{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37699/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37699","id":"gutenberg_37699","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37699","summary":null,"tags":["Agnosticism","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Hell"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nHELL\n\nWARM WORDS ON THE CHEERFUL AND COMFORTING DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL DAMNATION\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL'S AMERICAN SECULAR LECTURES\n\n\nBy Col. Robert G. Ingersoll\n\nMinister Of The Gospel Of Free Thought In America\n\n\nRev. HENRY WARD BEECHER says:--\"I admire Ingersoll because he is not\nafraid to speak what he honestly thinks, and I am only sorry he does not\nthink as I do. I never heard so much brilliancy and pith put into a two\nhours' Speech as I did on that night. I wish my whole Congregation had\nbeen there to hear it. I regard him as one of the greatest Men of the\nAge.\"--New York Herald.\n\n\n\n\nHELL.\n\nTHE idea of a hell was born of revenge and brutality on the one side,\nand cowardice on the other. In my judgment the American people are too\nbrave, too charitable, too generous, too magnanimous, to believe in the\ninfamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have no respect for any human being\nwho believes in it. I have no respect for any man who preaches it.\nI have no respect for the man who will pollute the imagination of\nchildhood with that infamous lie. I have no respect for the man who will\nadd to the sorrows of this world with the frightful dogma. I have no\nrespect for any man who endeavours to put that infinite cloud, that\ninfinite shadow, over the heart of humanity.\n\nFor a good many years the learned intellects of Christendom have been\nexamining into the religions of other countries in the world, the\nreligions of the thousands that have passed away. They examined into the\nreligions of Egypt, the religion of Greece, the religion of Rome and\nof the Scandinavian countries. In the presence of the ruins of those\nreligions the learned men of Christendom insisted that those religions\nwere baseless, that they were fraudulent. But they have all passed away.\nWhile this was being done the Christianity of our day applauded, and\nwhen the learned men got through with the religions of other countries\nthey turned their attention to our religion. By the same mode of\nreasoning, by the same methods, by the same arguments that they used\nwith the old religions, they were overturning the religion of our day.\nWhy? Every religion in this world is the work of man. Every book has\nbeen written by man. Men existed before the books. If books had existed\nbefore man, I might admit there was such a thing as a sacred volume. Man\nnever had an idea--man will never have an idea, except those supplied\nto him by his surroundings. Every idea in the world that man has came to\nhim by nature. You can imagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with\nthe pouch of the kangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak\nof a bird, and with the tail of the lion; and yet every point of this\nmonster you borrowed from nature. Every thing you can think of, every\nthing you can dream of, is borrowed from your surroundings. And there\nis nothing on this earth coming from any other sphere whatever. Man has\nproduced every religion in the world. And why? Because each religion\nbodes forth the knowledge and the belief of the people at the time it\nwas made, and in no book is there any knowledge found, except that of\nthe people who wrote it. In no book is there found any knowledge, except\nthat of the time in which it was written. Barbarians have produced, and\nalways will produce barbarian religions; barbarians have produced and\nalways will produce ideas in harmony with their surroundings, and all\nthe religions of the past were produced by barbarians. We are making\nreligions to-day. That is to say, we are changing them, and the religion\nof to-day is not the religion of one year ago. What changed it? Science\nhas done it; education and the growing heart of man has done it. And\njust to the extent that we become civilized ourselves, will we improve\nthe religion of our fathers. If the religion of one hundred years ago,\ncompared with the religion of to-day is so low, what will it be in one\nthousand years?\n\nIf we continue making the inroads upon orthodoxy which we have been\nmaking during the last twenty-five years, what will it be fifty years\nfrom to-night? It will have to be remonetized by that time, or else it\nwill not be legal tender. In my judgment, every religion that stands\nby appealing to miracles is dishonoured. Every religion in the world has\ndenounced every other religion as a fraud. That proves to me that they\nall tell the truth--about others. Why? suppose Mr. Smith should tell\nMr. Brown that he--Smith--saw a corpse get out of the grave, and that\nwhen he first saw it, it was covered with the worms of death, and that\nin his presence it was re-clothed in healthy, beautiful flesh. And then\nsuppose Mr. Brown should tell Mr. Smith, \"I saw the same thing myself.\nI was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead man rise.\" Suppose then that\nSmith should say to Brown, \"You're a liar,\" and Brown should reply to\nSmith, \"And you're a liar,\" what would you think? It would simply be\nbecause Smith, never having seen it himself, didn't believe Brown; and\nBrown, never having seen it, didn't believe Smith had. Now, if Smith had\nreally seen it, and Brown told him he had seen it too, then Smith would\nregard it as a corroboration of his story, and he would regard Brown\nas one of his principal witnesses. But, on the contrary, he says, \"You\nnever saw it.\" So when a man says, \"I was upon Mount Sinai, and there I\nmet God, and he told me, 'Stand aside and let me drown these people;'\"\nand another man says to him, \"I was up upon a mountain, and there I met\nthe Supreme Brahma,\" and Moses says, \"That's not true,\" and contends\nthat the other man never did see Brahma, and he contends that Moses\nnever did see God, that is in my judgment proof that they both speak\ntruly.\n\nEvery religion, then, has charged every other religion with having been\nan unmitigated fraud; and yet, if any man had ever seen the miracle\nhimself, his mind would be prepared to believe that another man had seen\nthe same thing. Whenever a man appeals to a miracle he tells what is not\ntrue. Truth relies upon reason, and the undeviating course of all the\nlaws of nature.\n\nNow, we have a religion--that is, some people have. I do not pretend\nto have religion myself. I believe in living for this world--that's my\ndoctrine--to make everybody happy that you can. Let the future take care\nof itself, and if I ever touch the shores of another world, I will be\njust as ready and anxious to get into some remunerative employment as\nanybody else. Now, we have got in this country a religion which men have\npreached for about eighteen hundred years, and just in proportion as\ntheir belief in that religion has grown great, men have grown mean and\nwicked; just in proportion as they have ceased to believe it, men have\nbecome just and charitable. And if they believed it to-night as they\nonce believed it, I wouldn't be allowed to speak in the city of New\nYork. It is from the coldness and infidelity of the churches that I\nget my right to preach; and I say it to their credit. Now we have a\nreligion. What is it? They say in the first place that all this vast\nuniverse was created by a Deity. I don't know whether it was or not.\nThey say, too, that had it not been for the first sin of Adam there\nwould never have been any devil in this world, and if there had been no\ndevil there would have been no sin, and if there had been no sin there\nnever would have been any death. For my part I am glad there was death\nin this world, because that gave me a chance. Somebody had to die to\ngive me room, and when my turn comes I'll be willing to let somebody\nelse take my place. But whether there is another life or not, if there\nis any being who gave me this, I shall thank him from the bottom of my\nheart, because, upon the whole, my life has been a joy. Now they say,\nbecause of this first sin all man was consigned to eternal hell. And\nthis because Adam was our representative. Well, I always had an idea\nthat my representative ought to live somewhere about the same time I\ndo. I always had an idea that I should have some voice in choosing my\nrepresentative. And if I had a voice I never should have voted for the\nold gentleman called Adam. Now in order to regain man from the frightful\nhell of eternity, Christ himself came to this world and took upon\nhimself flesh, and in order that we might know the road to eternal\nsalvation he gave us a book, and that book is called the Bible, and\nwherever that Bible has been read men have immediately commenced cutting\neach others' throats. Wherever that Bible has been circulated, they have\ninvented inquisitions and instruments of torture, and have commenced\nhating each other with all their hearts. But I am told now, we are all\ntold, that this Bible is the foundation of civilization; I say that this\nBible is the foundation of hell, and we never shall get rid of the dogma\nof hell until we get rid of the idea that it is an inspired book.\n\nNow, what does the Bible teach? I am not going to talk about what this\nminister or that minister says it teaches; the question is, \"Ought a man\nto be sent to eternal hell for not believing this Bible to be the work\nof a merciful Father?\" and the only way to find out is to read it; and\nas very few people do read it now, I will read a few passages. This\nis the book to be read in the schools, in order to make our children\ncharitable and good; this is the book that we must read in order that\nour children may have ideas of mercy, charity, and justice.\n\nDoes the Bible teach mercy? Now be honest. I read: \"_I will make mine\narrows drunk with blood; and my sword shall devour flesh?_\" (Deut. xxxii.\n42.) Pretty good start for a merciful God! \"_That thy foot may be dipped\nin the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same?_\"\n(Ps. lxviii. 23.) Again: \"_And the Lord thy God will put out those\nnations before thee by little and little; thou mayest not consume them\nat once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee?_\" (Deut vii.\n22.)\n\nRead the glorious exploits of Joshua, chosen captain of the Lord,\nand note how, having coveted the fertile land of Goshen, he smote the\npeople, houghed their horses, despoiled their cities, and put all that\nbreathed to the edge of the sword, as the moral God had commanded.\nMoreover he came against them suddenly, not a solitary trumpet blast\nfrom the celestial orchestra was there calling upon the people to yield,\nor to move out their country, bag and baggage. No; instantaneous fire\nand butchery. Observe, too, the charming naivete of the statement:\n\"_There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save\nthe Hivites_.\" Why? Because the Lord \"_hardened their hearts, that\nthey should come against Israel in battle that he might destroy them\nutterly_.\"\n\nDo you wish further examples of a God of mercy? Read in Exodus how the\nLord ordered the harrying of cities and the wholesale slaughter of the\ninhabitants. \"_Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; but thou\nshalt utterly destroy them._\" The old men and the maidens, and the sweet\ndimpled babe smiling upon the lap of its mother.\n\nRecollect, these instructions were given to an army of invasion, and the\npeople who were fighting were guilty of the crime of fighting for their\nhomes. The Old Testament is full of curses, vengeance, jealousy, and\nhatred; of barbarity and brutality. Now, do not for one moment believe\nthat these words were written by the most merciful God. Don't pluck from\nthe heart the sweet flowers of piety and crush them by superstition.\nDo not believe that God ever ordered the murder of innocent women and\nhelpless babes. Do not let this supposition turn your hearts into stone.\nWhen anything is said to have been written by the most merciful God, and\nthe thing is not merciful, then I deny it, and say he never wrote it. I\nwill live by the standard of reason, and if thinking in accordance with\nreason takes me to perdition, then I will go to hell with my reason\nrather than to heaven without it.\n\nNow, does this Bible teach political freedom, or does it teach political\ntyranny? Does it teach a man to resist oppression? Does it teach a man\nto tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned thing and robber called a\nking? Let us see. \"_Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for\nthere is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God_.\"\n(Rom. xiii. 1.) All the kings, and princes, and governors, and thieves,\nand robbers that happened to be in authority were placed there by the\ninfinite father of all! \"_Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,\nresisteth the ordinance of God._\" And when George Washington resisted\nthe power of George the Third, he resisted the power of God. And when\nour fathers said \"resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,\" they\nfalsified the Bible itself. \"_For he is the minister of God to thee for\ngood. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not\nthe sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, revenger to execute\nwrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not\nonly for wrath, but also for conscience's sake._\" (Rom. xiii. 4. 5.)\n\nI deny this wretched doctrine. Wherever the sword of rebellion is\ndrawn to protect the rights of man, I am a rebel. Wherever the sword of\nrebellion is drawn to give man liberty, to clothe him in all his just\nrights, I am on the side of that rebellion. I deny that rulers are\ncrowned by the Most High; the rulers are the people, and the presidents\nand others are but the servants of the people. All authority comes from\nthe people, and not from the aristocracy of the air. Upon these texts of\nScripture which I have just read rest the thrones of Europe, and these\nare the voices that are repeated from age to age by brainless kings and\nheartless kings.\n\nDoes the Bible give woman her rights? Is this Bible humane? Does it\ntreat woman as she ought to be treated, or is it barbarian? Let us see.\n\"_Let women learn in silence with all subjection_.\" (1 Timothy ii. 11.)\nIf a woman would know anything let her ask her husband.\n\nImagine the ignorance of a lady who had only that source of information.\n\"_But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the\nman, but be in silence._\" Observe the magnificent reason. \"_For Adam was\nfirst formed, then Eve, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being\ndeceived, was in the transgression._\" Splendid! \"_But I would have you\nknow that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is\nthe man; and the head of Christ is God_.\" That is to say, there is as\nmuch difference between the woman and the man as there is between Christ\nand man. There is the liberty of woman. \"_For the man is not of the\nwoman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the\nwoman._\" Well, what was he created for? \"_But the woman was created\nfor the man. Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the\nLord_.\" There's liberty! \"_For the husband is the head of the wife, even\nas Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body.\nTherefore, as the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives to be\ntheir own husbands in every thing_.\" Even the Saviour didn't put man and\nwoman upon any equality. The man could divorce the wife, but the wife\ncould not divorce the husband, and according to the Old Testament, the\nmother had to ask forgiveness for being the mother of babes. Splendid!\n\nHere is something from the Old Testament: \"_When thou goest forth to\nwar against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them\ninto thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive. And seest among\nthe captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou\nwouldst have her to thy wife. Then thou shalt bring her home to thine\nhouse; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails_,\" (Deut. xxi.\n10, 11, 12.) That is in self-defence, I suppose!\n\nThis sacred book, this foundation of human liberty, of morality, does\nit teach concubinage and polygamy? Read the thirty-first chapter of\nNumbers, read the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy, read the blessed\nlives of Abraham, of David, or of Solomon, and then tell me that the\nsacred scripture does not teach polygamy and concubinage? All the\nlanguage of the world is not sufficient to express the infamy of\npolygamy; it makes man a beast and woman a stone. It destroys the\nfireside and makes virtue an outcast. And yet it is the doctrine of the\nBible. The doctrine defended by Luther and Melancthon! It takes from our\nlanguage those sweetest words--father, husband, wife, and mother, and\ntakes us back to barbarism and fills our hearts with the crawling, slimy\nserpents.\n\nDoes the Bible teach the existence of devils? Of course it does. Yes,\nit teaches not only the existence of a good Being, but a bad being. This\ngood Being had to have a home; that home was heaven. This bad being\nhad to have a home; and that home was hell. This hell is supposed to\nbe nearer to earth than I would care to have it, and to be peopled with\nspirits, hobgoblins, and all the fiery shapes with which the imagination\nof ignorance and fear could people that horrible place; and the Bible\nteaches the existence of hell and this big devil and all these little\ndevils. The Bible teaches the doctrine of witchcraft, and makes us\nbelieve that there are sorcerers and witches, and that the dead could be\nraised by the power of sorcery. Read the account of the spiritual seance\nat which Saul and the Witch of Endor assisted, and which resulted in the\ncalling up of Samuel. Does any one believe that now?\n\nIn another place it is declared that witchcraft is an abomination unto\nthe Lord. He wanted no rivals in this business. Now what does the\nNew Testament teach? Turn to the story of Jesus being led into the\nwilderness for the devil to experiment upon him. He was starved forty\ndays and forty nights, and then asked to work a miracle! After that the\ndevil placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, and asked him to cast\nhimself down to prove that he was the Son of God. Is it possible that\nany one can believe that the devil absolutely took God Almighty, and put\nhim on the pinnacle of the temple, and endeavoured to persuade him to\njump down? \"_Again the devil taketh him into an exceeding high mountain,\nand showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;\nand saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall\ndown and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan,\nfor it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only\nshalt thou serve_.\" (Matt. iv. 8-11.) Now, the devil must have known at\nthat time that he was God, and God at that time must have known that\nthe other was the devil. How could the latter be conceived to have the\nimpudence to promise God a world in which he did not have a tax-title to\nan inch of land.\n\nThen there is that pig story. When the \"boss\" devil had left Jesus and\nangels had ministered unto him, and he had taken a short sea voyage,\nthere came out to meet him a man possessed of a number of minor devils,\nand a man whom no one could tame, nor bind, no not with chains, and who\ndwelt among the tombs. A nice quiet citizen truly! And after some parley\nthe devils beseech Jesus, saying:--\"_Send us into the swine that we may\nenter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean\nspirits went out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently\ndown a steep place into the sea_ (there were about two thousand) _and\nwere choked in the sea._\" No doubt a good riddance; but what the owner\nof the swine thought of the transaction, or whether he was indemnified\nfor the loss of his porkers deponent cannot say. Are we reasonable men\nin the nineteenth century in the United States of America and believe\nthis? I deny it. These fables of devils have covered the world with\nblood; they have filled the world with fear, and I am going to do what I\ncan to free the world of these insatiate monsters. Small and great they\nhave filled the world with monsters, they have made the world a synonym\nof liar and ferocity.\n\nAnd it is this book that ought to be read in all the schools--this book\nthat teaches man to enslave his brother. If it is larceny to steal the\nresult of labour, how much more is it larceny to steal the labourer\nhimself. \"_Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do so sojourn\namong you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with\nyou, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession.\nAnd ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to\ninherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever; but\nover your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over\nanother with rigour_.\" (Lev. xv. 45, 46.) Why? Because they are not as\ngood as you will buy of the heathen roundabout.\n\nThese are edifying texts. Consult also Exod. xxi. 1, where you will find\na complete slave code. No detail is wanting. Under certain conditions\nthe master is to bring his servant to the judges, then he is to lug him\nto the doorpost and bore his ear through with an awl--; \"_And he shall\nserve him for ever_.\" This is the doctrine which has ever lent itself\nto the chains of slavery, and makes a man imprison himself rather than\ndesert wife and children. I hate it!\n\nWhat does this same book with its glad tidings of great joy for all\npeople say of the rights of children? Let us see how they are treated by\nthe \"most merciful God.\" \"_If a man hath a stubborn and rebellious son,\nwhich will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother,\nand that when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them. Then\nshall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out unto\nthe elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place. And they\nshall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and\nrebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard.\nAnd all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so\nshalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and\nfear_.\" (Deut. xxi. 18.)\n\nAbraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, and he\nintended to obey. The boy was not consulted.\n\nDid you ever hear the story of Jepthah's daughter? Is there in the\nhistory of the world a sadder story than that? Can a God who would\naccept such a sacrifice be worthy of the worship of civilized men? I\nbelieve in the rights of children, I plead for the republic at home, for\nthe democracy of the fireside, and for this I am called a heathen and\na devil by those who believe in the cheerful and comforting doctrine of\neternal damnation. Read the book of Job! God met the devil and asked him\nwhere he had been, and he said: \"Walking up and down the country,\" and\nthe Lord said to him: \"Have you noticed my man Job over here, how\ngood he is?\" And the devil said: \"Of course he's good, you give him\neverything he wants. Just take away his property and he'll curse you.\nYou just try it.\" And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job\nstill remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been\ntried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still true.\nThen he took away his children, but he remained faithful, and in the\nend, to show how much Job made by this fidelity, his property was all\ndoubled, and he had more children than ever. If you have a child, and\nyou love it, would you be satisfied with a God who would destroy it, and\nendeavour to make it up by giving you another that was better looking?\nNo, you want that one; you want no other, and yet this is the idea of\nthe love of children taught in the Bible.\n\nDoes the Bible teach you freedom of religion? To-day we say that every\nman has a right to worship God or not, to worship him as he pleases. Is\nit the doctrine of the Bible? Read Deut. xii. 6. If a brother, or son,\nor daughter, or wife proposes to serve any god but your own, or that of\nyour fathers, thou shalt not pity, nor spare, nor conceal. \"_Thou shalt\nsurely kill him; thine hand shall be the first upon him to put him to\ndeath, and thou shalt stone him with stones that he die_.\"\n\nAnd do you know, according to that, if you had lived in Palestine,\nand your wife that you love as your own soul had said to you, \"Let us\nworship the sun whose golden beams clothe the world in glory; let us\nbow to that great luminary; I love the sun because it gave me your face;\nbecause it gave me the features of my babe; let us worship the sun;\" it\nwas then your duty to lay your hands upon her, your eye must not pity\nher, but it was your duty to cast the first stone against that tender\nand loving breast! I hate such doctrine! I hate such books! I hate gods\nthat will write such books 1 I tell you that it is infamous! That is\nthe religious liberty of the Bible--that's it And this God taught\nthat doctrine to the Jews, and said to them, \"Any one that teaches a\ndifferent religion, kill him!\" Now, let me ask, and I want to do it\nreverently:\n\nIf, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws to the Jews, and\nafterwards this same God took upon himself flesh, and came among the\nJews, and taught a different religion, and these Jews, in accordance\nwith the laws which this same God gave them, crucified him, did he not\nreap what he had sown? The mercy of all this comes in what is called\n\"the plan of salvation.\" What is that plan? According to this great\nplan, the innocent suffer for the guilty to satisfy a law.\n\nWhat sort of a law must it be that would be satisfied with the suffering\nof innocence? According to this plan, the salvation of the whole\nworld depends upon the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery of Judas.\nAccording to the same plan, there would have been no death in the world\nif there had been no sin, and if there had been no death you and I would\nnot have been called into existence, and if we did not exist we could\nnot have been saved; so we owe our salvation to the bigotry of the Jews\nand the treachery of Judas, and we are indebted to the devil for our\nexistence. I speak this reverently. It strikes me that what they\ncall the atonement is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its merciful\nprovisions man is allowed the privilege of sinning credit, and whenever\nhe is guilty of a mean action, he says, \"Charge it.\" In my judgment,\nthis kind of bookkeeping breeds extravagance in sin.\n\nSuppose we had a law in New York that every merchant should give credit\nto every man who asked it, under pain and penitentiary, and that every\nman should take the benefit of the bankruptcy statute any Saturdays\nnight? Doesn't the credit system in morals breed extravagance in sin?\nThat's the question. Who's afraid of punishment which is so far away?\nWhom does the doctrine of hell stop? The great, the rich, the powerful?\nNo; the poor, the weak, the despised, the mean. Did you ever hear of a\nman going to hell who died in New York worth a million of dollars, or\nwith an income of twenty-five thousand a year? Did you ever hear of a\nman going to hell who rode in a carriage? Never. They are the gentlemen\nwho talk about their assets, and who say, \"Hell is not for me; it is for\nthe poor. I have all the luxuries I want, give that to the poor.\" Who go\nto hell? Tramps!\n\nLet me tell you a story. There was once a frightful rain, and all\nthe animals held a convention, to see whose fault it was, and the fox\nnominated the lion for chairman. The wolf seconded the motion, and the\nhyena said that suits. When the convention was called to order the fox\nwas called upon to confess his sins. He stated, however, that it would\nbe much more appropriate for the lion to commence first. Thereupon the\nlion said: \"I am not conscious of having committed evil. It is true I\nhave devoured a few men, but for what other purpose were men made?\" And\nthey all cheered, and were satisfied. The fox gave his views upon the\ngoose question, and the wolf admitted that he had devoured sheep, and\noccasionally had killed a shepherd, but \"all acquainted with the history\nof my family will bear me out when I say that shepherds have been the\nenemies of my family from the beginning of the world.\"\n\nThen away in the rear there arose a simple donkey, with a kind of\nAbrahamic countenance. He said, \"I expect it's me, I had eaten nothing\nfor three days except three thistles. I was passing a monastery; the\nmonks were at mass. The gates were open leading to a yard full of sweet\nclover. I knew it was wrong, but I did slip in and I took a mouthful,\nbut my conscience smote me and I went out,\" and all the animals shouted,\n\"He's the fellow!\" and in two minutes they had his hide on the fence.\nThat's the kind of people that go to hell.\n\nNow this doctrine of hell, that has been such a comfort to my race,\nwhich so many ministers are pleading for, has been defended for ages by\nthe fathers of the church. Your preacher says that the sovereignty of\nGod implies that he has an absolute, unlimited, and independent right\nto dispose of his creatures as he will, because he made them. Has he?\nSuppose I take this book and change it immediately into a servient human\nbeing. Would I have a right to torture it because I made it? No; on the\ncontrary. I would say, having brought you into existence, it is my\nduty to do the best for you I can. They say God has a right to damn me\nbecause he made me. I deny it.\n\nAnother one says, God is not obliged to save even those who believe in\nChrist, and that he can either bestow salvation upon his children or\nretain it without any diminution of his glory. Another one says, God may\nsave any sinner whatsoever, consistently with his justice. Let a natural\nperson--and I claim to be one--moral or immoral, wise or unwise, let him\nbe as just as he can, no matter what his prayers may be, what pains he\nmay have taken to be saved, or whatever circumstances he may be in,\nGod, according to this writer, can deny him salvation, without the\nleast disparagement of his glory. His glories will not be in the least\nobscured; there is no natural man, be his character what it may, but God\nmay cast down to hell without being charged with unfair dealing in any\nrespect with regard to that man. Theologians tell us that God's design\nin the creation was simply to glorify himself. Magnificent object! \"_The\nsame shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured\nout without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be\ntormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels,\nand in the presence of the Lamb_.\" (Rev. i. 10.)\n\nDo you know nobody would have had an idea of hell in this world if it\nhadn't been for volcanoes? They were looked upon as the chimneys of\nhell. The idea of eternal fire never would have polluted the imagination\nof man but for them. An eminent theologian, describing hell, says,\n\"There is no recounting up the million of ages the damned shall suffer.\nAll arithmetic ends here\"--and all sense, too! \"They shall have nothing\nto do in passing away this eternity but to conflict with torments. God\nshall have no other use or employment for them.\" These words were said\nby gentlemen who died Christians, and who are now in the harp business\nin the world to come. Another declares there is nothing to keep any\nman or Christian out of hell except the mere pleasure of God, and their\npains never grow any easier by their becoming accustomed to them. It is\nalso declared that the devil goes about like a lion, ready to doom the\nwicked. Did it never occur to you what a contradiction it is to say that\nthe devil will persecute his own friends? He wants all the recruits he\ncan get; why then should he persecute his friends? In my judgment he\nshould give them the best hell affords.\n\nIt is in the very nature of things that torments inflicted have no\ntendency to bring a wicked man to repentance. Then why torment him if\nit will not do him good? It is simply unadulterated revenge. All the\npunishment in the world will not reform a man, unless he knows that he\nwho inflicts it upon him does it for the sake of reformation, and really\nand truly loves him, and has his good at heart. Punishment inflicted\nfor gratifying the appetite makes man afraid but debases him. Various\nreasons are given for punishing the wicked? first, that God will\nvindicate his injured majesty. Weil, I am glad of that! Second, he will\nglorify his justice--think of that. Third, he will show and glorify his\ngrace. Every time the saved shall look upon the damned in hell it will\ncause in them a lively and admiring sense of the grace of God. Every\nlook upon the damned will double the ardour and the joy of the saints in\nheaven. Can the believing husband in heaven look down upon the torments\nof the unbelieving wife in hell and then feel a thrill of joy? That is\nthe old doctrine--that if you saw your wife in hell--the wife you love,\nwho, in your last sickness, nursed you, that perhaps supported you by\nher needle when you were ill; the wife who watched by your couch night\nand day, and held your corpse in her loving arms when you were dead--the\nsight would give you great joy. That doctrine is not preached to-day.\nThey do not preach that the sight would give you joy! but they do preach\nthat it will not diminish your happiness. That is the doctrine of every\northodox minister in New York, and I repeat that I have no respect for\nmen who preach such doctrines. The sight of the torments of the damned\nin hell will increase the ecstasy of the saints for ever! On\nthis principle a man never enjoys a good dinner so much as when a\nfellow-creature is dying of famine before his eyes, or he never enjoys\nthe cheerful warmth of his own fireside so greatly as when a poor\nand abandoned wretch is dying on his door-step. The saints enjoy the\necstasy, and the groans of the tormented are music to them. I say here\nto-night that you cannot commit a sin against an infinite being. I can\nsin against my brother or my neighbour, because I can injure them.\nThere can be no sin where there is no injury. Neither can a finite being\ncommit infinite sin.\n\nAn old saint believed that hell was in the interior of the earth, and\nthat the rotation of the earth was caused by the souls trying to get\naway from the fire. The old church at Stratford-on-Avon, Shakespeare's\nhome, is adorned with pictures of hell and the like. One of the pictures\nrepresents resurrection-morning. People are getting out of their graves,\nand devils are catching hold of their heels. In one place there is a\nhuge brass monster, and devils are driving scores of lost souls into his\nmouth. Over hot fires hang caldrons with fifty or sixty people in each,\nand devils are poking the fires. People are hung up on hooks by their\ntongues, and devils are lashing them. Up in the right-hand corner are\nsome of the saved, with grins on their faces stretching from ear to ear.\nThey seem to say: \"Aha, what did I tell you?\"\n\nSome of the old saints--gentlemen who died in the odour of sanctity and\nare now in glory--insisted that heaven and hell would be plainly in view\nof each other. Only a few years ago, the Rev. J. Furness (an appropriate\nname), published a little pamphlet called \"A Sight in Hell\" I remember\nwhen I first read that. My little child, seven years old, was ill and in\nbed. I thought she would not hear me, and I read some of it aloud. She\narose and asked \"Who says that?\" I answered, \"That's what they preach in\nsome of the churches.\" \"I never will enter a church as long as I live!\"\nshe said, and she never has.\n\nThe doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that the damned shall suffer\ntorment for ever and for ever. And if you were a wanderer, footsore,\nweary, with parched tongue, dying for a drop of water, and you met one\nwho divided his poor portion with you, and died as he saw you reviving\n--if he was an unbeliever and you a believer, and you died and went to\nheaven, and he called to you from hell for a draught of water, it would\nbe your duty to laugh at him.\n\nRev. Mr Spurgeon says that everywhere in hell will be written the words\n\"for ever.\" They will be branded on every wave of flame, they will be\nforged in every link of every chain, they will be seen in every lurid\nflash of brimstone--everywhere will be those words \"for ever.\" Everybody\nwill be yelling and screaming them. Just think of that picture of the\nmercy and justice of the eternal Father of us all. If these words are\nnecessary why are they not written now everywhere in the world, on every\ntree, and every field, and on every blade of grass? I say I am entitled\nto have it so. I say that, it is God's duty to furnish me with the\nevidence. In old times they had to find a place for hell, and they found\na hundred places for it. One says that it was under Lake Avernus, but\nthe Christian thought differently. One divine tells us that it must be\nbelow the earth because Christ descended into hell. Another gives it\nas his opinion that hell is in the sun, and he tells us that nobody,\nwithout an express revelation from God, can prove that it is not there.\nMost likely. Well, he had the idea at all events of utilizing the damned\nas fuel to warm the earth. Another divine preached a sermon no further\nback than 1876, in which he said that the damned will grow worse, and\nthe same divine says that the devil was the first Universalist. Then I\nam on the side of the devil.\n\nThe fact is, that you have got not merely to believe the Bible, but you\nmust also believe in a certain interpretation of it, and, mind you,\nyou must also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. If you don't\nunderstand it, it is your own fault. You must believe in it all the\nsame. If you do not, all the orthodox churches agree in condemning you\nto everlasting flames. We have got to burn through all our lives simply\nwith the view of making them happy. We are taught to love our enemies,\nto pray for those that persecute us, to forgive. Should not the merciful\nGod practice what he preaches? I say that reverently. Why should he say\n\"Forgive your enemies\" if he will not himself forgive? Why should he say\n\"Pray for those that despise and persecute you, but if they refuse to\nbelieve my doctrine I will burn them for ever?\" I cannot believe it.\nHere is a little child, residing in the purlieus of the city--some\nlittle boy who is taught that it is his duty to steal by his mother\nwho applauds his success, and pats him on the head and calls him a good\nboy--would it be just to condemn him to an eternity of torture? Suppose\nthere is a God; let us bring to this question some common sense.\n\nI care nothing about the doctrines or religions or creeds of the past.\nLet us come to the bar of the nineteenth century and judge the matter by\nwhat we know, by what we think, by what we love. But they say to us,\n\"If you throw away the Bible what are we to depend on then?\" But no two\npersons in the world agree as to what the Bible is, what they are to\nbelieve, or what they are not to believe. It is like a guide-post that\nhas been thrown down in some time of disaster, and has been put up the\nwrong way. Nobody can accept its guidance, for nobody knows where it\nwould direct him. I say, \"Tear down the useless guide-post,\" but they\nanswer, \"Oh, do not do that or we will have nothing to go by.\" I would\nsay, \"Old Church, you take that road, and I will take this.\" Another\nminister has said that the Bible is the great town-clock, at which we\nmay all set our watches. But I have said to a friend of that minister,\n\"Suppose we all should set our watches by that town-clock, there would\nbe many persons to tell you that in old times the long hand was the hour\nhand, and beside, the clock hasn't been wound up for a long time.\" I\nsay, let us wait till the sun rises and set our watches by nature. For\nmy part, I am willing to give up heaven to get rid of hell. I had\nrather there should be no heaven than that any solitary soul should be\ncondemned to suffer for ever and ever. But they tell me that the Bible\nis the book of hope. Now, in the Old Testament there is not, in my\njudgment, a single reference to another life. Is there a burial-service\nmentioned in it in which a word of hope is spoken at the grave of the\ndead? The idea of eternal life was not born of any book. That wave of\nhope and joy ebbs and flows, and will continue to ebb and flow as long\nas love kisses the lips of death.\n\nLet me tell you a tale of the Persian religion--of a man who, having\ndone good for long years of his life, presented himself at the gates of\nParadise, but the gates remained closed against him. He went back and\nfollowed up his good works for seven years longer, and the gates of\nParadise still remaining shut against him, he toiled in works of charity\nuntil at last they were opened unto him. Think of that, and send out\nyour missionaries among those people. There is no religion but goodness,\nbut justice, but charity. Religion is not theory--it is life. It is not\nintellectual conviction--it is divine humanity, and nothing else. There\nis another tale from the Hindoo of a man who refused to enter Paradise\nwithout a faithful dog, urging that ingratitude was the blackest of all\nsins. \"And the god,\" he said, \"admitted him, dog and all.\" Compare that\nreligion with the orthodox tenets of the city of New York.\n\nThere is a prayer which every Brahmin prays, in which he declares\nthat he will never enter into a final state of bliss alone, but that\neverywhere he will strive for universal redemption; that never will he\nleave the world of sin and sorrow, but remain suffering and striving\nand sorrowing after universal salvation. Compare that with the orthodox\nidea, and send out your missionaries to the benighted Hindoos.\n\nThe doctrine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express. I wish\nthere were words mean enough to express my feelings of loathing on this\nsubject. What harm has it not done? What waste places has it not made?\nIt has planted misery and wretchedness in this world; it peoples the\nfuture with selfish joys and lurid abysses of eternal flame. But we\nare getting more sense every day. We begin to despise those monstrous\ndoctrines. If you want to better men and women change their conditions\nhere. Don't promise them something somewhere else. One biscuit will do\nmore good than all the tracts that were ever peddled in the world.\nGive them more whitewash, more light, more air. You have to change men\nphysically before you change them intellectually.\n\nI believe the time will come when every criminal will be treated as we\nnow treat the diseased and sick, when every penitentiary will become\na reformatory; and that if criminals go to them with hatred in their\nbosoms, they will leave them without feelings of revenge. Let me tell\nyou the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice had been carried away by\nthe god of hell, and Orpheus, her lover, went in quest of her. He took\nwith him his lyre, and played such exquisite music that all hell was\namazed. Ixion forgot his labours at the wheel, the daughters of Danaus\nceased from their hopeless task, Tantalus forgot his thirst, even Pluto\nsmiled, and, for the first time in the history of hell, the eyes of the\nFuries were wet with tears. As it was with the lyre of Orpheus, so it is\nto-day with the great harmonies of science, which are rescuing from the\nprisons of superstition the torn and bleeding heart of man.","title":"Hell: Warm Words on the Cheerful and Comforting Doctrine of Eternal Damnation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8098}