{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38303/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38303","id":"gutenberg_38303","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38303","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Ingersoll, Robert Green, 1833-1899","Travel"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nINGERSOLL IN CANADA\n\nA REPLY TO WENDLING, ARCHBISHOP LYNCH, BYSTANDER; AND OTHERS.\n\nBy Allen Pringle\n\n\"If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would no more\njustified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power,\nwould be justified in silencing mankind.\"--_J. S. Mill, On Liberty_.\n\n     \"Here's freedom to him that would read,\n     Here's freedom to him that would write;\n     Thert's nane ever feared that the truth should be heard,\n     But they whom the truth would indite.\"--Burns.\n\n\"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a a fool; and he\nwho dares not is a slave.\"--_Philosopher_.\n\nPER CONTRA: \"Do not try to reason or you are lost.\"--_Moody, the\nEvangelist_.\n\n\"Hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may.\"\n\n\"Fear first made Gods in the world.\"--_Lucretius_\n\n\n\"Theology I define to be the art of teaching what nobody knows.\"--_Lord\nBrougham_\n\n\"It matters not to me whether my neighbors believe in one God or\ntwenty\"--_Jefferson_\n\n\"The natural world is infinite and eternal. The universe was not called\ninto being from non-entity.\"--_Plato_\n\n\"To assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously\nunknown, argues, on the part of the assertor, either gross ignorance or\nelse wilful fraud.\"--_Buckle_\n\n\"Nature is seen to do all things of herself without the meddling of the\nGods.\"--_Lucretius_\n\n\"Is there no 'inspiration,' then, but an ancient Jewish, Greekish, Roman\none, with big revenues, loud liturgies, and red stockings?\"--_Thos.\nCarlyle_\n\n\"Inanity well tailored and upholstered, mild-spoken Ambiguity, decorous\nHypocrisy, which is astonished you should, think it hypocritical, taking\ntheir room and drawing their wages: from zenith to nadir you have Cant,\nCant--a universe of incredibilities which are not even credited,\nwhich each man at best only tries to persuade himself that he\ncredits.\"--_Thomas Carlyle_\n\n\"The highest possible welfare of all present mankind is my religion;\nthe perfectibility of the future of our race here upon this planet is\nmy faith; and I would the time had come, as it yet will come, that this\nfaith were the religion of all mankind.\"--_Lord Queensbury_ (who\nwas recently excluded from the English House of Lords because of his\nunorthodox opinions.)\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.\n\nTO THE CLERGY AND COLLEGE STUDENTS OF ONTARIO.\n\nGentlemen,--Through the generous and voluntary liberality of a highly\nesteemed and estimable Freethought friend, and at his suggestion, I have\nbeen enabled to get out this Second Edition of my pamphlet, of upwards\nof 4,000 copies, chiefly for gratuitous distribution among yourselves.\nThe gentleman referred to conceived the project of supplying every\nMinister in the Province with a copy, and it was further decided to also\nsupply the College Students.\n\nThe compliment to pamphlet and author, which this action on the part of\nan intelligent and discriminating Liberal implies, I, of course, duly\nappreciate. When the work was written a few months ago, at the request\nof fellow-liberals, I had no expectation that it would ultimately\ngo before so critical and learned a body of readers as the Clergy,\nGraduates, and College Students of Ontario. I supposed one modest\nedition of 2,000 copies would be all that would ever see the light.\nBut it has been otherwise desired by my readers. I have, therefore,\nno further apology to make for presenting you with the work (my object\nbeing the advancement of truth), and I earnestly submit for your best\nconsideration its subject matter rather than its literary merits or\ndemerits. The time has come when these great questions must be examined,\nfor they _will_ come to the front in spite of the most tenacious\nconservatism. Everywhere, thoughtful men are earnestly looking into\nthem. That the old landmarks in religious belief are being effaced and\nthe Creeds and Confessions rapidly breaking up is becoming every day\nmore and more apparent. Goldwin Smith, a man of great historical acumen,\nhas recently said \"A collapse of religious belief, of the most complete\nand tremendous kind, is, apparently, now at hand.\"* The Rev. Hugh\nPedley, B.A., Cobourg, in a very able paper in the July (1880) number of\nthe _Canadian Monthly_, on \"Theological Students and the Times,\" says:\n\"There can be no doubt that all forms of thought, all systems of belief,\nhowever venerable with age, are being: handled with the utmost freedom.\nSkepticism is becoming more general, and is protean in its adaptibility\nto circumstances. There is the philosophical skepticism for the\ncultured, and popular skepticism for the masses: the Reviews for the\nselect, Col. Ingersoll for the people. No _Index Expurgatorius_, whether\nCatholic or Protestant, whether ecclesiastical or domestic, is barrier\nstrong enough to stem the incoming tide.\" He also says: \"I would\nadvocate a manly, courageous dealing with the doubts of the age in all\nour theological schools.\" * * * \"Let there be no timid reserve. Let our\nyoung ministers face the whole strength of the rationalistic position.\"\n* * * \"It is not enough that ministers should be well read in church\nhistory, not enough that they should be able to expound in logical\nfashion the church doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, &c, not\nenough that they should understand the architecture of a model sermon.\nThese matters are quite right in their place, but the minister should go\nfurther. He must go down to the root question, and enquire whether the\nhistory, the systematic theology, and the homilectics are based on a\nreally Divine Revelation, or only on a series of beautiful legends which\nfoolish, but reverent, hands have wreathed about the person of Jesus of\nNazareth, a wonderful, religious genius that long ago illumined the\nland of Palestine.\" Further, Mr. Pedley says: \"We find men talking as if\nthoroughness of investigation would inevitably lead to a loosened hold\non Christianity. So much the worse then for Christianity. If young men\nof average intellect, and more than average morality, find that the more\nkeenly they study Christianity, the less able they are to accept it, and\npreach it, then must Christianity be relegated to the dusty lumber-room\nof worn-out and superseded religious systems.\"\n\n     * \"The Prospect of a Moral  Interregnum.\"\n     --Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1879.\n\nMr. Pedley then goes on to point out the effects of ignorance, on the\npart of the minister, of the arguments and writings of Freethinkers. He\nsays: \"If he be pastor in a reading community, he will know less than\nhis congregation about matters which it is his special business to\nunderstand. He will stand towards the Bible, as an ignorant Priest\nstands towards the Pope, accepting an infallibility that he has never\nproved. He will appear before the intelligent world as a spiritual\ncoward, a craven-hearted man, who dare not face the enemy who is slowly\nmastering his domains. He will become a by-word and a reproach to the\ngeneration which he is confessedly unable to lead, and which sweeps by\nwith disdainful tread, leaving him far in the rear.\"\n\nThese are brave words and frank admissions, which should be well\npondered by every clergyman, minister and priest, and every theological\nstudent, for should they fail to acquaint themselves with the doctrines\nand arguments of their opponents, they will speedily find themselves, as\nMr. Pedley warns them, preaching to people who know more than they about\nmatters which it is their special business to know.\n\nYours earnestly for Truth,\n\nA. P. Selby, Nov. 22nd, 1880.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\nCol. Robt. G. Ingersoll, the American Freethinker and eloquent\niconoclast, visited Canada in April last and lectured on theological\nsubjects in various places, including Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa,\nBelleville and Napanee, thereby agitating the theological caldron as it\nhas never been agitated before in this country.\n\nAnd \"when Mars was gone the dogs of war were let loose!\" Since\nIngersoll's departure there has been a profuse shower of \"Replies\"\nand \"Refutations\" from the press, and a tempest of denunciation and\nmisrepresentation from the pulpit. Indeed, before the departure of the\nredoubtable idol-smasher, the vituperation and slander commenced, under\nthe aegis of \"A warning against the Fallacies of Ingersoll.\" The pious\nEvangelists of the Y. M. C. A., of Toronto, (abetted doubtless by the\nclergy) issued this propagandist gospel-manifesto containing slanderous\nstatements against Mr. Ingersoll. This, with much more zeal than\ncourtesy, they thrust upon all entering the Royal Opera House on the\nfirst evening of the lectures. The lecturer, in opening, branded the\nbase slander of this Christian document that he (Ingersoll) had signed a\npetition to allow obscene matter to pass through the mails, as a wilful\nand malicious falsehood. As this calumny is yet reiterated from press\nand pulpit, implicating all Freethinkers as being in favor of obscenity,\nthe Resolution on this subject which Col. Ingersoll submitted to the\nCincinnati Convention of Freethinkers in September, 1879, will not be\nout of place here. It was as follows, and passed unanimously:--\n\nResolved,--That we are utterly opposed to the dissemination through\nthe mails, or by any other means, of all obscene literature, whether\ninspired or uninspired, holding in measureless contempt its authors,\npublishers, and disseminators; that we call upon the Christian world\nto expunge from the so-called sacred Bible every passage that cannot be\nread without covering the cheek of modesty with the blush of shame.\n\nThe cowardly conduct of the Toronto press, with one or two exceptions,\nin reference to Ingersoll's lectures, was as astonishing to\nliberal-minded men as it was deplorable to all, especially in the \"Queen\nCity of the West,\" which is, or ought to be, the centre of intellectual\nactivity and progress in Canada. This exhibition of narrow-minded\nbigotry on the part of the Toronto press excited (rather unexpectedly\nto them, no doubt) great surprise and severe animadversion from many\nquarters. The daily _Globe_ and _Mail_ have, of course, a very wide\ncirculation, and being the leading newspapers in the country, their\nnumerous patrons look to them for _all_ the news on _all_ public\nquestions and events. Imagine, therefore, their surprise and indignation\non opening their papers and looking for reports of Col. Ingersoll's\nlectures in Toronto, to find not a word there! Not a syllable by these\npuritanical publishers is vouchsafed to their expectant patrons, who\npay their money for--not merely what suits the religious whims and\nprejudices of publishers and editors--but for _all_ the news. But\nthey would scarcely repeat this mistake--or rather imposition on their\nreaders. They have since unmistakably learned that in this act of\npusillanimous servility to the priesthood, they took a false measure\nof their constituencies; and lamentably failed to gauge correctly the\nintellectual and moral status of a majority of their patrons.\n\nThe honorable exceptions to this servility of the Toronto press, were\nthe _Evening Telegram, Weekly Graphic_, and _National_.\n\nIn Belleville, also, there was, I believe, one commendable exception to\nthe narrowness of the press in reference to Ingersoll's lectures.\nThis was the _Free Press_, which has on former occasions proved itself\nbroader than most of its contemporaries.\n\nThe Montreal _Canadian Spectator_ is another notable exception to this\nvassalage of the Canadian press; for, though edited by a clergyman,\nit has proved itself in favor of freedom of speech and liberty of\nconscience, and boldly denounces the narrow prejudice and bigotry which\nwould gag Ingersoll to-day if it could, and would have burned him two or\nthree centuries ago at the stake.\n\nChief among the \"Replies,\" and \"Refutations\" which have issued from the\npress in Canada since Ingersoll's departure, is that by Hon. Geo. R.\nWendling. This honorable gentleman has, for some months past, been\nshadowing Mr. Ingersoll from place to place with his \"reply from a\nsecular stand point;\" albeit in Toronto he _preceded_ his opponent, and\nreplied (?) before the people of that city to a lecture of Ingersoll's\nwhich they had never heard. But, as with the Dutch judge, so with our\nChristian friends, _one side_ of the case was enough to hear in order to\nbe able to give a verdict, and Mr. Wendling was duly applauded for his\n\"satisfactory answer\" to the absent heretic!\n\nSubsequently, however, Mr. Ingersoll put in an appearance in the\nQueen City, and gave his lecture on \"The Gods,\" to which his honorable\nopponent had replied in advance. This eloquent and argumentative lecture\nwas greeted with such obvious favor and vociferous applause that the\n\"Willard Tract Depository and Bible House\" of that city deemed it\nimperative to do something to counteract the \"poisonous\" influence that\nhad gone forth. They accordingly hastened forthwith to issue Wendling's\n\"Reply to Robert Ingersoll.\" This Christian politico-religious\n_brochure_ was heralded by some half dozen Toronto Professors and\nDoctors of Divinity, and one Vice-Chancellor, to wit: Messrs. McLaren,\nRainsford, Potts, Castle, Powis, Antliff and Blake. These gentlemen, in\na neat little preface, certify their approval of and admiration for Mr.\nWendling's \"Reply to the infidelity advocated by Col. Ingersoll,\" and\nadd the hope that \"it may be circulated by thousands.\"\n\nTo this no Freethinker has, of course, any objection, so long as he\nenjoys an equal right to circulate his documents too. Of this right I\npropose to avail myself, and briefly review the salient points (if there\nare any) of some of Ingersoll's Canadian critics. Not that I feel called\nupon to defend Col. Ingersoll. Should defence be necessary, he is amply\nable to defend himself. But as our Christian friends, like drowning men\ncatching at straws, have, in their alarm for the safety of their creed,\ndesperately clutched a _layman_, and issued with their unqualified\nendorsation, this \"lay\" reply of Mr. Wendling, who comes before the\npublic, he tells us, \"as a citizen, as a business man, as a lawyer, and\nas a politician,\" and withal as a \"man of the world,\" I have thought\nthat for another layman--a materialistic layman--(though no lawyer\nor politician) to examine some of Mr. Wendling's lay logic and legal\nsophistry and politico-religious hash would be a move in the right\ndirection in the interests of truth.\n\nOur Christian friends, in issuing their pamphlet, have very judiciously\n\"improved the occasion\" by a liberal sprinkling of admonitory Scripture\ntexts, which adorn the insides of the covers, etc. By these texts we are\nreminded that \"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,\" and that\n\"if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the\nplagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away\nfrom the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his\npart out of the Book of Life,\" etc., etc. But these, our Christian\nopponents, are not quite consistent. Verily, the Christian Church is not\nwilling to take its own medicine--the medicine it mixes for \"infidels.\"\n_We_ are warned that if we criticise that book, or take away from the\nwords of it, or ridicule its absurdities, we will surely incur the\nwrath and \"plagues\" of an angry God; yet these Christians themselves are\ncomplacently doing this very thing. They have already eliminated from\nits sacred pages infant damnation, and eternal torture; while a \"Bible\nRevision Committee,\" composed of learned and distinguished dignitaries\nof different branches of the Christian Church, are now actually engaged\nin \"taking away from the words of this book!\"* Consistency! thou art\na jewel!! Greg, Strauss, Colenso, Renan, Ingersoll, Underwood, and a\nthousand others, are consigned to Hades for their destructive criticism\nof the Christians' Bible; while those learned Christian Doctors of\nDivinity of the \"Revision Committee\" can tamper with the \"Word of God\"\nand alter it to suit the enlightenment of the age with impunity! They\ncan excise whole passages without incurring the \"plagues\" we are told\nshall be visited upon any man who adds to or takes from it.\n\nNow, I have thought if I should adopt the advice contained in the Latin\nproverb, _fas est ab hoste doceri_, and take a lesson from the ingenious\npropagandic tactics of our Christian friends in placing conspicuously\nbefore their readers choice texts from their Evangelists and Apostles,\nit may not be amiss. Hence, we, too, will do a little skirmishing with\nsome choice sayings of some of the most eminent and learned apostles of\nour school. And to those trenchant utterances of Huxley, Tyndall, Mill,\nCarlyle, etc., herein given, I beg to direct the careful attention of\nthe reader.\n\nTo disarm possible criticism, I may say that this little pamphlet has\nbeen written by request, amidst a pressure of farm work, in snatches\nof time intervening between other more imperative duties: and to the\nadvanced Materialist who has gone over the same ground on the different\nsubjects as myself, I may say it is not written for him, as he does\nnot require it. But it is for another class of _quasi_ liberals, and\nChristians who have read Wendling and the others replied to, and are in\nan inquiring mood after truth. And if the arguments are not wholly _new_\nI would simply urge in extenuation that there is scarcely anything new\nunder the sun, and also my entire agreement with Montaigne, when he\ndeclares he \"has as clear a right to think Plato's thoughts as Plato\nhad.\"\n\nALLEN PRINGLE.\n\nSelby, Ont., June 25, 1880.\n\n     * The following appears in the press:--\"The New Testament\n     Revision Committee have struck out as spurious the last\n     seven verses of the last chapter of St. Mark.\" Now why have\n     they done this thing? To an \"outside barbarian\" the true\n     reason would appear to be that according to those seven\n     verses there are no Christians on the earth to-day, as not\n     one from the Pope of Rome or the Archbishop of Canterbury\n     down to the humblest follower of Jesus can prove himself a\n     Christian by the plain test therein given.\n\n\n\n\nREPLY TO WENDLING\n\nOn reading Mr. Wendling's \"Reply to Robert Ingersoll,\" it is difficult\nto determine precisely its theological status, or what are Mr.\nWendling's positions, doctrinally, in reference to Christianity. By the\nflexibility of doctrine, and dubious orthodoxy, displayed therein, it is\nno easy matter to _place_ Mr. Wendling; and his uncertain positions and\ntheological gyrations remind one of the famous mathematical definition\nof Infinity--\"a sphere whose circumference is everywhere and whose\ncentre is anywhere.\"\n\nMr. Wendling says he \"champions no creed, no sect,\" and he assures us he\n\"places humanity above all creeds.\" Now, Christianity is undoubtedly a\ncreed; albeit, some modern theologians, seeing that the dogmas on which\nit rests are fast crumbling away, have discovered that Christianity is\nsimply a \"life.\" As to \"placing humanity above all creeds,\" this move\nis decidedly rationalistic and utilitarian. It is clearly a positive\ndoctrine of the Atheistic philosophy; and it looks more than suspicious\nthat this shrewd lawyer has been \"stealing our thunder,\" for he will\nfind no such doctrine in the Bible, and it certainly has no place\nin Christian ethics or philosophy. The Bible represents man as below\neverything else rather than above--\"a mere worm of the dust\" It\nrepresents him as utterly depraved, \"deceitful above all things and\ndesperately wicked,\" and without any good in him. Christianity,\ninstead of holding humanity above all creeds, has, without compunction,\nimmolated man by scores of thousands on the bloody altar of creed and\ndogma. To maintain its creeds intact, Christianity has reddened the\nsurface of the earth with human blood. Therefore, whatever Mr. Wendling\nmay think about the elevation of man above creeds, Christianity does not\nhold humanity above its creeds.\n\nWith respect to the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible, Mr.\nWendling's position is extremely dubious. He tells us that \"so much of\nthat book\" (the Bible) \"as properly records His\" (Christ's) \"works and\ntruthfully reports His sayings, must be true.\" But who is to decide\nwhich the particular portions are which \"properly record\" and\n\"_truthfully_ report\" Christ's works, especially as these \"records\" and\n\"reports\" are self-contradictory, and more especially as nothing was\nrecorded in Christ's time of His sayings or doings, nor until half a\ncentury or more after His death, as historical criticism and research\nabundantly prove? If Mr. Wendling believes the Bible to be an inspired\nbook, wholly authentic and true, the foregoing statement about \"so much\nof it\" as \"_truthfully_ reports,\" &c, is surely a most extraordinary\none. Again, Mr. W. says, \"I say so much of that book as bears upon the\nIdeal Man\" (Christ) \"and so much of that book as the Ideal Man has set\nthe seal of His approval on, we may accept as the long sought for moral\nteacher,\" &c. As before, I would ask, who is to decide what particular\npart or parts of this book \"the Ideal Man has set the seal of His\napproval on?\" or whether the \"Ideal Man\" ever set His seal upon any of\nit? or, indeed, whether this \"Ideal Man\" ever had other than a\npurely _ideal_ or subjective existence in the minds of men? Some able\nscholars--notably Rev. Robt. Taylor--have, after careful historical\nresearch, come to the conclusion that the Christ of the Gospels never\nexisted. But, be this as it may, scholars now generally agree that\nwhether such a person as Jesus of Nazareth lived or not, we have no\nauthentic account of Him; and not a syllable of His alleged sayings was\nrecorded during His alleged lifetime, nor for more than half a century\nafter His death. The reader who wishes to pursue this subject of the\nwholly unauthentic character of the Gospels, &c, &c, is referred to\nGreg's \"Creed of Christendom,\" Lord Amberley's \"Analysis of Religious\nBelief,\" and the great work lately published in England, and now\nreprinted here by the Messrs. Belford of Toronto, viz., \"Supernatural\nReligion.\"\n\nIt will thus be seen that Mr. Wendling's doctrinal attitude towards the\nBible and Christianity is extremely problematical, and a Materialist\nscarcely knows where to place him, or how to deal with his mongrel\npositions. Being, as he tells us, \"a business man,\" \"a lawyer,\" \"a\npolitician,\" and \"a man of the world,\" this versatile gentleman has\nevidently imbibed largely of the utilitarian and humanitarian spirit of\nthe age, while at the same time retaining his Christian predilections;\nand hence the hybrid homily with which we have to deal, and which he\ncalls a \"Reply to Robert Ingersoll from a Secular Standpoint.\" That a\nlayman, however, should give so uncertain a sound as to his orthodox\nwhereabouts, and, in attempting to defend his positions (whatever\nthey are) and answer Freethinkers, should bring forth such a doctrinal\nnondescript, is not indeed to be much wondered at, seeing that the\nclergy themselves, being mercilessly driven from pillar to post\nby modern science and research, occupy the most inconsistent and\nincongruous, not to say ridiculous, positions, in doctrine and dogma, in\necclesiastical formulary and Biblical exegesis.\n\nHowever, though of dubious doctrine and doubtful orthodoxy, some of Mr.\nWendling's positions, or rather assumptions and assertions, are clear\nenough, and not to be misunderstood; and in a few of the more important\nof these I propose to follow him.\n\nAt the outset he dogmatically postulates the assumption that \"what most\nwe need is the conviction that there _is_ a personal God.\" From social,\ncommercial, and political considerations this belief in a personal God\nis what we most need--so says Mr. Wendling. He talks as though, were\nit not for this theistic belief, everything would go to the dogs; and\nuniversal, moral, social and political chaos would come. This, however,\nis simply assumed without a shadow of proof. He then goes on with his\ndemonstration (?) of the existence of a personal God; but it is the\nold, old story over again. First he assumes, in the face of the highest\nauthorities to the contrary, that \"among every people in every quarter\nof the habitable globe, there exists, and there has existed from the\nvery furthest reach of history, the idea of one eternal and all-powerful\nGod.\" He then gives us a rehash of Paley's design argument to prove the\nexistence of a God, which he considers conclusive. And, finally, as if\nconscious of the weakness of the intellectual argument, he takes refuge\nin the moral argument,--in conscience in man as showing the existence\nof a personal God with moral attributes. This is the last refuge of the\nTheist--the _dernier ressort_ of the theologian. Driven utterly from\nthe realm of reason they fly to _conscience_ and to _consciousness_ to\nestablish subjectively what cannot be proved intellectually. Now, this\nsort of evidence may do for the Theist and theologian who are determined\nto believe in Theos; but to those who live in the light of reason, and\nin the realm of intellect not wholly submerged by the emotions,\nsuch inner-consciousness evidence will not be satisfactory; for they\nexperience no such subjective proof in their own minds, and do not care\nto take the mere _feelings_ of others as evidence of anything further\nthan the existence of nervous ganglion and brain.\n\nI will now take up Mr. Wendling's arguments to prove the existence of\na personal God, _seriatim_, and briefly consider them. As already\nremarked, before setting out to prove a God, Mr. W. postulates the\nnecessity of one. For the preservation of moral order, social purity,\nand commercial integrity, what most we need, it is assumed, \"is the\nconviction that there is a personal God.\" This assertion certainly has\na queer look when we reflect that Theism is at present the prevailing\nbelief among the masses, and has been in the past; and that our prisons\nare full of persons who believe in a personal God; and that believers in\nGod ascend the gallows almost daily, and are swung off to \"mansions in\nthe skies!\" Here are some half dozen examples of this kind at hand, the\nwhole of which I quote from one newspaper, a late issue of the Kingston\n_British Whig_:--\n\nBreaux, who was hanged in New Orleans, \"ascended the gallows smiling\nand said he had made his peace with God and all men.\" Bolen, who was\nexecuted at Macon, Mississippi, said on the gallows: \"My mouth will soon\nbe closed in this world. I rested in the arms of Jesus last night. I am\nsatisfied. I feel guilty of nothing. God is well pleased with my soul.\"\nMacon, who was executed at the same place, said, \"I feel ready to die,\nbecause God has pardoned my sins. I risked my soul on the murder, but\nGod has forgiven me. There is not a cloud in the way.\" Brown, who was\nalso executed at Macon, with the other two, the same day, said, \"I have\nmade peace with God, and will surely go to heaven, I will cross the\nriver with a rope around my neck that will lead my wicked soul on\nto glory. Blessed be God! I am going home!\" Stone, who was hanged at\nWashington, and Tatio at Windsor, Vermont, the same day as the four\nabove, both had made their peace with God, and were on their way \"to\nmeet the Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\nA belief in God did not it seems avail to keep these men, nor thousands\nof others, from crime; nor does it, in my opinion, to any great extent,\noperate as a deterrent of crime. People with favorable organizations and\ngood surroundings will not be apt to commit murder whether they believe\nor disbelieve in a God; while persons born with, bad organizations--bad\nheads and impure blood--will very likely, under favorable circumstances,\ncontinue to follow their predominant impulses, whether they believe in\none God or twenty, and, if Christians in belief, they will ultimately\nrely on that \"fountain of blood open for sin and all uncleanness.\"\nUnscrupulous men who have strong natural tendencies to crime, and\nbelieve in the Christian plan of salvation, will, in bad surroundings,\nscarcely fail to indulge their propensities and finally avail themselves\nof the \"bankrupt scheme\"--take a bath in that impure fountain and be\n\"washed\" clean (?) like the gentry instanced above.\n\nIn January and February of this year (1880) Rev. E. P. Hammond, the\nnoted Methodist revivalist, made a professional tour through Canada\nin pursuit of his favorite and profitable calling of \"saving souls\"\n(favorite, probably, _because_ profitable). Among other places he\nvisited St. Catharines, and before leaving that city, preached a sermon\nfor the especial benefit, it would seem, of the Universalists. Now,\nUniversalism has always been specially odious to the other more\nevangelical sects, especially the Methodists, who seem positively\nshocked at the horrid idea that hell may perhaps be ultimately emptied\nof its human contents and all mankind get into heaven. The Universalists\nappear to have a good degree of that noble human quality, benevolence,\nand hence they believe that the God they worship is too good to damn\nforever any creature he has made. For this good opinion of their\nCreator they are duly stigmatized, contemned and reprobated by the ultra\northodox party, who can brook no nonsense about the possibility of the\nfires of hell ever being extinguished. These people are evidently well\npleased at the idea that there is a place of torture into which the\nnon-elect of their fellow creatures may be turned for ever and ever.\nHow like the God of the Old Testament, these disciples of His are! Mr.\nHammond, it would seem, is of this class; and accordingly, in the sermon\nalluded to, proceeded to unbudget himself against Universalism and\nUniversalists in vigorous style. The sermon was reported in the St.\nCatharines _Journal_, and called forth an able and spirited reply\nthrough the same-medium from the Rev. J. B. Lavelle of Fulton, Township\nof Grimsby. I propose to make some extracts, quite relevant to the\nsubject under consideration, from the reply of Rev. Lavelle,--who is a\ngentleman, I am informed, of exemplary character and broad intelligence,\nand highly respected. Mr. Lavelle says:\n\n\"Permit me to say, Mr. Editor, in justice to Universalists, both on\nthis continent and in Europe, among whom are some of the ablest Biblical\nscholars, and some of the best men, that there is not a particle of\ntruth in Mr. Hammond's representation. * * * Mr. Hammond, with other\nministers of the endless misery school, believes in the doctrine of\n'imputation,' 'substitution,' or 'vicarious' suffering of Christ, which\nthey erroneously, as we think, call the Atonement; and that the greatest\nvillain, who has lived a life of crime, rapine, and murder, can take the\nbenefit of this Spiritual Bankrupt Act (for it is nothing else) at any\ntime before he dies, and 'go to heaven'--yea, even while standing on\nthe gallows, swing 'into glory' and thus escape the consequences of his\nwicked life.\n\n\"For instance, A and B are two consummate villains, and have been so\nfor years, but in a quarrel A murders B--of course B goes to an eternal\nhell--but, through the labors of Mr. Hammond and others of the\nso-called orthodox churches who visit him in his cell before his\nexecution--he repents. (?) They lay this Spiritual Bankrupt Act before\nhim. He sees it is the only alternative to keep out of hell; so he takes\nthe benefit of it, is hanged, and goes to heaven. Thus, the murderer\ngets to heaven by the lucky chance of being the murderer instead of the\nmurdered. If his victim had been fortunate enough to-strike the fatal\nblow, he could have changed places with him; and so the endless destiny\nof each would have been reversed by the chance blow of a street fight!\nIs it, I ask, on such grounds God distributes rewards and punishments?\nWhat must be the moral influence of such a doctrine?\n\n\"Again: A lives a life of crime for sixty years, and on the very next\nmonth or day, repents by taking the benefit of this Spiritual Bankrupt\nAct, dies and goes to heaven. B lives a life of virtue and goodness\nfor sixty years, and the very next day or month makes a false step, or\ncommits a crime, and is consigned to an endless hell to suffer intense\nmisery without relief and without end. And yet we are told by the\nadvocates of this unscriptural doctrine that this is a just distribution\nof rewards and punishments under the government of God who 'is Love,'\nbut above all, THE FATHER.\n\n\"Look at the case of one Ward, who, in one of our counties a while\nago, murdered his wife--was sentenced to death, and attended by his\n'Orthodox' spiritual advisers before execution. He also repented (?) and\ntook the benefit of this Spiritual Bankrupt Act. When he stood upon the\ngallows, he said, he 'had but two steps to take--one into eternity and\nthe other into glory.' And his poor wife--what became of her? Gone,\n'with all her imperfections' to suffer unmitigated misery as long as\nGod himself shall endure, and this, too, according to the unscriptural\ndoctrine of the same churches which teach 'no change after death.' Again\nwe ask, what can be the moral influence of such teaching?\n\n\"The truth is the burden of the most of the teaching of the day is,\nto 'die right;' 'make your peace with God in time,' and 'get religion\nbefore you die;' thus making religion to mainly consist in one general\nscramble to get into heaven and keep out of hell.\"\n\nAs Freethinkers, we boldly impeach the Christian plan of salvation as\nbeing essentially immoral in its tendency,--as offering a premium on\nvice and crime; and for doing this on previous occasions and designating\nit a \"bankrupt scheme,\" the writer of this has been the subject of\nsevere and indignant animadversion from his intimate Christian friends.\nYet here is a Christian minister who takes substantially the same\nposition as ourselves in reference to the plan of salvation as preached\nby Methodists and others, and denounces it as a \"Spiritual Bankrupt\nAct.\" And I have made the above extracts from his pen to strengthen my\nposition against Mr. Wendling, viz., that a belief in God and the Bible\nis _not_ essential to social and commercial morality, and the safety of\nthe State.\n\nOn this subject, Lord Bacon, himself a Christian, says:--\n\n\"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to\nlaws, to reputation: all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue,\nthough religion were not. But superstition dismounts all these, and\ncreateth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men; therefore Atheism did\nnever perturb States, for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking\nno further, and we see the limes inclined to Atheism (as the time\nof Augustus Caesar) were civil times; but superstition, that bone\nof contention of many States, bringeth in a new _primum mobile_ that\nravishes all the spheres of government.\"\n\nThere are thousands of Atheists in almost every civilized country, and\nhow is it, if Atheism tends to crime, that you will seldom or never\nfind one in prison for any crime? Buddhism, one of the most ancient\nreligions, long ante-dating Christianity, is essentially Atheistic. It\nhas had, and has now, hundreds of millions of followers, and for pure\nmorality no system of religion has ever equalled it. Webster, the\nChristian lexicographer, admits that Buddhism was \"characterized by\nadmirable humanity and morality.\" The religion of Confucius--of him\nwho taught the \"golden rule\" five centuries before Christianity\nappeared--was also Atheistic. Therefore, what we \"most need\" is, not a\n\"conviction that there _is_ a personal God\" (we have that already; all\nthe murderers, thieves and defaulters believe that doctrine), but we\nneed more of the \"admirable morality\" of Buddhism, and more of the\npractice of the \"golden rule\" of Confucius to \"do not unto others what\nyou would not they should do to you.\" As Emerson has said, \"We want some\ngood Paganism.\"\n\nMr. Wendling's next argument for the existence of a personal God is the\nassumed universality of the belief in God, \"among every people in every\nquarter of the habitable globe,\" now and \"from the very furthest reach\nof history.\" As the value of this argument turns simply on a question\nof fact, and as every educated or well-read man knows that the facts\nin this case are against Mr. Wendling, and that his assertion is\nhistorically incorrect, it is hardly worth while to spend much time over\nit. However, as some readers may not have looked into the authorities on\nthe subject, I may, perhaps not unprofitably quote briefly from some of\nthem, and simply refer the reader to others.\n\nTo say nothing of the _Atheistic_ character of the Buddhistic religion,\nalready referred to, with its millions of followers, there have been,\nand are to-day, tribes and peoples who have no belief whatever in, or\nconception of, a God or Gods. This fact is conclusively proved by\nsuch authorities as Livingston, the great African explorer (himself a\nChristian), Sir John Lubbock, J. S. Mill, Darwin, and even John Wesley,\nthe founder of Methodism, who, surely, ought to be good authority\nwith Christians; and him we will first put in the witness box against\nMr.-Wendling. Wesley says, in his Sermons, vol. 2, Sermon C:\n\n\"After all that has been so plausibly written concerning the 'innate\nidea of God;' after all that has been said of its being common to all\nmen, in all ages and nations, it does not appear that man has any more\nidea of God than any of the beasts of the field; he has no knowledge\nof God at all. Whatever change may afterward be wrought by his own\nreflection or education, he is by nature a mere Atheist.\"\n\nCharles Darwin, the greatest naturalist in the world, and who is\nproverbially careful in his statements, has the following on this\nsubject in his \"Descent of Man,\" vol. 1, p. 62-3:--\n\n\"There is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from\nmen who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed\nand still exist, who have no idea of one or more Gods, and who have no\nwords in their languages to express such an idea.\"\n\nAgain, in vol. 2, p. 377, Darwin says:--\n\n\"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest,\nbut the most complete, of all the distinctions between man and the lower\nanimals. It is, however, impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that\nthis belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand, a\nbelief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and\napparently follows from a considerable advance in the reasoning\npowers of man, and from a still greater advance in his faculties\nof imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed\ninstinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument\nfor His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus\nbe compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant\nspirits, possessing only a little more power than man; for the belief\nin them is far more general than of a beneficent Deity. The idea of a\nuniversal and beneficent Creator of the universe does not seem to\narise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued\nculture.\"\n\nI would refer the reader who wishes to pursue the subject further, to\nLivingston's writings, to Sir J. Lubbock's \"Prehistoric Times,\" and his\n\"Origin of Civilization,\" and also to the _Anthropological Review_ for\nAugust, 1864.\n\nMr. Wendling's next argument to prove the existence of a personal God\nis the once celebrated but now obsolete \"design\" argument of Catwell and\nPaley; but he seems either not to know or he ignores the fact that this\n\"design argument\" has been so thoroughly refuted by the sternest logic\nand most indisputable natural facts that the more advanced theologians\nof the present day have wholly abandoned it. To reproduce these, or to\ngive any elaborate refutation, it is unnecessary here. The whole\nmatter may be disposed of briefly by one or two simple syllogisms which\neverybody can comprehend. The famous \"design argument,\" then, may be\nformulated into simple syllogistic propositions thus:--\n\n     Whatever manifests design must have had a designer:\n\n     The world manifests design;\n\n     Therefore, the world must have had a designer.\n\nThis is the whole Christian reasoning on the subject in a nutshell, and\nit has been considered by them perfectly conclusive and unanswerable.\nThe logic is certainly unexceptionable, that is, the conclusion is quite\nlegitimate from the premises; but it so happens that the premises are\nunsound, and in such a case the most unexceptionable logic goes for\nnaught. If premises be erroneous, though the reasoning be ever so good,\nthe conclusion must be erroneous. The major premiss of the foregoing\nsyllogism, that \"whatever manifests design must have had a designer,\"\nis a pure assumption, if by design is meant adaptation in Nature. So,\nlikewise, is the minor premiss an assumption if by design is meant\nanything more than the adaptation pervading the universe, or at least\nthat part cognizable to us. That the _fitness and adaptation_ observable\nin Nature do not establish intelligent design, is amply shown by the\nhighest authorities--by the most eminent naturalists (Haeckel, Darwin,\n&c.) of the present day, to whom the reader is referred, and I need\nnot here amplify in that direction. Nor is it at all necessary for my\npresent purpose and work. It is only necessary to apply the _teductio ad\nabsurdum_ to the above argument from design to show its utter fallacy.\nWe will admit the premises and carry the reasoning of our Christian\nfriends out a little further. By granting the truth of their major\nproposition and reasoning, logically from it we can prove more than is\nwholesome for the theologian, as thus:--\n\n   Whatever manifests design must have had a designer:\n\n   God, in his alleged personality and attributes, manifests design;\n\n   Therefore, God must have had a designer.\n\nIt will thus be seen that Mr. Wendling's design argument from Catwell\nand Paley proves entirely too much for his own good, and hence it is\nthat the astute theologians of the day have abandoned Paley and his\ndesign argument to their fate, where they have been duly relegated by\nthe incisive logic of the modern materialist.\n\nFinally, Mr. Wendling comes to the moral argument, and in _conscience_\nfinds proof of the existence of a personal God. He complacently avers\nthat \"God made man with this omnipresent 'I ought' implanted in his\nnature.\" Now, in the first place, it is a great mistake that this\n\"I ought\" or conscience is _universally_ implanted in man--is\n\"omnipresent,\" as Mr. Wendling puts it. That there are tribes without\nthe moral sense of conscience, is sustained by the same unimpeachable\nauthorities referred to in proof of the absence in them of any theistic\nconception or belief; and even in civilized (?) society we unfortunately\nfind an occasional specimen of the _genus homo_ with no noticeable trace\nof that \"variable quality\" we call conscience.\n\nThat conscience is _innate_ in man, and a God-given faculty, instead of\nacquired by development, is another convenient assumption without any\nsubstantial foundation. If conscience is a Divine gift to humanity, how\nis it that consciences differ so widely, not only in _degree_, but in\n_kind_? If conscience is a Divine \"monitor\" and \"guide\" from heaven, why\nis it that it so often becomes a very blind guide, and leads people into\nmany by-paths? How is it that under the sanction of conscience the most\nhorrid crimes and cruelties against humanity have been committed in\nthe name of God, its alleged author? How is it, if conscience is an\n\"unerring guide\" to conduct, implanted by God, that it has guided\nman, in the name of its author, to let out the life blood of his\nfellow-creatures in rivers, on account of differences of opinion\n_conscientiously_ entertained? Does God give one man one sort of\nconscience and another man another and wholly different sort, leading\nthem in opposite directions, and then prompt the conscience of one to\nput the other (his fellow) to death for conscience sake and for God's\nsake? If so, it is very questionable work, surely, for a good (?) God\nto be engaged in! If God implants the conscience in man, why not be\nfair and just and give _all_ men consciences? and give them all the same\narticle? and not give one man a tolerably good article of conscience\n(the Freethinker, for example) and then go and give others (some of\nour Christian friends, for example) so poor an article, so to speak--so\nflexible and elastic--that it allows them to murder, cheat, lie,\nslander, rob widows and orphans, and run away with other people's money\nand other men's wives without compunction--without any troublesome pangs\nfrom this universal \"I ought\" over which Mr. Wendling grows so eloquent!\n\nThe Christian world has been quite long enough teaching an irrational\nand absurd doctrine about conscience. They not only blunder as to its\norigin, but as to its nature and functions. Nearly every Christian\nwriter defines conscience as an \"inward monitor\" to tell us right from\nwrong; a divine faculty enabling us to \"_judge_ between the good and the\nbad;\" a \"_guide_ to conduct,\" &c, &c. In the light of our present mental\nscience this definition of conscience is utterly false. Conscience is\nnot an _intelligent_ faculty at all--it is simply a feeling. By modern\nmetaphysics conscience has been relegated from the domain of the\nintellect to its proper place among the emotions. Hence it _decides_\nnothing, _judges_ nothing as between right and wrong, or anything else,\nfor that is a function of intellect. Conscience, instead of being a\n\"guide\" or \"judge,\" is but a blind impulse needing itself to be guided.\nIt is simply a feeling for the right--a thirsting for the good--but the\n_intellect_ must decide what _is_ right; and the nature and character\nof its decisions will depend upon various circumstances, such as\norganization, education, &c.; and the decisions of different individuals\nas to right and wrong will differ as those circumstances differ. We hear\na great deal about \"enlightening the conscience;\" but it cannot be done.\nYou might as well talk of enlightening a sunflower, which instinctively\nturns its head to the light; or a vine, which instinctively creeps up\nthe portico. The intellect, however, may be enlightened. Reason,\nwhich is the only and ultimate arbiter and guide to conduct, may be\nenlightened; and we may thus modify, guide and direct the blind impulses\nof conscience. The truth is, conscience in man, such as it is, is a\ndevelopment--is acquired rather than innate; has been developed by\nNature instead of \"implanted\" by God. The moral sense, without doubt,\ngradually developed in man as he rose in the scale of intelligence.\nWhere there is little or no intelligence, the moral sense would be\ninapplicable and incongruous, and is not needed, hence does not exist.\nWhen it is required, Nature, in perfect keeping with all her other\nadaptations, develops it. Darwin, in the \"Descent of Man,\" vol. i, pp.\n68-9, says:--\n\n\"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree\nprobable--namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked\nsocial instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience,\nas soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or\nnearly as well developed, as in man.\"\n\nOn this point John Stuart Mill also has the following in his\n\"Utilitarianism,\" p. 45:--\n\n\"If, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but\nacquired, they are not for that reason less natural.\"\n\nThe reader is also referred to \"Psychological Inquiries,\" by Sir B.\nBrodie, for further evidence on this subject.\n\nThe moral sense, therefore, which exists in a portion of\nmankind--distinct traces of which are also found in some of the lower\nanimals--has been gradually acquired during the evolution of man from\na lower to a higher condition. It has come down to us from primitive\nbarbarism through long ages of hereditary transmission. The \"spiritual\nyearnings\" of man's nature, thought by Christians to prove a God as\ntheir author, have, in like manner, been gradually acquired. These\nsubjective emotions and desires--whether you call them _carnal_ or\n_spiritual_--are, unquestionably, in the light of modern science, all\nmatters of gradual development, hereditary inheritance, and education.\nThe great doctrine of EVOLUTION in nature explains them all.\n\nHaving thus dealt with the arguments of Mr. Wendling in evidence of a\npersonal God--a primary assumption upon which he predicates many other\nassumptions--there is little else in his \"Reply to Robert Ingersoll\"\ndemanding attention. One or two, however, of his extraordinary\nassertions, it may not be amiss to look into a little; especially as Mr.\nWendling, having waxed valiant over the supposed conclusiveness of his\narguments, triumphantly throws down the glove to \"infidelity\" in this\nwise:--\n\n\"To my mind the great central thought of Christianity is that every\nliving soul, of every race, of every clime, of every creed, of every\ncondition, of every color--every living soul is worthy the Kingdom * *\n* And here I challenge infidelity. I lay the challenge broadly down. I\nchallenge infidelity to name an era or a school in which this doctrine\nwas taught prior to the advent of the Ideal Man.\"\n\nHere, again, Mr. Wendling's orthodoxy is badly out of joint, and his\nfacts at loose ends. This \"central thought\" that \"every living soul\nis worthy the Kingdom\" has no place in Christianity. It is by no means\nbiblical doctrine, however well so humane an idea may fit into Mr.\nW.'s own mind. Hence, to designate the _brotherhood of man_ the \"great\ncentral thought of Christianity\"--a system which is to consign a\nmajority of mankind to an endless hell of fire and brimstone--is purely\ngratuitous. To claim benevolent fatherhood or brotherhood for a religion\nwhich declares that the road to hell is \"broad,\" and many shall go\nin thereat, while the way to Heaven is \"narrow,\" and few shall go in\nthereat, is to play fast and loose with the Bible. To say that \"every\nsoul is worthy the Kingdom,\" and call this the \"great central thought of\nChristianity,\" in the face of what the \"Word of God\" cheerfully tells\nus on this subject, is, indeed, a \"marvellous flexibility of language,\"\nwhich I do not at all propose to tolerate in discussion with \"a lawyer,\"\n\"a politician,\" \"a man of the world,\" or any other man. Hear ye! O!\nnon-elect, what comforting things the Scripture saith to you on your\n\"future prospects!\"\n\n\"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.\" \"For the children\nbeing not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the\npurpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of\nhim that calleth.\" \"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,\nand whom he will he hardeneth.\" (Romans, 8th and 9th Chapters.) \"The\nwicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be\nborn, speaking lies.\" (Psalm 58.) \"Ye believe not because ye are not of\nmy sheep.\" (John 10.) \"Ye be reprobates.\" (II. Corinth. 13.) \"Jacob have\nI loved, but Esau have I hated.\" (Romans 9.) He hardened their hearts,\n\"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,\nand not understand.\" (Mark 4.) \"Hath not the potter power over the\nclay.\" &c. (Romans 9.) \"He that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\nThis is benevolent (?) fatherhood, and the spirit of the _brotherhood of\nhumanity_, with a vengance! We are distinctly told that God, \"from\nthe beginning,\" has deliberately fixed upon the ultimate misery and\ndestruction of a portion of His hapless creatures; that He moulds them\nas clay in the hands of the potter; hardens their hearts and blinds\ntheir eyes, and then tells them He will damn them for not doing what\nHe has prevented them from doing, and what He knows, beforehand, they\ncannot and will not do! This is what Mr. Wendling calls the \"great\ncentral thought of Christianity--that 'every soul is worthy the\nKingdom,'\"--and he calls loudly upon \"infidelity\" to name an era or a\nschool in which this doctrine was taught before the \"Ideal Man\" taught\nit. He is right! We cannot do it! We may search the philosophies and\nsacred writings of the Pagans in vain for so fiendish a doctrine.\nFor pure, unadulterated malevolence, the Vedas, the Shaster, the\nZend-Avesta, afford no parallel for this truly Christian doctrine.\n\nIf, however, Mr. Wendling challenges us to name an era or school in\nwhich the _brotherhood of man_ (as we understand it) was taught before\nthe time of the \"Ideal Man,\" we unhesitatingly accept his challenge.\nIt was taught by Buddha, Confucius, and numerous Pagan writers and\nphilosophers long before the time of Jesus, for proof of which I refer\nthe reader to Prof. Max Muller, Sir Wm. Jones, Lord, Amberly, &c, or to\nthe writings themselves. Mr. Wendling desires us to \"Tell me (him) why\nit is that all the creeds of Christendom and all the civilized nations\nunite in accepting the Ideal Man of Christianity despite the laws of\nclimate and of race?\"\n\nI will answer this question in the Irishman's fashion, by asking one or\ntwo others. Tell me why it is, if Christianity is a divine system,\nand its author omnipotent, that, after eighteen centuries of active\npropagandism and aggression, compassing sea and land to make proselytes,\nit has to-day, according to recent statistics, but the meagre following\nof 399,200,000; while Buddhism has 405,600,000, and Brahmanism,\nMohammedanism, etc., 500,000,000? Not nearly one-third of the world's\npopulation Christians, and the number rapidly diminishing! Tell me why\nit is, if Christianity is true that its foundations are melting down\nlike wax in the light of Modern Science?' Tell me why it is, if the\nBible is an inspired book, a divine revelation, that scarcely a single\nreally eminent scientist or scholar of the present day accepts it as\nsuch? Tell me why it is that Atheism, Agnosticism, and Rationalism are\nmaking such rapid headway among the educated and intelligent, in every\ncivilized country, both in the church and out of it? That the dogmas\nupon which Christianity rests are doomed; and as Froude, the historian,\nsays, \"Doctrines once fixed as a rock are now fluid as water?\"* If the\nBible can bear the light of science and historical research, how is it\nthat these have already irrevocably sapped its very foundations; and\nthat, as a consequence, the world is completely \"honey-combed with\ninfidelity,\" as a Toronto paper recently asserted of that city? The\nonly answer Mr. Wendling can give to these questions is this: Because\nChristianity is unable to show its titles; because the Bible, being\nhuman in its origin, and, as a consequence, abounding in errors, both in\nscience and morals, cannot bear the penetrating light of modern science\nand criticism.\n\n     * \"Science and Theology, Ancient and Modern.\"--The\n     International Religio-Science Series.--Rose-Belford\n     Publishing Company, Toronto.\n\n\n\n\nREPLY TO LYNCH\n\nA CRUSHING (?) EDICT FROM ST. MICHAEL'S PALACE.\n\n(_Brutem Fulmen_,)\n\nBY\n\n\"Yours in Christ, (Signed), John Joseph Lynch.\"\n\n\nSince Ingersoll's visit to Canada, Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto,-has\nalso felt called upon to issue a bull against the Freethinkers; and, I\npropose to take this \"bull\" by the horns and _lynch_ him (I may say _sub\nrosa_ that the Bulls of Rome were long ago emasculated, yet, strangely\nenough, they still keep _multiplying_!) Under the circumstances, I\nthink such a work (lynching the bull) will not be one wholly of\n_supererogation_,--though it may be more than a _venial_ offence--indeed\npossibly a _mortal_ sin for which I can get no _absolution_--to presume\nto criticise an Archbishop, and break a lance with his holy bull! I\nhave, however, desperately resolved to take my chances of purgatory or\nlimbo and go in for the bull.\n\nSome of the Archbishop's flock, it would seem, had ventured to exercise\nthe natural rights of man to the very modest extent of going to hear\nMr. Ingersoll lecture, and also attending some of the meetings of the\nToronto _Liberal Association_. Hence the fulmination of the aforesaid\n\"bull,\" wherein his Grace, with that meekness, charity and toleration\nborn of piety and infallibility, orders his people to \"avoid all\ncontact with these Freethinkers, their lectures and their writings,\"\nand threatens all Catholics who \"go to the meetings and lectures of the\nFreethinkers or Atheists\" with refusal of \"absolution,\" which priestly\nfunction, he patronizingly tells them, he \"reserves\" to himself.\n\nNow, may we not indulge the hope, in this age of reason, and land of at\nleast professed liberty, and esoteric freedom of conscience, that\nevery man, be he Catholic or Protestant, will look upon this attempted\nexercise of medieval bigotry and intolerance with practical disregard,\nand deserved contempt. As for the Freethinkers, they can afford to smile\nat the impotent Archbishop, who seems to imagine himself in the ninth\ninstead of the nineteenth century, and in Rome or Spain instead of the\nDominion of Canada. They can but look at him and his foolish \"bull\" as\nmost ridiculous anachronisms. On reading this precious document it is\nplain that all this deputy \"Vicegerent of God\" requires to make him a\nfirst-class modern Torquemada is the power--the outward authority to\ncarry out his subjective hatred of \"brutalized\" Freethinkers. But this,\nthanks to science, and consequent civilization, he has not got.\nThe Rationalist can, therefore, at this day, afford to deride the\nmalevolent, though fortunately impotent, ravings of this zealous bishop\nof an emasculated Church. He and his Church (the whole Christian Church)\nare, fortunately for humanity, shorn of their wonted strength, which,\nin the past, they have used with such fiendish ferocity and brutality\non human kind. The day has gone by when the Church may light an\n_auto-da-fe_ around the body of a Bruno. The time has passed when she\nmay thrust a Galileo into prison and force him to recant the sublime\ntruths of Astronomy. She can no longer cast a Roger Bacon into a noisome\ndungeon because of his scientific investigations. True, she can still,\nif she choose, excommunicate a Copernicus for what she denounced as his\n\"false Pythagorean doctrine,\" but that is all. Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall,\nProctor and the rest are safe. This relentless enemy of Science and\nliberty, and consequently of mankind, can no longer clutch every young\nscience by the throat and strangle struggling truth, which, crushed to\nearth has risen again in its might; and history will scarcely repeat\nitself in the case of Bruno the Atheist, or Galileo the Astronomer,\nor Roger Bacon the Philosopher, or a thousand other victims of this\nruthless \"Bourbon of the world of thought\"--the Church. She may still\ncontinue to fulminate her absurd and innocuous _anathemas_, but this is\nabout all. The Holy Inquisition, with its two hundred and fifty thousand\nhuman victims; the Crusades with its five millions; the massacre of St.\nBartholomew with its fifty thousand; to say nothing of the religious\nhorrors of the Netherlands, of England, Scotland, and Ireland since the\nreformation--all these holy horrors, let us hope, are \"hideous blots on\nthe history of the past never to be repeated.\" Or will it be said of the\nfuture history of Christianity, as has been frankly admitted of its past\nby one of its ardent disciples, Baxter, that \"Blood, blood, blood stains\nevery page?\"\n\nThe tables are now turning. The Church, to-day, instead of burning\nunbelievers, and strangling science by immuring in dungeons its\nvotaries, is herself being strangled by science (with no loss of human\nblood, however). Her cruel theology and irrational dogmas are prostrate,\nwrithing in their death throes, at the feet of the Hercules of modern\nscience and criticism.\n\nA little digression will not be out of order here. Our comic\ncaricaturist at Toronto (of which, on the whole, Canada may feel proud),\nrecently had a cartoon representing the theological Gamaliel of St.\nMichael's Palace, Toronto, strangling the _serpent_ \"Freethought.\"\nNow, though usually on the side of truth and impartiality, _Grip_ has\nundoubtedly, in this case, taken an oblique squint at truth and justice,\nand has for once, at least, got the cart before the horse. Facts and\ntruth demand that the positions of the gladiators in his cartoon must be\nreversed, and the zoological nomenclature corrected. And if _Grip_ had\nread Huxley and Tyndall, and correctly observed the signs of the times,\nhe would scarcely have fallen into this unpardonable error. Let us quote\nProf. Huxley on this subject of strangling serpents:--\n\n\"It is true that, if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been\namply revenged. _Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every\nscience as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules_; and history\nrecords that, whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed,\nthe latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and\ncrushed, if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain. But orthodoxy\nis the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it\nforget; and, though at present bewildered and afraid to move, it is as\nwilling as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the\nbeginning and the end of sound science; and to visit, with such petty\nthunderbolts as its half-paralyzed hands can hurl those who refuse to\ndegrade Nature to the level of primitive Judaism.\"--_Lay Sermons_, p.\n277-8.\n\nFrom this, _Grip_ will see that instead of the fair form of reason\nand Freethought (which he represents as a snake) being strangled by\na prelate of the church, it is the serpent, orthodoxy, which is being\nstrangled by the Hercules of science. It is to be regretted that _Grip_,\nnotwithstanding his professions of independence and impartiality, is\nhimself obnoxious to the very moral cowardice he has so often fearlessly\nand justly exposed in others. Else why does he represent Freethought as\na snake? Is it because Freethought is yet comparatively weak in numbers,\nand unpopular, and because this sort of thing will please the Church,\nwhich _is_ popular and powerful? What characteristic of the snake\nattaches to Freethought or Freethinkers? None; and we fearlessly\nchallenge _Grip_ and the Church on this point. Freethought has none of\nthe reptilian qualities of hypocrisy, cunning or deceit, but is frank\nand fearless. Amid all the obloquy, denunciation, persecution, social\nostracism, calumny, and \"holy bulls\" hurled at them, Freethinkers have\nthe courage of their opinions; and bear all these, as well as business\ndetriment, for the sake of what they sacredly regard as _truth_.\n\nWhat does Prof. Tyndall say of Freethinkers and Atheists? To Archbishop\nLynch, who, in his pronunciamiento, says, \"A person who, disbelieves in\nthe Ten Commandments, in hell or in Heaven, can hardly be trusted in\nthe concerns of life;\" and to _Grip_ who cowardly crystalizes this base\nassertion into a baser cartoon, I quote with pride the language of\nthis noble man, and eminent scholar and scientist. In the _Fortnightly\nReview_ for November, 1877, Prof. Tyndall says:\n\n\"It may comfort some to know that there are amongst us many whom the\ngladiators of the pulpit would call Atheists and Materialists, whose\nlives, nevertheless, as tested by any accessible standard of morality,\nwould contrast more than favorably with the lives of those who seek to\nstamp them with this offensive brand. When I say 'offensive' I refer\nsimply to the intention of those who use such terms, and not because\nAtheism or Materialism, when compared with many of the notions\nventilated in the columns of religious newspapers, has any particular\noffensiveness to me. If I wished to find men who are scrupulous in their\nadherence to engagements, whose words are their bond, and to whom moral\nshiftiness of any kind is subjectively unknown; if I wanted a loving\nfather, a faithful husband, an honorable neighbor, and a just citizen, I\nwould seek him among the band of Atheists to which I refer. I have\nknown some of the most pronounced amongst them, not only in life, but in\ndeath--seen them approaching with open eyes the inexorable goal, with no\ndread of a 'hangman's whip,' with no hope of a heavenly crown, and still\nas mindful of their duties, and as faithful in the discharge of them, as\nif their eternal future depended on their latest deeds.\"\n\nLet the Archbishop, and _Grip_, and every reader ponder these\nbrave words of so high an authority in defence of the reprobated\nclass-stigmatised as \"infidels,\" to which they refer; and then, for\ncorroboration, compare the testimony given with the living facts around\nthem..\n\nThe Archbishop says, these \"foolish men\" (the Freethinkers) are\n\"striving to replunge the world into the depths of Barbarism and\nPaganism,\" etc., etc. To those who know that the present attitude of\nall the great scientists and eminent _savans_ towards the dogmas of the\nChristian Church, is one of undoubted unbelief and hostility; and\nwho are conversant with the history of the Archbishop's own church in\nparticular, during the past fifteen centuries,--to them the Archbishop's\nvituperation is as foolish as it is ridiculous. From the days of\nConstantine to this year, 1880, the Church, of which this learned (?)\nprelate is a representative, has strenuously opposed learning, and\nretarded civilization; has tolerated no freedom of conscience or liberty\nof thought, thus narrowing instead of extending the liberty enjoyed\nin Pagan and Imperial Rome, over whose ruins she reared her tyrannical\nhead. Talk of \"Paganism!\" His Church needs, as Emerson puts it, \"some\ngood Paganism.\" She left behind her the liberty even of Pagan Rome, her\nmaligned precursor. Renan tells us, \"We may search in vain, the Roman\nlaw before Constantine, for a single passage against freedom of thought,\nand the history of the imperial government furnishes no instance of a\nprosecution for entertaining an abstract doctrine.\" And, Mosheim,\nthe ecclesiastical historian, tells us that the Romans exercised this\ntoleration in the amplest manner.\n\n\"The prosecutions of the Christians by the Pagans, it is now universally\nconceded by Christian historians, have been greatly exaggerated;\nChristians have killed, in one day, for their faith nearly half as many\nheretics as all the Christians put to death by the Pagans during the\nwhole period of the Pagan Empire.\" (The Influence of Christianity on\nCivilization, pp. 24-5, Underwood.)\n\nThe Archbishop's Church is, therefore, no improvement in respect of\nliberty or toleration, on the Paganism he reviles.\n\nWhat progress the world has made in liberty and civilization, has been\nmade, not with the assistance of the Christian Church, but in spite of\nits determined opposition and deadly hostility. Dr. Draper, author of\nthe \"History of the Conflict between Religion and Science,\" and other\nworks, tells us that:\n\n\"Latin Christianity is responsible for the condition and progress of\nEurope from the fourth to the sixteenth century,\" and subsequently\navers, \"Whoever will, in in a spirit of impartiality, examine what had\nbeen done by Catholicism for the intellectual and material advancement\nof Europe, during her long reign, and what has been done by science\nin its brief period of action, can, I am persuaded, come to no other\nconclusion than this, that, in instituting a comparison, he has\nestablished a contrast.\" (\"Conflict,\" p. 321.) Lecky, in his \"History\nof Morals,\" vol. 2, p. 18, tells us:--\"For more than three centuries the\ndecadence of theological influence has been one of the most invariable\nsigns and measures of our progress. In medicine, physical science,\ncommercial interests, politics, and even ethics, the reformer has been\nconfronted with theological affirmations that have barred his way, which\nwere all defended as of vital importance, and were all compelled to\nyield before the secularizing influence of civilization.\" (Protestant as\nwell as Catholic Christianity is, however, obnoxious to this stricture\nof Lecky.)\n\nThe Freethinkers \"striving to replunge the world into the depths of\nbarbarism!\" What can the Archbishop's idea of barbarism be? Doubtless in\nhis priestly mind everything is \"barbarism\" which does not square\nwith the Encyclical, or with the dogmas of his infallible Church.\nIf, however, barbarism is in reality just the opposite of our most\nenlightened and highest civilization in Art, Science, Literature and\nEthics, it will, I have the presumption to think, be found that those\n\"foolish men\"--those \"brutalized\" Freethinkers--are leading the van\nof progress forward to a higher civilization, instead of dragging it\nbackward to barbarism. The truth of this is patent everywhere, in every\ncivilized country, and many of our Christian opponents admit it, though\nArchbishop Lynch may not. A clergyman of Toronto--Rev. W. S. Rainsford,\nof St. James' Cathedral--(from whom the Archbishop of St. Mary's\nCathedral might probably, to his advantage, take a lesson in\ntoleration), in a sermon preached in that city, Nov. 17th, 1878,\nin speaking of Freethinkers, made use of the following language, as\nreported in the _Globe_ of the 18th:\n\n\"This sort of infidelity, that of Materialism, has its students in\nthe laboratory and in the library. It includes men of moral lives, of\nearnest purposes, * * * men who uphold morality, chastity, self-denial,\nperseverance with as clear a voice as Christians do, but on different\ngrounds.\"\n\nYears ago the N. Y. _Independent_, a religious paper, made the following\ningenuous admission:\n\n\"To the shame of the Church it must be confessed that the foremost in\nall our philanthropic movements, in the interpretation of the spirit of\nthe age, in the practical application of genuine Christianity, in the\nreformation of abuses in high and low places, in the vindication of\nthe rights of man, and in practically redressing his wrongs, in the\nintellectual and moral regeneration of the race, are the so-called\ninfidels in our land. The Church has pusillanimously left, not only the\nworking oar, but the very reins of salutary reform in the hands of\nmen she denounces as inimical to Christianity, and who are practically\ndoing, with all their might, for humanity's sake, what the Church ought\nto be doing for Christ's sake; and if they succeed, as succeed they\nwill, in abolishing slavery, banishing rum, restraining licentiousness,\nreforming abuses and elevating the masses, then must the recoil on\nChristianity be disastrous. Woe, woe, woe, to Christianity when Infidels\nby the force of nature, or the tendency of the age, get ahead of the\nChurch in morals, and in the practical work of Christianity. In some\ninstances they are already far in advance. In the vindication of Truth,\nRighteousness, and Liberty, _they are the pioneers_, beckoning to a\nsluggish Church to follow in the rear.\"\n\nThe _Evangelist_ also, made the following admission of the same facts:\n\"Among all the earnest minded young men, who are at this moment leading\nin thought and action in America, we venture to say that four-fifths are\nskeptical of the great historical facts of Christianity. What is held as\nChristian doctrine by the churches claims none of their consideration,\nand there is among them a general distrust of the clergy, as a class,\nand an utter disgust with the very aspect of modern Christianity and of\nchurch worship. This scepticism is not flippant; little is said about\nit. It is not a peculiarity alone of radicals and fanatics; most of\nthem are men of calm and even balance of mind, and belong to no class of\nultraists. It is not worldly and selfish. Nay, the doubters lead in the\nbravest and most self-denying enterprises of the day.\"\n\nFrom a Church which has always opposed the education of the people, when\nshe had the power, and exterminated or expatriated the best intellects\nunder her jurisdiction, this talk of Freethinkers \"re-plunging the world\ninto the depths of barbarism\" comes with a very bad grace from his\nGrace of Toronto. By this Church the Moriscoes were driven out of\nSpain--100,000 of them--and this because they were the friends of\nprogress, of art and science. Buckle, the historian, tells us:--\"When\nthey were thrust out of Spain there was no one to fill their places;\narts and manufactures either degenerated or were entirely lost, ard\nimmense regions of arable land were left uncultivated; whole districts\nwere suddenly deserted, and down to the present day have never been\nrepeopled.\" The Jews also were expelled, as they, too, were in favor\nof knowledge and improvement, and this was sufficient cause for their\nexpatriation.\n\nThis relentless enemy--the Church--of all science, all progress in\nknowledge among the people, ruthlessly exterminated the best minds\nwithin its grasp for centuries. Darwin, in his \"Descent of Man,\" vol. 1,\np. 171-2, says:--\n\n\"During the same period the Holy Inquisition selected with extreme care\nthe freest and boldest men in order to burn and imprison them. In\nSpain alone some of the best men, those who doubted and questioned--and\nwithout doubting and questioning there can be no progress--were\neliminated during three centuries at the rate of a thousand a year.\"\n\nTalk to us of barbarism and paganism! A church which, from the time,\nnearly fifteen centuries ago, when she burnt the Alexandrian\nLibraries and Museum--the intellectual legacies of centuries--to the\npresent time, has never yet called off her sleuth-hounds with which she\nhas always hunted down the sacred principles of liberty of thought\nand freedom of conscience! A Church which from \"the beginning of that\nunhappy contest,\" as Mosheim tells us, \"between faith and reason,\nreligion and philosophy, piety and genius, which increased in succeeding\nages, and is prolonged even to our times with a violence which renders\nit extremely difficult to be brought to a conclusion,\" to this day,\nwould hold the world in barbarous ignorance if its paralyzed hand could\nbut avail against the resistless march of knowledge and truth! Draper,\nin speaking of the condition of the people under Catholicity in the 14th\ncentury, thus pictures the civilizing (?) and elevating influences of\nthat Holy Religion:--\n\n\"There was no far reaching, no persistent plan to ameliorate the\nphysical condition of the nations. Nothing was done to favor their\nintellectual development, indeed, on the contrary, it was the settled\npolicy to keep them not merely illiterate, but ignorant. Century after\ncentury passed away, and left the peasantry but little better than the\ncattle in the fields. * * * Pestilences were permitted to stalk forth\nunchecked, or at best opposed only by mummeries. Bad food, wretched\nclothing, inadequate shelter, were suffered to produce their result,\nand at the end of a thousand years the population of Europe had not\ndoubled.\"\n\nFor centuries, and centuries, in the Western Empire, subsequent to the\ninvasion of the barbarians, when the Church this Toronto prelate owes\nallegiance to, had absolute control, such was the dense ignorance that\nscarcely a layman could be found who could sign his own name. There was\nvery little learning, and what little there was the clergy carefully and\njealously confined to themselves; and as Hallam, the historian, tells\nus:--\n\n\"A cloud of ignorance overspread the whole face of the church, hardly\nbroken by a few glimmering lights, who owe almost the whole of their\ndistinction to the surrounding darkness.\" The same historian (Middle\nAges, p. 460,) tells us:--\"France reached her lowest point at the\nbeginning of the eighth century, but England was, at that time, more\nrespectable, and did not fall into complete degradation until the middle\nof the ninth. There could be nothing more deplorable than the state\nof Italy during the succeeding century. In almost every council the\nignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by\none held in 992 that scarcely a single person was to be found in Rome\nitself, who knew the first elements of letters. Not one priest of a\nthousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common\nletter of salutation to one another.\"\n\nLecky, in his \"History of Morals,\" vol. 2, p. 222, tells us that:\n\n\"Mediaeval Catholicity discouraged and suppressed, in every way, secular\nstudies,\" and further, that, \"Not till the education of Europe passed\nfrom the monasteries to the universities; not until Mahomedan science\nand classical freethought and industrial independence broke the sceptre\nof the Church, did the intellectual revival of Europe commence.\"\n\nAnd, I would ask Archbishop Lynch, what was the condition of\nthe Byzantine Empire during the thousand years or upwards of its\nexistence?--An empire under the sway of his Church, from its foundation\nby the first Christian emperor, Constantine--that exemplary Christian\nmurderer who, because the Pagan priests refused him absolution for his\nenormities, hastened to the bosom of the Christian Church, whose priests\nhe found more pliable, having little compunction or hesitancy about\ngranting absolution to the new proselyte. What is the record of history\ntouching this Empire under the aegis of Catholic Christianity? The\nhistorian Lecky thus graphically sets forth its condition:--\n\n\"The universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a\nsingle exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that\ncivilization has yet assumed. Though very cruel and very sensual, there\nhave been times when cruelty assumed more ruthless, and sensuality more\nextravagant aspects, but there has been no other enduring civilization\nso absolutely destitute of all the forms, the elements, of greatness,\nand none to which the epithet _mean_ may be so emphatically applied. The\nByzantine Empire was pre-eminently the age of treachery. Its vices were\nthe vices of men who ceased to be brave without learning to be virtuous.\n* * * The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues\nof priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of\nuniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides.\" In speaking of the\ncondition of the Western Empire the same author proceeds:--\"A boundless\nintolerance of all divergence of opinion was united with an equally\nboundless toleration of all falsehood and deliberate fraud, that could\nfavor received opinions. Credulity being taught as a virtue, and all\nconclusions dictated by authority, a deadly torpor sank upon the human\nmind, which for many centuries almost suspended its action, and was only\nbroken by the scrutinizing, innovating and free-thinking habits that\naccompanied the rise of the industrial republics in Italy. Few men who\nare not either priests or monks would not have preferred to live in\nthe best days of the Athenian or of the Roman republics, in the age of\nAugustus, or in the age of the Antonines rather than in any period\nthat elapsed between the _triumph of Christianity and the fourteenth\ncentury_.\"\n\nThe same historian, whose accuracy Archbishop Lynch will scarcely\nattempt to impeach, thus judicially and impartially sums up the\ninfluences of Catholic Christianity both in the Eastern and Western\nEmpires during many centuries when it had the fullest sway:--\n\n\"When we remember that in the Byzantine Empire the renovating power of\ntheology was tried in a new capital, free from Pagan traditions, and for\nmore than one thousand years unsubdued by barbarians, and that in the\nwest, the Church, for at least seven hundred years after the shocks of\nthe invasion had subsided, exercised a control more absolute than any\nother moral or intellectual agency has ever attained, it will appear,\nI think, that the experiment was very sufficiently tried. It is easy to\nmake a catalogue of the glaring vices of antiquity, and to contrast them\nwith the pure morality of Christian writings; but, if we desire to\nform a just estimate of the realized improvement, we must compare the\nclassical and ecclesiastical civilizations as wholes, and must observe\nin each case not only the vices that were repressed but also the degree\nand variety of positive excellence attained.\"\n\nBefore the art of printing was discovered, the Church had less\ndifficulty in keeping the people in ignorance, but after the invention\nof that boon to mankind she found herself ominously confronted with the\ntree of life from which the people would soon learn to pluck the fruit\nof knowledge. Hence the establishment, by Pope Paul IV., about the\nmiddle of the sixteenth century, of the _Index Expurgatorius_, whose\nfunctions, we are told, was \"to examine books and manuscripts intended\nfor publication, and to decide whether the people may be permitted to\nread them.\" This is what his Grace of St. Michael's Palace, in Toronto,\nproposes to do for the good Catholics of that city--decide what they\nshall read and what they shall not read, as though they were ninnies\nand not able to decide that matter for themselves! The fact is, however,\nthat, in this priestly arrogance and assumption, the Archbishop is\nconsistent enough; for, although such mediaeval tyranny is altogether\ninconsistent with the spirit of this age, and ludicrously out of place\nin 1880, in the City of Toronto, it, nevertheless, perfectly accords\nwith the tenets and spirit as well as the antecedents of his Church;\nwhich, while it accuses Freethinkers of \"barbarism,\" allows not an inch\nof latitude of private judgment in matters of religion, and tolerates\nno freedom of conscience: And what is this but barbarism? All freedom of\nconscience was fiercely denounced by Gregory XVI. as insane folly,\nand the Archbishop of Toronto reiterates this unsavory stigma on\ncivilization. And why shouldn't he? Theology never learns. The Church\nchanges not. How can she when she is infallible? Yet an infallible\nPope of an infallible Church, not long since, found himself, while\nencompassed with many difficulties, spiritual and temporal, to be about\nlike other weak mortals in flesh and blood; and, though infallible,\nremember, and with the power of miracles and all that, he succumbs and\nwhiningly complains to a vulgar world that he is \"a prisoner in his own\npalace in Rome!\" And the heretical and sceptical world--the \"outside\nbarbarians\"--with a contemptuous leer, gape at the queer spectacle of\nthe \"Vicegerent on Earth\" of an all-powerful God being obliged so easily\nto succumb to heresy--to a little temporal power. Such, however, is\nlife--or rather the \"mysterious ways of providence,\" which \"ways\" always\nseem though, as Cromwell observed, to be on the side of the heaviest\nartillery,--not the artillery of heaven, but the base artillery of\nearth. Indeed, this worldly artillery--the artillery of science and\ncivilization--has, in this nineteenth century, been making such havoc\nwith creeds, confessions, and dogmas, that the crowning dogma\nof all--this fundamental pillar of the Vatican, the dogma of\ninfallibility--was, it would seem, fast becoming a _dead dog_; when the\nHoly Catholic Church finds it imperatively incumbent upon her to attempt\na resuscitation. This happened in Rome in \"_anno domini_\" 1870, at that\ngreat Ecumenical Council--that unique anachronism of the nineteenth\ncentury. I know not whether that mediaeval assembly of Holy \"Fathers in\nGod\" was honored by the presence of his Grace of St. Michael's Palace,\nin Toronto, or not; but, be that as it may, his reverence's entire\nloyalty to the notorious Encyclical and Syllabus of that Council is not\nto be questioned or doubted. The miniature Toronto _bull_ of May 9th,\n1880, has the true Vatican ring of the big _bull_ of the Council in\nRome in 1870. It, too, denounced, with its usual, though harmless,\n_anathema_, Atheism, Pantheism, Naturalism, Rationalism and every other\nism that failed to square with Papal dogma. By the fulmination of that\nSyllabus the world learned among many other things, that \"No one may\ninterpret the Sacred Scriptures contrary to the sense in which they are\ninterpreted by Holy Mother Church, to whom such interpretation belongs.\"\nIt was further decreed that \"All the Christian faithful are not only\nforbidden to defend, as legitimate conclusions of science, those\nopinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith,\nespecially when condemned by the Church, but are rather absolutely bound\nto hold them for errors wearing the deceitful appearance of truth.\"\n\nAs examples of the holy canons which were actually fulminated and\npromulgated by that Ecumenical Council in the latter part of this 19th\ncentury, here are a few:--\n\n\"Who shall refuse to receive, for sacred and canonical, the books of\nHoly Scripture in their integrity, with all their parts, according as\nthey were enumerated by the Holy Council of Trent, or shall deny that\nthey are inspired by God, _Let him be anathema_.\"\n\n\"Who shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit\nof freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions,\neven when opposed to revealed doctrine, _Let him be anathema_.\"\n\n\"Who shall say that it may at any time come to pass, in the progress\nof science, that the doctrines set forth by the Church must be taken in\nanother sense than that in which the Church has ever received and yet\nreceives them, _Let him be anathema_.\"\n\nThese are the modest assumptions of the Church of Rome in this age; and\na prelate of that Church breathes the same noxious vapors forth into the\nintellectual atmosphere of the City of Toronto! It remains to be seen\nwhether in Toronto there are such slaves or fools as will submit to this\nworse than Egyptian bondage. Will intelligent Catholics put their necks\nin a yoke so galling? None but slaves or barbarians would do it. The\nArchbishop would thus fain make barbarians of his own people, and then\nhe would have the pagans at home without hunting among Freethinkers for\nthem. In his lecture in Napanee, in April last, Col. Ingersoll gave it\nas his opinion that any man--no matter what Church he belonged to, or\nwhat country he lived in--who claimed rights for himself which he denied\nto others, is a barbarian! Now, according to this definition, who are\nthe barbarians? The Freethinkers, or the Archbishop himself and those he\nignominiously holds in mental bondage?\n\nIn conclusion, we thank Archbishop Lynch for his timely \"bull.\" As a\npropagandist document for the spread of Freethought, and really in the\ninterests of those \"foolish\" and \"brutalized\" Freethinkers against\nwhom it was directed, it must prove a great success. It is another\nillustration of the essentially bigoted and intolerant spirit of\nChristianity in general.*\n\n     * I am well aware that the Protestant sects of Christianity\n     repudiate this charge of the intolerant and persecuting\n     spirit of Christianity in general, and vainly attempt to\n     shift the whole onus and odium upon the Church of Rome. They\n     tell us that Christianity itself is not persecuting--that it\n     is not responsible for having reddened the earth with blood\n     --but that this was all done contrary to the spirit and\n     teachings of Christianity by men who were not really\n     Christians. We deny it. We take the position that\n     Christianity itself is essentially intolerant and\n     persecuting in spirit; and, we take the New Testament itself\n     to prove it. We take Christ's alleged words as reported\n     there, and Paul's alleged words as reported there, and can\n     thereby abundantly sustain our charge. \"He that believeth\n     not shall be damned.\" \"A man that is a heretic after the\n     first and second admonition, reject.\" What is that but the\n     quintessence of bigotry and intolerance? \"I would they were\n     even cut off which trouble you.\" How kind! \"Think not that I\n     come to send peace on earth, etc., etc\" Scores of passages\n     could be quoted from the New Testament of similar import,\n     and the Old Testament is worse yet, for it recommends\n     putting even your wives or brothers to death should they try\n     to persuade you to worship their God.--See Deut. 13, 6, 7\n     and 8.\n\n\n\n\nREPLY TO \"BYSTANDER.\"\n\nI approach this part of my prescribed duty with some hesitation, and not\na little reluctance. _Bystander_ is brilliant, learned, independent,\nand honest; and for these qualities, though differing from him on\nsome important subjects, I entertain a respect and esteem amounting to\naffection. I hope, therefore, that I may not write a word here having\neven the semblance of discourtesy; for of that sort of treatment the\ngentleman in question has had a full share since he honored Canadians by\ncasting his lot amongst us.\n\nFor the benefit of some readers who, possibly, may not have seen it, I\nmay say that _The Bystander_ is a \"Monthly Review of Current Events,\"\npublished in Toronto by Messrs. Hunter, Rose & Co., and written by a\ncertain distinguished literary gentleman, as referred to above, whose\nname I would like to give here only that I feel in courtesy bound to\nrespect the \"impersonality of journalism,\" the protection of which the\ngentleman in question has the right, and with good reason, to claim.\n\nThe last three issues of _The Bystander_ (for April, May and June) have\neach a paper on Col. Ingersoll, his lectures, and cognate subjects; the\ngeneral tone of which is very liberal, but, at the same time, containing\nstrictures upon Mr. Ingersoll and his teachings which I consider unfair\nand unjust (unintentionally no doubt), and to which I here propose\nbriefly to reply.\n\nHaving heard Mr. Ingersoll lecture but once I am not in a position from\npersonal knowledge to speak fully as to the alleged \"blasphemy,\" and\nhis general \"tone\" on the platform; but this much I can say, that\n_Bystander's_ assertion that \"he\" (Ingersoll) \"repels all decent men,\nwhatever their convictions; for no decent man likes blasphemy any more\nthan he likes obscenity,\" is certainly not true of the one lecture I\nheard, or of the score of others of his I have read. I humbly claim\nto be myself a \"decent man,\" and I did not find myself \"repelled\" on\nlistening to Ingersoll's lecture, but rather attracted. I also saw many\ndecent people at the lecture (some from a distance), and they did not\nseem repelled; but, like myself, well-pleased. In Toronto, according\nto the reports in the _Evening Telegram_, there were large audiences of\ndecent, intelligent people: and instead of being repelled, they greeted\nthe lecturer with the most enthusiastic approbation and applause,\nrepeated over and over again. The same reception was accorded him in\nMontreal, Belleville and Napanee.\n\nBystander contrasts Ingersoll's \"offensive tone\" on the platform with\nthe \"gentleness and sympathy of the Christian preacher on Mars' Hill,\"\nwho, he tells us, \"delivered the truths he bore at once with the dignity\nof simple earnestness, and with perfect tenderness towards the beliefs\nwhich he came to supersede.\" Let us, for a moment, examine this claim\nof \"simple earnestness,\" and \"perfect tenderness\" in behalf of Paul the\ngreat preacher of the New Testament. Paul says, (Roman iii. 7) \"For if\nthe truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why\nyet am I also judged as a sinner?\" He also tells us (2nd Cor. 12: 16)\nthat \"being _crafty_, I caught you with guile,\" and likewise assures us\nthat he was \"all things to all men;\" to the Jews he \"became as a Jew,\"\netc. What \"simple earnestness\" this is truly! And the Church of Christ\nhas nearly always acted in accordance with this Scriptural doctrine that\nin _lying_ for God's sake the \"end justifies the means.\" Mosheim,\nthe ecclesiastical historian, tells us that in the early ages of the\nChristian Church, \"It was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by\nthat means the interest of the church might be promoted.\"\n\nAs to Paul's \"perfect tenderness toward the beliefs which he came to\nsupersede,\" let us look a little into that. In writing to the Galatians\nhe says [tenderly] \"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man\npreach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him\nbe _accursed_.\" (Gal. 1:9.) That is tender toleration for you! Again,\n\"A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject\"\n(Titus 4:9.) \"I would they were even cut off which trouble you\" (Gal.\n5: 12.) We, Freethinkers, would stand a poor chance to-day if Paul's\nprecepts were carried out! Again, \"If any man love not the Lord Jesus\nChrist, let him be _Anathema Maranatha_\" (1 Cor. 16: 22.)-What \"perfect\ntenderness\" this is! With a vengeance are these curses and maledictions\ntender! _Bystander_ may search in vain in Ingersoll's lectures, or any\nFreethinkers' writings, for such consummate bigotry, intolerance, and\neven cruelty as this \"Christian preacher\" pours out upon all who venture\nto differ from him in belief. And what \"perfect tenderness\" in Paul\nto denounce and stigmatize even those of his own church--his\nco-religionists--as \"_false apostles, deceitful workers, dogs, and\nliars!_\" Did _Bystander_ or anybody else ever hear such language from\nIngersoll or any other Freethinker? Is it not \"offensive to any sensible\nand right-minded man?\" Does it not \"repel all decent men?\"\n\n_Bystander_ admits that when Ingersoll \"attacks dogmatic orthodoxy he\nis in the right.\" What more does he attack? This is exactly what he does\nattack, and _Bystander_ admits that in so doing he is doing right, thus\nshowing that he himself does not believe in dogmatic orthodoxy. Now, if\nthe Christian's God, as described in the Bible, is included in \"dogmatic\northodoxy\" (and He surely must be) is Ingersoll blasphemous in attacking\nHim? Surely not, according to _Bystander_ himself. _Bystander_ may say,\nhowever, that he does not mean to include the Christian's God in\nthe \"irrational and obsolete orthodoxy,\" against which he admits\n\"Ingersoll's arguments are really telling.\" But does _Bystander_ himself\nbelieve in the God of the Bible? From the tenor of his language he\nsurely cannot. Does he believe in the God of whom the Bible itself gives\nthe following description? (For want of time to refer to, and space to\ninsert chapter and verse, they are not given, but every Bible reader\nwill recognize the passages given as substantially correct):--\n\n\"He burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue\nas a devouring fire.\" \"His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks\nare thrown down by him.\" \"The Lord awaketh as one out of sleep, and like\na mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.\" \"Smoke came out of his\nnostrils, and fire out of his mouth, so that coals were kindled by it.\"\n\"He had horns coming out of his hand.\" \"Out of his mouth went a sharp\ntwo-edged sword.\" \"The Lord shall roar from on high. He roareth from\nhis habitation. He shall shout as they that tread the grapes.\" \"He is\na jealous God.\" \"He stirred up jealousy.\" \"He was jealous to fury.\"\n\"He rides upon horses.\" \"The Lord is a man of war.\" \"His anger will\nbe accomplished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be\n_comforted!_\" \"His arrows shall be drunken with blood.\" \"He is angry\nwith the wicked every day.\" \"A fire is kindled in mine anger and shall\nburn unto the lowest hell. I will heap mischief upon them; I will spend\nmy arrows upon them I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, and\nthe poison of the serpents... both the young man and the virgin, the\nsuckling also, and the man of gray hairs.\" [What did the \"suckling\" do\nto merit this?] \"He reserveth wrath for his enemies.\" \"He became angry\nand swore.\" \"He cried and roared.\"\n\nDoes _Bystander_ believe in a God like that? whom it is \"blasphemy,\" it\nseems, for Ingersol to attack! It is true there are good qualities and\nattributes ascribed to God by the Bible as well as bad; but that\ndoes not affect the fact that these are ascribed to him; while the\nco-existence of two diametrically opposite sets of attributes in the\nsame Being is simply absurd. Why is it blasphemy to attack such a\nconception of God, any more than to attack any of the other Pagan gods\nof antiquity? As he is represented in the Bible, He is certainly no\nbetter than they; and _Bystander_ himself would have little hesitancy\nin making an onslaught on the Pagan gods. When primitive Judaism and\nChristianity set up a God for _our_ worship and adoration, and at\nthe same time tells us, \"by the book,\" that He commanded the cruel,\nfiendish, and indiscriminate murder of men, women, and innocent children,\nwe beg to decline to worship, or adore, or believe in any such Being;\nand we do not think it \"blasphemy\" to attack the false belief and the\nfalse God. When we read in the \"word of God\" that the Lord commanded\none of his prophets to diet on excrement; that the Lord met Moses at a\ntavern and tried to kill him (see Exodus, 4, 24); that the sun and moon\nstood still; that it rained forty days and nights, and that nearly the\nwhole world was drowned; that the first man--Adam--was made of clay, and\nEve of a rib, about 6000 years ago; that the world was made in six days,\nand that vegetation flourished before there was any sun,--when we read\nof all these wonderful things, we beg to be excused from believing them,\nand claim the right to ridicule them to our heart's content. If this is\n\"disrespect,\" or \"insult,\" or an \"ignoble spirit of irreverence,\" then\nwe plead guilty to the charge, and are willing to abide by it.\n\nWe do not deny that there may be a God; we only deny the existence\nof such a one as the Bible sets forth. We attack only the gods whom\nbarbarous peoples have fashioned in their own imaginations and set up\nfor our worship, and not any high or noble conception of a Deity. We\nfully admit the existence of a great and mysterious power or force in\nthe universe which we cannot understand or comprehend. We believe with\nSpencer in the great _Unknown_ and _Unknowable_, and have no \"attack\"\nto make upon this power, no word of ridicule, no blasphemy; but, like\nTyndall, stand in its presence with reverence and awe, acknowledging our\nignorance.\n\nWhile, however, acknowledging this unseen Power, we decline to\nanthropomorphise it--to call it a _person_ or _being_, and invest it\nwith mental and moral functions similar to our own, differing only in\ndegree not in kind. It is only the anthropomorphism we attack--only\nthe superstitions, assumptions and dogmas. We only attack that which\nis incredible and absurd--that which \"shocks reason.\" We believe in\nreligion--the Religion of Humanity--to do right--a religion of _works_\ninstead of faith and creeds, and _Bystander_ himself admits that\n\"religion is carrying a weight which it cannot bear,\" and that, \"unless\nthe credible can be separated from the incredible, the reasonable from\nthat which shocks reason, there will be a total eclipse of faith.\"\n\n\"The Cosmogony of Moses,\" says _Bystander_, \"will, of course not bear\nthe scrutiny of modern science; few probably are now so bigoted as\nto maintain that it will.\" If it will not bear such scrutiny, is it\nblasphemy to attack it, or its author? for the God of the Bible is the\nalleged author of that Cosmogony, inspiring Moses or whoever wrote it.\nBut _Bystander_ further remarks that the Mosaic Cosmogony \"need not fear\ncomparison with the Cosmogony of any other race.\" We thank him for that\nfavor. It is exactly what we claim, to wit, that the Cosmogony of Moses,\nlike all the others, is simply a human production, for it would be\nabsurd to talk of \"comparing\" an _inspired_ Cosmogony of _divine origin_\nwith _human_ Cosmogonies. Hence, according to _Bystander_ himself, the\nMosaic Cosmogony is simply, like the rest, human: only he thinks it a\nlittle better than the others. It will not, however, \"bear the scrutiny\nof modern science.\" Very likely not! What then, becomes of the \"fall\nof man,\" the \"redemption\" the \"Ideal Man,\" and the whole Christian\nSuperstructure which rests upon the Mosaic Cosmogony? If the pillars are\ntaken away the building _must_ come down.\n\nIt is also admitted by _Bystander_ that \"The moral code of Moses is\ntribal and primeval; it is alien to us who live under the ethical\nconditions of high civilization and the Religion of Humanity.\" Precisely\nso! And for this magnificent favor also, we again thank _Bystander_. No\nmaterialist or utilitarian could have possibly put it better; albeit a\nChristian would experience some moral obfuscation in trying to make out\nwhy, if the \"moral code of Moses\" is from heaven, it should be \"alien\nto us\" and to these times? He would be hardly able to understand why he\nshould be comparing his _Divine_ code with _Pagan_ codes to see whether\nit is \"worse or better than other codes framed in the same stage of\nhuman progress?\" Let the Freethinkers take courage. _Bystander_, to\nall appearances, will soon be squarely on our side; and then we can\ntruthfully say, that though the Christians have the greatest scientist,\nprobably, in Canada (Prof. Dawson, of Montreal,) on their side, we will\nhave the greatest scholar, historian and _literateur_ in Canada on _our_\nside. Three cheers in the Liberal camp for _Bystander!_ Indeed, we have\nsome hopes, too, even of Prof. Dawson, whose Mosaic orthodoxy seems to\nbe relaxing a little of late; and he evidently feels his isolation, his\nscientific brethren all being on our side.\n\nWhile writing this, the Montreal _Daily Witness_ of June 15th, 1880,\ncomes to hand from a Freethought octogenarian friend in Port Hope (Wm.\nSisson, Esq.) with the familiar pencil mark, drawing my attention to a\nreport of the proceedings of \"The Congregational Union,\" at present in\nsession in Montreal. From it I learn that Rev. Hugh Pedley, B. A., made\nan address before the _Union_ on \"The Freethought of the Age,\" from\nwhich I cull the following, as reported in the _Witness_:--\n\n\"One of the principal difficulties,\" he said (of the clergy), \"was the\nprevalence of freethought among the people. There was a time when the\nNew Testament was received by almost everybody * * * But things had\nchanged * * * Some time ago the weapons of skilled historians were\nturned first against the Old and then against the New Testament * * *\nDr. Norman McLeod, writing from Germany, said, 'I am informed on\ncredible testimony that ninety-nine out of every hundred persons here\nare sceptics.' * * * Germany was to-day more Pagan than Christian * * *\nThe press passed up and down the land, scattering into every home things\nwhich set men thinking.\" [Ah! there is the secret; when men begin to\nthink and reason on theological subjects as they do on secular, good-bye\ncreeds! goodbye confessions!] \"Goldwin Smith, a man who had so studied\nthe past as to be able to interpret the present, had told us that a\nreligious collapse of the most complete and tremendous character was\napparent on every hand.\" It was only very recently that a sceptical work\non 'Supernatural Religion' passed through a number of editions in a few\nmonths. Col. Ingersoll had recently visited the country. He came, he\nsaw, and in some sense he conquered. (Cries of No! No!) The second night\nhe had a much larger attendance than on the first. No matter who, ran\nIngersoll down, he was a man of great power of oratory and strong in\nthose qualities which control audiences.\n\nThe Rev. gentleman then referred deprecatingly to the inadequate-college\ntraining of theological students in \"apologetics,\" as they were not\nallowed to read the works of sceptics for themselves, but had to take\ntheir tutors' version of the sceptics' arguments. This \"putting up a\nlittle argument and then knocking it down,\" he said was neither \"the\nfair nor the true way.\" He recommended putting \"the very sceptical works\ninto the hands of the students, and he would even say to go and hear\nIngersoll if he came.\"\n\nThat \"man's idea of God rises with his progress in civilization,\"\n_Bystander_ admits; but he attempts to explain the fact away on theistic\ngrounds, and dilute its strength as an argument that God is simply a\nprojection of the human mind. He asks:--\n\n\"If this conception\" (a conception of God) \"flows from no reality, from\nwhat does it flow? It is a phenomenon of which, as of other phenomena,\nthere must be some explanation; and we have not yet chanced to see\nin the writings of any Agnostic an explanation which seemed at all\nsatisfactory.\"\n\nI would respectfully suggest to _Bystander_ that there _is_ a\nsatisfactory explanation, though to him it may not be so. In answering\nhis question I will ask another. If the conception of, or belief in, a\ndevil or devils, flows from no reality, from what does it flow? The same\nof witches, fairies, sprites, hob-goblins, _et hoc genus omne_. Belief\nin these is quite as general as belief in God, though _Bystander's_\nquestion seems to assume that belief in the latter is universal.\nThis, however, is not the case, as has been conclusively shown in the\nforegoing reply to Wend-ling. Therefore, this \"conception\" argument,\nlike the famous \"design\" argument, proves too much, and consequently\nproves nothing. As to the _origin_ of the belief in spiritual agencies,\nand conceptions of God, Darwin tells us it is not difficult to\ncomprehend how they arose. He says, \"Descent of Man,\" vol. i, p. 63-5:--\n\n\"As soon as the important faculties of imagination, wonder, and\ncuriosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially\ndeveloped, man would naturally have craved to understand what was\npassing around him, and have vaguely speculated on his own existence * *\n* The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief of\none or more Gods.\"\n\n_Bystander_, while freely admitting that the Theistic theory is\ncompassed with difficulties; and requires \"re-statement,\" reminds us\nthat the-\"materialistic hypothesis is not free from difficulty.\" The\ndifficulty he discovers in materialism relates to the order of priority\nof matter and force. He asks:--\n\n\"Which of the two is the First Principle? Force cannot have been\nproduced by matter, for without force, matter cannot move, change, or\ngenerate at all. Matter cannot have been produced by force, because\nforce is nothing but the impulsion of matter. Apparently there must have\nbeen something before both, which produced them and determined their\nrelations; and it must be something beyond the range of sense.\"\n\n_Bystander_. I think, has not correctly apprehended the materialistic\nposition here, and hence the argument for a \"something before both\nmatter and force which produced them,\" being built upon a postulated\npremiss which we cannot accept, has no weight in establishing the\nexistence of a God behind matter and force. His error lies in the\nassumption of the possibility of matter and force existing separately\nand independently. He asks, \"Which of the two is the First Principle?\"\nOur answer is, there can be no _first_ as between matter and force,\nfor there can be no matter without force, and _vice versa_. The two are\ninseparable, even in conception, and the existence of one is absolutely\nessential to the existence of the other. Hence the argument proceeding\nfrom the assumption of their divisibility and possible independence\nfails. The Theist has no right whatever, logically speaking, to assume\nthat there \"must have been something before matter and force which\nproduced them.\" So long as matter and force are amply adequate (as far\nas we can discern) to the production of all cognizable phenomena, we\nare not warranted in assuming the existence of any being or thing behind\nthem. As soon as the Theist does this, we have the logical right to\ncarry his reasoning further, and at once assume something else behind\nit again, and thus not only one but a thousand gods could be postulated\nwithout the shadow of real proof of one of them.\n\nThere is an ultimate ground, however, upon which the Theist and\nMaterialist may meet in common, and, so far as I can see, the only\nultimate position they can occupy in perfect corelation. The universe\nexists; man as a part of the universe--a mode of existence--is here;\nin this we agree. Man, then, being himself the highest intelligence\nhe knows of, continually seeks an explanation of the universe and of\nhimself as a part of it. This is the common ground upon which we\nall stand--Rationalist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist--barbarous and\ncivilized--the weakest and the mightiest intellect.\n\nAll seek to explain the great mystery of the universe--some one way,\nsome another--from the rude thaumaturgic fancies of the primitive\nbarbarian up to the abstruse speculations and subtle reasonings of the\ncultured Pantheist, intellectual Agnostic, and logical Materialist.\nIt is true one may be more reasonable and logical than the rest (as I\nundoubtedly think is the case), yet they all occupy the common ground of\nuncertainty. Not one can _demonstrate_ his position, and in this we are\nall alike. (One, however, among all the rest thinks he _knows_ he is\n_right_ and can prove it, viz., the dogmatic Christian Theist.) We may\nall, therefore, stand together in the presence of Nature and acknowledge\nour ignorance. Though each school has its theory, its hypothesis, its\nsolution, yet the mystery of the mighty universe is still an unsolved\nproblem.\n\n\n\n\nREPLY TO \"A RATIONALIST\"\n\nWe have another reply to Ingersoll in a pamphlet of twenty pages, issued\nin Toronto, with the following modest title:--\"A Refutation of Col. R.\nG. Ingersoll's Lectures, by 'A Rationalist.'\" This proemial announcement\nis certainly calculated to excite high expectations; but it is only\nnecessary to look into the rational (?) \"refutation\" (?) to see that the\nnames the writer has given himself and pamphlet are both misnomers. How\nsuch an irrational jumble of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, obsolete philosophy,\nand moribund metaphysics could by any possibility pass for rationalism,\neven in the eyes of its author, is one of those profound mysteries which\n\"no fellah can understand.\" Is it not a little singular that all these\n\"replies\" and \"refutations\" from the orthodox side come from theological\nnondescripts--from men who are but half orthodox (the other half not\nbeing recognizable), and not one reply from a thoroughly orthodox\nchampion? A correlative fact, not without much significance, is that,\nthough no argument comes from the orthodox side, the denunciations all\ncome from that source. On the other hand in proportion as the opposing\nchampion is unorthodox, in that ratio is he tolerant, courteous, and\nin favor of free speech and equal rights. \"A Rationalist's\" essay is\npervaded by the kindliest spirit personally towards his opponent, and\nthis, in a measure, redeems its literary and logical defects.\n\nThough \"Rationalist\" zealously defends the Bible, and argues for a God,\nit is impossible to tell how much of the Bible he accepts, or what\nGod he believes in. He says, \"every jot and tittle of the Bible is\ninspired,\" yet in another place tells us, \"The Apostle Paul is not\none of the inspired writers,\" as \"His words will not bear a spiritual\ninterpretation.\" It would, therefore, seem that no part of the Bible\nis inspired except that which will stand this method of \"spiritual\ninterpretation.\" To get rid of the numerous errors, absurdities, and\nimmoralities contained in the Bible, \"Rationalist\" spiritualizes them.\nHe has a first-class recondite and spiritual meaning for every one of\nthem, which seems to be entirely satisfactory--to himself. With the\nutmost facility everything is explained away; and armed with his occult\nstyle of Bible exegesis he can laugh at the infidel scientist. He says\nwe must \"rub off the literal meaning\" in order to get at the spiritual,\nand by this convenient method every difficulty between the two sacred\nlids vanishes into thin air. This \"rubbing off\" business he also\napplies to the God of the Bible, whose characteristic _anthropomorphism_\n\"Rationalist,\" of course, rubs all off, even his _intelligence_. So that\nthere would seem to be little more left of the Jewish Jehovah, under\nmodern scriptural exegesis, than what Beecher describes as a \"dim and\nshadowy influence.\" \"Rationalist\" divests Deity of intelligence to\nescape the effects of the following argument:--\n\n     Intelligence presupposes a greater intelligence,\n\n     God has intelligence,\n\n     Therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than God.\n\nSeeing the logical force of this, he quibbles thus: \"We do not say that\nGod _has_ intelligence, but that God _is_ wisdom in form and love in\nessence, and therefore the infinite source of all intelligence.\" This\nwill not do, Mr. \"Rationalist!\" It is entirely too vague. You must\neither contend for a personal or an impersonal God. Give us either Deism\nor Pantheism, and not an incongruous mixture, and then we will know on\nwhat ground to meet you. If you mean that God is simply the aggregate,\nor even the essence, of all intelligence, all love, all good, why this\nis a mere abstraction, and even an Atheist might accept it; but if you\nare contending for anything like the Christian's God, as set forth in\nthe Bible, you will have to alter your definitions very materially.\n\nAs a specimen illustration of \"Rationalist's\" spiritual method of\nresolving Scriptural difficulties I give below his version of the story\nof Elisha, the children, and the bears, under the \"rubbing off\" process.\nWe, Freethinkers, he says, will not \"object to the bears\" when we\nunderstand what the story means, and here is his elucidation, _verbatim\net literatim_:--\n\n\"Elisha represents the external or literal words of Holy Writ on\nwhich the mantle of spiritual truth still rests. Children represent\naffections--don't fond mothers even yet call them 'little loves?'--They\nalso correspond to the opposite, and so evil loves which destroy\nobedience to the external life of goodness, taught in, at least, some\nof the literal words of Scripture, naturally mock at the baldness of\nElisha. Baldness, since it refers to the head, and the head corresponds\nto that union of will and intellect in man which rules, and is, the\nlife, and ultimates in the very extreme of its very minute external,\ncorresponds to the most external of the will and thought of Elisha, who\nrepresents the literal meaning of Scripture. So this incident means that\nevil loves could see no ultimate good to _themselves_ in the doing\nof any good in a practical every-day way even where that was clearly\nenjoined, and rendered as beautiful externally as hair is, and therefore\nmocked at it, or rather at what seemed to them the lack of it. Then the\nbears, which correspond to the animal passions of the animal man, came\nout of the woods--woods correspond to the natural perceptions of natural\ntruth in man--and utterly destroyed these evil loves out of the life.\nAgain you see we find the same truth; that the Lord implants remains of\ngoodness and truth in every degree of man's life, even in the natural\nman, fitted to cope with and conquer his evils, if man himself will but\npermit it.\"\n\nThere's a sample of \"spiritual interpretation\" for you! And what\n_clearness_ is there, dear reader! Just return to the fourth sentence of\nthe above extract, commencing with \"Baldness,\" and re-read it, and see\nif you can make anything out of it. What the sentence does really\nmean is to me as profound a mystery as the incantations of a Gypsy\nthaumaturgist. It would be interesting to get \"Rationalist\" to try his\nhand at spiritualizing some of the following passages of Holy Writ:--\n\n\"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,\"\n&c. \"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him\"\n(Moses) \"and sought to kill him.\" \"I have seen God face to face.\" _Per\nContra_: \"No man hath seen God at any time.\" \"I am the Lord, I change\nnot, I will not go back, neither will I repent.\" _Per Contra_: \"And God\nrepented of the evil that he said he would do unto them, and he did it\nnot.\" \"There is no respect of persons with God.\" _Per Contra_: \"Jacob\nhave I loved, and Esau have I hated.\" \"I am a jealous God, visiting the\niniquities of the fathers upon the children.\" _Per Contra_: \"The son\nshall not bear the iniquity of the father.\" \"It is impossible for God\nto lie.\" _Per Contra_: \"If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken\na thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet.\" \"Be not afraid of them\nthat kill the body.\" _Per Contra_: \"And after these things Jesus would\nnot walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.\" \"And the anger\nof the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them\nto say, 'Go number Israel.'\" _Per Contra_: \"And Satan provoked David to\nnumber Israel.\" \"I bear witness of myself, yet my record is true.\" _Per\nContra_: \"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.\" \"A man\nis not justified by the works of the law.\" _Per Contra_: \"Ye see, then,\nhow that by works a man is justified.\" \"There shall no evil happen to\nthe just.\" _Per Contra_: \"All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall\nsuffer persecution.\" \"Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness and all\nher paths are peace.\" _Per Contra_: \"In much wisdom is much grief and he\nthat increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.\" \"It shall not be well with\nthe wicked, neither shall he prolong his days.\" _Per Contra_: \"Wherefore\ndo the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power.\" \"Thou shalt\nnot: commit adultery.\" _Per Contra_: \"Then said the Lord unto me, 'Go\nget, love a woman, an adulteress.'\"\n\nHere, certainly, is ample scope for exegetical ingenuity. The passages\nquoted, besides scores of others, many of them too indecent for these\npages, would seem to require the touch of \"Rationalist's\" spiritual\ninterpretation wand. When the literal meaning is \"rubbed off,\" the\noccult, spiritual meaning will appear.\n\nAs a sample of \"Rationalist's\" metaphysical philosophy I give the\nfollowing:--\n\n\"Will and love are identical... Will or love is life. A man cannot\nthink unless he wills to think; and he can only think that which he\nwills--only that and nothing more. He can only do what he wills and\nthinks. There is no action which is not the effect of will and its\nthought. A man wills in order to think,\" etc. He also tells us that God\ngave man a will \"as _free_ as His own.\" Matter is spoken of as \"mere\ndead inert matter.\"\n\nIs more evidence than this needed that \"Rationalist\" is living in the\npast, and has utterly failed to grasp modern thought? His philosophy is\nbad, but his metaphysics is worse. Any man who at this day attempts to\n\"refute\" Materialists should at least be somewhat acquainted with the\nresults of modern thought and scientific research; but \"Rationalist\" has\napparently advanced no further than the occult Swedenborgian mysticism\nof the last century. Further, to talk to-day of \"dead inert matter,\" is\nto talk the language of an obsolete philosophy of the past; for modern\nscience and philosophy alike agree that matter is not \"that mere empty\n_capacity_ which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal\nmother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb.\" As\nPope says:--\n\n\"See thro' this air, this ocean, and this earth, All matter quick and\nbursting into birth.\"\n\nEqually absurd is this talk about \"Free Will\" and \"Free Moral Agency.\"\nThese metaphysico-theological dogmas have melted in the light of\nmental science, and are now as \"dead as a door nail,\" of which fact\n\"Rationalist\" will be convinced if he will take the trouble to look into\nHamilton, Combe, Mill, Buckle, Lewes, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall, and\nhe will then, probably, write no more such nonsense as quoted above. It\nis not necessary, however, for any observant and thoughtful man to go to\nany authorities outside his own mind to be convinced of the fallacy of\nthe \"Free Will\" dogma, for his own observation and reflection will do\nit. And \"Rationalist\" can have the same conviction without the aid of\nscience or philosophy,--without even observation or reflection. Let him\nturn to his Bible, which he champions, and read it, and he will find\nabundant proof (such as it is) that man's will is not free. Let him read\nthe 8th, 9th and 11th Chapters of Romans. Let him then read Phil. 2, 13,\n\"For it is God which worketh in you _both to will and to do_ of His good\n_pleasure_.\" Then read Isaiah, 46, 910, \"I am God and there is none like\nme, _declaring the end from the beginnings_ and from ancient times _the\nthings_ that are not _yet_ done, saying, my council shall stand, and I\nwill do all my _pleasure_.\"\n\nNow, I submit that if an omnipotent and omniscient God has \"declared the\nend from the beginning,\" and ordered all \"the things that are not yet\ndone\" (and you have his word for it here) how is it possible for\nmortal and finite man to do any thing contrary to the thing ordered,\nor accomplish any \"end\" but the one \"declared from the beginning?\" Here\nyou, who believe in God and the Bible, have his word for it that he has\ndeclared all things \"from the beginning.\" Man then _must_ do and think\nas God has declared, and can do nothing else, hence he is _not free_.\n\nThe idea that \"a man cannot think unless he wills to think\" is too\npreposterous (laying the Bible aside) for any reasonable man to accept\nwho is not a slave to creeds and dogmas. Let \"Rationalist,\" after\nreading this sentence, stop reading, and assume a quiescent state (for\nof course _his free will_ will enable him to do this)--a state of mental\npassivity, as it were,--let him _will nothing_ for the time being,--and\nthen see if thoughts of some kind do not spontaneously arise in his\nmind. And then let him _will_ to have _no thoughts_ for the space\nof five minutes, and see if the thoughts do not steal into his brain\n(providing of course he has one) unbidden, and in spite of him--in spite\nof all his boasted freewill power. Let any reader put this impossible\nand absurd dictum of \"Rationalist\" to the test, and he will have a\nliving demonstration in his own brain, which will render any further\nargument on this point entirely superfluous.\n\n\"Rationalist\" worries himself into inextricable confusion over causes\nand effects, first causes, first causes and last effects, etc., etc.\nBecause Ingersoll has said \"a first cause is just as impossible as a\nlast effect,\" Rationalist well nigh swamps himself in a most ludicrous\n\"muss-of-a muddle-of-a-jerry-cum-tumble\" of bad diction and worse logic\nto prove that by such reasoning as Ingersoll's we come to \"chaos\" and\nto \"nothing,\" (hasn't the gentleman himself come to chaos if not to\nnothing?) We reason everything out of existence, he says, and just now\nwe will have left \"no nature, no God, no man, no matter\" (it would be\n_no matter_ if some _bipids_ were gone) \"no force,\" no \"nothing\"--\n\"literally nothing.\" Shades of Bacon! let us take breath; for this would\ncertainly be a very bad state of things, from which \"good Lord deliver\nus!\" It would be nearly as bad as before the \"creation,\" when nothing\nexisted throughout the infinite realms of space save Jehovah himself.\n\nI will endeavor to make what materialists mean by the impossibility of\na first cause or last effect clear to \"Rationalist.\" We believe in one\nexistence, and only one--the universe--which, though never itself having\nbeen created or brought into existence (being eternal), is the primal\n(or \"first\" if you like) cause of all phenomena Rationalist will thus\nsee that in one sense there is no _first came_ as the universe is\neternal, yet in another sense there _is_ a first cause, viz.: the\nuniverse, as it is the primal cause of all phenomena. As to a \"last\neffect,\" it should be obvious to every _rational_ mind that as matter\nand force are indestructible, and hence eternal in duration, there can\nbe no last effect; for as long as matter and force exist effects must of\nnecessity ensue.\n\n\n\n\nREPLY TO REV. A. J. BRAY\n\nIt is a great relief to a Freethinker to find a man among the clergy\nlike Mr. Bray, in point of religious liberality. It is like coming upon\nan oasis in the waste desert of orthodox bigotry and intolerance.\n\nMr. Bray is the able editor of the _Canadian Spectator_, of Montreal;\nand also preaches, I believe, every Sunday in Zion Church in that city.\nUnlike his clerical brethren generally, when Mr. Ingersoll lectured in\nMontreal, in April last, Mr. Bray went to hear him, and answered him\nfrom his pulpit the two following Sundays. These \"Discourses\" were\npublished in the succeeding numbers of his paper, the _Spectator_. Hear\nhim on free speech:--\n\n\"In a free country all kinds of freedom must be allowed, and Mr.\nIngersoll had just as much right to come here and say his say in his own\nmanner, and according to his own discretion, as Mr. Hammond has to come\nand preach and teach in his way. If men are free to agree with us, they\nare also free to differ with us; to differ a little, to differ much,\nto differ altogether. If the Mayor had found a law by which he could\nprohibit Ingersoll from lecturing against our religious beliefs, I would\nhave started an agitation at once for the repeal of that absurd and\nantiquated law. If hearing arguments against our faith is likely to\nunsettle us, then we had better be unsettled. We are badly off with all\nour religious literature and preaching, if we cannot endure any kind of\ncriticism, and witticism, and argument.\"\n\nThese are brave words, and every fair-minded man in this Dominion will\nagree with Mr. Bray in his liberal and courageous utterances. They are\ntimely words to go forth in that city where the war of sects has waxed\nso hot and virulent of late. Montreal needs more men like Bray in her\nchurches, to mollify the bigotry, and stamp out the bitter feuds, and\nfierce antagonism of Christian against Christian.\n\nAs this pamphlet has already reached a much greater length than\noriginally intended, I have but little space to devote to Mr. Bray's\nReply to Ingersoll. One or two points, however, must be noticed.\n\nMr. Bray falls into the same error as \"Bystander\" in accusing\n\nIngersoll of attacking a theology which, he tells us, is \"opposed to\nall reason,\" and now \"well nigh obsolete.\" I would simply say if it is\n\"obsolete,\" it is the stock in trade of the Christian Church today. Take\naway from it this obsolete theology (which is \"opposed to all reason,\")\nand there is nothing left of Christianity worth speaking of; for the\nmorality Christianity contains does not of right belong to it It is\nPagan. It has been _appropriated_ by Christianity, and is not original\nwith it. There is not a single moral precept in the Bible, but was\ntaught before that book was written. (For proof of this, see Sir\nWm. Jones, Max Muller, Lord Amberly, and \"Supernatural Religion.\")\nTherefore, when you take away the dogmas of Christianity--its \"obsolete\ntheology\"--you take away Christianity itself to all intents and\npurposes. And hence the utter inconsistency and absurdity of our\nopponents in taxing us with merely attacking a dead theology, when that\ndead theology is all there is of a religion which they defend and\nwish to perpetuate. Seeing, then, that the theology of Christianity is\nadmittedly dead, why not give it up and come over to us? for all you\nhave left--the brotherhood of man--belongs to us: it is our RELIGION OF\nHUMANITY.\n\nAs the only salient point, to my mind, in Mr. Bray's reply to Ingersoll\nis dealt with in the following letter, which I addressed to the\n_Spectator_, and which appeared in its columns, I have only space here\nto reproduce that letter:--\n\nTo the Editor of the Canadian Spectator:\n\nSir,--In your issue of the 10th instant, in a discourse in reply to Col.\nIngersoll, I find the following:--\n\n\"The lecturer, who seemed to imagine that he understood everything else,\nwas compelled to acknowledge that he did not understand why there should\nbe so much hunger and pain and misery. Why, the world over, life should\nlive upon life. When he has cast Jehovah out of the Universe, he is\npained and puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow. With\nGod he cannot account for it; without God he cannot account for it. If\nCol. Ingersoll, or any other of that school, can give me an intelligent\ntheory of life, and satisfactory solution of the problem of the presence\nof evil and pain without God, I am prepared to consider it.\"\n\nNow, Sir, having the honor (or dishonor, as the case may be,) to belong\nto that school, I venture to take up the gauntlet thus thrown down. From\nour stand-point we are able, we think, to give an intelligent theory of\nthese things; and although it may not be wholly devoid of mystery, we\nclaim it is less mysterious than the Christian theory. We claim that\nthe Materialistic explanation of the Universe and its phenomena is more\nreasonable and less mysterious than the Theistic; and this is why\nwe find ourselves compelled to adopt it and become Atheists. On the\nMaterialistic hypothesis of development and evolution we are certainly\n_not_ \"puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow,\" however\nmuch we may be pained at their fearful prevalence. It is only on the\nhypothesis of being under the governance of an omnipotent and infinitely\n_benevolent_ Being that we are utterly unable to account for such-a\nstate of things. Although the ultimate tendency of the forces of\nthe-Universe seems to be towards a higher, and higher, and more perfect\ncondition, not only for man, but all animals, and even plants, yet\nthese-forces are, as Science abundantly proves, utterly without\nmercy--without pity for man or any other animal. Therefore, on the\nevolution philosophy of things, we can reasonably predicate pain,\nsorrow, and wrong; and are not puzzled at their existence. It is only on\nthe theory of a _good_ God controlling the Universe that we stand dumb\nwith confusion and wonderment in the presence of all this woe, pain,\nmisery, and wrong-with which the world is filled--this terrible\n\"struggle for life,\" where the-strong prey upon the weak, where animal\neats animal, and man eats-man!\n\nThe theologians have had upwards of two thousand years to reduce the\nMaterialistic paradoxes of Epicurus on the existence of evil, but have\nthey done so? If there be a God, and He is all-powerful, He _could_\nremove the _surplus_ evil and pain from the world, and if He is all-good\nHe _would_ remove it, is an argument which has never yet been answered\nby a Paley, a Butler, a Dawson, or any other Christian Theist or Bible\napologist. I use the phrase \"_surplus_ evil and pain\" for this reason:\nAs a sort of apology for the rank malevolence abroad in the world, and\nas an argument for the existence of a beneficent God, Christian Theists\ntell us that pain is necessary as an antecedent to the proper enjoyment\nof pleasure; that it is necessary to the growth and development of\ncharacter; that the storm of the ocean is an essential pre-requisite to\nthe adequate enjoyment of the subsequent calm; that all smooth sailing\nwould be monotonous and insipid. Now, we will admit this for the sake\nof the argument; but there yet remains the mass of _surplus_ evil to\nbe accounted for, which is wholly unnecessary for such corrective and\ndistributive purposes. It may, perhaps, be necessary that the tempest\ntoss the ship about on the bosom of the ocean in order that the living\nfreight may have a keener appreciation of the succeeding calm, and also\nto develop awe and sublimity in their breasts; but to accomplish this it\nis scarcely to the purpose to send all to the bottom of the ocean! That\nwe may have a proper relish for our food and a due appreciation of the\nblessings of a good appetite, it may be necessary that we feel the pangs\nof hunger and starvation occasionally; but to give us this wholesome\ndiscipline it would seem hardly necessary that millions of human beings\nshould actually be starved to death!\n\nNow, on the theory of _inexorable law_* instead of a _beneficent\nProvidence_, we are not surprised that a ship which is not strong enough\nto ride the storm should go to the bottom, even though five hundred\nbishops and clergymen be aboard supplicating an unknown God for succor.\nOn the theory of inexorable and merciless law in which we are fast\nbound, we are not \"puzzled\" that millions of human beings should\nstarve to death when these laws or conditions of Nature are violated in\nover-population and a false political and social economy. Or when a Tay\nbridge goes down with its living freight under the pressure of train\nand tempest, the Atheist is neither surprised nor puzzled: but the\nChristian, who worships a benevolent (?) God and believes that not a\nhair falls from his head without His notice, can only look at such a\nmalevolent horror in dumb silence and amazement--he has no explanation.\nOur theory of the presence of evil in the world is, therefore, at\nleast rational; but, is the Christian theory rational? Is it rational\nto-suppose that all the pain, sorrow, and evil in the world have been\ncaused by the puerile circumstance of a woman eating an apple? This\nwould be as monstrously unjust as it is irrational and absurd.\n\nAs to the origin and maintenance of life \"without God,\" it is quite as\ncomprehensible and rational without God as with one with the Christian\nconditions and qualifications. An universe of matter containing\nthe \"promise and potency of all forms and qualities of life\" is\nas intelligible and comprehensible as a God _outside_ the Universe\nembodying the potency of all life. From the time that Lucretius declared\nthat \"Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without\nthe meddling of the Gods,\" and Bruno that matter is the \"universal\nmother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb,\" down\nto Prof. Tyndall, who discerns in matter \"the promise and potency of\nevery form and quality of life,\" scientists have never been able to\ndiscover the least intrusion of any creative power into the operations\nof\n\n     * Materialists, in using the phrase \"law of Nature,\" use a\n     popular expression, but not in the popular sense as\n     presupposing a law-giver. By \"law of Nature\" we simply mean\n     natural sequence--the uniformity of Nature's operations.\n\nNature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference\nby any God or gods. In the primeval ages of ignorance and barbarism the\ngods were supposed to do everything, from the production of wind, rain,\ntempest, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia\nand potato-bugs. Science now explains all these things and a thousand\nothers. Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no room for the gods in\nthe Universe, and nothing left for them to do. And there cannot be any\nroom _beyond_ it for them, for \"above Nature we cannot rise.\"\n\nThe Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is\nbut _one existence_, the _Universe_, and that it is eternal--without\nbeginning or end--that the matter of the Universe never could have been\ncreated, for _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (from nothing nothing can come,) and\nthat it contains within itself the potency adequate to the production of\nall phenomena. This we think to be more conceivable and intelligent\nthan the Christian theory that there are two existences--God and the\nUniverse--and that there was a time when there was but one existence,\nGod, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and \"masterly\ninactivity\" He finally created a Universe either out of Himself or out\nof nothing--either one of which propositions is philosophically absurd.\nAnd in either case, to say that God would be infinite would be equally\nabsurd.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nALLEN PRINGLE.\n\nNapanee, Ont., April 23, 1880.\n\n\n\n\nTHE OATH QUESTION\n\n(TO CANADIAN FREETHINKERS.)\n\nAs this Pamphlet will be widely circulated throughout Canada (especially\nOntario), it will come into the hands of most Canadian Freethinkers, and\nI have therefore thought this an opportune time to bring this question,\nin which we are all so deeply interested, before the Freethinkers of\nCanada, and urge upon them the necessity of agitation for reform. The\ntime has come, I think, for action in petitioning Parliament to remove\nthe serious and most unjust disabilities under which we, as a class, are\nnow placed, and thus have equal rights extended to all citizens. As the\nlaw now stands we are deprived of our rights in the courts, and the ends\nof justice are often defeated, not only to our detriment but that of\nChristians themselves. If the presiding judge choose to adhere to the\nstrict letter of the law the testimony of Atheists is refused. It is\nvery easy to see how the gravest injustice could be inflicted upon\nFreethinkers and Christians alike under this unjust law. A Freethinker\nmay be the only witness to a case involving the interests of a\nChristian, or he may be the only witness for himself as against a\nChristian; and by his not being eligible as a witness the ends of\njustice are defeated. Or an unscrupulous believer may claim that he is\na Freethinker to get rid of giving evidence altogether. It is true there\nseems to rest with the Judges a large amount of discretionary power as\nto whom they will or will not accept to give evidence; and the majority,\nperhaps, of our Canadian Judges exhibit a commendable spirit of\nliberality in the matter of accepting the testimony of Freethinkers. But\noccasionally one is to be met with, too full of religion and bigotry to\nrecognize our rights or extend any discretion in our favor. In the\ncity of Toronto, a few months ago, the testimony of two respectable\nand intelligent witnesses was refused because they did not believe\nthe dogmas of the popular religion.* As an offset to this, however, an\nOttawa-Judge recently showed his fairness and liberality by allowing\na Juryman Freethinker, who declined to take the oath, to make an\naffirmation. The Grand Juror referred to, Mr. John Law, of Ottawa, is\ndescribed as-a gentleman of \"unimpeachable honor and probity,\" and\nhence his simple affirmation being, as he stated, fully binding on his\nconscience, would, or certainly ought to, have more weight than the\noaths of many witnesses (believers) who are taken into the witness box.\nThe presiding Judge, doubtless, so regarded the matter, and therefore,\nin his discretion, magnanimously allowed Mr. Law to affirm.\n\nIn England, under \"The Evidence Amendment Act\" of 1869,32* and 33 Vic,\nc. 68, s. 4, Atheists can make the following affirmation instead of\ntaking the Christian oath, and the Court must allow all Freethinkers to\ndo so who demand it:\n\n\"I solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by me to the\nCourt, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\"\n\nWe want a similar Act in Canada, and then Counsel will not be able as\nnow to badger witnesses about \"infidel belief,\" and turn the court into\nan inquisition; nor will a bigoted judge have it in his discretion to\norder Atheists down from the witness-box as not fit to give evidence.\nAt almost every sitting of our courts it is demonstrated beyond a doubt.\nthat believers in the Bible, who take the oath on that Book, do not\nall tell the truth under oath. Every judge and lawyer in the land knows\nthis, and all know it who have much to do in courts of law. The simple\nword or affirmation of an honest man, whether Christian or Infidel, is\nbetter than a thousand oaths of many believers in the Bible, who are\nwithout hesitation taken into the witness-box. Moreover, the Atheist in\nmaking the above affirmation under the Act referred to, is subject to\nthe same penalties for perjury as the Christian is in taking, the usual\noath. There is, therefore, no good reason why we should! not have\na similar Act here, and it behooves us to begin to move towards its\nconsummation. Freethinkers are getting numerous in Canada, and they are,\nto say the least, as exemplary citizens, socially and morally, as their\nChristian neighbors? Why then should they be longer denied equal rights\nwith their Christian neighbors?\n\n     * Since writing this I have been informed by one of the\n     witnesses alluded to, that no blame can be fairly imputed to\n     the presiding Judge in this case, as he felt compelled,\n     against his sympathies, to carry out the unjust law.\n\nIn England they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of\nRationalists in this respect are conceded to them. Here we have no\nstate religion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are\nutterly out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast\nbeing swept away in every civilized country. The Bradlaugh imbroglio\nrecently in the English House of Commons has had the effect of opening\nsome people's eyes, especially those conservative Christians who\nare still afflicted with lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and\npersecuting spirit which formerly lighted the fires of Smithfleld,\nhung quakers, imprisoned so-called \"blasphemers,\" and violated civil\ncontracts in the name of God. In the last election in England, a few\nmonths ago, Charles Bradlaugh, the eminent Atheist and Republican, was\nelected to the English House of Commons for the borough of Northampton,\nand in entering the House he claimed his right, instead of taking the\nParliamentary oath, to affirm under the Act referred to above. The\nHouse at first refused, vacillated, appointed Committees, and vigorously\ndebated the matter; while the bigoted members at once proceeded to\nunbudget themselves in true Christian style against the \"vermin\"\nAtheist. Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knew what he was about, and,\nas the sequel showed, proved himself more than a match for the English\nHouse of Commons. Meanwhile also, the people of England--the working\nclasses--were-watching the whole business, and finally when Bradlaugh\nwas refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep the\nAtheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) promptly\ncame to the front. Just then it began to dawn on \"the powers that be\"\nthat _vox populi, vox Dei_ had more truth than poetry in it. The people\nof England--the producers--(called \"lower classes\" by the \"upper\"\n_non_-producers) assembled in scores of thousands in indignation\nmass-meetings all over England, demanding the admission of Charles\nBradlaugh (their best friend) to his rightful seat in the English House\nof Commons. The aforesaid \"powers that be\" took the alarm. Seeing that\nthe \"voice of the people\" was even more potent than the \"voice of God,\"\nthey prudently bowed to its mandate. They perceived that no Clock Tower,\nor other tower in England would hold the workingman's friend even for\nthe space of seven days. Bradlaugh must be released or the House of\nBrunswick might peradventure soon be in mourning--not, probably, for\nspilled blood, but for a crown, aye, a crown! No wonder the English\nGovernment feared to see Charles Bradlaugh enter the House of\nCommons. He had impeached the House of Brunswick. And it was no \"soft\nimpeachment.\" No, but a terribly hard indictment! Was it ever answered?\nNo, it was too true to answer. The only answer was from Lord Randolph\nChurchill in the House of Commons, and it was characteristic. This rabid\nmonarchist, with much more Christian zeal than knowledge or discretion,\ntook Bradlaugh's \"Impeachment of the House of Brunswick\" and cast it\nviciously under his feet on the floor of the House of Commons. That was\nthe way the \"Impeachment\" was answered! Well, as Shakspeare says, \"let\nthe galled jades wince!\" But the Atheist had his revenge! They had put\nhim in the Tower, but they very soon let him out. He had been somewhat\naccustomed to fighting the English Government, having beaten them twice,\nand he feared not. He was imprisoned one day, but released the next.\nAn Act was speedily passed giving more even than Bradlaugh at first\ndemanded--giving every member who wishes in future, the right to affirm\ninstead of taking the Christian Oath. Bradlaugh has accordingly made\nhis affirmation as he at first demanded, and has taken his seat in the\nEnglish House of Commons as M. P. for Northampton,* And now let every\nFreethinker throughout the civilized world rejoice, for this is a great\nvictory for our cause! The eloquent champion of our dearest rights\nhas achieved a glorious victory on the very threshold of the English\nParliament before he enters it! Let us take courage! The indomitable and\ninvincible Iconoclast has now attained a position where his voice will\nbe heard in behalf of liberty and the rights of man the world over! He\nis called \"coarse\" by some over-cultured people, but his coarseness is\nof the kind the world needs, and therefore _we_ do not object to it. The\nsuperstitions, and errors, and wrongs, and oppressions still weighing\ndown our fellow-men need bare-handed (\"coarse\") handling, without\ngloves, and Bradlaugh wears none of these, but fearlessly throws down\nthe gauntlet to falsehood and oppression whenever and wherever found.\nBut I fear I am getting a little off the Oath Question here in my\nenthusiasm for Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for Northampton.\n\n     * The press of Canada, with very few exceptions, have done\n     Mr. Bradlaugh a great injustice in connection with the oath\n     question, as they have (perhaps unintentionally) utterly\n     misrepresented him. They have charged that he \"flaunted his\n     Atheism before the House of Commons,\"  that he at first\n     _refused_ to take the oath on conscientious grounds and\n     subsequently \"swallowed his scruples\" and offered to take\n     the oath; and that, therefore, the Atheist is without\n     conscience and without principle, sacrificing all for place.\n     Now, this is all utterly untrue. He did not flaunt his\n     Atheism before the House. He did not _refuse_ to take the\n     oath, but simply claimed to be allowed to affirm. The\n     Speaker having intimated to Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired\n     to address the House in explanation of his claim he would be\n     permitted to do so, Mr. Bradlaugh said, \"I have repeatedly,\n     for nine years past, made an affirmation in the highest\n     courts of jurisdiction in this realm: I am ready to make\n     such a declaration or affirmation.\" And subsequently when\n     Mr. Bradlaugh offered to take the oath, it was after he had\n     made an explanation that although a portion of it to him was\n     a meaningless form, yet that the oath as a whole, if he took\n     it would be binding on his conscience substantially the same\n     as an affirmation. These are the facts, all taken from\n     authentic official sources, and not from what bigoted and\n     prejudiced correspondents have sent us across the ocean. My\n     authority is the record of the proceedings of the\n     Parliamentary Committees on the Bradlaugh case, where the\n     facts I have stated were distinctly brought out in evidence,\n     to which source I beg to refer the newspapers of this\n     country and call upon them to make the _amende honorable_ by\n     setting this matter right before their readers.\n\nIn conclusion, I beg to again urge upon my fellow Freethinkers\nthroughout Canada the necessity of taking such action as will secure\nfor us our legal rights in the Courts of this country. I trust that the\npetitions to Parliament for an Evidence Amendment Act, which we design\nere long to put in circulation, may be numerously signed and diligently\ncirculated by the liberal friends in the various places to which they\nwill be sent.\n\nSelby, Lennox Co., Ont., July, 1880\n\n\n\"It can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the\nmost ordinary Acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion,\nof the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not\nonly of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the\nChristian faith.\"--J. S. Mill.\n\n\"The history of Christ is contained in records which exhibit\ncontradictions that cannot be reconciled, imperfections that would\ngreatly detract from even admitted human compositions, and erroneous\nprinciples of morality that would hardly have found a place in the most\nincomplete system of the philosophers of Greece and Rome.\"--Rev. Dr.\nGiles.\n\n\"That any human creature, be he peer or peasant, man or woman, pauper or\nmillionaire, should be visited with pains and penalties because of\nhis or her speculative opinion on a subject whereon but few even of\nprofessing Christians are agreed, is a bitter satire on our vaunted\nliberty. My Lords, it is the spirit which lighted the martyr-fires of\nSmithfield, and led to the stake gallant and noble souls such as Bruno.\nIt is a noble; company you are placing me in, my Lords, and I shall\nthank you for it.\"--_Ibid_.\n\n\"Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the\ndays of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered, and their\ngood name blasted, by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolators? Who shall count\nthe host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the\neffort to harmonize impossibilities--whose life has been wasted in the\nattempt to force the generous new wine of Science into the old bottles\nof Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party.\" _Prof.\nHuxley_.\n\n\"Thou shalt not kill, even the smallest creature.\n\n\"Thou shalt not appropriate to thyself what belongs to another.\n\n\"Thou shah not infringe the laws of chastity.\n\n\"Thou shalt not lie.\n\n\"Thou Shalt not calumniate.\n\n\"Thou shalt not speak of injuries.\n\n\"Thou shalt not excite quarrels, by repeating the words of others.\n\n\"Thou shalt not hate.\"\n\n--_Moral Precepts from Buddhistic Sacred Books._\n\n\n\"I discern in matter * * the promise and potency of all forms and\nqualities of life.\"--_Tyndall_\n\n\"A poor man, in our day, has many gods foisted on him; and big voices\nbid him 'Worship or be --------' in a menacing and confusing manner.\nWhat shall he do? By far the greater part of said gods, current in the\npublic, whether canonized by Pope or Populas, are mere dumb asses and\nbeautiful prize-oxen--nay, some of them, who have articulate faculty,\nare devils instead of Gods. A poor man that would save his soul alive is\nreduced to the sad necessity of _sharply trying his gods_ whether they\nare divine or not, which is a terrible pass for mankind, and lays an\nawful problem upon each man.\"--_Tomas Carlyle_\n\n\"These Gospels, so important to the Church, have not come to us in one\nundisputed form. We have no authorised copy of them in their original\nlanguage, so that we may know in what precise words they were originally\nwritten. The authorities from which we derive their sacred text are\nvarious ancient copies, written by hand on parchment. Of the Gospels\nthere are more than five hundred of these manuscripts of various ages,\nfrom the fourth century after Christ to the fifteenth, when printing\nsuperseded manual writing for publication of books. Of these five\nhundred and more, _no two_ are in all points alike: probably in no two\nof the more ancient can _even a few consecutive verses_ be found\nin which all the words agree.\"--_Dean Alford, \"How to Study the New\nTestament_.\" \"I find Armenian Christians who say that it is a sin to eat\na hare; Greeks who affirm that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from\nthe Son; Nestorians who deny that Mary is the mother of God: Latins\nwho boast that in the extreme West the Christians of Europe think quite\ncontrary to those of Asia and Africa. I know that ten or twelve sects\nin Europe anathematise each other; the Musselmen disdain the Christians,\nwhom they nevertheless tolerate; the Jews hold in equal execration the\nChristians and Muselmen; the Fire-worshippers despise them all; the\nremnant of the Sabeans will not eat with either of the Other sects;\nand the Brahmin cannot suffer either Salbeans, or Fire-Worshippers, or\nChristians, or Musselmen, or Jews. I have a hundred times wished that\nJesus Christ, in coming to be incarnated in Judea, had united all the\nsects under his laws. I have asked myself why, being God, he did not use\nthe rights of his divinity; why, in coming to deliver us from sin, he\nhas left us in sin; why, in coming to enlighten all men, he has left\nalmost all men in darkness. I know I am nothing; I know that from the\ndepth of my nothingness I have no right to interrogate the Being of\nBeings; but I may, like Job, raise a voice of respectful sorrow from the\nbosom of my misery.\"--_Voltaire_.","title":"Ingersoll in Canada: A Reply to Wendling, Archbishop Lynch, Bystander; and Others","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":25410}