavors to make +others happy. He does not despise the passions that have filled the +world with art and glory. He loves his wife and children—home +and fireside. He cultivates the amenities and refinements of life. +He is the friend and champion of the oppressed. His sympathies are +with the poor and the suffering. He attacks what he believes to be +wrong, though defended by the many, and he is willing to stand for +the right against the world. He enjoys the beautiful. In the +presence of the highest creations of Art his eyes are suffused with +tears. When he listens to the great melodies, the divine harmonies, +he feels the sorrows and the raptures of death and love. He is +intensely human. He carries in his heart the burdens of the world. +He searches for the deeper meanings. He appreciates the harmonies +of conduct, the melody of a perfect life.</p> +<p>He loves his wife and children better than any god. He cares +more for the world he lives in than for any other. He tries to +discharge the duties of this life, to help those that he can reach. +He believes in being useful—in making money to feed and +clothe and educate the ones he loves—to assist the deserving +and to support himself. He does not wish to be a burden on others. +He is just, generous and sincere.</p> +<p>Spirituality is all of this world. It is a child of this earth, +born and cradled here. It comes from no heaven, but it makes a +heaven where it is.</p> +<p>There is no possible connection between superstition and the +spiritual, or between theology and the spiritual.</p> +<p>The spiritually-minded man is a poet. If he does not write +poetry, he lives it. He is an artist. If he does not paint pictures +or chisel statues, he feels them, and their beauty softens his +heart. He fills the temple of his soul with all that is beautiful, +and he worships at the shrine of the Ideal.</p> +<p>In all the relations of life he is faithful and true. He asks +for nothing that he does not earn. He does not wish to be happy in +heaven if he must receive happiness as alms He does not rely on the +goodness of another. He is not ambitious to become a winged +pauper.</p> +<p>Spirituality is the perfect health of the soul. It is noble, +manly, generous, brave, free-spoken, natural, superb.</p> +<p>Nothing is more sickening than the "spiritual" whine—the +pretence that crawls at first and talks about humility and then +suddenly becomes arrogant and says: "I am 'spiritual.' I hold in +contempt the vulgar joys of this life. You work and toil and build +homes and sing songs and weave your delicate robes. You love women +and children and adorn yourselves. You subdue the earth and dig for +gold. You have your theatres, your operas and all the luxuries of +life; but I, beggar that I am, Pharisee that I am, am your superior +because I am 'spiritual.'"</p> +<p>Above all things, let us be sincere.—The Conservator, +Philadelphia, 1891.</p> +<a name="link0038" id="link0038"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SUMTER'S GUN.</h2> +<p>1861—April 12th—1891</p> +<p>FOR about three-quarters of a century the statesmen, that is to +say, the politicians, of the North and South', had been busy making +compromises, adopting constitutions and enacting laws; busy making +speeches, framing platforms and political pretences, to the end +that liberty and slavery might dwell in peace and friendship under +the same flag.</p> +<p>Arrogance on one side, hypocrisy on the other.</p> +<p>Right apologized to Wrong for the sake of the Union.</p> +<p>The sources of justice were poisoned, and patriotism became the +defender of piracy. In the name of humanity mothers were robbed of +their babes.</p> +<p>Thirty years ago to-day a shot was fired, and in a moment all +the promises, all the laws, all the constitutional amendments, and +all the idiotic and heartless decisions of courts, and all the +speeches of orators inspired by the hope of place and power, were +blown into rags and ravelings, pieces and patches.</p> +<p>The North and South had been masquerading as friends, and in a +moment, while the sound of that shot was ringing in their ears, +they faced each other as enemies.</p> +<p>The roar of that cannon announced the birth of a new epoch. The +echoes of that shot went out, not only over the bay of Charleston, +but over the hills, the prairies and forests of the continent.</p> +<p>These echoes said marvelous things and uttered prophecies that +none were wise enough to understand.</p> +<p>Who at that time had the slightest conception of the immediate +future? Who then was great enough to see the end? Who then was wise +enough to know that the echoes would be kept alive and repeated for +years by thousands and thousands of cannon, by millions of muskets, +on the fields of ruthless war?</p> +<p>At that time Abraham Lincoln, an Illinois lawyer, was barely a +month in the President's chair, and that shot made him the most +commanding and majestic figure of the nineteenth century—a +figure that stands alone.</p> +<p>Who could have guessed the names of the heroes to be repeated by +countless lips before the echoes of that shot should have died +away?</p> +<p>There was at that time a young man at Galena, silent, +unobtrusive, unknown; and yet, the moment that shot was fired he +was destined to lead the greatest host ever marshaled on a field of +war, destined to receive the final sword of the Rebellion.</p> +<p>There was another, in the Southwest, who heard one of the echoes +of that shot, and who afterward marched from Atlanta to the sea; +and another, far away by the Pacific, who also heard one of the +echoes, and who became one of the immortal three.</p> +<p>But, above all, the echoes were heard by millions of men and +women in the fields of unpaid toil, and they knew not the meaning, +but felt that they had heard a prophecy of freedom. And the echoes +told of death and glory for many thousands—of the agonies of +women—the sobs of orphans—the sighs of the imprisoned, +and the glad shouts of the delivered, the enfranchised, the +redeemed.</p> +<p>They who fired that gun did not dream that they were giving +liberty to millions of people, including themselves, white as well +as black, North as well as South, and that before the echoes should +die away, all the shackles would be broken, all the constitutions +and statutes of slavery repealed, and all the compromises merged +and lost in a great compact made to preserve the liberties of +all.</p> +<a name="link0039" id="link0039"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WHAT INFIDELS HAVE DONE.</h2> +<p>ONE HUNDRED years after Christ had died suppose some one had +asked a Christian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums have +you founded? They would have said "None." Suppose three hundred +years after the death of Christ the same questions had been asked +the Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two hundred +years more and the answer would have been the same. And at that +time the Christian could have told the questioner that the +Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians. He could also +have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China for +hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and hospitals +for the sick at Athens.</p> +<p>Here it may be well enough to say that all hospitals and asylums +are not built for charity. They are built because people do not +want to be annoyed by the sick and the insane. If a sick man should +come down the street and sit upon your doorstep, what would you do +with him? You would have to take him into your house or leave him +to suffer. Private families do not wish to take the burden of the +sick. Consequently, in self-defence, hospitals are built so that +any wanderer coming to a house, dying, or suffering from any +disease, may immediately be packed off to a hospital and not become +a burden upon private charity. The fact that many diseases are +contagious rendered hospitals necessary for the preservation of the +lives of the citizens. The same thing is true of the asylums. +People do not, as a rule, want to take into their families, all the +children who happen to have no fathers and mothers. So they endow +and build an asylum where those children can be sent—and +where they can be whipped according to law. Nobody wants an insane +stranger in his house. The consequence is, that the community, to +get rid of these people, to get rid of the trouble, build public +institutions and send them there.</p> +<p>Now, then, to come to the point, to answer the interrogatory +often flung at us from the pulpit, What institutions have Infidels +built? In the first place, there have not been many Infidels for +many years and, as a rule, a known Infidel cannot get very rich, +for the reason that the Christians are so forgiving and loving they +boycott him. If the average Infidel, freely stating his opinion, +could get through the world himself, for the last several hundred +years, he has been in good luck. But as a matter of fact there have +been some Infidels who have done some good, even from a Christian +standpoint. The greatest charity ever established in the United +States by a man—not by a community to get rid of a nuisance, +but by a man who wished to do good and wished that good to last +after his death—is the Girard College in the city of +Philadelphia. Girard was an Infidel. He gained his first publicity +by going like a common person into the hospitals and taking care of +those suffering from contagious diseases—from cholera and +smallpox. So there is a man by the name of James Lick, an Infidel, +who has given the finest observatory ever given to the world. And +it is a good thing for an Infidel to increase the sight of men. The +reason people are theologians is because they cannot see. Mr. Lick +has increased human vision, and I can say right here that nothing +has been seen through the telescope, calculated to prove the +astronomy of Joshua. Neither can you see with that telescope a star +that bears a Christian name. The reason is that Christianity was +opposed to astronomy. So astronomers took their revenge, and now +there is not one star that glitters in all the vast firmament of +the boundless heavens that has a Christian name. Mr. Carnegie has +been what they call a public-spirited man. He has given millions of +dollars for libraries and other institutions, and he certainly is +not an orthodox Christian.</p> +<p>Infidels, however, have done much better even than that. They +have increased the sum of human knowledge. John W. Draper, in his +work on "The Intellectual Development of Europe," has done more +good to the American people and to the civilized world than all the +priests in it. He was an Infidel. Buckle is another who has added +to the sum of human knowledge. Thomas Paine, an Infidel, did more +for this country than any other man who ever lived in it.</p> +<p>Most of the colleges in this country have, I admit, been founded +by Christians, and the money for their support has been donated by +Christians, but most of the colleges of this country have simply +classified ignorance, and I think the United States would be more +learned than it is to-day if there never had been a Christian +college in it. But whether Christians gave or Infidels gave has +nothing to do with the probability of the Jonah story or with the +probability that the mark on the dial went back ten degrees to +prove that a little Jewish king was not going to die of a boil. And +if the Infidels are all stingy and the Christians are all generous +it does not even tend to prove that three men were in a fiery +furnace heated seven times hotter than was its wont without even +scorching their clothes.</p> +<p>The best college in this country—or, at least, for a long +time the best—was the institution founded by Ezra Cornell. +That is a school where people try to teach what they know instead +of what they guess. Yet Cornell University was attacked by every +orthodox college in the United States at the time it was founded, +because they said it was without religion.</p> +<p>Everybody knows that Christianity does not tend to generosity. +Christianity says: "Save your own soul, whether anybody else saves +his or not." Christianity says: "Let the great ship go down. You +get into the little life-boat of the gospel and paddle ashore, no +matter what becomes of the rest." Christianity says you must love +God, or something in the sky, better than you love your wife and +children. And the Christian, even when giving, expects to get a +very large compound interest in another world. The Infidel who +gives, asks no return except the joy that comes from relieving the +wants of another.</p> +<p>Again the Christians, although they have built colleges, have +built them for the purpose of spreading their superstitions, and +have poisoned the minds of the world, while the Infidel teachers +have filled the world with light. Darwin did more for mankind than +if he had built a thousand hospitals. Voltaire did more than if he +had built a thousand asylums for the insane. He will prevent +thousands from going insane that otherwise might be driven into +insanity by the "glad tidings of great joy." Haeckel is filling the +world with light.</p> +<p>I am perfectly willing that the results of the labors of +Christians and the labors of Infidels should be compared. Then let +it be understood that Infidels have been in this world but a very +short time. A few years ago there were hardly any. I can remember +when I was the only Infidel in the town where I lived. Give us time +and we will build colleges in which something will be taught that +is of use. We hope to build temples that will be dedicated to +reason and common sense, and where every effort will be made to +reform mankind and make them better and better in this world.</p> +<p>I am saying nothing against the charity of Christians; nothing +against any kindness or goodness. But I say the Christians, in my +judgment, have done more harm than they have done good. They may +talk of the asylums they have built, but they have not built +asylums enough to hold the people who have been driven insane by +their teachings. Orthodox religion has opposed liberty. It has +opposed investigation and free thought. If all the churches in +Europe had been observatories, if the cathedrals had been +universities where facts were taught and where nature was studied, +if all the priests had been real teachers, this world would have +been far, far beyond what it is to-day.</p> +<p>There is an idea that Christianity is positive, and Infidelity +is negative. If this be so, then falsehood is positive and truth is +negative. What I contend is that Infidelity is a positive religion; +that Christianity is a negative religion. Christianity denies and +Infidelity admits. Infidelity stands by facts; it demonstrates by +the conclusions of the reason. Infidelity does all it can to +develop the brain and the heart of man. That is positive. Religion +asks man to give up this world for one he knows nothing about. That +is negative. I stand by the religion of reason. I stand by the +dogmas of demonstration.</p> +<a name="link0040" id="link0040"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>CRUELTY IN THE ELMIRA REFORMATORY.</h2> +<p>IN my judgment, no human being was ever made better, nobler, by +being whipped or clubbed.</p> +<p>Mr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply a +savage. He belongs to the Dark Ages—to the Inquisition, to +the torture-chamber, and he needs reforming more than any prisoner +under his control. To put any man within his power is in itself a +crime. Mr. Brockway is a believer in cruelty—an apostle of +brutality. He beats and bruises flesh to satisfy his +conscience—his sense of duty. He wields the club himself +because he enjoys the agony he inflicts.</p> +<p>When a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endurance, +submits or becomes unconscious, he is regarded as reformed. During +the remainder of his term he trembles and obeys. But he is not +reformed. In his heart is the flame of hatred, the desire for +revenge; and he returns to society far worse than when he entered +the prison.</p> +<p>Mr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up, and the +Elmira Reformatory should be superintended by some civilized +man—some man with brain enough to know, and heart enough to +feel.</p> +<p>I do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and +lacerating the flesh of another, can reform him. The lash will +neither develop the brain nor cultivate the heart. There should be +no bruising, no scarring of the body in families, in schools, in +reformatories, or prisons. A civilized man does not believe in the +methods of savagery. Brutality has been tried for thousands of +years and through all these years it has been a failure.</p> +<p>Criminals have been flogged, mutilated and maimed, tortured in a +thousand ways, and the only effect was to demoralize, harden and +degrade society and increase the number of crimes. In the army and +navy, soldiers and sailors were flogged to death, and everywhere by +church and state the torture of the helpless was practiced and +upheld.</p> +<p>Only a few years ago there were two hundred and twenty-three +offences punished with death in England. Those who wished to reform +this savage code were denounced as the enemies of morality and law. +They were regarded as weak and sentimental.</p> +<p>At last the English code was reformed through the efforts of men +who had brain and heart. But it is a significant fact that no +bishop of the Episcopal Church, sitting in the House of Lords, ever +voted for the repeal of one of those savage laws. Possibly this +fact throws light on the recent poetic and Christian declaration by +Bishop Potter to the effect that "there are certain criminals who +can only be made to realize through their hides the fact that the +State has laws to which the individual must be obedient."</p> +<p>This orthodox remark has the true apostolic ring, and is in +perfect accord with the history of the church. But it does not +accord with the intelligence and philanthropy of our time. Let us +develop the brain by education, the heart by kindness. Let us +remember that criminals are produced by conditions, and let us do +what we can to change the conditions and to reform the +criminals.</p> +<a name="link0041" id="link0041"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>LAW'S DELAY.</h2> +<p>THE object of a trial is not to convict—neither is it to +acquit. The object is to ascertain the truth by legal testimony and +in accordance with law.</p> +<p>In this country we give the accused the benefit of all +reasonable doubts. We insist that his guilt shall be really +established by competent testimony.</p> +<p>We also allow the accused to take exceptions to the rulings of +the judge before whom he is tried, and to the verdict of the jury, +and to have these exceptions passed upon by a higher court.</p> +<p>We also insist that he shall be tried by an impartial jury, and +that before he can be found guilty all the jurors must unite in the +verdict.</p> +<p>Some people, not on trial for any crime, object to our methods. +They say that time is wasted in getting an impartial jury; that +more time is wasted because appeals are allowed, and that by reason +of insisting on a strict compliance with law in all respects, +trials sometimes linger for years, and that in many instances the +guilty escape.</p> +<p>No one, so far as I know, asks that men shall be tried by +partial and prejudiced jurors, or that judges shall be allowed to +disregard the law for the sake of securing convictions, or that +verdicts shall be allowed to stand unsupported by sufficient legal +evidence. Yet they talk as if they asked for these very things. We +must remember that revenge is always in haste, and that justice can +always afford to wait until the evidence is actually heard.</p> +<p>There should be no delay except that which is caused by taking +the time to find the truth. Without such delay courts become mobs, +before which, trials in a legal sense are impossible. It might be +better, in a city like New York, to have the grand jury in almost +perpetual session, so that a man charged with crime could be +immediately indicted and immediately tried. So, the highest court +to which appeals are taken should be in almost constant session, in +order that all appeals might be quickly decided.</p> +<p>But we do not wish to take away the right of appeal. That right +tends to civilize the trial judge, reduces to a minimum his +arbitrary power, puts his hatreds and passions in the keeping and +control of his intelligence. That right of appeal has an excellent +effect on the jury, because they know that their verdict may not be +the last word. The appeal, where the accused is guilty, does not +take the sword from the State, but it is a shield for the +innocent.</p> +<p>In England there is no appeal. The trials are shorter, the +judges more arbitrary, the juries subservient, and the verdict +often depends on the prejudice of the judge. The judge knows that +he has the last guess—that he cannot be reviewed—and in +the passion often engendered by the conflict of trial he acts much +like a wild beast.</p> +<p>The case of Mrs. Maybrick is exactly in point, and shows how +dangerous it is to clothe the trial judge with supreme power.</p> +<p>Without doubt there is in this country too much delay, and this, +it seems to me, can be avoided without putting the life or liberty +of innocent persons in peril. Take only such time as may be +necessary to give the accused a fair trial, before an impartial +jury, under and in accordance with the established forms of law, +and to allow an appeal to the highest court.</p> +<p>The State in which a criminal cannot have an impartial trial is +not civilized. People who demand the conviction of the accused +without regard to the forms of law are savages.</p> +<p>But there is another side to this question. Many people are +losing confidence in the idea that punishment reforms the convict, +or that capital punishment materially decreases capital crimes.</p> +<p>My own opinion is that ordinary criminals should, if possible, +be reformed, and that murderers and desperate wretches should be +imprisoned for life. I am inclined to believe that our prisons make +more criminals than they reform; that places like the Reformatory +at Elmira plant and cultivate the seeds of crime.</p> +<p>The State should never seek revenge; neither should it put in +peril the life or liberty of the accused for the sake of a hasty +trial, or by the denial of appeal.</p> +<p>In my judgment, defective as our criminal courts and methods +are, they are far better than the English.</p> +<p>Our judges are kinder, more humane; our juries nearer +independent, and our methods better calculated to ascertain the +truth.</p> +<a name="link0042" id="link0042"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>THE BIGOTRY OF COLLEGES.</h2> +<pre> + * A newspaper dispatch from Lawrence, Kansas, published + yesterday, stated that Col. Robert O. Ingersoll had been + invited by the law students of the Kansas State University + to address them at the commencement exercises, and that the + faculty council had objected and had invited Chauncey M. + Depew instead. + + The dispatch also stared that the council had notified + representatives of the law school that if they insisted on + the great Agnostic speaking before the school, the faculty + would take heroic measures to thwart their design. + + It was also stated that the law students had made it clearly + understood that the lecture Ingersoll had been invited to + deliver was to be on the subject of law, and that his views + on religion, the Bible and the Deity were not to be alluded + to, and they considered that the faculty council had + "subjected them to an insult," and had gone out of its way, + also, to affront Colonel Ingersoll without cause. + + Colonel Ingersoll, when seen yesterday and questioned about + the matter, took it, as he does all things of that nature, + philosophically and in a true manly spirit. + + Chauncey M. Depew was seen at his residence, No. 43 West + Fifty-fourth Street, last night and asked if he had been + invited to address the students of the Kansas University in + the place of Colonel Ingersoll. He said he had not. + + "Would you go if you were invited?" he was asked. + + "No; I would not," he answered. "You see, I am so busy here; + besides, my social and semi-political engagements are such + that I would not have time to go to such a distant point, + anyhow. + + "No, I do not care to express any opinion regarding the + action of the faculty council of the Kansas University, but + I consider Colonel Ingersoll one of the greatest intellects + of the century, from whose teaching all can profit."—The + Journal, New York, January 24, im. +</pre> +<p>UNIVERSITIES are naturally conservative. They know that if +suspected of being really scientific, orthodox Christians will keep +their sons away, so they pander to the superstitions of the +times.</p> +<p>Most of the universities are exceedingly poor, and poverty is +the enemy of independence. Universities, like people, have the +instinct of self-preservation. The University of Kansas is like the +rest.</p> +<p>The faculty of Cornell, upon precisely the same question, took +exactly the same action, and the faculty of the University of +Missouri did the same. These institutions must be the friends and +defenders of superstition.</p> +<p>The Vanderbilt College, or University of Tennessee, discharged +Professor Winchell because he differed with the author of Genesis +on geology.</p> +<p>These colleges act as they must, and we should blame nobody. If +Humboldt and Darwin were now alive they would not be allowed to +teach in these institutions of "learning."</p> +<p>We need not find fault with the president and professors. They +want to keep their places. The probability is that they would like +to do better—that they desire to be free, and, if free, +would, with all their hearts, welcome the truth. Still, these +universities seem to do good. The minds of their students are +developed to that degree, that they naturally turn to me as the +defender of their thoughts.</p> +<p>This gives me great hope for the future. The young, the growing, +the enthusiastic, are on my side. All the students who have +selected me are my friends, and I thank them with all my heart.</p> +<a name="link0043" id="link0043"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A YOUNG MAN'S CHANCES TO-DAY.</h2> +<pre> + * Col. Robert G. Ingersoll represents what is intellectually + highest among the whole world's opponents of religion. He + counts theology as the science of a superstition. He decries + religion as it exists, and holds that the broadest thing a + man, or all human nature, can do is to acknowledge ignorance + when it cannot know. He accepts nothing on faith. He is the + American who is forever asking, "Why?"—who demands a reason + and material proof before believing. + + As Christianity's corner-stone is faith, he rejects + Christianity, and argues that all men who are broad enough + to know when to narrow their ideas down to fact or + demonstrable theory must reject it. Believe as he does or + not, all Americans must be interested in him. His mind is + marvelous, his tongue is silvern, his logic is invincible— + as logic. + + Col. Ingersoll is a shining example of the oft-quoted fact + that, given mental ability, health and industry, a young man + may make for himself whatever place in life he desires and + is fitted to fill. His early advantages were limited, for + his father, a Congregational minister whose field of labor + often changed, was a man of far too small an income to send + his sons to college. Whatever of mental training the young + man had he was obliged to get by reason of his own exertion, + and his splendid triumphs as an orator, and his solid + achievements as a lawyer are all the result of his own + efforts. The only help he had was that which is the common + heritage of all American young men—the chance to fight even + handed for success. It is not surprising, therefore, that + Col. Ingersoll feels a deep interest in every bright young + man of his acquaintance who is struggling manfully for the + glittering prize so brilliantly won by the great Agnostic + himself. He does not believe, however, that the young man + who goes out mto the world nowadays to seek his fortune has + so easy a battle to fight as had the young men of thirty + years ago. In conversation with the writer Col. Ingersoll + spoke earnestly upon this subject. + + Col. Ingersoll's views regarding the Bible and Christianity + were not generally understood by the public for some time + after he had become famous as an orator, although he began + to diverge from orthodoxy when quite young, and was as + pronounced an Agnostic when he went into the army, as he is + now. + + Col. Ingersoll is an inch less than six feet tall, and + weighs ten more than two hundred pounds. He will be sixty- + one next August, and his hair is snowy. His shoulders are + broad and as straight as they were eighteen years ago when + he electrified a people and place! his own name upon the + list of a nation's greatest orators with his matchless + "Plumed Knight" speech in nominating + + James G. Blaine for the presidency. His blue eyes look + straight into yours when he speaks to you, and his sentences + are punctuated by engaging little tricks of facial + expression—now the brow is criss-crossed with the lines of + a frown, sometimes quizzical and sometimes indignant—next, + the smooth-shaven lips break into a curving smile, which may + grow into a broad grin if the point just made were a + humorous one, and this is quite likely to be followed by a + look of sueh intense earnestness that you wonder if he will + ever smile again. And all the time his eyes flash, + illuminating, sometimes anticipatory, glances that add + immensely to the clearness with which the thought he is + expressing is set before you. He delights to tell a story, + and he never tells any but good ones, but—and in this he is + like Lincoln—he is apt to use his stories to drive some + proposition home. This is almost invariably true, even when + he sets out to spin a yarn for the story's simple sake. His + mentality seems to be duplex, quadruplex, multiplex, if you + please—and while his lips and tongue are effectively + delivering the story, his wonderful brain is, seemingly, + unconsciously applying the point of the story to the proving + of a pet theory, and when the tale has been told the verbal + application follows. + + His birthplace was Dresden, N. Y. His early boyhood was + passed in New York State and his youth and young manhood in + Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin. + + His handgrasp is hearty and his manner and words are the + very essence of straightforward directness. I called at his + office once when the Colonel was closeted with a person who + wished to retain him in a law case involving a good deal of + money. After a bit I was told that I could see him, and as I + entered he was saying: "The case can't be won, for you are + in the wrong. I don't want it." + + "But," pleaded the would-be client, "It seems to me that a + good deal can be done in such a case by the way it is + handled before the jury, and I thought if you were to be the + man I might get a verdict." + + "No, sir," was the reply, and the words fell like the lead + of a plumb line; "I won't take it. Good morning, sir." + + It has been sometimes said, indulgently, of Col. Ingersoll + that he is indolent, but no one can hold that view who is at + all familiar with him or his work. As a matter of fact, his + industry is phenomenal, though, indeed, it is not carried on + after the fashion of less brainy men. When he has an + important case ahead of him his devotion to the mastery of + its details absorbs him at once and completely. It sometimes + becomes necessary for him to take up a line of chemical + inquiry entirely new to him; again, to elaborate + genealogical researches are necessary; still again, it may + be essential for him to thoroughly inform himself concerning + hitherto uninvestigated local historical records. But + whatever is needful to be studied he studies, and so + thoroughly that his mind becomes saturated with the + knowledge required. And once acquired no sort of information + ever leaves him, for he has a memory quite as marvelous as + any other of his altogether marvelous characteristics. + + It is the same when he has an address to prepare. Every + authority that can be consulted upon the subject to be + treated in the address, is consulted, and often the material + that suggests some of the most telling points is one which + no one but Ingersoll himself would think of referring to. + Here again his wonderful memory stands him in good stead for + he has packed away within the convolutions of his brain a + lot of facts that bear upon almost every conceivable branch + of human thought or investigation. + + His memory is quite as retentive of the features of a man he + has seen as of other matters; it retains voices also, as a + war time friend of his discovered last summer. It was a busy + day with the Colonel, who had given instructions to his + office boy that under no circumstances was he to be + disturbed; so when his old friend called he was told that + Col. Ingersoll could not see him "But," said the visitor: "I + must see him. I haven't seen him for twenty years; I am + going out of town this afternoon, and I wouldn't miss + talking with him for a few minutes for a good deal of + money." + + "Well," said the boy, "he wasn't to be disturbed by + anybody." + + At this moment the door of the Colonel's private office + opened, and the Colonel's portly form appeared upon the + scene. + + "Why, Maj. Blank," he said, "come in. I did tell the boy I + wouldn't see anybody, but you are more important than the + biggest law case in the world." + + The Colonel's memory had retained the sound of the major's + voice, and because of that, the latter was not obliged to + leave New York without seeing and renewing his old + acquaintance. + + Col. Ingersoll's retorts are as quick as a flash-light and + as searching. One of them was so startling and so effective + as to give a certain famous long drawn out railroad suit the + nickname. "The Ananias and Sapphira ease." Ingersoll was + speaking and had made certain statements highly damaging to + the other side, in such a way as to thoroughly anger a + member of the opposing counsel, who suddenly interrupted the + speaker with the abrupt and sarcastic remark: + + "I suppose the Colonel, in the nature of things, never heard + of the story of Ananias ana Sapphira." + + There were those present who expected to witness an angry + outburst on the part of Ingersoll in response to this plain + implication that his statement had not the quality of + veracity, but they were disappointed. Ingersoll didn't even + get angry. He turned slightly, fixed his limpid blue eyes + upon the speaker, and looked cherubically. Then he gently + drawled out. + + "Oh, yes, I have, yes, I have. And I've watched the + gentleman who has just spoken all through this case with a + curious Interest. I've been expecting every once in a while + to see him drop dead, but he seems to be all right down to + the present moment." + + Ingersoll never gets angry when he is interrupted, even if + it is in the middle of an address or a lecture. A man + interrupted him in Cincinnati once, cutting right into one + of the lecturer's most resonant periods with a yell: + + "That's a lie. Bob lngersoll, and you know it." + + The audience was in an uproar in an instant, and cries of + "Put him out!" "Throw him down stairs!" and the like were + heard from all parts of the house. Ingersoll stopped talking + for a moment, and held up his hands, smiling. + + "Don't hurt the man," he said. "He thinks he is right. But + let me explain this thing for his especial benefit." + + Then he reasoned the matter out in language so simple and + plain that no one of any intelligence whatever could fail to + comprehend. The man was not ejected, but sat through the + entire address, and at the close asked the privilege of + begging the lecturer's pardon. + + Like most men of genius, Colonel lngersoll is a passionate + lover of music, and the harmonies of Wagner seem to him to + be the very acme of musical expression.... + + Notwithstanding his thoroughly heretical beliefs or lack of + beliefs, or, as he would say, because of them, Colonel + lngersoll is a very tender-hearted man. No one has ever made + so strong an argument against vivisection in the alleged + interests of science as lngersoll did in a speech a few + years ago. To the presentation of his views against the + refinements of scientific cruelty he brought his most vivid + imagination, his most careful thought and his most + impassioned oratory. + + Colonel Ingersoll's popularity with those who know him is + proverbial. The clerks in his offices not only admire him + for his ability and his achievements, but they esteem him + for his kindliness of heart and his invariable courtesy in + his intercourse with them. His offices are located in one of + the buildings devoted to corporations and professional men + on the lower part of Nassau street and consist of three + rooms. The one used by the head of the firm is farthest from + the entrance. All are furnished in solid black walnut. In + the Colonel's room there is a picture of his loved brother + Ebon, and hanging below the frame thereof is the tin sign + that the two brothers hung out for a shingle when they went + into the law business in Peoria. There are also pictures of + a judge or two. The desks in all the rooms are littered with + papers. Books are piled to the ceiling. Everywhere there is + an air of personal freedom. There is no servility either to + clients or the head of the business, but there is everywhere + an informal courtesy somewhat akin to that which is born of + a fueling of great comradeship. + + Of the Colonel's ideal home life the world has often been + told. He lives during the winter at his town house in Fifth + Avenue; in the summer at Dobbs Ferry, a charming place a few + miles up the Hudson from New York.—Boston Herald, July, + 1894. +</pre> +<p>A FEW years ago there were many thousand miles of railroads to +be built, a great many towns and cities to be located, constructed +and filled; vast areas of uncultivated land were waiting for the +plow, vast forests the axe, and thousands of mines were longing to +be opened. In those days every young man of energy and industry had +a future. The professions were not overcrowded; there were more +patients than doctors, more litigants than lawyers, more buyers of +goods than merchants. The young man of that time who was raised on +a farm got a little education, taught school, read law or +medicine—some of the weaker ones read theology—and +there seemed to be plenty of room, plenty of avenues to success and +distinction.</p> +<p>So, too, a few years ago a political life was considered +honorable, and so in politics there were many great careers. So, +hundreds of towns wanted newspapers, and in each of those towns +there was an opening for some energetic young man. At that time the +plant cost but little; a few dollars purchased the press—the +young publisher could get the paper stock on credit.</p> +<p>Now the railroads have all been built; the canals are finished; +the cities have been located; the outside property has been cut +into lots, and sold and mortgaged many times over. Now it requires +great capital to go into business. The individual is counting for +less and less; the corporation, the trust, for more and more. Now a +great merchant employs hundreds of clerks; a few years ago most of +those now clerks would have been merchants. And so it seems to be +in nearly every department of life. Of course, I do not know what +inventions may leap from the brains of the future; there may be +millions and millions of fortunes yet to be made in that direction, +but of that I am not speaking.</p> +<p>So, I think that a few years ago the chances were far more +numerous and favorable to young men who wished to make a name for +themselves, and to succeed in some department of human energy than +now.</p> +<p>In savage life a living is very easy to get. Most any savage can +hunt or fish; consequently there are few failures. But in civilized +life competition becomes stronger and sharper; consequently, the +percentage of failures increases, and this seems to be the law. The +individual is constantly counting for less. It may be that, on the +average, people live better than they did formerly, that they have +more to eat, drink and wear; but the individual horizon has +lessened; it is not so wide and cloudless as formerly. So I say +that the chances for great fortunes, for great success, are growing +less and less.</p> +<p>I think a young man should do that which is easiest for him to +do, provided there is an opportunity; if there is none, then he +should take the next. The first object of every young man should be +to be self-supporting, no matter in what direction—be +independent. He should avoid being a clerk and he should avoid +giving his future into the hands of any one person. He should +endeavor to get a business in which the community will be his +patron, and whether he is to be a lawyer, a doctor or a day-laborer +depends on how much he has mixed mind with muscle.</p> +<p>If a young man imagines that he has an aptitude for public +speaking—that is, if he has a great desire to make his ideas +known to the world—the probability is that the desire will +choose the way, time and place for him to make the effort.</p> +<p>If he really has something to say, there will be plenty to +listen. If he is so carried away with his subject, is so in earnest +that he becomes an instrumentality of his thought—so that he +is forgotten by himself; so that he cares neither for applause nor +censure—simply caring to present his thoughts in the highest +and best and most comprehensive way, the probability is that he +will be an orator.</p> +<p>I think oratory is something that cannot be taught. Undoubtedly +a man can learn to be a fair talker. He can by practice learn to +present his ideas consecutively, clearly and in what you may call +"form," but there is as much difference between this and an oration +as there is between a skeleton and a living human being clad in +sensitive, throbbing flesh.</p> +<p>There are millions of skeleton makers, millions of people who +can express what may be called "the bones" of a discourse, but not +one in a million who can clothe these bones.</p> +<p>You can no more teach a man to be an orator than you can teach +him to be an artist or a poet of the first class. When you teach +him, there is the same difference between the man who is taught, +and the man who is what he is by virtue of a natural aptitude, that +there is between a pump and a spring—between a canal and a +river—between April rain and water-works. It is a question of +capacity and feeling—not of education. There are some things +that you can tell an orator not to do. For instance, he should +never drink water while talking, because the interest is broken, +and for the moment he loses control of his audience. He should +never look at his watch for the same reason. He should never talk +about himself. He should never deal in personalities. He should +never tell long stories, and if he tells any story he should never +say that it is a true story, and that he knew the parties. This +makes it a question of veracity instead of a question of art. He +should never clog his discourse with details. He should never dwell +upon particulars—he should touch universals, because the +great truths are for all time.</p> +<p>If he wants to know something, if he wishes to feel something, +let him read Shakespeare. Let him listen to the music of Wagner, of +Beethoven, or Schubert. If he wishes to express himself in the +highest and most perfect form, let him become familiar with the +great paintings of the world—with the great statues—all +these will lend grace, will give movement and passion and rhythm to +his words. A great orator puts into his speech the perfume, the +feelings, the intensity of all the great and beautiful and +marvelous things that he has seen and heard and felt. An orator +must be a poet, a metaphysician, a logician—and above all, +must have sympathy with all.</p> +<a name="link0044" id="link0044"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SCIENCE AND SENTIMENT.</h2> +<p>IT was thought at one time by many that science would do away +with poetry—that it was the enemy of the imagination. We know +now that is not true. We know that science goes hand in hand with +imagination. We know that it is in the highest degree poetic and +that the old ideas once considered so beautiful are flat and stale. +Compare Kepler's laws with the old Greek idea that the planets were +boosted or pushed by angels. The more we know, the more beauty, the +more poetry we find. Ignorance is not the mother of the poetic or +artistic.</p> +<p>So, some people imagine that science will do away with +sentiment. In my judgment, science will not only increase sentiment +but sense.</p> +<p>A person will be attracted to another for a thousand reasons, +and why a person is attracted to another, may, and in some degree +will, depend upon the intellectual, artistic and ethical +development of each.</p> +<p>The handsomest girl in Zululand might not be attractive to +Herbert Spencer, and the fairest girl in England might not be able +to hasten the pulse of a Choctaw brave. This does not prove that +there is any lack of sentiment. Men are influenced according to +their capacity, their temperament, their knowledge.</p> +<p>Some men fall in love with a small waist, an arched instep or +curly hair, without the slightest regard to mind or muscle. This we +call sentiment.</p> +<p>Now, educate such men, develop their brains, enlarge their +intellectual horizon, teach them something of the laws of health, +and then they may fall in love with women because they are +developed grandly in body and mind. The sentiment is still +there—still controls—but back of the sentiment is +science.</p> +<p>Sentiment can never be destroyed, and love will forever rule the +human race.</p> +<p>Thousands, millions of people fear that science will destroy not +only poetry, not only sentiment, but religion. This fear is +idiotic. Science will destroy superstition, but it will not injure +true religion. Science is the foundation of real religion. Science +teaches us the consequences of actions, the rights and duties of +all. Without science there can be no real religion.</p> +<p>Only those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the enemies +of science. Real love and real religion are in no danger from +science. The more we know the safer all good things are.</p> +<p>Do I think that the marriage of the sickly and diseased ought to +be prevented by law?</p> +<p>I have not much confidence in law—in law that I know +cannot be carried out. The poor, the sickly, the diseased, as long +as they are ignorant, will marry and help fill the world with +wretchedness and want.</p> +<p>We must rely on education instead of legislation.</p> +<p>We must teach the consequences of actions. We must show the +sickly and diseased what their children will be. We must preach the +gospel of the body. I believe the time will come when the public +thought will be so great and grand that it will be looked upon as +infamous to perpetuate disease—to leave a legacy of +agony.</p> +<p>I believe the time will come when men will refuse to fill the +future with consumption and insanity. Yes, we shall study +ourselves. We shall understand the conditions of health and then we +shall say: We are under obligation to put the flags of health in +the cheeks of our children.</p> +<p>Even if I should get to heaven and have a harp, I know that I +could not bear to see my descendants still on the earth, diseased, +deformed, crazed—all suffering the penalties of my ignorance. +Let us have more science and more sentiment—more knowledge +and more conscience—more liberty and more love.</p> +<a name="link0045" id="link0045"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SOWING AND REAPING.</h2> +<p>I HAVE read the sermon on "Sowing and Reaping," and I now +understand Mr. Moody better than I did before. The other day, in +New York, Mr. Moody said that he implicitly believed the story of +Jonah and really thought that he was in the fish for three +days.</p> +<p>When I read it I was surprised that a man living in the century +of Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel, should believe +such an absurd and idiotic story.</p> +<p>Now I understand the whole thing. I can account for the amazing +credulity of this man. Mr. Moody never read one of my lectures. +That accounts for it all, and no wonder that he is a hundred years +behind the times. He never read one of my lectures; that is a +perfect explanation.</p> +<p>Poor man! He has no idea of what he has lost. He has been living +on miracles and mistakes, on falsehood and foolishness, stuffing +his mind with absurdities when he could have had truth, facts and +good, sound sense.</p> +<p>Poor man!</p> +<p>Probably Mr. Moody has never read one word of Darwin and so he +still believes in the Garden of Eden and the talking snake and +really thinks that Jehovah took some mud, moulded the form of a +man, breathed in its nostrils, stood it up and called it Adam, and +that he then took one of Adam's ribs and some more mud and +manufactured Eve. Probably he has never read a word written by any +great geologist and consequently still believes in the story of the +flood. Knowing nothing of astronomy, he still thinks that Joshua +stopped the sun.</p> +<p>Poor man! He has neglected Spencer and has no idea of evolution. +He thinks that man has, through all the ages, degenerated, the +first pair having been perfect. He does not believe that man came +from lower forms and has gradually journeyed upward.</p> +<p>He really thinks that the Devil outwitted God and vaccinated the +human race with the virus of total depravity.</p> +<p>Poor man!</p> +<p>He knows nothing of the great scientists—of the great +thinkers, of the emancipators of the human race; knows nothing of +Spinoza, of Voltaire, of Draper, Buckle, of Paine or Renan.</p> +<p>Mr. Moody ought to read something besides the Bible—ought +to find out what the really intelligent have thought. He ought to +get some new ideas—a few facts—and I think that, after +he did so, he would be astonished to find how ignorant and foolish +he had been. He is a good man. His heart is fairly good, but his +head is almost useless.</p> +<p>The trouble with this sermon, "Sowing and Reaping," is that he +contradicts it. I believe that a man must reap what he sows, that +every human being must bear the natural consequences of his acts. +Actions are good or bad according to their consequences. That is my +doctrine.</p> +<p>There is no forgiveness in nature. But Mr. Moody tells us that a +man may sow thistles and gather figs, that having acted like a +fiend tor seventy years, he can, between his last dose of medicine +and his last breath, repent; that he can be washed clean by the +blood of the lamb, and that myriads of angels will carry his soul +to heaven—in other words, that this man will not reap what he +sowed, but what Christ sowed, that this man's thistles will be +changed to figs.</p> +<p>This doctrine, to my mind, is not only absurd, but dishonest and +corrupting.</p> +<p>This is one of the absurdities in Mr. Moody's theology. The +other is that a man can justly be damned for the sin of +another.</p> +<p>Nothing can exceed the foolishness of these two +ideas—first: "Man can be justly punished forever for the sin +of Adam." Second: "Man can be justly rewarded with eternal joy for +the goodness of Christ."</p> +<p>Yet the man who believes this, preaches a sermon in which he +says that a man must reap what he sows. Orthodox Christians teach +exactly the opposite. They teach that no matter what a man sows, no +matter how wicked his life has been, that he can by repentance +change the crop. That all his sins shall be forgotten and that only +the goodness of Christ will be remembered.</p> +<p>Let us see how this works:</p> +<p>Mr. A. has lived a good and useful life, kept his contracts, +paid his debts, educated his children, loved his wife and made his +home a heaven, but he did not believe in the inspiration of Mr. +Moody's Bible. He died and his soul was sent to hell. Mr. Moody +says that as a man sows so shall he reap.</p> +<p>Mr. B. lived a useless and wicked life. By his cruelty he drove +his wife to insanity, his children became vagrants and beggars, his +home was a perfect hell, he committed many crimes, he was a thief, +a burglar, a murderer. A few minutes before he was hanged he got +religion and his soul went from the scaffold to heaven. And yet Mr. +Moody says that as a man sows so shall he reap.</p> +<p>Mr. Moody ought to have a little philosophy—a little good +sense.</p> +<p>So Mr. Moody says that only in this life can a man secure the +reward of repentance.</p> +<p>Just before a man dies, God loves him—loves him as a +mother loves her babe—but a moment after he dies, he sends +his soul to hell. In the other world nothing can be done to reform +him. The society of God and the angels can have no good effect. +Nobody can be made better in heaven. This world is the only place +where reform is possible. Here, surrounded by the wicked in the +midst of temptations, in the darkness of ignorance, a human being +may reform if he is fortunate enough to hear the words of some +revival preacher, but when he goes before his maker—before +the Trinity—he has no chance. God can do nothing for his soul +except to send it to hell.</p> +<p>This shows that the power for good is confined to people in this +world and that in the next world God can do nothing to reform his +children. This is theology. This is what they call "Tidings of +great joy."</p> +<p>Every orthodox creed is savage, ignorant and idiotic.</p> +<p>In the orthodox heaven there is no mercy, no pity. In the +orthodox hell there is no hope, no reform. God is an eternal +jailer, an everlasting turnkey.</p> +<p>And yet Christians now say that while there may be no fire in +hell—no actual flames—yet the lost souls will feel +forever the tortures of conscience.</p> +<p>What will conscience trouble the people in hell about? They tell +us that they will remember their sins.</p> +<p>Well, what about the souls in heaven? They committed awful sins, +they made their fellow-men unhappy. They took the lives of +others—sent many to eternal torment. Will they have no +conscience? Is hell the only place where souls regret the evil they +have done? Have the angels no regret, no remorse, no +conscience?</p> +<p>If this be so, heaven must be somewhat worse than hell.</p> +<p>In old times, if people wanted to know anything they asked the +preacher. Now they do if they don't.</p> +<p>The Bible has, with intelligent men, lost its authority.</p> +<p>The miracles are now regarded by sensible people as the spawn of +ignorance and credulity. On every hand people are looking for +facts—for truth—and all religions are taking their +places in the museum of myths.</p> +<p>Yes, the people are becoming civilized, and so they are putting +out the fires of hell. They are ceasing to believe in a God who +seeks eternal revenge.</p> +<p>The people are becoming sensible. They are asking for evidence. +They care but little for the winged phantoms of the air—for +the ghosts and devils and supposed gods. The people are anxious to +be happy here and they want a little heaven in this life.</p> +<p>Theology is a curse. Science is a blessing. We do not need +preachers, but teachers; not priests, but thinkers; not churches, +but schools; not steeples, but observatories. We want +knowledge.</p> +<p>Let us hope that Mr. Moody will read some really useful +books.</p> +<a name="link0046" id="link0046"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>SHOULD INFIDELS SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SUNDAY SCHOOL?</h2> +<p>SHOULD parents, who are Infidels, unbelievers or Atheists, send +their children to Sunday schools and churches to give them the +benefit of Christian education?</p> +<p>Parents who do not believe the Bible to be an inspired book +should not teach their children that it is. They should be +absolutely honest. Hypocrisy is not a virtue, and, as a rule, lies +are less valuable than facts.</p> +<p>An unbeliever should not allow the mind of his child to be +deformed, stunted and shriveled by superstition. He should not +allow the child's imagination to be polluted. Nothing is more +outrageous than to take advantage of the helplessness of childhood +to sow in the brain the seeds of falsehoods, to imprison the soul +in the dungeon of Fear, to teach dimpled infancy the infamous dogma +of eternal pain—filling life with the glow and glare of +hell.</p> +<p>No unbeliever should allow his child to be tortured in the +orthodox inquisitions. He should defend the mind from attack as he +would the body. He should recognize the rights of the soul. In the +orthodox Sunday schools, children are taught that it is a duty to +believe—that evidence is not essential—that faith is +independent of facts and that religion is superior to reason. They +are taught not to use their natural sense—not to tell what +they really think—not to entertain a doubt—not to ask +wicked questions, but to accept and believe what their teachers +say. In this way the minds of the children are invaded, corrupted +and conquered. Would an educated man send his child to a school in +which Newton's statement in regard to the attraction of gravitation +was denied—in which the law of falling bodies, as given by +Galileo, was ridiculed—Kepler's three laws declared to be +idiotic, and the rotary motion of the earth held to be utterly +absurd?</p> +<p>Why then should an intelligent man allow his child to be taught +the geology and astronomy of the Bible? Children should be taught +to seek for the truth—to be honest, kind, generous, merciful +and just. They should be taught to love liberty and to live to the +ideal.</p> +<p>Why then should an unbeliever, an Infidel, send his child to an +orthodox Sunday school where he is taught that he has no right to +seek for the truth—no right to be mentally honest, and that +he will be damned for an honest doubt—where he is taught that +God was ferocious, revengeful, heartless as a wild beast—that +he drowned millions of his children—that he ordered wars of +extermination and told his soldiers to kill gray-haired and +trembling age, mothers and children, and to assassinate with the +sword of war the babes unborn?</p> +<p>Why should an unbeliever in the Bible send his child to an +orthodox Sunday school where he is taught that God was in favor of +slavery and told the Jews to buy of the heathen and that they +should be their bondmen and bondwomen forever; where he is taught +that God upheld polygamy and the degradation of women?</p> +<p>Why should an unbeliever, who believes in the uniformity of +Nature, in the unbroken and unbreakable chain of cause and effect, +allow his child to be taught that miracles have been performed; +that men have gone bodily to heaven; that millions have been +miraculously fed with manna and quails; that fire has refused to +burn clothes and flesh of men; that iron has been made to float; +that the earth and moon have been stopped and that the earth has +not only been stopped, but made to turn the other way; that devils +inhabit the bodies of men and women; that diseases have been cured +with words, and that the dead, with a touch, have been made to live +again?</p> +<p>The thoughtful man knows that there is not the slightest +evidence that these miracles ever were performed. Why should he +allow his children to be stuffed with these foolish and impossible +falsehoods? Why should he give his lambs to the care and keeping of +the wolves and hyenas of superstition?</p> +<p>Children should be taught only what somebody knows. Guesses +should not be palmed off on them as demonstrated facts. If a +Christian lived in Constantinople he would not send his children to +the mosque to be taught that Mohammed was a prophet of God and that +the Koran is an inspired book. Why? Because he does not believe in +Mohammed or the Koran. That is reason enough. So, an Agnostic, +living in New York, should not allow his children to be taught that +the Bible is an inspired book. I use the word "Agnostic" because I +prefer it to the word Atheist. As a matter of fact, no one knows +that God exists and no one knows that God does not exist. To my +mind there is no evidence that God exists—that this world is +governed by a being of infinite goodness, wisdom and power, but I +do not pretend to know. What I insist upon is that children should +not be poisoned—should not be taken advantage of—that +they should be treated fairly, honestly—that they should be +allowed to develop from the inside instead of being crammed from +the outside—that they should be taught to reason, not to +believe—to think, to investigate and to use their senses, +their minds.</p> +<p>Would a Catholic send his children to a school to be taught that +Catholicism is superstition and that Science is the only savior of +mankind?</p> +<p>Why then should a free and sensible believer in Science, in the +naturalness of the universe, send his child to a Catholic +school?</p> +<p>Nothing could be more irrational, foolish and absurd.</p> +<p>My advice to all Agnostics is to keep their children from the +orthodox Sunday schools, from the orthodox churches, from the +poison of the pulpits.</p> +<p>Teach your children the facts you know. If you do not know, say +so. Be as honest as you are ignorant. Do all you can to develop +their minds, to the end that they may live useful and happy +lives.</p> +<p>Strangle the serpent of superstition that crawls and hisses +about the cradle. Keep your children from the augurs, the +soothsayers, the medicine-men, the priests of the supernatural. +Tell them that all religions have been made by folks and that all +the "sacred books" were written by ignorant men.</p> +<p>Teach them that the world is natural. Teach them to be +absolutely honest. Do not send them where they will contract +diseases of the mind—the leprosy of the soul. Let us do all +we can to make them intelligent.</p> +<a name="link0047" id="link0047"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>WHAT WOULD YOU SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE?</h2> +<pre> + * Written for The Boston Investigator. +</pre> +<p>YOU ask me what I would "substitute for the Bible as a moral +guide.".</p> +<p>I know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide +and believe that in that book only can be found the true and +perfect standard of morality.</p> +<p>There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good +regulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad +precepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel +laws.</p> +<p>But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many +books written centuries apart, and that it in part represents the +growth and tells in part the history of a people. We must also +remember that the writers treat of many subjects. Many of these +writers have nothing to say about right or wrong, about vice or +virtue.</p> +<p>The book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not a +line in it calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No one +can call that book a moral guide. It is made up of myth and +miracle, of tradition and legend.</p> +<p>In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah +delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage.</p> +<p>We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; +that the entire story is a fiction. We know this, because there is +not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and there is not +found in the language of the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. +This being so, we know that the Hebrews and Egyptians could not +have lived together for hundreds of years.</p> +<p>Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book +you cannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of +fact, Jehovah was a believer in that institution.</p> +<p>The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the +first-born, so that in every house was death, because the king +refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was +fiendish. The writer of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, +their children, their flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, +and these people and these cattle were killed, not because they had +done anything wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the +king. Is it possible to get any morality out of this history?</p> +<p>All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so +far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in +force among all the peoples of the world.</p> +<p>Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long +as a majority of people object to being murdered.</p> +<p>Industry always has been and always will be the enemy of +larceny.</p> +<p>The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth +and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, +truth-telling has been considered a virtue and false swearing or +false speaking a vice.</p> +<p>The love of parents for children is natural, and this love is +found among all the animals that live. So the love of children for +parents is natural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love +does not spring from a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience +to commands.</p> +<p>So men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books +or creeds.</p> +<p>All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result +of experience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah +were foolish.</p> +<p>The worship of "any other God" could not have been worse than +the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd +than the sacredness of the Sabbath.</p> +<p>If commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, +against wars of invasion and extermination, against religious +persecution in all its forms, so that the world could be free, so +that the brain might be developed and the heart civilized, then we +might, with propriety, call such commandments a moral guide.</p> +<p>Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments +constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw +away some, and write others in their places.</p> +<p>The commandments that have a known application here, in this +world, and treat of human obligations are good, the others have no +basis in fact, or experience.</p> +<p>Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and +Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.</p> +<p>The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.</p> +<p>Most of the punishment for violations of laws are un-philosophic +and brutal.... The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all +crimes, and to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it +is merciful or true.</p> +<p>Nothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges. +These books are filled with crimes, with massacres and murders. +They are about the same as the real history of the Apache +Indians.</p> +<p>The story of Ruth is not particularly moral.</p> +<p>In first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to +develop the brain or conscience.</p> +<p>Jehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a +census of the people. David, according to the account, was the +guilty one, but only the innocent were killed.</p> +<p>In first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical value. +All the kings who refused to obey the priests were denounced, and +all the crowned wretches who assisted the priests, were declared to +be the favorites of Jehovah. In these books there cannot be found +one word in favor of liberty.</p> +<p>There are some good Psalms, and there are some that are +infamous. Most of these Psalms are selfish. Many of them, are +passionate appeals for revenge.</p> +<p>The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this +book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but +the story of this drama called Job, is heartless to the last +degree. The children of Job are murdered to settle a little wager +between God and the Devil. Afterward, Job having remained firm, +other children are given in the place of the murdered ones. +Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered.</p> +<p>The book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming +feature in the book is that the name of Jehovah is not +mentioned.</p> +<p>I like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and +that is something I can understand. That book in my judgment, is +worth all the ones that go before it, and is a far better moral +guide.</p> +<p>There are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish and +some are flat and commonplace.</p> +<p>I like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some +sense, some poetry, and some philosophy. Take away the +interpolations and it is a good book.</p> +<p>Of course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men +better, nothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen +vice, and only a few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good +cause.</p> +<p>In Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.</p> +<p>In some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good +verse, now and then an elevated thought.</p> +<p>You can, by selecting passages from different books, make a very +good creed, and by selecting passages from different books, you can +make a very bad creed.</p> +<p>The trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its +disposition, its temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most +fiendish things are commanded, commended and applauded.</p> +<p>The stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and +Gideon, and of many others, are hideous; hellish.</p> +<p>On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral +guide.</p> +<p>Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked +all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never +faithfully kept a promise.</p> +<p>At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a +natural production, that it was written by savages who were slowly +crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the noble +things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their +faults and even their crimes.</p> +<p>I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the +foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit +that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they +insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.</p> +<p>I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, +and if we take from that book the dogmas of eternal pain, of +infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the +necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of +non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the +result of wickedness, that poverty is a preparation for Paradise, +if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, +applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral +guide,—narrow, but moral.</p> +<p>Of course, many important things would be left out. You would +have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, +nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and +reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.</p> +<p>On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the +extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane +asylum.</p> +<p>If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate +eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can +make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.</p> +<p>It may be that no book contains better passages than the New +Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.</p> +<p>Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the +lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.</p> +<p>The Bible is not a moral guide.</p> +<p>Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of +society and will probably end his days in a prison or an +asylum.</p> +<p>What is morality?</p> +<p>In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are +exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, +and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger +of the mind.</p> +<p>We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon +conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things +that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy +and there are others that preserve.</p> +<p>Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only +good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure +happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys +or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other +words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is +immoral.</p> +<p>What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest +possible answer is one word: Intelligence.</p> +<p>We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. +We want the history of intellectual development, of the growth of +the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of +self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that have been +traveled by the human mind.</p> +<p>These facts in general, these histories in outline, the results +reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken +together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.</p> +<p>We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the +religions of the world. These religions are based on the +supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to +worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these +religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the +enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They +destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for +belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.</p> +<p>This is not only absurd, but it is immoral.</p> +<p>These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate +things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. +To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on +fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for +evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all +these acts are sins, crimes against some god. To give your honest +opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to +maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles, +is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the +credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, +the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not +enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed +by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These +things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural +conceptions of virtue.</p> +<p>All "inspired books," teaching that what the supernatural +commands is right, and right because commanded, and that what the +supernatural prohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are +absurdly unphilosophic.</p> +<p>And all "inspired books," teaching that only those who obey the +commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and +that unquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are +grossly immoral.</p> +<p>Again I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.</p> +<a name="link0048" id="link0048"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>GOVERNOR ROLLINS' FAST-DAY PROCLAMATION.</h2> +<p>THE Governor of New Hampshire, undoubtedly a good and sincere +man, issued a Fast-Day Proclamation to the people of his State, in +which I find the following paragraph:</p> +<p>"The decline of the Christian religion, particularly in our +rural communities, is a marked feature of the times, and steps +should be taken to remedy it. No matter what our belief may be in +religious matters, every good citizen knows that when the +restraining influences of religion are withdrawn from a community, +its decay, moral, mental and financial, is swift and sure. To me +this is one of the strongest evidences of the fundamental truth of +Christianity. I suggest to-day, as far as possible on Fast-Day, +union meetings be held, made up of all shades of belief, including +all who are interested in the welfare of our State, and that in +your prayers and other devotions and in your mutual councils you +remember and consider the problem of the condition of religion in +the rural communities. There are towns where no church bell sends +forth its solemn call from January to January. There are villages +where children grow to manhood unchristened. There are communities +where the dead are laid away without the benison of the name of the +Christ, and where marriages are solemnized only by Justices of the +Peace. This is a matter worthy of your thoughtful consideration, +citizens of New Hampshire. It does not augur well for the future. +You can afford to devote one day in the year to your fellow-men, to +work and thought and prayer for your children and your children's +children."</p> +<p>These words of the Governor have caused surprise, discussion and +danger. Many ministers have denied that Christianity is declining, +and have attacked the Governor with the malice of meekness and the +savagery of humility. The question is: Is Christianity +declining?</p> +<p>In order to answer this question we must state what Christianity +is.</p> +<p>Christians tell us that there are certain fundamental truths +that must be believed.</p> +<p>We must believe in God, the creator and governor of the +universe; in Jesus Christ, his only begotten son; in the Holy +Ghost; in the atonement made by Christ; in salvation by faith; in +the second birth; in heaven for believers, in hell for deniers and +doubters, and in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. +They must also believe in a prayer-hearing and prayer-answering +God, in special providence, and in addition to all this they must +practice a few ceremonies. This, I believe, is a fair skeleton of +Christianity. Of course I cannot give an exact definition. +Christians do not and never have agreed among themselves. They have +been disputing and fighting for many centuries, and to-day they are +as far apart as ever.</p> +<p>A few years ago Christians believed the "fundamental truths" +They had no doubts. They knew that God existed; that he made the +world. They knew when he commenced to work at the earth and stars +and knew when he finished. They knew that he, like a potter, mixed +and moulded clay into the shape of a man and breathed into its +nostrils the breath of life. They knew that he took from this man a +rib and framed the first woman.</p> +<p>It must be admitted that sensible Christians have outgrown this +belief. Jehovah the gardener, the potter, the tailor, has been +dethroned. The story of creation is believed only by the +provincial, the stupid, the truly orthodox. People who have read +Darwin and Haeckel and had sense enough to understand these great +men, laugh at the legends of the Jews.</p> +<p>A few years ago most Christians believed that Christ was the son +of God, and not only the son of God, but God himself.</p> +<p>This belief is slowly fading from the minds of Christians, from +the minds of those who have minds.</p> +<p>Many Christians now say that Christ was simply a man—a +perfect man. Others say that he was divine, but not actually +God—a union of God and man. Some say that while Christ was +not God, he was as nearly like God as it is possible for man to +be.</p> +<p>The old belief that he was actually God—that he sacrificed +himself unto himself—that he deserted himself; that he bore +the burden of his own wrath; that he made it possible to save a few +of his children by shedding his own blood; that he could not +forgive the sins of men until they murdered him—this +frightful belief is slowly dying day by day. Most ministers are +ashamed to preach these cruel and idiotic absurdities. The Christ +of our time is not the Christ of the New Testament—not the +Christ of the Middle Ages; nor of Luther, Wesley or the Puritan +fathers.</p> +<p>The Christ who was God—who was his own son and his own +father—who was born of a virgin, cast out devils, rose from +the dead, and ascended bodily to heaven—is not the Christ of +to-day.</p> +<p>The Holy Ghost has never been accurately defined or described. +He has always been a winged influence—a divine aroma; a +disembodied essence; a spiritual climate; an enthusiastic flame; a +something sensitive and unforgiving; the real father of Jesus +Christ.</p> +<p>A few years ago the clergy had a great deal to say about the +Holy Ghost, but now the average minister, while he alludes to this +shadowy deity to round out a prayer, seems ta have but little +confidence in him. This deity is and always has been extremely +vague. He has been represented in the form of a dove; but this form +is not associated with much intelligence.</p> +<p>Formerly it was believed that all men were by nature wicked, and +that it would be perfectly just for God to damn the entire human +race. In fact, it was thought that God, feeling that he had to damn +all his children, invented a scheme by which some could be saved +and at the same time justice could be satisfied. God knew that +without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin. +For many centuries he was satisfied with the blood of oxen, lambs +and doves. But the sins continued to increase. A greater sacrifice +was necessary. So God concluded to make the greatest possible +sacrifice—to shed his own blood, that is to say, to have it +shed by his chosen people. This was the atonement—the scheme +of salvation—a scheme that satisfied justice and partially +defeated the Devil.</p> +<p>No intelligent Christians believe in this atonement. It is +utterly unphilosophic. The idea that man made salvation possible by +murdering God is infinitely absurd. This makes salvation the +blossom of a crime—the blessed fruit of murder. According to +this the joys of heaven are born of the agonies of innocence. If +the Jews had been civilized—if they had believed in freedom +of conscience and had listened kindly and calmly to the teachings +of Christ, the whole world, including Christ's mother, would have +gone to hell.</p> +<p>Our fathers had two absurdities. They balanced each other. They +said that God could justly damn his children for the sin of Adam, +and that he could justly save his children on account of the +sufferings and virtues of Christ; that is to say, on account of his +own sufferings and virtues.</p> +<p>This view of the atonement has mostly been abandoned. It is now +preached, not that Christ bought souls with his blood, but that he +has ennobled souls by his example. The supernatural part of the +atonement has, by the more intelligent, been thrown away. So the +idea of imputed sin—of vicarious vice—has been by many +abandoned.</p> +<p>Salvation by faith is growing weak. People are beginning to see +that character is more important than belief; that virtue is above +all creeds. Civilized people no longer believe in a God who will +damn an honest, generous man. They see that it is not honest to +offer a reward for belief. The promise of reward is not evidence. +It is an attempt to bribe.</p> +<p>If God wishes his children to believe, he should furnish +evidence. He should not endeavor to make promises and threats take +the place of facts. To offer a reward for credulity is dishonest +and immoral—infamous.</p> +<p>To say that good people who never heard of Christ ought to be +damned for not believing on him is a mixture of idiocy and +savagery.</p> +<p>People are beginning to perceive that happiness is a result, not +a reward; that happiness must be earned; that it is not alms. It is +also becoming apparent that sins cannot be forgiven; that no power +can step between actions and consequences; that men must "reap what +they sow;" that a man who has lived a cruel life cannot, by +repenting between the last dose of medicine and the last breath, be +washed in the blood of the Lamb, and become an angel—an angel +entitled to an eternity of joy.</p> +<p>All this is absurd, but you may say that it is not cruel. But to +say that a man who has lived a useful life; who has made a happy +home; who has lifted the fallen, succored the oppressed and battled +to uphold the right; to say that such a man, because he failed to +believe without evidence, will suffer eternal pain, is to say that +God is an infinite wild beast.</p> +<p>Salvation for credulity means damnation for investigation.</p> +<p>At one time the "second birth" was regarded as a divine +mystery—as a miracle—a something done by a supernatural +power; probably by the Holy Ghost. Now ministers are explaining +this mystery. A change of heart is a change of ideas. About this +there is nothing miraculous.</p> +<p>This happens to most men and women—happens many times in +the life of one man. If this happens without excitement—as +the result of thought—it is called reformation. If it occurs +in a revival—if it is the result of fright—it is called +the "second birth."</p> +<p>A few years ago Christians believed in the inspiration of the +Bible. They had no doubts. The Bible was the standard. If some +geologist found a fact inconsistent with the Scriptures he was +silenced with a text. If some doubter called attention to a +contradiction in the Bible he was denounced as an ungodly and +blaspheming wretch. Christians then knew that the universe was only +about six thousand years old, and any man who denied this was an +enemy of Christ and a friend of the Devil.</p> +<p>All this has changed. The Bible is no longer the standard. +Science has dethroned the inspired volume. Even theologians are +taking facts into consideration. Only ignorant bigots now believe +in the plenary inspiration of the Bible.</p> +<p>The intelligent ministers know that the Holy Scriptures are +filled with mistakes, contradictions and interpolations. They no +longer believe in the flood, in Babel, in Lot's wife or in the fire +and brimstone storm. They are not sure about the burning bush, the +plagues of Egypt, the division of the Red Sea or the miracles in +the wilderness. All these wonders are growing foolish. They belong +to the Mother Goose of the past, and many clergymen are ashamed to +say that they believe them. So, the lengthening of the day in order +that General Joshua might have more time to kill, the journey of +Elijah to heaven, the voyage of Jonah in the fish, and many other +wonders of a like kind, have become so transparently false that +even a theologian refuses to believe.</p> +<p>The same is true of many of the miracles of the New Testament. +No sensible man now believes that Christ cast devils and unclean +spirits out of the bodies of men and women. A few years ago all +Christians believed all these devil miracles with all the mind they +had. A few years ago only Infidels denied these miracles, but now +the theologians who are studying the "Higher Criticism" are +reaching the conclusions of Voltaire and Paine. They have just +discovered that the objections made to the Bible by the Deists are +supported by the facts.</p> +<p>At the same time these "Higher Critics," while they admit that +the Bible is not true, still insist that it is inspired.</p> +<p>The other evening I attended Forepaugh & Sell's Circus at +Madison Square Garden and saw a magnificent panorama of +performances. While looking at a man riding a couple of horses I +thought of the "Higher Critics." They accept Darwin and cling to +Genesis. They admit that Genesis is false in fact, and then assert +that in a higher sense it is absolutely true.</p> +<p>A lie bursts into blossom and has the perfume of truth. These +critics declare that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and +then establish the truth of the declaration by showing that it is +filled with contradictions, absurdities and false prophecies.</p> +<p>The horses they ride, sometimes get so far apart that it seems +to me that walking would be easier on the legs.</p> +<p>So, I saw at the circus the "Snake Man." I saw him tie himself +into all kinds of knots; saw him make a necktie of his legs; saw +him throw back his head and force it between his knees; saw him +twist and turn as though his bones were made of rubber, and as I +watched him I thought of the mental doublings and contortions of +the preachers who have answered me.</p> +<p>Let Christians say what they will, the Bible is no longer the +actual word of God; it is no longer perfect; it is no longer quite +true.</p> +<p>The most that is now claimed for the Bible by the "Higher +Critics" is, that some passages are inspired; that some passages +are true, and that God has left man free to pick these passages +out.</p> +<p>The ministers are preaching Infidelity. What would Lyman Beecher +have thought of a man like Dr. Abbott? he would have consigned him +to hell. What would John Wesley have thought of a Methodist like +Dr. Cadman? He would have denounced him as a child of the Devil. +What would Calvin have thought of a Presbyterian like Professor +Briggs? He would have burned him at the stake, and through the +smoke and flame would have shouted, "You are a dog of Satan." How +would Jeremy Taylor have treated an Episcopalian like Heber +Newton?</p> +<p>The Governor of New Hampshire is right when he says that +Christianity has declined. The flames of faith are flickering, zeal +is cooling and even bigotry is beginning to see the other side. I +admit that there are still millions of orthodox Christians whose +minds are incapable of growth, and who care no more for facts than +a monitor does for bullets. Such obstructions on the highway of +progress are removed only by death.</p> +<p>The dogma of eternal pain is no longer believed by the +reasonably intelligent. People who have a sense of justice know +that eternal revenge cannot be enjoyed by infinite goodness. They +know that hell would make heaven impossible. If Christians believed +in hell as they once did, the fagots would be lighted again, +heretics would be stretched on the rack, and all the instruments of +torture would again be stained with innocent blood. Christianity +has declined because intelligence has increased.</p> +<p>Men and women who know something of the history of man, of the +horrors of plague, famine and flood, of earthquake, volcano and +cyclone, of religious persecution and slavery, have but little +confidence in special providence. They do not believe that a prayer +was ever answered.</p> +<p>Thousands of people who accept Christ as a moral guide have +thrown, away the supernatural.</p> +<p>Christianity does not satisfy the brain and heart. It contains +too many absurdities. It is unphilosophic, unnatural, impossible. +Not to resist evil is moral suicide. To love your enemies is +impossible. To desert wife and children for the sake of heaven is +cowardly and selfish. To promise rewards for belief is dishonest. +To threaten torture for honest unbelief is infamous. Christianity +is declining because men and women are growing better.</p> +<p>The Governor was not satisfied with saying that Christianity had +declined, but he added this: "Every good citizen knows that when +the restraining influences of religion are withdrawn from a +community, its decay, moral, mental and financial is swift and +sure."</p> +<p>The restraining influences of religion have never been withdrawn +from Spain or Portugal, from Austria or Italy. The "restraining +influences" are still active in Russia. Emperor William relies on +them in Germany, and the same influences are very busy taking care +of Ireland. If these influences should be withdrawn from Spain +there would be "mental, moral and financial decay." Is not this +statement perfectly absurd?</p> +<p>The fact is that religion has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy +to a hand organ and Ireland to exile. What are the restraining +influences of religion? I admit that religion can prevent people +from eating meat on Friday, from dancing in Lent, from going to the +theatre on holy days and from swearing in public. In other words, +religion can restrain people from committing artificial offences. +But the real question is: Can religion restrain people from +committing natural crimes?</p> +<p>The church teaches that God can and will forgive sins.</p> +<p>Christianity sells sin on a credit. It says to men and women, +"Be good; do right; but no matter how many crimes you commit you +can be forgiven." How can such a religion be regarded as a +restraining influence! There was a time when religion had power; +when the church ruled Christendom; when popes crowned and uncrowned +kings. Was there at that time moral, mental and financial growth? +Did the nations thus restrained by religion, prosper? When these +restraining influences were weakened, when popes were humbled, when +creeds were denied, did morality, intelligence and prosperity begin +to decay?</p> +<p>What are the restraining influences of religion? Did anybody +ever hear of a policeman being dismissed because a new church had +been organized?</p> +<p>Christianity teaches that the man who does right carries a +cross. The exact opposite of this is true. The cross is carried by +the man who does wrong. I believe in the restraining influences of +intelligence. Intelligence is the only lever capable of raising +mankind. If you wish to make men moral and prosperous develop the +brain. Men must be taught to rely on themselves. To supplicate the +supernatural is a waste of time.</p> +<p>The only evils that have been caused by the decline of +Christianity, as pointed out by the Governor, are that in some +villages they hear no solemn bells, that the dead are buried +without Christian ceremony, that marriages are contracted before +Justices of the Peace, and that children go unchristened.</p> +<p>These evils are hardly serious enough to cause moral, mental and +financial decay. The average church bell is not very +musical—not calculated to develop the mind or quicken the +conscience. The absence of the ordinary funeral sermon does not add +to the horror of death, and the failure to hear a minister say, as +he stands by the grave, "One star differs in glory from another +star. There is a difference between the flesh of fowl and fish. Be +not deceived. Evil communications corrupt good manners," does not +necessarily increase the grief of the mourners. So far as children +are concerned, if they are vaccinated, it does not make much +difference whether they are christened or not.</p> +<p>Marriage is a civil contract, and God is not one of the +contracting parties. It is a contract with which the church has no +business to interfere. Marriage with us is regulated by law. The +real marriage—the uniting of hearts, the lighting of the +sacred flame in each—is the work of Nature, and it is the +best work that nature does. The ceremony of marriage gives notice +to the world that the real marriage has taken place. Ministers have +no real interest in marriages outside of the fees. Certainly +marriages by Justices of the Peace cannot cause the mental, moral +and financial decay of a State.</p> +<p>The things pointed out by the Governor were undoubtedly produced +by the decline of Christianity, but they are not evils, and they +cannot possibly injure the people morally, mentally or financially. +The Governor calls on the people to think, work and pray. With +two-thirds of this I agree. If the people of New Hampshire will +think and work without praying they will grow morally, mentally and +financially. If they pray without working and thinking, they will +decay.</p> +<p>Prayer is beggary—an effort to get something for nothing. +Labor is the honest prayer.</p> +<p>I do not think that the good and true in Christianity are +declining. The good and true are more clearly perceived and more +precious than ever. The supernatural, the miraculous part of +Christianity is declining. The New Testament has been compelled to +acknowledge the jurisdiction of reason. If Christianity continues +to decline at the same rate and ratio that it has declined in this +generation, in a few years all that is supernatural in the +Christian religion will cease to exist. There is a conflict—a +battle between the natural and the supernatural. The natural was +baffled and beaten for thousands of years. The flag of defeat was +carried by the few, by the brave and wise, by the real heroes of +our race. They were conquered, captured, imprisoned, tortured and +burned. Others took their places. The banner was kept in the air. +In spite of countless defeats the army of the natural increased. It +began to gain victories. It did not torture and kill the conquered. +It enlightened and blessed. It fought ignorance with science, +cruelty with kindness, slavery with justice, and all vices with +virtues. In this great conflict we have passed midnight. When the +morning comes its rays will gild but one flag—the flag of the +natural.</p> +<p>All over Christendom religions are declining. Only children and +the intellectually undeveloped have faith—the old faith that +defies facts. Only a few years ago to be excommunicated by the pope +blanched the cheeks of the bravest. Now the result would be +laughter. Only a few years ago, for the sake of saving heathen +souls, priests would brave all dangers and endure all +hardships.</p> +<p>I once read the diary of a priest—one who long ago went +down the Illinois River, the first white man to be borne on its +waters. In this diary he wrote that he had just been paid for all +that he had suffered. He had added a gem to the crown of his +glory—had saved a soul for Christ. He had baptized a +papoose.</p> +<p>That kind of faith has departed from the world.</p> +<p>The zeal that flamed in the hearts of Calvin, Luther and Knox, +is cold and dead. Where are the Wesleys and Whitfields? Where are +the old evangelists, the revivalists who swayed the hearts of their +hearers with words of flame? The preachers of our day have lost the +Promethean fire. They have lost the tone of certainty, of +authority. "Thus saith the Lord" has dwindled to "perhaps." +Sermons, messages from God, promises radiant with eternal joy, +threats lurid with the flames of hell—have changed to +colorless essays; to apologies and literary phrases; to inferences +and peradventures.</p> +<p>"The blood-dyed vestures of the Redeemer are not waving in +triumph over the ramparts of sin and rebellion," but over the +fortresses of faith float the white flags of truce. The trumpets no +longer sound for battle, but for parley. The fires of hell have +been extinguished, and heaven itself is only a dream. The "eternal +verities" have changed to doubts. The torch of inspiration, choked +with ashes, has lost its flame. There is no longer in the church "a +sound from heaven as of a rushing, mighty wind;" no "cloven tongues +like as of fire;" no "wonders in the heaven above," and no "signs +in the earth beneath." The miracles have faded away and the sceptre +is passing from superstition to science—science, the only +possible savior of mankind.</p> +<a name="link0049" id="link0049"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A LOOK BACKWARD AND A PROPHECY.</h2> +<pre> + * Written for the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Number of the + New York Truth Seeker, September 3, 1898. +</pre> +<p>I CONGRATULATE <i>The Truth Seeker</i> on its twenty-fifth +birthday. It has fought a good fight. It has always been at the +front. It has carried the flag, and its flag is a torch that sheds +light.</p> +<p>Twenty-five years ago the people of this country, for the most +part, were quite orthodox. The great "fundamental" falsehoods of +Christianity were generally accepted. Those who were not +Christians, as a rule, admitted that they ought to be; that they +ought to repent and join the church, and this they generally +intended to do.</p> +<p>The ministers had few doubts. The most of them had been educated +not to think, but to believe. Thought was regarded as dangerous, +and the clergy, as a rule, kept on the safe side. Investigation was +discouraged. It was declared that faith was the only road that led +to eternal joy.</p> +<p>Most of the schools and colleges were under sectarian control, +and the presidents and professors were defenders of their creeds. +The people were crammed with miracles and stuffed with absurdities. +They were taught that the Bible was the "inspired" word of God, +that it was absolutely perfect, that the contradictions were only +apparent, and that it contained no mistakes in philosophy, none in +science. The great scheme of salvation was declared to be the +result of infinite wisdom and mercy. Heaven and hell were waiting +for the human race. Only those could be saved who had faith and who +had been born twice.</p> +<p>Most of the ministers taught the geology of Moses, the astronomy +of Joshua, and the philosophy of Christ. They regarded scientists +as enemies, and their principal business was to defend miracles and +deny facts. They knew, however, that men were thinking, +investigating in every direction, and they feared the result. They +became a little malicious—somewhat hateful. With their +congregations they relied on sophistry, and they answered their +enemies with epithets, with misrepresentations and slanders; and +yet their minds were filled with a vague fear, with a sickening +dread. Some of the people were reading and some were thinking. +Lyell had told them something about geology, and in the light of +facts they were reading Genesis again. The clergy called Lyell an +Infidel, a blasphemer, but the facts seemed to care nothing for +opprobrious names. Then the "called," the "set apart," the "Lord's +anointed" began changing the "inspired" word. They erased the word +"day" and inserted "period," and then triumphantly exclaimed: "The +world was created in six periods." This answer satisfied bigotry, +hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, but honest intelligence was not +satisfied.</p> +<p>More and more was being found about the history of life, of +living things, the order in which the various forms had appeared +and the relations they had sustained to each other. Beneath the +gaze of the biologist the fossils were again clothed with flesh, +submerged continents and islands reappeared, the ancient forest +grew once more, the air was filled with unknown birds, the seas +with armored monsters, and the land with beasts of many forms that +sought with tooth and claw each other's flesh.</p> +<p>Haeckel and Huxley followed life through all its changing forms +from monad up to man. They found that men, women, and children had +been on this poor world for hundreds of thousands of years.</p> +<p>The clergy could not dodge these facts, this conclusion, by +calling "days" periods, because the Bible gives the age of Adam +when he died, the lives and ages to the flood, to Abraham, to +David, and from David to Christ, so that, according to the Bible, +man at the birth of Christ had been on this earth four thousand and +four years and no more.</p> +<p>There was no way in which the sacred record could be changed, +but of course the dear ministers could not admit the conclusion +arrived at by Haeckel and Huxley. If they did they would have to +give up original sin, the scheme of the atonement, and the +consolation of eternal fire.</p> +<p>They took the only course they could. They promptly and +solemnly, with upraised hands, denied the facts, denounced the +biologists as irreverent wretches, and defended the Book. With +tears in their voices they talked about "Mother's Bible," about the +"faith of the fathers," about the prayers that the children had +said, and they also talked about the wickedness of doubt. This +satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, but honest +intelligence was not satisfied.</p> +<p>The works of Humboldt had been translated, and were being read; +the intellectual horizon was enlarged, and the fact that the +endless chain of cause and effect had never been broken, that +Nature had never been interfered with, forced its way into many +minds. This conception of nature was beyond the clergy. They did +not believe it; they could not comprehend it. They did not answer +Humboldt, but they attacked him with great virulence. They measured +his works by the Bible, because the Bible was then the +standard.</p> +<p>In examining a philosophy, a system, the ministers asked: "Does +it agree with the sacred book?" With the Bible they separated the +gold from the dross. Every science had to be tested by the +Scriptures. Humboldt did not agree with Moses. He differed from +Joshua. He had his doubts about the flood. That was enough.</p> +<p>Yet, after all, the ministers felt that they were standing on +thin ice, that they were surrounded by masked batteries, and that +something unfortunate was liable at any moment to happen. This +increased their efforts to avoid, to escape. The truth was that +they feared the truth. They were afraid of facts. They became +exceedingly anxious for morality, for the young, for the +inexperienced. They were afraid to trust human nature. They +insisted that without the Bible the world would rush to crime. They +warned the thoughtless of the danger of thinking. They knew that it +would be impossible for civilization to exist without the Bible. +They knew this because their God had tried it. He gave no Bible to +the antediluvians, and they became so bad that he had to destroy +them. He gave the Jews only the Old Testament, and they were +dispersed. Irreverent people might say that Jehovah should have +known this without a trial, but after all that has nothing to do +with theology.</p> +<p>Attention had been called to the fact that two accounts of +creation are in Genesis, and that they do not agree and cannot be +harmonized, and that, in addition to that, the divine historian had +made a mistake as to the order of creation; that according to one +account Adam was made before the animals, and Eve last of all, from +Adam's rib; and by the other account Adam and Eve were made after +the animals, and both at the same time. A good many people were +surprised to find that the Creator had written contradictory +accounts of the creation, and had forgotten the order in which he +created.</p> +<p>Then there was another difficulty. Jehovah had declared that on +Tuesday, or during the second period, he had created the +"firmament" to divide the waters which were below the firmament +from the waters above the firmament. It was found that there is no +firmament; that the moisture in the air is the result of +evaporation, and that there was nothing to divide the waters above, +from the waters below. So that, according to the facts, Jehovah did +nothing on the second day or period, because the moisture above the +earth is not prevented from falling by the firmament, but because +the mist is lighter than air.</p> +<p>The preachers, however, began to dodge, to evade, to talk about +"oriental imagery." They declared that Genesis was a "sublime +poem," a divine "panorama of creation," an "inspired vision;" that +it was not intended to be exact in its details, but that it was +true in a far higher sense, in a poetical sense, in a spiritual +sense, conveying a truth much higher, much grander than simple, +fact. The contradictions were covered with the mantle of oriental +imagery. This satisfied bigotry, hypocrisy, and honest ignorance, +but honest intelligence was not satisfied.</p> +<p>People were reading Darwin. His works interested not only the +scientific, but the intelligent in all the walks of life. Darwin +was the keenest observer of all time, the greatest naturalist in +all the world. He was patient, modest, logical, candid, courageous, +and absolutely truthful. He told the actual facts. He colored +nothing. He was anxious only to ascertain the truth. He had no +prejudices, no theories, no creed. He was the apostle of the +real.</p> +<p>The ministers greeted him with shouts of derision. From nearly +all the pulpits came the sounds of ignorant laughter, one of the +saddest of all sounds. The clergy in a vague kind of way believed +the Bible account of creation; they accepted the Miltonic view; +they believed that all animals, including man, had been made of +clay, fashioned by Jehovah's hands, and that he had breathed into +all forms, not only the breath of life, but instinct and reason. +They were not in the habit of descending to particulars; they did +not describe Jehovah as kneading the clay or modeling his forms +like a sculptor, but what they did say included these things.</p> +<p>The theory of Darwin contradicted all their ideas on the +subject, vague as they were. He showed that man had not appeared at +first as man, that he had not fallen from perfection, but had +slowly risen through many ages from lower forms. He took food, +climate, and all conditions into consideration, and accounted for +difference of form, function, instinct, and reason, by natural +causes. He dispensed with the supernatural. He did away with +Jehovah the potter.</p> +<p>Of course the theologians denounced him as a blasphemer, as a +dethroner of God. They even went so far as to smile at his +ignorance. They said: "If the theory of Darwin is true the Bible is +false, our God is a myth, and our religion a fable."</p> +<p>In that they were right.</p> +<p>Against Darwin they rained texts of Scripture like shot and +shell. They believed that they were victorious and their +congregations were delighted. Poor little frightened professors in +religious colleges sided with the clergy. Hundreds of backboneless +"scientists" ranged themselves with the enemies of Darwin. It began +to look as though the church was victorious.</p> +<p>Slowly, steadily, the ideas of Darwin gained ground. He began to +be understood. Men of sense were reading what he said. Men of +genius were on his side. In a little while the really great in all +departments of human thought declared in his favor. The tide began +to turn. The smile on the face of the theologian became a frozen +grin. The preachers began to hedge, to dodge. They admitted that +the Bible was not inspired for the purpose of teaching +science—only inspired about religion, about the spiritual, +about the divine. The fortifications of faith were crumbling, the +old guns had been spiked, and the armies of the "living God" were +in retreat.</p> +<p>Great questions were being discussed, and freely discussed. +People were not afraid to give their opinions, and they did give +their honest thoughts. Draper had shown in his "Intellectual +Development of Europe" that Catholicism had been the relentless +enemy of progress, the bitter foe of all that is really useful. The +Protestants were delighted with this book.</p> +<p>Buckle had shown in his "History of Civilization in England" +that Protestantism had also enslaved the mind, had also persecuted +to the extent of its power, and that Protestantism in its last +analysis was substantially the same as the creed of Rome.</p> +<p>This book satisfied the thoughtful.</p> +<p>Hegel in his first book had done a great work and it did great +good in spite of the fact that his second book was almost a +surrender. Lecky in his first volume of "The History of +Rationalism" shed a flood of light on the meanness, the cruelty, +and the malevolence of "revealed religion," and this did good in +spite of the fact that he almost apologizes in the second volume +for what he had said in the first.</p> +<p>The Universalists had done good. They had civilized a great many +Christians. They declared that eternal punishment was infinite +revenge, and that the God of hell was an infinite savage.</p> +<p>Some of the Unitarians, following the example of Theodore +Parker, denounced Jehovah as a brutal, tribal God. All these forces +worked together for the development of the orthodox brain.</p> +<p>Herbert Spencer was being read and understood. The theories of +this great philosopher were being adopted. He overwhelmed the +theologians with facts, and from a great height he surveyed the +world. Of course he was attacked, but not answered.</p> +<p>Emerson had sowed the seeds of thought—of doubt—in +many minds, and from many directions the world was being flooded +with intellectual light. The clergy became apologetic; they spoke +with less certainty; with less emphasis, and lost a little +confidence in the power of assertion. They felt the necessity of +doing something, and they began to harmonize as best they could the +old lies and the new truths. They tried to get the wreck ashore, +and many of them were willing to surrender if they could keep their +side-arms; that is to say, their salaries.</p> +<p>Conditions had been reversed. The Bible had ceased to be the +standard. Science was the supreme and final test.</p> +<p>There was no peace for the pulpit; no peace for the shepherds. +Students of the Bible in England and Germany had been examining the +inspired Scriptures. They had been trying to find when and by whom +the books of the Bible were written. They found that the Pentateuch +was not written by Moses; that the authors of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, +Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, and Job were not known; that the +Psalms were not written by David; that Solomon had nothing to do +with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or the Song; that Isaiah was the work +of at least three authors; that the prophecies of Daniel were +written after the happening of the events prophesied. They found +many mistakes and contradictions, and some of them went so far as +to assert that the Hebrews had never been slaves in Egypt; that the +story of the plagues, the exodus, and the pursuit was only a +myth.</p> +<p>The New Testament fared no better than the Old. These critics +found that nearly all of the books of the New Testament had been +written by unknown men; that it was impossible to fix the time when +they were written; that many of the miracles were absurd and +childish, and that in addition to all of this, the gospels were +found filled with mistakes, with interpolations' and +contradictions; that the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not +understand the Christian religion as it was understood by the +author of the gospel according to John.</p> +<p>Of course, the critics were denounced from most of the pulpits, +and the religious papers, edited generally by men who had failed as +preachers, were filled with bitter denials and vicious attacks. The +religious editors refused to be enlightened. They fought under the +old flag. When dogmas became too absurd to be preached, they were +taught in the Sunday schools; when worn out there, they were given +to the missionaries; but the dear old religious weeklies, the +Banners, the Covenants, the Evangelists, continued to feed their +provincial subscribers with known mistakes and refuted lies.</p> +<p>There is another fact that should be taken into consideration. +All religions are provincial. Mingled with them all and at the +foundation of all are the egotism of ignorance, of isolation, the +pride of race, and what is called patriotism. Every religion is a +natural product—the result of conditions. When one tribe +became acquainted with another, the ideas of both were somewhat +modified. So when nations and races come into contact a change in +thought, in opinion, is a necessary result.</p> +<p>A few years ago nations were strangers, and consequently hated +each other's institutions and religions. Commerce has done a great +work in destroying provincialism. To trade commodities is to +exchange ideas. So the press, the steamships, the railways, cables, +and telegraphs have brought the nations together and enabled them +to compare their prejudices, their religions, laws and customs.</p> +<p>Recently many scholars have been studying the religions of the +world and have found them much the same. They have also found that +there is nothing original in Christianity; that the legends, +miracles, Christs, and conditions of salvation, the heavens, hells, +angels, devils, and gods were the common property of the ancient +world. They found that Christ was a new name for an old biography; +that he was not a life, but a legend; not a man, but a myth.</p> +<p>People began to suspect that our religion had not been +supernaturally revealed, while others, far older and substantially +the same, had been naturally produced. They found it difficult to +account for the fact that poor, ignorant savages had in the +darkness of nature written so well that Jehovah thousands of years +afterwards copied it and adopted it as his own. They thought it +curious that God should be a plagiarist.</p> +<p>These scholars found that all the old religions had recognized +the existence of devils, of evil spirits, who sought in countless +ways to injure the children of men. In this respect they found that +the sacred books of other nations were just the same as our Bible, +as our New Testament.</p> +<p>Take the Devil from our religion and the entire fabric falls. No +Devil, no fall of man. No Devil, no atonement. No Devil, no +hell.</p> +<p>The Devil is the keystone of the arch.</p> +<p>And yet for many years the belief in the existence of the +Devil—of evil spirits—has been fading from the minds of +intelligent people. This belief has now substantially vanished. The +minister who now seriously talks about a personal Devil is regarded +with a kind of pitying contempt.</p> +<p>The Devil has faded from his throne and the evil spirits have +vanished from the air.</p> +<p>The man who has really given up a belief in the existence of the +Devil cannot believe in the inspiration of the New +Testament—in the divinity of Christ. If Christ taught +anything, if he believed in anything, he taught a belief in the +existence of the Devil..His principal business was casting out +devils. He himself was taken possession of by the Devil and carried +to the top of the temple.</p> +<p>Thousands and thousands of people have ceased to believe the +account in the New Testament regarding devils, and yet continue to +believe in the dogma of "inspiration" and the divinity of +Christ.</p> +<p>In the brain of the average Christian, contradictions dwell in +unity.</p> +<p>While a belief in the existence of the Devil has almost faded +away, the belief in the existence of a personal God has been +somewhat weakened. The old belief that back of nature, back of all +substance and force, was and is a personal God, an infinite +intelligence who created and governs the world, began to be +questioned. The scientists had shown the indestructibility of +matter and force. Büchner's great work had convinced most +readers that matter and force could not have been created. They +also became satisfied that matter cannot exist apart from force and +that force cannot exist apart from matter.</p> +<p>They found, too, that thought is a form of force, and that +consequently intelligence could not have existed before matter, +because without matter, force in any form cannot and could not +exist.</p> +<p>The creator of anything is utterly unthinkable.</p> +<p>A few years ago God was supposed to govern the world. He +rewarded the people with sunshine, with prosperity and health, or +he punished with drought and flood, with plague and storm. He not +only attended to the affairs of nations, but he watched the actions +of individuals. He sank ships, derailed trains, caused +conflagrations, killed men and women with his lightnings, destroyed +some with earthquakes, and tore the homes and bodies of thousands +into fragments with his cyclones.</p> +<p>In spite of the church, in spite of the ministers, the people +began to lose confidence in Providence. The right did not seem +always to triumph. Virtue was not always rewarded and vice was not +always punished. The good failed; the vicious succeeded; the strong +and cruel enslaved the weak; toil was paid with the lash; babes +were sold from the breasts of mothers, and Providence seemed to be +absolutely heartless.</p> +<p>In other words, people began to think that the God of the +Christians and the God of nature were about the same, and that +neither appeared to take any care of the human race.</p> +<p>The Deists of the last century scoffed at the Bible God. He was +too cruel, too savage. At the same time they praised the God of +nature. They laughed at the idea of inspiration and denied the +supernatural origin of the Scriptures.</p> +<p>Now, if the Bible is not inspired, then it is a natural +production, and nature, not God, should be held responsible for the +Scriptures. Yet the Deists denied that God was the author and at +the same time asserted the perfection of nature.</p> +<p>This shows that even in the minds of Deists contradictions dwell +in unity.</p> +<p>Against all these facts and forces, these theories and +tendencies, the clergy fought and prayed. It is not claimed that +they were consciously dishonest, but it is claimed that they were +prejudiced—that they were incapable of examining the other +side—that they were utterly destitute of the philosophic +spirit. They were not searchers for the facts, but defenders of the +creeds, and undoubtedly they were the product of conditions and +surroundings, and acted as they must.</p> +<p>In spite of everything a few rays of light penetrated the +orthodox mind. Many ministers accepted some of the new facts, and +began to mingle with Christian mistakes a few scientific truths. In +many instances they excited the indignation of their congregations. +Some were tried for heresy and driven from their pulpits, and some +organized new churches and gathered about them a few people willing +to listen to the sincere thoughts of an honest man.</p> +<p>The great body of the church, however, held to the +creed—not quite believing it, but still insisting that it was +true.</p> +<p>In private conversation they would apologize and admit that the +old ideas were outgrown, but in public they were as orthodox as +ever. In every church, however, there were many priests who +accepted the new gospel; that is to say, welcomed the truth.</p> +<p>To-day it may truthfully be said that the Bible in the old sense +is no longer regarded as the inspired word of God. Jehovah is no +longer accepted or believed in as the creator of the universe. His +place has been taken by the Unknown, the Unseen, the Invisible, the +Incomprehensible Something, the Cosmic Dust, the First Cause, the +Inconceivable, the Original Force, the Mystery. The God of the +Bible, the gentleman who walked in the cool of the evening, who +talked face to face with Moses, who revenged himself on unbelievers +and who gave laws written with his finger on tables of stone, has +abdicated. He has become a myth.</p> +<p>So, too, the New Testament has lost its authority. People reason +about it now as they do about other books, and even orthodox +ministers pick out the miracles that ought to be believed, and when +anything is attributed to Christ not in accordance with their +views, they take the liberty of explaining it away by saying +"interpolation."</p> +<p>In other words, we have lived to see Science the standard +instead of the Bible. We have lived to see the Bible tested by +Science, and, what is more, we have lived to see reason the +standard not only in religion, but in all the domain of science. +Now all civilized scientists appeal to reason. They get their +facts, and then reason from the foundation. Now the theologian +appeals to reason. Faith is no longer considered a foundation. The +theologian has found that he must build upon the truth and that he +must establish this truth by satisfying human reason.</p> +<p>This is where we are now.</p> +<p>What is to be the result? Is progress to stop? Are we to retrace +our steps? Are we going back to superstition? Are we going to take +authority for truth?</p> +<p>Let me prophesy.</p> +<p>In modern times we have slowly lost confidence in the +supernatural and have slowly gained confidence in the natural. We +have slowly lost confidence in gods and have slowly gained +confidence in man. For the cure of disease, for the stopping of +plague, we depend on the natural—on science. We have lost +confidence in holy water and religious processions. We have found +that prayers are never answered.</p> +<p>In my judgment, all belief in the supernatural will be driven +from the human mind. All religions must pass away. The augurs, the +soothsayers, the seers, the preachers, the astrologers and +alchemists will all lie in the same cemetery and one epitaph will +do for them all. In a little while all will have had their day. +They were naturally produced and they will be naturally destroyed. +Man at last will depend entirely upon himself—on the +development of the brain—to the end that he may take +advantage of the forces of nature—to the end that he may +supply the wants of his body and feed the hunger of his mind.</p> +<p>In my judgment, teachers will take the place of preachers and +the interpreters of nature will be the only priests.</p> +<a name="link0050" id="link0050"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>POLITICAL MORALITY.</h2> +<p>THE room of the House Committee on Elections was crowded this +morning with committeemen and spectators to listen to an argument +by Col. Robert G. Ingersoll in the contested election case of +Strobach against Herbert, of the IId Alabama district. Colonel +Ingersoll appeared for Strobach, the contestant. While most of his +argument was devoted to the dry details of the testimony, he +entered into some discussion of the general principles involved in +contested election cases, and spoke with great eloquence and +force.</p> +<p>The mere personal controversy, as between Herbert and Strobach, +is not worth talking about. It is a question as to whether or not +the republican system is a failure. Unless the will of the majority +can be ascertained, and surely ascertained, through the medium of +the ballot, the foundation of this Government rests upon +nothing—the Government ceases to be. I would a thousand time +rather a Democrat should come to Congress from this district, or +from any district, than that a Republican should come who was not +honestly elected. I would a thousand times rather that this country +should honestly go to destruction than dishonestly and fraudulently +go anywhere. We want it settled whether this form of government is +or is not a failure. That is the real question, and it is the +question at issue in every one of these cases. Has Congress power +and has Congress the sense to say to-day, that no man shall sit as +a maker of laws for the people who has not been honestly elected? +Whenever you admit a man to Congress and allow him to vote and make +laws, you poison the source of justice—you poison the source +of power; and the moment the people begin to think that many +members of Congress are there through fraud, that moment they cease +to have respect for the legislative department of this +Government—that moment they cease to have respect for the +sovereignty of the people represented by fraud.</p> +<p>Now, as I have said, I care nothing about the personal part of +it, and, maybe you will not believe me, but I care nothing about +the political part. The question is, Who has the right on his side? +Who is honestly entitled to this seat? That is infinitely more +important than any personal or party question. My doctrine is that +a majority of the people must control—that we have in this +country a king, that we have in this country a sovereign, just as +truly as they can have in any other, and, as a matter of fact, a +republic is the only country that does in truth have a sovereign, +and that sovereign is the legally expressed will of the people. So +that any man that puts in a fraudulent vote is a traitor to that +sovereign; any man that knowingly counts an illegal vote is a +traitor to that sovereign, and is not fit to be a citizen of the +great Republic. Any man who fraudulently throws out a vote, knowing +it to be a legal vote, tampers with the source of power, and is, in +fact, false to our institutions. Now, these are the questions to be +decided, and I want them decided, not because this case happens to +come from the South any more than if it came from the North. It is +a matter that concerns the whole country. We must decide it. There +must be a law on the subject. We have got to lay down a stringent +rule that shall apply to these cases. There should be—there +must be—such a thing as political morality so far as voting +is concerned.—New York Tribune, May 13, 1883.</p> +<a name="link0051" id="link0051"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> +<div style="height: 4em;"><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /></div> +<h2>A FEW REASONS FOR DOUBTING THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.</h2> +<pre> + * Printed from manuscript notes found among Colonel + Ingersoll's papers, evidently written in the early '80's. + While much of the argument and criticism will be found + embodied in his various lectures magazine articles and + contributions to the press, it was thought too valuable in + its present form to be left out of a complete edition of his + works, on account of too much repetition. Undoubtedly it was + the author's intention to go through the Bible in this same + manner and to publish in book form. "A few Reasons for + doubting the Inspiration of the Bible." +</pre> +<p>THE Old Testament must have been written nearly two thousand +years before the invention of printing. There were but few copies, +and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have +prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to +mistakes.</p> +<p>Second. The written Hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, +without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything +like accuracy was impossible. Anyone can test this for himself by +writing an English sentence, leaving out the vowels. It will take +far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants +alone.</p> +<p>Third. The books composing the Old Testament were not divided +into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known. +Think of this a moment and you will see how difficult it must be to +read such a book.</p> +<p>Fourth. There was not among the Jews any dictionary of their +language, and for this reason the accurate meaning of words could +not be preserved. Now the different meanings of words are preserved +so that by knowing the age in which a writer lived we can ascertain +with reasonable certainty his meaning.</p> +<p>Fifth. The Old Testament was printed for the first time in 1488. +Until this date it existed only in manuscript, and was constantly +exposed to erasures and additions.</p> +<p>Sixth. It is now admitted by the most learned in the Hebrew +language that in our present English version of the Old Testament +there are at least one hundred thousand errors. Of course the +believers in inspiration assert that these errors are not +sufficient in number to cast the least suspicion upon any passages +upholding what are called the "fundamentals."</p> +<p>Seventh. It is not certainly known who in fact wrote any of the +books of the Old Testament. For instance, it is now generally +conceded that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.</p> +<p>Eighth. Other books, not now in existence, are referred to in +the Old Testament as of equal authority, such as the books of +Jasher, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Jehu, Sayings of the Seers.</p> +<p>Ninth. The Christians are not agreed among themselves as to what +books are inspired. The Catholics claim as inspired the books of +Maccabees, Tobit, Esdras, etc. Others doubt the inspiration of +Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.</p> +<p>Tenth. In the book of Esther and the Song of Solomon the name of +God is not mentioned, and no reference is made to any supreme +being, nor to any religious duty. These omissions would seem +sufficient to cast a little doubt upon these books.</p> +<p>Eleventh. Within the present century manuscript copies of the +Old Testament have been found throwing new light and changing in +many instances the present readings. In consequence a new version +is now being made by a theological syndicate composed of English +and American divines, and after this is published it may be that +our present Bible will fall into disrepute.</p> +<p>Twelfth. The fact that language is continually changing, that +words are constantly dying and others being born; that the same +word has a variety of meanings during its life, shows hew hard it +is to preserve the original ideas that might have been expressed in +the Scriptures, for thousands of years, without dictionaries, +without the art of printing, and without the light of +contemporaneous literature.</p> +<p>Thirteenth. Whatever there was of the Old Testament seems to +have been lost from the time of Moses until the days of Josiah, and +it is probable that nothing like the Bible existed in any permanent +form among the Jews until a few hundred years before Christ. It is +said that Ezra gave the Pentateuch to the Jews, but whether he +found or originated it is unknown. So it is claimed that Nehemiah +gathered up the manuscripts about the kings and prophets, while the +books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and some others +were either collected or written long after. The Jews themselves +did not agree as to what books were really inspired.</p> +<p>Fourteenth. In the Old Testament we find several contradictory +laws about the same thing, and contradictory accounts of the same +occurrences. In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first +account of the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth +chapter another account is given. These two accounts could never +have been written by the same person. Read these two accounts and +you will be forced to admit that one of them cannot be true. So +there are two histories of the creation, of the flood, and of the +manner in which Saul became king.</p> +<p>Fifteenth. It is now generally admitted that Genesis must have +been written by two persons, and the parts written by each can be +separated, and when separated they are found to contradict each +other in many important particulars.</p> +<p>Sixteenth. It is also admitted that copyists made verbal changes +not only, but pieced out fragments; that the speeches of Elihu in +the book of Job were all interpolated, and that most of the +prophecies were made by persons whose names we have never +known.</p> +<p>Seventeenth. The manuscripts of the Old Testament were not +alike, and the Greek version differed from the Hebrew, and there +was no absolutely received text of the Old Testament until after +the commencement of the Christian era. Marks and points to denote +vowels were invented probably about the seventh century after +Christ. Whether these vowels were put in the proper places or not +is still an open question.</p> +<p>Eighteenth. The Alexandrian version, or what is known as the +Septuagint, translated by seventy learned Jews, assisted by +"miraculous power," about two hundred years before Christ, could +not have been, it is said, translated from the Hebrew text that we +now have. The differences can only be accounted for by supposing +that they had a different Hebrew text. The early Christian Churches +adopted the Septuagint, and were satisfied for a time. But so many +errors were found, and so many were scanning every word in search +of something to sustain their peculiar views, that several new +versions appeared, all different somewhat from the Hebrew +manuscripts, from the Septuagint, and from each other. All these +versions were in Greek. The first Latin Bible originated in Africa, +but no one has ever found out which Latin manuscript was the +original. Many were produced, and all differed from each other. +These Latin versions were compared with each other and with the +Hebrew, and a new Latin version was made in the fifth century, but +the old Latin versions held their own for about four hundred years, +and no one yet knows which were right. Besides these there were +Egyptian, Ethiopie, Armenian, and several others, all differing +from each other as well as from all others in the world.</p> +<p>It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was +translated into German, and not until the fifteenth that Bibles +were printed in the principal languages of Europe. Of these Bibles +there were several kinds—Luther's, the Dort, King James's, +Genevan, French, besides the Danish and Swedish. Most of these +differed from each other, and gave rise to infinite disputes and +crimes without number. The earliest fragment of the Bible in the +"Saxon" language known to exist was written sometime in the seventh +century. The first Bible was printed in England in 1538. In 1560 +the first English Bible was printed that was divided into verses. +Under Henry VIII. the Bible was revised; again under Queen +Elizabeth, and once again under King James. This last was published +in 1611, and is the one now in general use.</p> +<p>Nineteenth. No one in the world has learning enough, nor has he +time enough even if he had the learning, and could live a thousand +years, to find out what books really belong to and constitute the +Old Testament, the authors of these books, when they were written, +and what they really mean. And until a man has the learning and the +time to do all this he cannot certainly tell whether he believes +the Bible or not.</p> +<p>Twentieth. If a revelation from God was actually necessary to +the happiness of man here and to his salvation hereafter, it is not +easy to see why such revelation was not given to all the nations of +the earth. Why were the millions of Asia, Egypt, and America left +to the insufficient light of nature. Why was not a written, or what +is still better, a printed revelation given to Adam and Eve in the +Garden of Eden? And why were the Jews themselves without a Bible +until the days of Ezra the scribe? Why was nature not so made that +it would give light enough? Why did God make men and leave them in +darkness—a darkness that he, knew would fill the world with +want and crime, and crowd with damned souls the dungeons of his +hell? Were the Jews the only people who needed a revelation? It may +be said that God had no time to waste with other nations, and gave +the Bible to the Jews that other nations through them might learn +of his existence and his will. If he wished other nations to be +informed, and revealed himself to but one, why did he not choose a +people that mingled with others? Why did he give the message to +those who had no commerce, who were obscure and unknown, and who +regarded other nations with the hatred born of bigotry and +weakness? What would we now think of a God who made his will known +to the South Sea Islanders for the benefit of the civilized world? +If it was of such vast importance for man to know that there is a +God, why did not God make himself known? This fact could have been +revealed by an infinite being instantly to all, and there certainly +was no necessity of telling it alone to the Jews, and allowing +millions for thousands of years to die in utter ignorance.</p> +<p>Twenty-first. The Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Tartars, Africans, +Eskimo, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Polynesians, and many other +peoples, are substantially ignorant of the Bible. All the Bible +societies of the world have produced only about one hundred and +twenty millions of Bibles, and there are about fourteen hundred +million people. There are hundreds of languages and tongues in +which no Bible has yet been printed. Why did God allow, and why +does he still allow, a vast majority of his children to remain in +ignorance of his will?</p> +<p>Twenty-second. If the Bible is the foundation of all +civilization, of all just ideas of right and wrong, of our duties +to God and each other, why did God not give to each nation at least +one copy to start with? He must have known that no nation could get +along successfully without a Bible, and he also knew that man could +not make one for himself. Why, then, were not the books furnished? +He must have known that the light of nature was not sufficient to +reveal the scheme of the atonement, the necessity of baptism, the +immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the arithmetic of the +Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead.</p> +<p>Twenty-third. It is probably safe to say that not one-third of +the inhabitants of this world ever heard of the Bible, and not +one-tenth ever read it. It is also safe to say that no two persons +who ever read it agreed as to its meaning, and it is not likely +that even one person has ever understood it. Nothing is more needed +at the present time than an inspired translator. Then we shall need +an inspired commentator, and the translation and the commentary +should be written in an inspired universal language, incapable of +change, and then the whole world should be inspired to understand +this language precisely the same. Until these things are +accomplished, all written revelations from God will fill the world +with contending sects, contradictory creeds and opinions.</p> +<p>Twenty-fourth. All persons who know anything of constitutions +and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey +the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, +differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as +do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are +left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers +will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably +no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution +alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and +to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these +few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked +for in religion.</p> +<p>Twenty-fifth. Is it very wicked to deny that the universe was +created of nothing by an infinite being who existed from all +eternity? The human mind is such that it cannot possibly conceive +of creation, neither can it conceive of an infinite being who dwelt +in infinite space an infinite length of time.</p> +<p>Twenty-sixth. The idea that the universe was made in six days, +and is but about six thousand years old, is too absurd for serious +refutation. Neither will it do to say that the six days were six +periods, because this does away with the Sabbath, and is in direct +violation of the text.</p> +<p>Twenty-seventh. Neither is it reasonable that this God made man +out of dust, and woman out of one of the ribs of the man; that this +pair were put in a garden; that they were deceived by a snake that +had the power of speech; that they were turned out of this garden +to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and becoming +immortal; that God himself made them clothes; that the sons of God +intermarried with the daughters of men; that to destroy all life +upon the earth a flood was sent that covered the highest mountains; +that Noah and his sons built an ark and saved some of all animals +as well as themselves; that the people tried to build a tower that +would reach to heaven; that God confounded their language, and in +this way frustrated their design.</p> +<p>Twenty-eighth. It is hard to believe that God talked to Abraham +as one man talks to another; that he gave him land that he pointed +out; that he agreed to give him land that he never did; that he +ordered him to murder his own son; that angels were in the habit of +walking about the earth eating veal dressed with butter and milk, +and making bargains about the destruction of cities.</p> +<p>Twenty-ninth. Certainly a man ought not to be eternally damned +for entertaining an honest doubt about a woman having been turned +into a pillar of salt, about cities being destroyed by storms of +fire and brimstone, and about people once having lived for nearly a +thousand years.</p> +<p>Thirtieth. Neither is it probable that God really wrestled with +Jacob and put his thigh out of joint, and that for that reason the +Jews refused "to eat the sinew that shrank," as recounted in the +thirty-second chapter of Genesis; that God in the likeness of a +flame inhabited a bush; that he amused himself by changing the rod +of Moses into a serpent, and making his hand leprous as snow.</p> +<p>Thirty-first. One can scarcely be blamed for hesitating to +believe that God met Moses at a hotel and tried to kill him that +afterward he made this same Moses a god to Pharaoh, and gave him +his brother Aaron for a prophet;2 that he turned all the ponds and +pools and streams and all the rivers into blood,3 and all the water +in vessels of wood and stone; that the rivers thereupon brought +forth frogs;4 that the frogs covered the whole land of Egypt; that +he changed dust into lice, so that all the men, women, children, +and animals were covered with them;6 that he sent swarms of flies +upon the Egyptians;8 that he destroyed the innocent cattle with +painful diseases; that he covered man and beast with blains and +boils;7 that he so covered the magicians of Egypt with boils that +they could not stand before Moses for the purpose of performing the +same feats, that he destroyed every beast and every man that was in +the fields, and every herb, and broke every tree with storm of hail +and fire;9 that he sent locusts that devoured every herb that +escaped the hail, and devoured every tree that grew;10 that he +caused thick darkness over the land and put lights in the houses of +the Jews;11 that he destroyed all of the firstborn of Egypt, from +the firstborn of Pharaoh upon the throne to the firstborn of the +maidservant that sat behind the mill,"12 together with the +firstborn of all beasts, so that there was not a house in which the +dead were not."</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. iv, 24. 5 Ex. viii, 16, 17. 9 Ex. ix, 25. + + 2 Ex. vii. 1. 6 Ex. viii, 21. 10 Ex. x, 15. + + 3 Ex. viii, 19. 7 Ex. ix, 9. 11 Ex. x, 22, 23. + + 4 Ex. viii, 3. 8 Ex. ix, 11. 12 Ex. xi, 5. + + 13 Ex. xii, 29. +</pre> +<p>Thirty-second. It is very hard to believe that three millions of +people left a country and marched twenty or thirty miles all in one +day. To notify so many people would require a long time, and then +the sick, the halt, and the old would be apt to impede the march. +It seems impossible that such a vast number—six hundred +thousand men, besides women and children—could have been +cared for, could have been fed and clothed, and the sick nursed, +especially when we take into consideration that "they were thrust +out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for +themselves any victual." 1</p> +<p>Thirty-third. It seems cruel to punish a man forever for denying +that God went before the Jews by day "in a pillar of a cloud to +lead' them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them +light to go by day and night," or for denying that Pharaoh pursued +the Jews with six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of +Egypt, and that the six hundred thousand men of war of the Jews +were sore afraid when they saw the pursuing hosts. It does seems +strange that after all the water in a country had been turned to +blood—after it had been overrun with frogs and devoured with +flies; after all the cattle had died with the murrain, and the rest +had been killed by the fire and hail and the remainder had suffered +with boils, and the firstborn of all that were left had died; that +after locusts had devoured every herb and eaten up every tree of +the field, and the firstborn had died, from the firstborn of the +king on the throne to the firstborn of the captive in the dungeon; +that after three millions of people had left, carrying with them +the jewels of silver and gold and the raiment of their oppressors, +the Egyptians still had enough soldiers and chariots and horses +left to pursue and destroy an army of six hundred thousand men, if +God had not interfered.</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. xii, 37-39 +</pre> +<p>Thirty-fourth. It certainly ought to satisfy God to torment a +man for four or five thousand years for insisting that it is but a +small thing for an infinite being to vanquish an Egyptian army; +that it was rather a small business to trouble people with frogs, +flies, and vermin; that it looked almost malicious to cover people +with boils and afflict cattle with disease; that a real good God +would not torture innocent beasts on account of something the +owners had done; that it was absurd to do miracles before a king to +induce him to act in a certain way, and then harden his heart so +that he would refuse; and that to kill all the firstborn of a +nation was the act of a heartless fiend.</p> +<p>Thirty-fifth. Certainly one ought to be permitted to doubt that +twelve wells of water were sufficient for three millions of people, +together with their flocks and herds,1 and to inquire a little into +the nature of manna that was cooked by baking and seething and yet +would melt in the sun,2 and that would swell or shrink so as to +make an exact omer, no matter how much or how little there really +was.3 Certainly it is not a crime to say that water cannot be +manufactured by striking a rock with a stick, and that the fate of +battle cannot be decided by lifting one hand up or letting it +fall.4 Must we admit that God really did come down upon Mount Sinai +in the sight of all the people; that he commanded that all who +should go up into the Mount or touch the border of it should be put +to death, and that even the beasts that came near it should be +killed?5 Is it wrong to laugh at this? Is it sinful to say that God +never spoke from the top of a mountain covered with clouds these +words to Moses, "Go down, charge the people, lest they break +through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish; and let the +priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, +lest the Lord break forth upon them"?6</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. xv, 27. 3 Ex. xix. 12. 5 Ex. xix, 13, 13. + + 2 Ex. xvi, 23, 21 4 Ex. xvii, 11, 13. 6 Ex. xix, 21, 22 +</pre> +<p>Can it be that an infinite intelligence takes delight in scaring +savages, and that he is happy only when somebody trembles? Is it +reasonable to suppose that God surrounded himself with thunderings +and lightnings and thick darkness to tell the priests that they +should not make altars of hewn stones, nor with stairs? And that +this God at the same time he gave the Ten Commandments ordered the +Jews to break the most of them? According to the Bible these +infamous words came from the mouth of God while he was wrapped and +clothed in darkness and clouds upon the Mount of Sinai:</p> +<p>If thou buy an Hebrew servant six years he shall serve: and in +the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by +himself he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his +wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, +and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children +shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the +servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my +children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him +unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door or unto the +doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; +and he shall serve him forever.2 And if a man smite his servant, or +his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely +punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall +not be punished; for he is his money.3</p> +<p>Do you really think that a man will be eternally damned for +endeavoring to wipe from the record of God those barbaric +words?</p> +<p>Thirty-sixth. Is it because of total depravity that some people +refuse to believe that God went into partnership with insects and +granted letters of marque and reprisal to hornets;4 that he wasted +forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plans and +specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat and two +cherubs of gold, a table, four rings, some dishes and spoons, one +candlestick, three bowls, seven lamps, a pair of tongs, some snuff +dishes (for all of which God had patterns), ten curtains with fifty +loops, a roof for the tabernacle of rams' skins dyed red, a lot of +boards, an altar with horns, ash pans, basins, and flesh hooks, and +fillets of silver and pins of brass; that he told Moses to speak +unto all the wise-hearted that he had filled with wisdom, that they +might make a suit of clothes for Aaron, and that God actually gave +directions that an ephod "shall have the two shoulder-pieces +thereof joined at the two edges thereof."</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. xix, 25, 26. 3 Ex. xxi, 20, 21 + + 2 Ex. xxi, 2-6, 4 Ex, xxiii, 28 +</pre> +<p>And gave all the orders concerning mitres, girdles, and onyx +stones, ouches, emeralds, breastplates, chains, rings, Urim and +Thummim, and the hole in the top of the ephod like the hole of a +habergeon?1</p> +<p>Thirty-seventh. Is there a Christian missionary who could help +laughing if in any heathen country he had seen the following +command of God carried out? "And thou shalt take the other ram; and +Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. +Then shalt thou kill the ram and take of his blood and put it upon +the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right +ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon +the great toe of their right foot."2 Does one have to be born again +to appreciate the beauty and solemnity of such a performance? Is +not the faith of the most zealous Christian somewhat shaken while +reading the recipes for cooking mutton, veal, beef, birds, and +unleavened dough, found in the cook book that God made for Aaron +and his sons?</p> +<p>Thirty-eighth. Is it to be wondered at that some people have +doubted the statement that God told Moses how to make some +ointment, hair oil, and perfume, and then made it a crime +punishable with death to make any like them? Think of a God killing +a man for imitating his ointment!3 Think of a God saying that he +made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day and +was refreshed!4 Think of this God threatening to destroy the Jews, +and being turned from his purpose because Moses told him that the +Egyptians might mock him!5</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. xxvii and xxviii. 3 Ex. xxx, 23. 5 Ex. xxxii, 11, 12 + + 2 Ex. xxix, 19, 20 4 Ex. xxxi, 17. +</pre> +<p>Thirty-ninth. What must we think of a man impudent enough to +break in pieces tables of stone upon which God had written with his +finger? What must we think of the goodness of a man that would +issue the following order: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put +every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to +gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every +man his companion, and every man his neighbor. Consecrate +yourselves to-day to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and +upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this +day"?1 Is it true that the God of the Bible demanded human +sacrifice? Did it please him for man to kill his neighbor, for +brother to murder his brother, and for the father to butcher his +sou? If there is a God let him cause it to be written in the book +of his memory, opposite my name, that I refuted this slander and +denied this lie.</p> +<p>Fortieth. Can it be true that God was afraid to trust himself +with the Jews for fear he would consume them? Can it be that in +order to keep from devouring them he kept away and sent one of his +angels in his place?2 Can it be that this same God talked to Moses +"face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend," when it is +declared in the same chapter, by God himself, "Thou canst not see +my face: for there shall no man see me, and live"?3</p> +<p>Forty-first. Why should a man, because he has done a bad action, +go and kill a sheep? How can man make friends with God by cutting +the throats of bullocks and goats? Why should God delight in the +shedding of blood? Why should he want his altar sprinkled with +blood, and the horns of his altar tipped with blood, and his +priests covered with blood? Why should burning flesh be a sweet +savor in the nostrils of God? Why did he compel his priests to be +butchers, cutters and stabbers?</p> +<pre> + 1 Ex. xxxii, 27-29. 2 Ex. xxxiii, 2, 3. + + 3 Ex. xxxiii, 11, 20. +</pre> +<p>Why should the same God kill a man for eating the fat of an ox, +a sheep, or a goat?</p> +<p>Forty-second. Could it be a consolation to a man when dying to +think that he had always believed that God told Aaron to take two +goats and draw cuts to see which goat should be killed and which +should be a scapegoat?1 And that upon the head of the scapegoat +Aaron should lay both his hands and confess over him all the +iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, +and put them all on the head of the goat, and send him away by the +hand of a fit man into the wilderness; and that the goat should +bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into a land not +inhabited?2 How could a goat carry away a load of iniquities and +transgressions? Why should he carry them to a land uninhabited? +Were these sins contagious? About how many sins could an average +goat carry? Could a man meet such a goat now without laughing?</p> +<p>Forty-third. Why should God object to a man wearing a garment +made of woolen and linen? Why should he care whether a man rounded +the corners of his beard?3 Why should God prevent a man from +offering the sacred bread merely because he had a flat nose, or was +lame, or had five fingers on one hand, or had a broken foot, or was +a dwarf? If he objected to such people, why did he make them?4</p> +<p>Forty-fourth. Why should we believe that God insisted upon the +sacrifice of human beings? Is it a sin to deny this, and to deny +the inspiration of a book that teaches it? Read the twenty-eighth +and twenty-ninth verses of the last chapter of Leviticus, a book in +which there is more folly and cruelty, more stupidity and tyranny, +than in any other book in this world except some others in the same +Bible. Read the thirty-second chapter of Exodus and you will see +how by the most infamous of crimes man becomes reconciled to this +God.</p> +<pre> + 1 Lev, xvi, 8. 2 Lev. xvi, 21, 22. 3 Lev. xix, 19, 27, + + 4 Lev. xxi, 18-20. +</pre> +<p>You will see that he demands of fathers the blood of their sons. +Read the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the third chapter of +Numbers, "And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the +children of Israel," etc.</p> +<p>How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains of +fine linen? How did these absconding slaves make cherubs of gold? +Where did they get the skins of badgers, and how did they dye them +red? How did they make wreathed chains and spoons, basins and +tongs? Where did they get the blue cloth and their purple? Where +did they get the sockets of brass? How did they coin the shekel of +the sanctuary? How did they overlay boards with gold? Where did +they get the numberless instruments and tools necessary to +accomplish all these things? Where did they get the fine flour and +the oil? Were all these found in the desert of Sinai? Is it a sin +to ask these questions? Are all these doubts born of a malignant +and depraved heart? Why should God in this desert prohibit priests +from drinking wine, and from eating moist grapes? How could these +priests get wine?</p> +<p>Do not these passages show that these laws were made long after +the Jews had left the desert, and that they were not given from +Sinai? Can you imagine a God silly enough to tell a horde of +wandering savages upon a desert that they must not eat any fruit of +the trees they planted until the fourth year?</p> +<p>Forty-fifth. Ought a man to be despised and persecuted for +denying that God ordered the priests to make women drink dirt and +water to test their virtue? 1 Or for denying that over the +tabernacle there was a cloud during the day and fire by night, and +that the cloud lifted up when God wished the Jews to travel, and +that until it was lifted they remained in their tents?2</p> +<pre> + 1 Num. v, 12-31. 2 Num. ix, 16-18. +</pre> +<p>Can it be possible that the "ark of the covenant" traveled on +its own account, and that "when the ark set forward" the people +followed, as is related in the tenth chapter of the holy book of +Numbers?</p> +<p>Forty-sixth. Was it reasonable for God to give the Jews manna, +and nothing else, year after year? He had infinite power, and could +just as easily have given them something good, in reasonable +variety, as to have fed them on manna until they loathed the sight +of it, and longingly remembered the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, +onions, and garlic of Egypt. And yet when the poor people +complained of the diet and asked for a little meat, this loving and +merciful God became enraged, sent them millions of quails in his +wrath, and while they were eating, while the flesh was yet between +their teeth, before it was chewed, this amiable God smote the +people with a plague and killed all those that lusted after meat. +In a few days after, he made up his mind to kill the rest, but was +dissuaded when Moses told him that the Canaanites would laugh at +him.1 No wonder the poor Jews wished they were back in Egypt. No +wonder they had rather be the slaves of Pharaoh than the chosen +people of God. No wonder they preferred the wrath of Egypt to the +love of heaven. In my judgment, the Jews would have fared far +better if Jehovah had let them alone, or had he even taken the side +of the Egyptians.</p> +<p>When the poor Jews were told by their spies that the Canaanites +were giants, they, seized with fear, said, "Let us go back to +Egypt." For this, their God doomed all except Joshua and Caleb to a +wandering death. Hear the words of this most merciful God: "But as +for you, your carcasses they shall fall in this wilderness, and +your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years and bear +your sins until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness."2 And +yet this same God promised to give unto all these people a land +flowing with milk and honey.</p> +<pre> + 1 Num. xiv, 15, 16. 2 Num. xiv. 32-33. +</pre> +<p>Forty-seventh. "And while the children of Israel were in the +wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath +day.</p> +<p>"And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses +and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.</p> +<p>"And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what +should be done to him.</p> +<p>"And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to +death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the +camp.</p> +<p>"And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and +stoned him with stones, and he died." 1</p> +<p>When the last stone was thrown, and he that was a man was but a +mangled, bruised, and broken mass, this God turned, and, <i>touched +with pity</i>, said: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid +them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments +throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of +the borders a riband of blue."2</p> +<p>In the next chapter, this Jehovah, whose loving kindness is over +all his works, because Korah, Dathan, and Abiram objected to being +starved to death in the wilderness, made the earth open and swallow +not only them, but their wives and their little ones. Not yet +satisfied, he sent a plague and killed fourteen thousand seven +hundred more. There never was in the history of the world such a +cruel, revengeful, bloody, jealous, fickle, unreasonable, and +fiendish ruler, emperor, or king as Jehovah. No wonder the children +of Israel cried out, "Behold we die, we perish, we all perish."</p> +<p>Forty-eighth. I cannot believe that a dry stick budded, +blossomed, and bore almonds; that the ashes of a red heifer are a +purification for sin;3 that God gave the cities into the hands of +the Jews because they solemnly agreed to murder all the +inhabitants; that God became enraged and induced snakes to bite his +chosen people; that God told Balaam to go with the Princess of +Moab, and then got angry because he did go; that an animal ever saw +an angel and conversed with a man.</p> +<pre> + 1 Num. xv, 32-36. 2 Num. xv, 38, 3 Num. xix, 2-10. +</pre> +<p>I cannot believe that thrusting a spear through the body of a +woman ever stayed a plague;1 that any good man ever ordered his +soldiers to slay the men and keep the maidens alive for themselves; +that God commanded men not to show mercy to each other; that he +induced men to obey his commandments by promising them that he +would assist them in murdering the wives and children of their +neighbors; or that he ever commanded a man to kill his wife because +she differed with him about religion;2 or that God was mistaken +about hares chewing the cud;3 or that he objected to the people +raising horses 4 or that God wanted a camp kept clean because he +walked through it at night;5 or that he commanded widows to spit in +the faces of their brothers-in-law;6 or that he ever threatened to +give anybody the itch;7 or that he ever secretly buried a man and +allowed the corpse to write an account of the funeral.</p> +<p>Forty-ninth. Does it necessarily follow that a man wishes to +commit some crime if he refuses to admit that the river Jordan cut +itself in two and allowed the lower end to run away? Or that seven +priests could blow seven ram's horns loud enough to throw down the +walls of a city;8 or that God, after Achan had confessed that he +had secreted a garment and a wedge of gold, became good natured as +soon as Achan and his sons and daughters had been stoned to death +and their bodies burned?10 Is it not a virtue to abhor such a +God?</p> +<pre> + 1 Num. XXV, 8. 4 Deut. xvii, 16. 7 Deut. xxviii, 27. + + 2 Deut. xiii, 6-10. 5 Deut. xxiii, 13, 14. 8 Josh, iii, 16. + + 3 Deut. xiv, 7. 6 Deut. xxv, 9., 9 Josh. vi, 20. + + 10 Josh, vii, 24, 25. +</pre> +<p>Must we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all the +cruelties and horrors described in the Old Testament; that he waged +the most relentless and heartless wars; that he declared mercy a +crime; that to spare life was to excite his wrath; that he smiled +when maidens were violated, laughed when mothers were ripped open +with a sword, and shouted with joy when babes were butchered in +their mothers' arms? Read the infamous book of Joshua, and then +worship the God who inspired it if you can.</p> +<p>Fiftieth. Can any sane man believe that the sun stood still in +the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day, +and that the moon stayed?1 That these miracles were performed in +the interest of massacre and bloodshed; that the Jews destroyed +men, women, and children by the million, and practiced every +cruelty that the ingenuity of their God could suggest? Is it +possible that these things really happened? Is it possible that God +commanded them to be done? Again I ask you to read the book of +Joshua. After reading all its horrors you will feel a grim +satisfaction in the dying words of Joshua to the children of +Israel: "Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more +drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be +snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns +in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land."2</p> +<p>Think of a God who boasted that he gave the Jews a land for +which they did not labor, cities which they did not build, and +allowed them to eat of oliveyards and vineyards which they did not +plant.3 Think of a God who murders some of his children for the +benefit of the rest, and then kills the rest because they are not +thankful enough. Think of a God who had the power to stop the sun +and moon, but could not defeat an army that had iron chariots.4</p> +<pre> + 1 Josh, x, 13. 2 Josh, xiii, 13. 3 Josh. xxiv, 13. + + 4 Judges i, 19. +</pre> +<p>Fifty-first. Can we blame the Hebrews for getting tired of their +God? Never was a people so murdered, starved, stoned, burned, +deceived, humiliated, robbed, and outraged. Never was there so +little liberty among men. Never did the meanest king so meddle, +eavesdrop, spy out, harass, torment, and persecute his people. +Never was ruler so jealous, unreasonable, contemptible, exacting, +and ignorant as this God of the Jews. Never was such ceremony, such +mummery, such stuff about bullocks, goats, doves, red heifers, +lambs, and unleavened dough—never was such directions about +kidneys and blood, ashes and fat, about curtains, tongs, fringes, +ribands, and brass pins—never such details for killing of +animals and men and the sprinkling of blood and the cutting of +clothes. Never were such unjust laws, such punishments, such damned +ignorance and infamy! Fifty-second. Is it not wonderful that the +creator of all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold +his own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange that +after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered them from +slavery, fed them by miracles, opened the sea for a path, led them +by cloud and fire, and overthrown their pursuers, they still +preferred a calf of their own making? Is it not beyond belief that +this God, by statutes and commandments, by punishments and +penalties, by rewards and promises, by wonders and plagues, by +earthquakes and pestilence, could not in the least civilize the +Jews—could not get them beyond a point where they deserved +killing? What shall we think of a God who gave his entire time for +forty years to the work of converting three millions of people, and +succeeded in getting only two men, and not a single woman, decent +enough to enter the promised land? Was there ever in the history of +man so detestible an administration of public affairs? Is it +possible that God sold his children to the king of Mesopotamia; +that he sold them to Jabin, king of Canaan, to the Philistines, and +to the children of Ammon? Is it possible that an angel of the Lord +devoured unleavened cakes and broth with fire that came out of the +end of a stick as he sat under an oak-tree?1 Can it be true that +God made known his will by making dew fall on wool without wetting +the ground around it?2 Do you really believe that men who lap water +like a dog make the best soldiers?3 Do you think that a man could +hold a lamp in his left hand, a trumpet in his right hand, blow his +trumpet, shout "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and break +pitchers at the same time? 4</p> +<p>Fifty-third. Read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, and +then tell me what you think of a father who would sacrifice his +daughter to God, and what you think of a God who would receive such +a sacrifice. This one story should be enough to make every tender +and loving father hold this book in utter abhorrence. Is it +necessary, in order to be saved, that one must believe that an +angel of God appeared unto Manoah in the absence of her husband; +that this angel afterward went up in a flame of fire; that as a +result of this visit a child was born whose strength was in his +hair? a child that made beehives of lions, incendiaries of foxes, +and had a wife that wept seven days to get the answer to his +riddle? Will the wrath of God abide forever upon a man for doubting +the story that Samson killed a thousand men with a new jawbone? Is +there enough in the Bible to save a soul with this story left out? +Is hell hungry for those who deny that water gushed from a "hollow +place" in a dry bone? Is it evidence of a new heart to believe that +one man turned over a house so large that over three thousand +people were on the roof? For my part, I cannot believe these +things, and if my salvation depends upon my credulity I am as good +as damned already. I cannot believe that the Philistines took back +the ark with a present of five gold mice, and that thereupon God +relented.5</p> +<pre> + 1 Judges vi, 21. 2 Judges vi, 37. 3 Judges vii, 5. + + 4 Judges vii, 20. 5 I Sam. vi. 4. +</pre> +<p>I can not believe that God killed fifty thousand men for looking +into a box.1 It seems incredible, after all the Jews had done, +after all their wars and victories, even when Saul was king, that +there was not among them one smith who could make a sword or spear, +and that they were compelled to go to the Philistines to sharpen +every plowshare, coulter, and mattock.2 Can you believe that God +said to Saul, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all +that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, +infant and suckling"? Can you believe that because Saul took the +king alive after killing every other man, woman, and child, the +ogre called Jehovah was displeased and made up his mind to hurl +Saul from the throne and give his place to another?3 I cannot +believe that the Philistines all ran away because one of their +number was killed with a stone. I cannot justify the conduct of +Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who took presents to David. David +hardly did right when he said to this woman, "I have hearkened to +thy voice, and have accepted thy person." It could hardly have been +chance that made Nabal so deathly sick next morning and killed him +in ten days. All this looks wrong, especially as David married his +widow before poor Nabal was fairly cold.4</p> +<p>Fifty-fourth. Notwithstanding all I have heard of Katie King, I +cannot believe that a witch at Endor materialized the ghost of +Samuel and caused it to appear with a cloak on.5 I cannot believe +that God tempted David to take the census, and then gave him his +choice of three punishments: First, Seven years of famine; Second, +Flying three months before their enemies; Third, A pestilence of +three days; that David chose the pestilence, and that God destroyed +seventy thousand men.6</p> +<pre> + 1 I Sam. vi, 19. 3 I Sam. xv. 5 I Sam. xxviii. + + 2 I Sam. xiii, 19, 20. 4 I Sam. xxv. 6 2 Sam. xxiv. +</pre> +<p>Why should God kill the people for what David did? Is it a sin +to be counted? Can anything more brutally hellish be conceived? Why +should man waste prayers upon such a God?</p> +<p>Fifty-fifth. Must we admit that Elijah was fed by ravens; that +they brought him bread and flesh every morning and evening? Must we +believe that this same prophet could create meal and oil, and +induce a departed soul to come back and take up its residence once +more in the body? That he could get rain by praying for it; that he +could cause fire to burn up a sacrifice and altar, together with +twelve barrels of water?1 Can we believe that an angel of the Lord +turned cook and prepared two suppers in one night for Elijah, and +that the prophet ate enough to last him forty days and forty +nights?* Is it true that when a captain with fifty men went after +Elijah, this prophet caused fire to come down from heaven and +consume them all? Should God allow such wretches to manage his +fire? Is it true that Elijah consumed another captain with fifty +men in the same way?3 Is it a fact that a river divided because the +water was struck with a cloak? Did a man actually go to heaven in a +chariot of fire drawn by horses of fire, or was he carried to +Paradise by a whirlwind? Must we believe, in order to be good and +tender fathers and mothers, that because some "little children" +mocked at an old man with a bald head, God—the same God who +said, "Suffer little children to come unto me"—sent two +she-bears out of the wood and tare forty-two of these babes? Think +of the mothers that watched and waited for their children. Think of +the wailing when these mangled ones were found, when they were +brought back and pressed to the breasts of weeping women. What an +amiable gentleman Mr. Elisha must have been.4</p> +<p>Fifty-sixth. It is hard to believe that a prophet by lying on a +dead body could make it sneeze seven times.5</p> +<pre> + 1 I Kings xviii. 3 2 Kings i. 5 2 Kings iv. + + 2 I Kings xix. 4 2 Kings ii. +</pre> +<p>It is hard to believe that being dipped seven times in the +Jordan could cure the leprosy.1 Would a merciful God curse +children, and children's children yet unborn, with leprosy for a +father's fault?2 Is it possible to make iron float in water?3 Is it +reasonable to say that when a corpse touched another corpse it came +to life?4 Is it a sign that a man wants to commit a crime because +he refuses to believe that a king had a boil and that God caused +the sun to go backward in heaven so that the shadow on a sun-dial +went back ten degrees as a sign that the aforesaid would get well?5 +Is it true that this globe turned backward, that its motion was +reversed as a sign to a Jewish king? If it did not, this story is +false, and that part of the Bible is not true even if it is +inspired.</p> +<p>Fifty-seventh. How did the Bible get lost?5 Where was the +precious Pentateuch from Moses to Josiah? How was it possible for +the Jews to get along without the directions as to fat and caul and +kidney contained in Leviticus? Without that sacred book in his +possession a priest might take up ashes and carry them out without +changing his pantaloons. Such mistakes kindled the wrath of +God.</p> +<p>As soon as the Pentateuch was found Josiah began killing wizards +and such as had familiar spirits.</p> +<p>Fifty-eighth. I cannot believe that God talked to Solomon, that +he visited him in the night and asked him what he should give him; +I cannot believe that he told him, "I will give thee riches and +wealth and honor, such as none of the kings have had before thee, +neither shall there any after thee have the like."7 If Jehovah said +this he was mistaken. It is not true that Solomon had fourteen +hundred chariots of war in a country without roads. It is not true +that he made gold and silver at Jerusalem as plenteous as stones. +There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that +could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the +amount.</p> +<pre> + 1 2 Kings v. 3 2 Kings, vi. 6. 5 2 Kings xx, 1-11. + + 2 2 Kings v. 27. 4 2 Kings xiii, 21. 6 2 Kings xxii, 8. + + 7 2 Chron. i, 7, 12. +</pre> +<p>The Holy Land was and is a wretched country. There are no +monuments, no ruins attesting former wealth and greatness. The Jews +had no commerce, knew nothing of other nations, had no luxuries, +never produced a painter, a sculptor, architect, scientist, or +statesman until after the destruction of Jerusalem. As long as +Jehovah attended to their affairs they had nothing but civil war, +plague, pestilence, and famine. After he abandoned, and the +Christians ceased to persecute them, they became the most +prosperous of people. Since Jehovah, in anger and disgust, cast +them away they have produced painters, sculptors, scientists, +statesmen, composers, and philosophers.</p> +<p>Fifty-ninth. I cannot admit that Hiram, the King of Tyre, wrote +a letter to Solomon in which he admitted that the "God of Israel +made heaven and earth." 1 This King was not a Jew. It seems +incredible that Solomon had eighty thousand men hewing timber for +the temple, with seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and +thirty-six hundred overseers.2</p> +<p>Sixtieth. I cannot believe that God shuts up heaven and prevents +rain, or that he sends locusts to devour a land, or pestilence to +destroy the people.3 I cannot believe that God told Solomon that +his eyes and heart should perpetually be in the house that Solomon +had built.4</p> +<p>Sixty-first. I cannot believe that Solomon passed all the kings +of the earth in riches; that all the kings of the earth sought his +presence and brought presents of silver and gold, raiment, harness, +spices, and mules—a rate year by year.5 Is it possible that +Shishak, a King of Egypt, invaded Palestine with seventy thousand +horsemen and twelve hundred chariots of war?6</p> +<pre> + 1 2 Chron. ii, 12. 3 2 Chron. vii, 13. 5 2 Chron. ix, 22-24. + + 2 2 Chron. ii, 18. 4 2 Chron. vii, 16. 6 2 Chron. xii, 2, 3. +</pre> +<p>I cannot believe that in a battle between Jeroboam and Abijah, +the army of Abijah actually slew in one day five hundred thousand +chosen men.1 Does anyone believe that Zerah, the Ethiopian, invaded +Palestine with a million men?2 I cannot believe that Jehoshaphat +had a standing army of nine hundred and sixty thousand men.3 I +cannot believe that God advertised for a liar to act as his +messenger.4 I cannot believe that King Amaziah did right in the +sight of the Lord, and that he broke in pieces ten thousand men by +casting them from a precipice.5 I cannot think that God smote a +king with leprosy because he tried to burn incense.6 I cannot think +that Pekah slew one hundred and twenty thousand men in one +day.7</p> +<pre> + 1 2 Chron. xiii, 17. 3 2 Chron. xvii, 14-19. 5 2 Chron. xxv, 12. + + 2 2 Chron. xiv, 9. 4 2 Chron. xviii, 19-22. 6 2 Chron. xxvi, 19. + + 7 2 Chron. xxviii, 6. +</pre> +<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> |
