{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38806/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38806","id":"gutenberg_38806","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38806","summary":null,"tags":["Category: American Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNEED TO REDO ALL THE \"REMOVE\" LINES:\n\nTHE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL\n\n\"ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH INSULTS. KINDNESS IS STRENGTH;\nANGER BLOWS OUT THE LAMP OF THE MIND. IN THE EXAMINATION OF A GREAT AND\nIMPORTANT QUESTION, EVERY ONE SHOULD BE SERENE, SLOW-PULSED AND CALM.\"\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES VOLUME VI.\n\nDISCUSSIONS\n\n1900\n\nDresden Edition\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\n(1881.)\n\nI. Col. Ingersoll's Opening Paper--Statement of the Fundamental Truths\nof Christianity--Reasons for Thinking that Portions of the Old Testament\nare the Product of a Barbarous People--Passages upholding\nSlavery, Polygamy, War, and Religious Persecution not Evidences of\nInspiration--If the Words are not Inspired, What Is?--Commands of\nJehovah compared with the Precepts of Pagans and Stoics--Epictetus,\nCicero, Zeno, Seneca, Brahma--II. The New Testament--Why were\nFour Gospels Necessary?--Salvation by Belief--The Doctrine of\nthe Atonement--The Jewish System Culminating in the Sacrifice of\nChrist--Except for the Crucifixion of her Son, the Virgin Mary would be\namong the Lost--What Christ must have Known would Follow the Acceptance\nof His Teachings--The Wars of Sects, the Inquisition, the Fields of\nDeath--Why did he not Forbid it All?--The Little that he Revealed--The\nDogma of Eternal Punishment--Upon Love's Breast the Church has Placed\nthe Eternal Asp--III. The \"Inspired\" Writers--Why did not God furnish\nEvery Nation with a Bible?\n\nII. Judge Black's Reply--His Duty that of a Policeman--The Church not\nin Danger--Classes who Break out into Articulate Blasphemy--The\nSciolist--Personal Remarks about Col. Ingersoll--Chief-Justice Gibson of\nPennsylvania Quoted--We have no Jurisdiction or Capacity to Rejudge the\nJustice of God--The Moral Code of the Bible--Civil Government of the\nJews--No Standard of Justice without Belief in a God--Punishments for\nBlasphemy and Idolatry Defended--Wars of Conquest--Allusion to Col.\nIngersoll's War Record--Slavery among the Jews--Polygamy Discouraged by\nthe Mosaic Constitution--Jesus of Nazareth and the Establishment of\nhis Religion--Acceptance of Christianity and Adjudication upon its\nDivinity--The Evangelists and their Depositions--The Fundamental Truths\nof Christianity--Persecution and Triumph of the Church--Ingersoll's\nPropositions Compressed and the Compressions Answered--Salvation as a\nReward of Belief--Punishment of Unbelief--The Second Birth, Atonement,\nRedemption, Non-resistance, Excessive Punishment of Sinners, Christ and\nPersecution, Christianity and Freedom of Thought, Sufficiency of the\nGospel, Miracles, Moral Effect of Christianity.\n\nIII. Col. Ingersoll's Rejoinder--How this Discussion Came About--Natural\nLaw--The Design Argument--The Right to Rejudge the Justice even of a\nGod--Violation of the Commandments by Jehovah--Religious Intolerance\nof the Old Testament--Judge Black's Justification of Wars of\nExtermination--His Defence of Slavery--Polygamy not \"Discouraged\" by the\nOld Testament--Position of Woman under the Jewish System and under that\nof the Ancients--a \"Policeman's\" View of God--Slavery under Jehovah\nand in Egypt--The Admission that Jehovah gave no Commandment against\nPolygamy--The Learned and Wise Crawl back in Cribs--Alleged Harmony of\nOld and New Testaments--On the Assertion that the Spread of Christianity\nProves the Supernatural Origin of the Gospel--The Argument applicable to\nAll Religions--Communications from Angels ana Gods--Authenticity of\nthe Statements of the Evangelists--Three Important Manuscripts--Rise\nof Mormonism--Ascension of Christ--The Great Public Events alleged\nas Fundamental Truths of Christianity--Judge Black's System\nof \"Compression\"--\"A Metaphysical Question\"--Right and\nWrong--Justice--Christianity and Freedom of Thought--Heaven and\nHell--Production of God and the Devil--Inspiration of the Bible\ndependent on the Credulity of the Reader--Doubt of Miracles--The\nWorld before Christ's Advent--Respect for the Man Christ--The Dark\nAges--Institutions of Mercy--Civil Law.\n\nTHE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION.\n\n(1887.)\n\nAn Open Letter to Robert G. Ingersoll--Superstitions--Basis of\nReligion--Napoleon's Question about the Stars--The Idea of God--Crushing\nout Hope--Atonement, Regeneration, and Future Retribution--Socrates and\nJesus--The Language of Col. Ingersoll characterized as too Sweeping--The\nSabbath--But a Step from Sneering at Religion to Sneering at Morality.\n\nA Reply to the Rev. Henry M. Field, D. D.--Honest Differences of\nOpinion--Charles Darwin--Dr. Field's Distinction between Superstition\nand Religion--The Presbyterian God an Infinite Torquemada--Napoleon's\nSensitiveness to the Divine Influence--The Preference of Agassiz--The\nMysterious as an Explanation--The Certainty that God is not what he\nis Thought to Be--Self-preservation the Fibre of Society--Did\nthe Assassination of Lincoln Illustrate the Justice of God's\nJudgments?--Immortality--Hope and the Presbyterian Creed--To a Mother\nat the Grave of Her Son--Theological Teaching of Forgiveness--On\nEternal Retribution--Jesus and Mohammed--Attacking the Religion of\nOthers--Ananias and Sapphira--The Pilgrims and Freedom to Worship--The\nOrthodox Sabbath--Natural Restraints on Conduct--Religion and\nMorality--The Efficacy of Prayer--Respect for Belief of Father and\nMother--The \"Power behind Nature\"--Survival of the Fittest--The Saddest\nFact--\"Sober Second Thought.\"\n\nA Last Word to Robert G. Ingersoll, by Dr. Field--God not a\nPresbyterian--Why Col. Ingersoll's Attacks on Religion are Resented--God\nis more Merciful than Man--Theories about the Future Life--Retribution\na Necessary Part of the Divine Law--The Case of Robinson\nCrusoe--Irresistible Proof of Design--Col. Ingersoll's View of\nImmortality--An Almighty Friend.\n\nLetter to Dr. Field--The Presbyterian God--What the Presbyterians\nClaim--The \"Incurably Bad\"--Responsibility for not seeing Things\nClearly--Good Deeds should Follow even Atheists--No Credit in\nBelief--Design Argument that Devours Itself--Belief as a Foundation\nof Social Order--No Consolation in Orthodox Religion--The \"Almighty\nFriend\" and the Slave Mother--a Hindu Prayer--Calvinism--Christ not the\nSupreme Benefactor of the Race.\n\nCOLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY.\n\n(1888.)\n\nSome Remarks on his Reply to Dr. Field by the Hon. Wm. E.\nGladstone--External Triumph and Prosperity of the Church--A Truth Half\nStated--Col. Ingersoll's Tumultuous Method and lack of Reverential\nCalm--Jephthah's Sacrifice--Hebrews xii Expounded--The Case of\nAbraham--Darwinism and the Scriptures--Why God demands Sacrifices of\nMan--Problems admitted to be Insoluble--Relation of human Genius\nto Human Greatness--Shakespeare and Others--Christ and the Family\nRelation--Inaccuracy of Reference in the Reply--Ananias and\nSapphira--The Idea of Immortality--Immunity of Error in Belief from\nMoral Responsibility--On Dishonesty in the Formation of Opinion--A\nPlausibility of the Shallowest kind--The System of Thuggism--Persecution\nfor Opinion's Sake--Riding an Unbroken Horse.\n\nCol. Ingersoll to Mr. Gladstone--On the \"Impaired\" State of the human\nConstitution--Unbelief not Due to Degeneracy--Objections to the\nScheme of Redemption--Does Man Deserve only Punishment?--\"Reverential\nCalm\"--The Deity of the Ancient Jews--Jephthah and Abraham--Relation\nbetween Darwinism and the Inspiration of the Scriptures--Sacrifices to\nthe Infinite--What is Common Sense?--An Argument that will Defend every\nSuperstition--The Greatness of Shakespeare--The Absolute Indissolubility\nof Marriage--Is the Religion of Christ for this Age?--As to Ananias and\nSapphira--Immortality and People of Low Intellectual Development--Can\nwe Control our Thought?--Dishonest Opinions Cannot be Formed--Some\nCompensations for Riding an \"Unbroken Horse.\"\n\nROME OR REASON?\n\n(1888.)\n\n\"The Church Its Own Witness,\" by Cardinal Manning--Evidence\nthat Christianity is of Divine Origin--The Universality of the\nChurch--Natural Causes not Sufficient to Account for the Catholic\nChurch---The World in which Christianity Arose--Birth of Christ--From\nSt Peter to Leo XIII.--The First Effect of Christianity--Domestic\nLife's Second Visible Effect--Redemption of Woman from traditional\nDegradation--Change Wrought by Christianity upon the Social, Political\nand International Relations of the World--Proof that Christianity is of\nDivine Origin and Presence--St. John and the Christian Fathers--Sanctity\nof the Church not Affected by Human Sins.\n\nA Reply to Cardinal Manning--I. Success not a Demonstration of either\nDivine Origin or Supernatural Aid--Cardinal Manning's Argument\nMore Forcible in the Mouth of a Mohammedan--Why Churches Rise and\nFlourish--Mormonism--Alleged Universality of the Catholic Church--Its\n\"inexhaustible Fruitfulness\" in Good Things--The Inquisition and\nPersecution--Not Invincible--Its Sword used by Spain--Its Unity not\nUnbroken--The State of the World when Christianity was Established--The\nVicar of Christ--A Selection from Draper's \"History of the Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe\"--Some infamous Popes--Part II. How the Pope\nSpeaks--Religions Older than Catholicism and having the Same Rites\nand Sacraments--Is Intellectual Stagnation a Demonstration of Divine\nOrigin?--Integration and Disintegration--The Condition of the World 300\nYears Ago--The Creed of Catholicism--The \"One true God\" with a Knowledge\nof whom Catholicism has \"filled the World\"--Did the Catholic Church\noverthrow Idolatry?--Marriage--Celibacy--Human Passions--The Cardinal's\nExplanation of Jehovah's abandonment of the Children of Men for\nfour thousand Years--Catholicism tested by Paganism--Canon Law\nand Convictions had Under It--Rival Popes--Importance of a Greek\n\"Inflection\"--The Cardinal Witnesses.\n\nIS DIVORCE WRONG?\n\n(1889.)\n\nPreface by the Editor of the North American Review--Introduction, by the\nRev. S. W. Dike, LL. D.--A Catholic View by Cardinal Gibbons--Divorce\nas Regarded by the Episcopal Church, by Bishop, Henry C. Potter--Four\nQuestions Answered, by Robert G. Ingersoll.\n\nDIVORCE.\n\nReply to Cardinal Gibbons--Indissolubility of Marriage a Reaction\nfrom Polygamy--Biblical Marriage--Polygamy Simultaneous and\nSuccessive--Marriage and Divorce in the Light of Experience--Reply\nto Bishop Potter--Reply to Mr. Gladstone--Justice Bradley--Senator\nDolph--The argument Continued in Colloquial Form--Dialogue between\nCardinal Gibbons and a Maltreated Wife--She Asks the Advice of Mr.\nGladstone--The Priest who Violated his Vow--Absurdity of the Divorce\nlaws of Some States.\n\nREPLY TO DR. LYMAN ABBOTT.\n\n(1890)\n\nDr. Abbott's Equivocations--Crimes Punishable by Death under Mosaic\nand English Law--Severity of Moses Accounted for by Dr. Abbott--The\nNecessity for the Acceptance of Christianity--Christians should be\nGlad to Know that the Bible is only the Work of Man and that the New\nTestament Life of Christ is Untrue--All the Good Commandments, Known\nto the World thousands of Years before Moses--Human Happiness of\nMore Consequence than the Truth about God--The Appeal to Great\nNames--Gladstone not the Greatest Statesman--What the Agnostic Says--The\nMagnificent Mistakes of Genesis--The Story of Joseph--Abraham as a\n\"self-Exile for Conscience's Sake.\"\n\nREPLY TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.\n\n(1890.)\n\nRevelation as an Appeal to Man's \"Spirit\"--What is Spirit and what is\n\"Spiritual Intuition\"?--The Archdeacon in Conflict with St. Paul--II.\nThe Obligation to Believe without Evidence--III. Ignorant Credulity--IV.\nA Definition of Orthodoxy--V. Fear not necessarily Cowardice--Prejudice\nis Honest--The Ola has the Advantage in an Argument--St.\nAugustine--Jerome--the Appeal to Charlemagne--Roger Bacon--Lord Bacon\na Defender of the Copernican System--The Difficulty of finding out\nwhat Great Men Believed--Names Irrelevantly Cited--Bancroft on the\nHessians--Original Manuscripts of the Bible--VI. An Infinite Personality\na Contradiction in Terms--VII. A Beginningless Being--VIII. The\nCruelties of Nature not to be Harmonized with the Goodness of a\nDeity--Sayings from the Indian--Origen, St. Augustine, Dante, Aquinas.\n\nIS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING?\n\n(1890.)\n\nA Reply to the Dean of St. Paul--Growing Confidence in the Power of\nKindness--Crimes against Soldiers and Sailors--Misfortunes Punished\nas Crimes--The Dean's Voice Raised in Favor of the Brutalities of the\nPast--Beating of Children--Of Wives--Dictum of Solomon.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; INGERSOLL'S OPENING PAPER\n\n[Ingersoll-Black]\n\nBy Robert G. Ingersoll\n\nIn the presence of eternity the mountains are as transient as the\nclouds.\n\nA PROFOUND change has taken place in the world of thought. The pews are\ntrying to set themselves somewhat above the pulpit. The layman discusses\ntheology with the minister, and smiles. Christians excuse themselves\nfor belonging to the church, by denying a part of the creed. The idea\nis abroad that they who know the most of nature believe the least about\ntheology. The sciences are regarded as infidels, and facts as scoffers.\nThousands of most excellent people avoid churches, and, with few\nexceptions, only those attend prayer-meetings who wish to be alone. The\npulpit is losing because the people are growing.\n\nOf course it is still claimed that we are a Christian people, indebted\nto something called Christianity for all the progress we have made.\nThere is still a vast difference of opinion as to what Christianity\nreally is, although many warring sects have been discussing that\nquestion, with fire and sword, through centuries of creed and crime.\nEvery new sect has been denounced at its birth as illegitimate, as\na something born out of orthodox wedlock, and that should have been\nallowed to perish on the steps where it was found. Of the relative\nmerits of the various denominations, it is sufficient to say that\neach claims to be right. Among the evangelical churches there is a\nsubstantial agreement upon what they consider the fundamental truths of\nthe gospel. These fundamental truths, as I understand them, are:\n\nThat there is a personal God, the creator of the material universe; that\nhe made man of the dust, and woman from part of the man; that the man\nand woman were tempted by the devil; that they were turned out of the\nGarden of Eden; that, about fifteen hundred years afterward, God's\npatience having been exhausted by the wickedness of mankind, he drowned\nhis children with the exception of eight persons; that afterward he\nselected from their descendants Abraham, and through him the Jewish\npeople; that he gave laws to these people, and tried to govern them in\nall things; that he made known his will in many ways; that he wrought a\nvast number of miracles; that he inspired men to write the Bible; that,\nin the fullness of time, it having been found impossible to reform\nmankind, this God came upon earth as a child born of the Virgin Mary;\nthat he lived in Palestine; that he preached for about three years,\ngoing from place to place, occasionally raising the dead, curing the\nblind and the halt; that he was crucified--for the crime of blasphemy,\nas the Jews supposed, but that, as a matter of fact, he was offered as\na sacrifice for the sins of all who might have faith in him; that he was\nraised from the dead and ascended into heaven, where he now is, making\nintercession for his followers; that he will forgive the sins of all who\nbelieve on him, and that those who do not believe will be consigned to\nthe dungeons of eternal pain. These--it may be with the addition of the\nsacraments of Baptism and the Last Supper--constitute what is generally\nknown as the Christian religion.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that a vast number of people not only\nbelieve these things, but hold them in exceeding reverence, and imagine\nthem to be of the utmost importance to mankind. They regard the Bible as\nthe only light that God has given for the guidance of his children; that\nit is the one star in nature's sky--the foundation of all morality, of\nall law, of all order, and of all individual and national progress. They\nregard it as the only means we have for ascertaining the will of God,\nthe origin of man, and the destiny of the soul.\n\nIt is needless to inquire into the causes that have led so many people\nto believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In my opinion, they\nwere and are mistaken, and the mistake has hindered, in countless ways,\nthe civilization of man. The Bible has been the fortress and defence of\nnearly every crime. No civilized country could re-enact its laws, and in\nmany respects its moral code is abhorrent to every good and tender man.\nIt is admitted that many of its precepts are pure, that many of its laws\nare wise and just, and that many of its statements are absolutely true.\n\nWithout desiring to hurt the feeling? of anybody, I propose to give\na few reasons for thinking that a few passages, at least, in the Old\nTestament are the product of a barbarous people.\n\nIn all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but it is\npassionately asserted, that slavery is and always was a hideous\ncrime; that a war of conquest is simply murder; that polygamy is the\nenslavement of woman, the degradation of man, and the destruction of\nhome; that nothing is more infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men,\nof helpless women, and of prattling babes; that captured maidens should\nnot be given to soldiers; that wives should not be stoned to death on\naccount of their religious opinions, and that the death penalty ought\nnot to be inflicted for a violation of the Sabbath. We know that\nthere was a time, in the history of almost every nation, when\nslavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination were regarded as divine\ninstitutions; when women were looked upon as beasts of burden, and when,\namong some people, it was considered the duty of the husband to murder\nthe wife for differing with him on the subject of religion. Nations that\nentertain these views to-day are regarded as savage, and, probably, with\nthe exception of the South Sea Islanders, the Feejees, some citizens\nof Delaware, and a few tribes in Central Africa, no human beings can be\nfound degraded enough to agree upon these subjects with the Jehovah of\nthe ancient Jews. The only evidence we have, or can have, that a\nnation has ceased to be savage is the fact that it has abandoned these\ndoctrines. To every one, except the theologian, it is perfectly easy to\naccount for the mistakes, atrocities, and crimes of the past, by\nsaying that civilization is a slow and painful growth; that the moral\nperceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of want, of crime,\nand of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the eyes\nof self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the scales of justice;\nthat conscience is born of suffering; that mercy is the child of the\nimagination--of the power to put oneself in the sufferer's place, and\nthat man advances only as he becomes acquainted with his surroundings,\nwith the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take advantage of the\nforces of nature.\n\nBut the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to declare\nthat there was a time when slavery was right--when men could buy, and\nwomen could sell, their babes. He is compelled to insist that there\nwas a time when polygamy was the highest form of virtue; when wars\nof extermination were waged with the sword of mercy; when religious\ntoleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having\nexpressed an honest thought. He must maintain that Jehovah is just as\nbad now as he was four thousand years ago, or that he was just as\ngood then as he is now, but that human conditions have so changed that\nslavery, polygamy, religious persecutions, and wars of conquest are now\nperfectly devilish. Once they were right--once they were commanded by\nGod himself; now, they are prohibited. There has been such a change in\nthe conditions of man that, at the present time, the devil is in favor\nof slavery, polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That\nis to say, the devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah\nheld four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained\nexactly the same--changeless and incapable of change.\n\nWe find that other nations beside the Jews had similar laws and ideas;\nthat they believed in and practiced slavery and polygamy, murdered women\nand children, and exterminated their neighbors to the extent of their\npower. It is not claimed that they received a revelation. It is admitted\nthat they had no knowledge of the true God. And yet, by a strange\ncoincidence, they practised the same crimes, of their own motion, that\nthe Jews did by the command of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man\ncan do wrong without a special revelation.\n\nIt will hardly be claimed, at this day, that the passages in the Bible\nupholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution are evidences\nof the inspiration of that book. Suppose that there had been nothing\nin the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would any modern Christian\nsuspect that it was not inspired, on account of the omission? Suppose\nthat there had been nothing in the Old Testament but laws in favor of\nthese crimes, would any intelligent Christian now contend that it was\nthe work of the true God? If the devil had inspired a book, will some\nbeliever in the doctrine of inspiration tell us in what respect, on the\nsubjects of slavery, polygamy, war, and liberty, it would have differed\nfrom some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose that we should now\ndiscover a Hindu book of equal antiquity with the Old Testament,\ncontaining a defence of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and\nreligious persecution, would we regard it as evidence that the writers\nwere inspired by an infinitely wise and merciful God? As most other\nnations at that time practiced these crimes, and as the Jews would have\npracticed them all, even if left to themselves, one can hardly see\nthe necessity of any inspired commands upon these subjects. Is there a\nbeliever in the Bible who does not wish that God, amid the thunders and\nlightnings of Sinai, had distinctly said to Moses that man should not\nown his fellow-man; that women should not sell their babes; that men\nshould be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that the\nsword should never be unsheathed to shed the blood of honest men? Is\nthere a believer in the world, who would not be delighted to find that\nevery one of these infamous passages are interpolations, and that the\nskirts of God were never reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe?\nIs there a believer who does not regret that God commanded a husband to\nstone his wife to death for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon?\nSurely, the light of experience is enough to tell us that slavery is\nwrong, that polygamy is infamous, and that murder is not a virtue.\nNo one will now contend that it was worth God's while to impart the\ninformation to Moses, or to Joshua, or to anybody else, that the Jewish\npeople might purchase slaves of the heathen, or that it was their duty\nto exterminate the natives of the Holy Land. The deists have contended\nthat the Old Testament is too cruel and barbarous to be the work of a\nwise and loving God. To this, the theologians have replied, that nature\nis just as cruel; that the earthquake, the volcano, the pestilence and\nstorm, are just as savage as the Jewish God; and to my mind this is a\nperfect answer.\n\nSuppose that we knew that after \"inspired\" men had finished the Bible,\nthe devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; what part of\nthe sacred Scriptures would Christians now pick out as being probably\nhis work? Which of the following passages would naturally be selected\nas having been written by the devil--\"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" or\n\"Kill all the males among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all\nthe women children keep alive for yourselves.\"?\n\nIt may be that the best way to illustrate what I have said of the Old\nTestament is to compare some of the supposed teachings of Jehovah with\nthose of persons who never read an \"inspired\" line, and who lived and\ndied without having received the light of revelation. Nothing can be\nmore suggestive than a comparison of the ideas of Jehovah--the inspired\nwords of the one claimed to be the infinite God, as recorded in the\nBible--with those that have been expressed by men who, all admit,\nreceived no help from heaven.\n\nIn all ages of which any record has been preserved, there have been\nthose who gave their ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love and law.\nNow, if the Bible is really the work of God, it should contain the\ngrandest and sublimest truths. It should, in all respects, excel the\nworks of man. Within that book should be found the best and loftiest\ndefinitions of justice; the truest conceptions of human liberty; the\nclearest outlines of duty; the tenderest, the highest, and the noblest\nthoughts,--not that the human mind has produced, but that the human mind\nis capable of receiving. Upon every page should be found the luminous\nevidence of its divine origin. Unless it contains grander and more\nwonderful things than man has written, we are not only justified in\nsaying, but we are compelled to say, that it was written by no being\nsuperior to man. It may be said that it is unfair to call attention\nto certain bad things in the Bible, while the good are not so much as\nmentioned. To this it may be replied that a divine being would not put\nbad things in a book. Certainly a being of infinite intelligence,\npower, and goodness could never fall below the ideal of \"depraved and\nbarbarous\" man. It will not do, after we find that the Bible upholds\nwhat we now call crimes, to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the\nwords are not inspired, what is? It may be said that the thoughts are\ninspired. But this would include only the thoughts expressed without\nwords. If ideas are inspired, they must be contained in and expressed\nonly by inspired words; that is to say, the arrangement of the words,\nwith relation to each other, must have been inspired. For the purpose of\nthis perfect arrangement, the writers, according to the Christian world,\nwere inspired. Were some sculptor inspired of God to make a statue\nperfect in its every part, we would not say that the marble was\ninspired, but the statue--the relation of part to part, the married\nharmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place\nof the marble, and it is the arrangement of these words that Christians\nclaim to be inspired. If there is one uninspired word,--that is, one\nword in the wrong place, or a word that ought not to be there,--to that\nextent the Bible is an uninspired book. The moment it is admitted that\nsome words are not, in their arrangement as to other words, inspired,\nthen, unless with absolute certainty these words can be pointed out, a\ndoubt is cast on all the words the book contains. If it was worth God's\nwhile to make a revelation to man at all, it was certainly worth his\nwhile to see that it was correctly made. He would not have allowed the\nideas and mistakes of pretended prophets and designing priests to become\nso mingled with the original text that it is impossible to tell where he\nceased and where the priests and prophets began. Neither will it do to\nsay that God adapted his revelation to the prejudices of mankind. Of\ncourse it was necessary for an infinite being to adapt his revelation to\nthe intellectual capacity of man; but why should God confirm a barbarian\nin his prejudices? Why should he fortify a heathen in his crimes? If a\nrevelation is of any importance whatever, it is to eradicate prejudices\nfrom the human mind. It should be a lever with which to raise the human\nrace. Theologians Have exhausted their ingenuity in finding excuses\nfor God. It seems to me that they would be better employed in finding\nexcuses for men. They tell us that the Jews were so cruel and ignorant\nthat God was compelled to justify, or nearly to justify, many of their\ncrimes, in order to have any influence with them whatever. They tell us\nthat if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be criminal, the Jews\nwould have refused to receive the Ten Commandments. They insist that,\nunder the circumstances, God did the best he could; that his real\nintention was to lead them along slowly, step by step, so that, in a few\nhundred years, they would be induced to admit that it was hardly fair to\nsteal a babe from its mother's breast. It has always seemed reasonable\nthat an infinite God ought to have been able to make man grand enough to\nknow, even without a special revelation, that it is not altogether right\nto steal the labor, or the wife, or the child, of another. When the\nwhole question is thoroughly examined, the world will find that Jehovah\nhad the prejudices, the hatreds, and superstitions of his day.\n\nIf there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is the air of the\nsoul, the sunshine of life. Without it the world is a prison and the\nuniverse an infinite dungeon.\n\nIf the Bible is really inspired, Jehovah commanded the Jewish people to\nbuy the children of the strangers that sojourned among them, and ordered\nthat the children thus bought should be an inheritance for the children\nof the Jews, and that they should be bondmen and bondwomen forever.\nYet Epictetus, a man to whom no revelation was made, a man whose soul\nfollowed only the light of nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish\nGod, was great enough to say: \"Will you not remember that your servants\nare by nature your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you\nhave bought them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the\nwretched law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the\ngods.\"\n\nWe find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured them that\ntheir bondmen and their bondmaids must be \"of the heathen that were\nround about them.\" \"Of them,\" said Jehovah, \"shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids.\" And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had never been\nenlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral grandeur to\ndeclare: \"They who say that we should love our fellow-citizens, but not\nforeigners, destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, with which\nbenevolence and justice would perish forever.\"\n\nIf the Bible is inspired, Jehovah, God of all worlds, actually said:\n\"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue\na day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\" And yet\nZeno, founder of the Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted\nthat no man could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad,\nwhether the slave had become so by conquest, or by purchase. Jehovah\nordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others, this\ncommand: \"When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou shalt\nsmite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with\nthem, nor show mercy unto them.\" And yet Epictetus, whom we have already\nquoted, gave this marvelous rule for the guidance of human conduct:\n\"Live with thy inferiors as thou would'st have thy superiors live with\nthee.\"\n\nIs it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom\nsaid: \"I will heap mischief upon them: I will spend mine arrows upon\nthem. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,\nand with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon\nthem, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and\nterror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the\nsuckling also, with the man of gray hairs\"; while Seneca, an uninspired\nRoman, said: \"The wise man will not pardon any crime that ought to be\npunished, but he will accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought\nin pardoning. He will spare some and watch over some, because of their\nyouth, and others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not\nfall short of justice, but will fulfill it perfectly.\"\n\nCan we believe that God ever said of any one: \"Let his children be\nfatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually\nvagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate\nplaces; let the extortioner catch all that he hath and let the stranger\nspoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let\nthere be any to favor his fatherless children.\" If he ever said these\nwords, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music, from\nthe Hindu: \"Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the prattle of\ntheir own children.\"\n\nJehovah, \"from the clouds and darkness of Sinai,\" said to the Jews:\n\"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.... Thou shalt not bow down\nthyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous\nGod, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the\nthird and fourth generation of them that hate me.\" Contrast this with\nthe words put by the Hindu into the mouth of Brahma:\n\n\"I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods,\ninvoluntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am\nthe reward of all worshipers.\"\n\nCompare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things\nbegot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid\nwith suns.\n\n\nII.\n\nWAIVING the contradictory statements in the various books of the New\nTestament; leaving out of the question the history of the manuscripts;\nsaying nothing about the errors in translation and the interpolations\nmade by the fathers; and admitting, for the time being, that the books\nwere all written at the times claimed, and by the persons whose names\nthey bear, the questions of inspiration, probability, and absurdity\nstill remain.\n\nAs a rule, where several persons testify to the same transaction, while\nagreeing in the main points, they will disagree upon many minor things,\nand such disagreement upon minor matters is generally considered as\nevidence that the witnesses have not agreed among themselves upon the\nstory they should tell. These differences in statement we account for\nfrom the facts that all did not see alike, that all did not have the\nsame opportunity for seeing, and that all had not equally good memories.\nBut when we claim that the witnesses were inspired, we must admit that\nhe who inspired them did know exactly what occurred, and consequently\nthere should be no contradiction, even in the minutest detail. The\naccounts should be not only substantially, but they should be actually,\nthe same. It is impossible to account for any differences, or any\ncontradictions, except from the weaknesses of human nature, and these\nweaknesses cannot be predicated of divine wisdom. Why should there\nbe more than one correct account of anything? Why were four gospels\nnecessary? One inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.\n\nOne great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have\nbeen commanded by God, but all the cruelties recounted in the Old\nTestament ceased with death. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped at the\nportal of the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself upon the dead;\nand not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse\nof Malachi, contains the slightest intimation that God will punish in\nanother world. It was reserved for the New Testament to make known the\nfrightful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the teacher of universal\nbenevolence who rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the\nhorrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of hell. Within the breast of\nnon-resistance was coiled the worm that never dies.\n\nOne great objection to the New Testament is that it bases salvation upon\nbelief. This, at least, is true of the Gospel according to John, and of\nmany of the Epistles. I admit that Matthew never heard of the atonement,\nand died utterly ignorant of the scheme of salvation. I also admit that\nMark never dreamed that it was necessary for a man to be born again;\nthat he knew nothing of the mysterious doctrine of regeneration, and\nthat he never even suspected that it was necessary to believe anything.\nIn the sixteenth chapter of Mark, we are told that \"He that believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be\ndamned\"; but this passage has been shown to be an interpolation, and,\nconsequently, not a solitary word is found in the Gospel according to\nMark upon the subject of salvation by faith. The same is also true\nof the Gospel of Luke. It says not one word as to the necessity of\nbelieving on Jesus Christ, not one word as to the atonement, not one\nword upon the scheme of salvation, and not the slightest hint that it is\nnecessary to believe anything here in order to be happy hereafter.\n\nAnd I here take occasion to say, that with most of the teachings of the\nGospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke I most heartily agree. The miraculous\nparts must, of course, be thrown aside. I admit that the necessity of\nbelief, the atonement, and the scheme of salvation are all set forth\nin the Gospel of John,--a gospel, in my opinion, not written until long\nafter the others.\n\nAccording to the prevailing Christian belief, the Christian religion\nrests upon the doctrine of the atonement. If this doctrine is without\nfoundation, if it is repugnant to justice and mercy, the fabric falls.\nWe are told that the first man committed a crime for which all his\nposterity are responsible,--in other words, that we are accountable,\nand can be justly punished for a sin we never in fact committed. This\nabsurdity was the father of another, namely, that a man can be rewarded\nfor a good action done by another. God, according to the modern\ntheologians, made a law, with the penalty of eternal death for its\ninfraction. All men, they say, have broken that law. In the economy of\nheaven, this law had to be vindicated. This could be done by damning the\nwhole human race. Through what is known as the atonement, the salvation\nof a few was made possible. They insist that the law--whatever that\nis--demanded the extreme penalty, that justice called for its victims,\nand that even mercy ceased to plead. Under these circumstances, God, by\nallowing the innocent to suffer, satisfactorily settled with the law,\nand allowed a few of the guilty to escape. The law was satisfied with\nthis arrangement. To carry out this scheme, God was born as a babe into\nthis world. \"He grew in stature and increased in knowledge.\" At the age\nof thirty-three, after having lived a life filled with kindness, charity\nand nobility, after having practiced every virtue, he was sacrificed as\nan atonement for man. It is claimed that he actually took our place,\nand bore our sins and our guilt; that in this way the justice of God was\nsatisfied, and that the blood of Christ was an atonement, an expiation,\nfor the sins of all who might believe on him.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation, there was no remission of sin except\nthrough the shedding of blood. If a man committed certain sins, he\nmust bring to the priest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of\nturtle-doves. The priest would lay his hands upon the animal, and the\nsin of the man would be transferred. Then the animal would be killed in\nthe place of the real sinner, and the blood thus shed and sprinkled upon\nthe altar would be an atonement. In this way Jehovah was satisfied.\nThe greater the crime, the greater the sacrifice--the more blood, the\ngreater the atonement. There was always a certain ratio between the\nvalue of the animal and the enormity of the sin. The most minute\ndirections were given about the killing of these animals, and about\nthe sprinkling of their blood. Every priest became a butcher, and every\nsanctuary a slaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to\na refined and loving soul. Nothing could have been better calculated to\nharden the heart than this continual shedding of innocent blood. This\nterrible system is supposed to have culminated in the sacrifice of\nChrist. His blood took the place of all other. It is necessary to shed\nno more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated, surfeited. The idea\nthat God wants blood is at the bottom of the atonement, and rests\nupon the most fearful savagery. How can sin be transferred from men to\nanimals, and how can the shedding of the blood of animals atone for the\nsins of men?\n\nThe church says that the sinner is in debt to God, and that the\nobligation is discharged by the Savior. The best that can possibly be\nsaid of such a transaction is, that the debt is transferred, not paid.\nThe truth is, that a sinner is in debt to the person he has injured.\nIf a man injures his neighbor, it is not enough for him to get the\nforgiveness of God, but he must have the forgiveness of his neighbor.\nIf a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives him, his hand will\nsmart exactly the same. You must, after all, reap what you sow. No god\ncan give you wheat when you sow tares, and no devil can give you tares\nwhen you sow wheat.\n\nThere are in nature neither rewards nor punishments--there are\nconsequences. The life of Christ is worth its example, its moral force,\nits heroism of benevolence.\n\nTo make innocence suffer is the greatest sin; how then is it possible to\nmake the suffering of the innocent a justification for the criminal? Why\nshould a man be willing to let the innocent suffer for him? Does not\nthe willingness show that he is utterly unworthy of the sacrifice?\nCertainly, no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an\ninnocent person should suffer for his sin. What would we think of a\nman who would allow another to die for a crime that he himself had\ncommitted? What would we think of a law that allowed the innocent to\ntake the place of the guilty? Is it possible to vindicate a just law\nby inflicting punishment on the innocent? Would not that be a second\nviolation instead of a vindication?\n\nIf there was no general atonement until the crucifixion of Christ, what\nbecame of the countless millions who died before that time? And it must\nbe remembered that the blood shed by the Jews was not for other nations.\nJehovah hated foreigners. The Gentiles were left without forgiveness\nWhat has become of the millions who have died since, without having\nheard of the atonement? What becomes of those who have heard but have\nnot believed? It seems to me that the doctrine of the atonement is\nabsurd, unjust, and immoral. Can a law be satisfied by the execution\nof the wrong person? When a man commits a crime, the law demands his\npunishment, not that of a substitute; and there can be no law, human\nor divine, that can be satisfied by the punishment of a substitute. Can\nthere be a law that demands that the guilty be rewarded? And yet, to\nreward the guilty is far nearer justice than to punish the innocent.\n\nAccording to the orthodox theology, there would have been no heaven had\nno atonement been made. All the children of men would have been cast\ninto hell forever. The old men bowed with grief, the smiling mothers,\nthe sweet babes, the loving maidens, the brave, the tender, and the\njust, would have been given over to eternal pain. Man, it is claimed,\ncan make no atonement for himself. If he commits one sin, and with\nthat exception lives a life of perfect virtue, still that one sin would\nremain unexpiated, unatoned, and for that one sin he would be forever\nlost. To be saved by the goodness of another, to be a redeemed debtor\nforever, has in it something repugnant to manhood.\n\nWe must also remember that Jehovah took special charge of the Jewish\npeople; and we have always been taught that he did so for the purpose\nof civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, he would\nhave made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty; because,\nif the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared,--a\npeople whose hearts had not been hardened by the laws and teachings of\nJehovah,--they would not have crucified him, and, as a consequence,\nthe world would have been lost. If the Jews had believed in religious\nfreedom,--in the right of thought and speech,--not a human soul could\never have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary, some\nbrave, heroic soul had rescued him from the holy mob, he would not\nonly have been eternally damned for his pains, but would have rendered\nimpossible the salvation of any human being, and, except for the\ncrucifixion of her son, the Virgin Mary, if the church is right, would\nbe to-day among the lost.\n\nIn countless ways the Christian world has endeavored, for nearly two\nthousand years, to explain the atonement, and every effort has ended\nin an admission that it cannot be understood, and a declaration that it\nmust be believed. Is it not immoral to teach that man can sin, that he\ncan harden his heart and pollute his soul, and that, by repenting\nand believing something that he does not comprehend, he can avoid the\nconsequences of his crimes? Has the promise and hope of forgiveness ever\nprevented the commission of a sin? Should men be taught that sin gives\nhappiness here; that they ought to bear the evils of a virtuous life in\nthis world for the sake of joy in the next; that they can repent between\nthe last sin and the last breath; that after repentance every stain\nof the soul is washed away by the innocent blood of another; that the\nserpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved\nwill not even pity the victims of their own crimes; that the goodness\nof another can be transferred to them; and that sins forgiven cease to\naffect the unhappy wretches sinned against?\n\nAnother objection is that a certain belief is necessary to save the\nsoul. It is often asserted that to believe is the only safe way. If you\nwish to be safe, be honest. Nothing can be safer than that. No matter\nwhat his belief may be, no man, even in the hour of death, can regret\nhaving been honest. It never can be necessary to throw away your reason\nto save your soul. A soul without reason is scarcely worth saving. There\nis no more degrading doctrine than that of mental non-resistance. The\nsoul has a right to defend its castle--the brain, and he who waives that\nright becomes a serf and slave. Neither can I admit that a man, by doing\nme an injury, can place me under obligation to do him a service. To\nrender benefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between\nactions. He who treats his friends and enemies alike has neither love\nnor justice. The idea of non-resistance never occurred to a man with\npower to protect himself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born\nwhen resistance was impossible. To allow a crime to be committed when\nyou can prevent it, is next to committing the crime yourself. And yet,\nunder the banner of non-resistance, the church has shed the blood of\nmillions, and in the folds of her sacred vestments have gleamed the\ndaggers of assassination. With her cunning hands she wove the purple for\nhypocrisy, and placed the crown upon the brow of crime. For a thousand\nyears larceny held the scales of justice, while beggars scorned the\nprincely sons of toil, and ignorant fear denounced the liberty of\nthought.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him, like a\npanorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how his words\nwould be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies,\nwould be committed in his name. He knew that the fires of persecution\nwould climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that brave\nmen would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled with pain; that the\nchurch would use instruments of torture, that his followers would appeal\nto whip and chain. He must have seen the horizon of the future red with\nthe flames of the _auto da fe_. He knew all the creeds that would spring\nlike poison fungi from every text. He saw the sects waging war against\neach other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests,\nbuilding dungeons for their fellow-men. He saw them using instruments\nof pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with agony, the tears,\nthe blood--heard the shrieks and sobs of all the moaning, martyred\nmultitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with\nswords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition\nwould be born of teachings attributed to him. He saw all the\ninterpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He\nknew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings,\nfor a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He\nknew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh, that\ncradles would be robbed, and women's breasts unbabed for gold, and yet\nhe died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not\ntell his disciples, and through them the world, that man should not\npersecute, for opinion's sake, his fellow-man? Why did he not cry, You\nshall not persecute in my name; you shall not burn and torment those who\ndiffer from you in creed? Why did he not plainly say, I am the Son of\nGod? Why did he not explain the doctrine of the Trinity? Why did he not\ntell the manner of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not say\nsomething positive, definite, and satisfactory about another world? Why\ndid he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven to the glad knowledge\nof another life? Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to\nmisery and to doubt?\n\nHe came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal?\n\"Love thy neighbor as thyself\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Love\nGod with all thy heart\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Return good for\nevil\"? That was said by Buddha seven hundred years before he was born.\n\"Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you\"? This was the\ndoctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster\nhad done this long before: \"Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether\nan action is good or bad, abstain from it.\" Did he come to teach us of\nanother world? The immortality of the soul had been taught by Hindus,\nEgyptians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was born. Long\nbefore, the world had been told by Socrates that: \"One who is injured\nought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do\nan injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil\nto any man, however much we may have suffered from him.\" And Cicero had\nsaid:\n\n\"Let us not listen to those who think that we ought to be angry with\nour enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly: nothing is\nmore praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as\nclemency and readiness to forgive.\"\n\nIs there anything nearer perfect than this from Confucius: \"For benefits\nreturn benefits; for injuries return justice without any admixture of\nrevenge\"?\n\nThe dogma of eternal punishment rests upon passages in the New\nTestament. This infamous belief subverts every idea of justice. Around\nthe angel of immortality the church has coiled this serpent. A finite\nbeing can neither commit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the\ninfinite. A being of infinite goodness and wisdom has no right,\naccording to the human standard of justice, to create any being destined\nto suffer eternal pain. A being of infinite wisdom would not create\na failure, and surely a man destined to everlasting agony is not a\nsuccess.\n\nHow long, according to the universal benevolence of the New Testament,\ncan a man be reasonably punished in the next world for failing to\nbelieve something unreasonable in this? Can it be possible that any\npunishment can endure forever? Suppose that every flake of snow that\never fell was a figure nine, and that the first flake was multiplied by\nthe second, and that product by the third, and so on to the last flake.\nAnd then suppose that this total should be multiplied by every drop of\nrain that ever fell, calling each drop a figure nine; and that total by\neach blade of grass that ever helped to weave a carpet for the earth,\ncalling each blade a figure nine; and that again by every grain of sand\non every shore, so that the grand total would make a line of nines so\nlong that it would require millions upon millions of years for light,\ntraveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles per\nsecond, to reach the end. And suppose, further, that each unit in this\nalmost infinite total stood for billions of ages--still that vast and\nalmost endless time, measured by all the years beyond, is as one flake,\none drop, one leaf, one blade, one grain, compared with all the flakes\nand drops and leaves and blades and grains. Upon love's breast the\nchurch has placed the eternal asp. And yet, in the same book in which is\ntaught this most infamous of doctrines, we are assured that \"The Lord is\ngood to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.\"\n\n\nIII.\n\nSO FAR as we know, man is the author of all books. If a book had been\nfound on the earth by the first man, he might have regarded it as the\nwork of God; but as men were here a good while before any books were\nfound, and as man has produced a great many books, the probability is\nthat the Bible is no exception.\n\nMost nations, at the time the Old Testament was written, believed in\nslavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution;\nand it is not wonderful that the book contained nothing contrary to such\nbelief. The fact that it was in exact accord with the morality of its\ntime proves that it was not the product of any being superior to man.\n\"The inspired writers\" upheld or established slavery, countenanced\npolygamy, commanded wars of extermination, and ordered the slaughter\nof women and babes. In these respects they were precisely like the\nuninspired savages by whom they were surrounded. They also taught and\ncommanded religious persecution as a duty, and visited the most trivial\noffences with the punishment of death. In these particulars they were in\nexact accord with their barbarian neighbors. They were utterly ignorant\nof geology and astronomy, and knew no more of what had happened than of\nwhat would happen; and, so far as accuracy is concerned, their history\nand prophecy were about equal; in other words, they were just as\nignorant as those who lived and died in nature's night.\n\nDoes any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, he\nwould uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has Jehovah\nimproved? Has infinite mercy-become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom\nintellectually-advanced? Will any one claim that the passages upholding\nslavery have liberated mankind; that we are indebted for our modern\nhomes to the texts that made polygamy a virtue; or that religious\nliberty found its soil, its light, and rain in the infamous verse\nwherein the husband is commanded to stone to death the wife for\nworshiping an unknown god?\n\nThe usual answer to these objections is that no country has ever been\ncivilized without the Bible.\n\nThe Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah made his will directly\nknown,--the only people who had the Old Testament. Other nations were\nutterly neglected by their Creator. Yet, such was the effect of the Old\nTestament on the Jews, that they crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly\ninnocent man. They could not have done much worse without a Bible. In\nthe crucifixion of Christ, they followed the teachings of his Father.\nIf, as it is now alleged by the theologians, no nation can be civilized\nwithout a Bible, certainly God must have known the fact six thousand\nyears ago, as well as the theologians know it now. Why did he not\nfurnish every nation with a Bible?\n\nAs to the Old Testament, I insist that all the bad passages were written\nby men; that those passages were not inspired. I insist that a being of\ninfinite goodness never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never\ntold a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never\nordered one nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to\nkill his wife because she suggested the worshiping of some other God.\n\nI also insist that the Old Testament would be a much better book with\nall of these passages left out; and, whatever may be said of the rest,\nthe passages to which attention has been drawn can with vastly more\npropriety be attributed to a devil than to a god.\n\nTake from the New Testament all passages upholding the idea that belief\nis necessary to salvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for\nthe sins of the world; that the punishment of the human soul will go\non forever; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of\nhonest investigation; take from it all miraculous stories,--and I admit\nthat all the good passages are true. If they are true, it makes no\ndifference whether they are inspired or not. Inspiration is only\nnecessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human reason.\nOnly that which never happened needs to be substantiated by miracles.\nThe universe is natural.\n\nThe church must cease to insist that the passages upholding the\ninstitutions of savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of the\natonement must be abandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith.\nThe savagery of eternal punishment must be renounced. Credulity is not\na virtue, and investigation is not a crime. Miracles are the children\nof mendacity. Nothing can be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken,\nsublime, and eternal procession of causes and effects.\n\nReason must be the final arbiter. \"Inspired\" books attested by miracles\ncannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A religion that does not\ncommand the respect of the greatest minds will, in a little while,\nexcite the mockery of all. Every civilized man believes in the liberty\nof thought. Is it possible that God is intolerant? Is an act infamous in\nman one of the virtues of the Deity? Could there be progress in heaven\nwithout intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future to exist only\nin perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that a man acting\nlike Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded for\nbelieving according to evidence, without evidence, or against evidence?\nAre we to be saved because we are good, or because another was virtuous?\nIs credulity to be winged and crowned, while honest doubt is chained and\ndamned?\n\nDo not misunderstand me. My position is that the cruel passages in\nthe Old Testament are not inspired; that slavery, polygamy, wars of\nextermination, and religious persecution always have been, are, and\nforever will be, abhorred and cursed by the honest, the virtuous, and\nthe loving; that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty,\nand that vicarious vice and vicarious virtue are equally absurd; that\neternal punishment is eternal revenge; that only the natural can happen;\nthat miracles prove the dishonesty of the few and the credulity of the\nmany; and that, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, salvation does not\ndepend upon belief, nor the atonement, nor a \"second birth,\" but that\nthese gospels are in exact harmony with the declaration of the great\nPersian: \"Taking the first footstep with the good thought, the second\nwith the good word, and the third with the good deed, I entered\nparadise.\"\n\nThe dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest thought,\nnor satisfy the hunger of the heart. While dusty faiths, embalmed and\nsepulchered in ancient texts, remain the same, the sympathies of men\nenlarge; the brain no longer kills its young; the happy lips give\nliberty to honest thoughts; the mental firmament expands and lifts; the\nbroken clouds drift by; the hideous dreams, the foul, misshapen children\nof the monstrous night, dissolve and fade.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY JEREMIAH S. BLACK.\n\n\"Gratiano speaks of an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in\nall Venice: his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of\nchaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them\nthey are not worth the search.\"--_Merchant of Venice_.\n\nTHE request to answer the foregoing paper comes to me, not in the form\nbut with the effect of a challenge, which I cannot decline without\nseeming to acknowledge that the religion of the civilized world is an\nabsurd superstition, propagated by impostors, professed by hypocrites,\nand believed only by credulous dupes.\n\nBut why should I, an unlearned and unauthorized layman, be placed in\nsuch a predicament? The explanation is easy enough. This is no business\nof the priests. Their prescribed duty is to preach the word, in the full\nassurance that it will commend itself to all good and honest hearts by\nits own manifest veracity and the singular purity of its precepts. They\ncannot afford to turn away from their proper work, and leave willing\nhearers uninstructed, while they wrangle in vain with a predetermined\nopponent. They were warned to expect slander, indignity, and insult, and\nthese are among the evils which they must not resist.\n\nIt will be seen that I am assuming no clerical function. I am not out on\nthe forlorn hope of converting Mr. Ingersoll. I am no preacher exhorting\na sinner to leave the seat of the scornful and come up to the bench of\nthe penitents. My duty is more analogous to that of the policeman who\nwould silence a rude disturber of the congregation by telling him that\nhis clamor is false and his conduct an offence against public decency.\n\nNor is the Church in any danger which calls for the special vigilance\nof its servants. Mr. Ingersoll thinks that the rock-founded faith\nof Christendom is giving way before his assaults, but he is grossly\nmistaken. The first sentence of his essay is a preposterous blunder. It\nis not true that \"_a profound change_ has taken place in the world of\n_thought,_\" unless a more rapid spread of the Gospel and a more faithful\nobservance of its moral principles can be called so. Its truths are\neverywhere proclaimed with the power of sincere conviction, and accepted\nwith devout reverence by uncounted multitudes of all classes. Solemn\ntemples rise to its honor in the great cities; from every hill-top in\nthe country you see the church-spire pointing toward heaven, and on\nSunday all the paths that lead to it are crowded with worshipers. In\nnearly all families, parents teach their children that Christ is God,\nand his system of morality absolutely perfect. This belief lies so deep\nin the popular heart that, if every written record of it were destroyed\nto-day, the memory of millions could reproduce it to-morrow. Its\nearnestness is proved by its works. Wherever it goes it manifests itself\nin deeds of practical benevolence. It builds, not churches alone, but\nalmshouses, hospitals, and asylums. It shelters the poor, feeds the\nhungry, visits the sick, consoles the afflicted, provides for the\nfatherless, comforts the heart of the widow, instructs the ignorant,\nreforms the vicious, and saves to the uttermost them that are ready to\nperish. To the common observer, it does not look as if Christianity\nwas making itself ready to be swallowed up by Infidelity. Thus far,\nat least, the promise has been kept that \"the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it.\"\n\nThere is, to be sure, a change in the party hostile to religion--not \"a\nprofound change,\" but a change entirely superficial--which consists, not\nin thought, but merely in modes of expression and methods of attack. The\nbad classes of society always hated the doctrine and discipline which\nreproached their wickedness and frightened them by threats of punishment\nin another world. Aforetime they showed their contempt of divine\nauthority only by their actions; but now, under new leadership, their\nenmity against God breaks out into articulate blasphemy. They assemble\nthemselves together, they hear with passionate admiration the bold\nharangue which ridicules and defies the Maker of the universe; fiercely\nthey rage against the Highest, and loudly they laugh, alike at the\njustice that condemns, and the mercy that offers to pardon them. The\norator who relieves them by assurances of impunity, and tells them that\nno supreme authority has made any law to control them, is applauded to\nthe echo and paid a high price for his congenial labor; he pockets their\nmoney, and flatters himself that he is a great power, profoundly moving\n\"the world of thought.\"\n\nThere is another totally false notion expressed in the opening\nparagraph, namely, that \"they who know most of nature believe the least\nabout theology.\" The truth is exactly the other way. The more clearly\none sees \"the grand procession of causes and effects,\" the more awful\nhis reverence becomes for the author of the \"sublime and unbroken\" law\nwhich links them together. Not self-conceit and rebellious pride, but\nunspeakable humility, and a deep sense of the measureless distance\nbetween the Creator and the creature, fills the mind of him who looks\nwith a rational spirit upon the works of the All-wise One. The heart\nof Newton repeats the solemn confession of David: \"When I consider thy\nheavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast\nordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him or the son of man\nthat thou visitest him?\" At the same time, the lamentable fact must be\nadmitted that \"a little learning is a dangerous thing\" to some persons.\nThe sciolist with a mere smattering of physical knowledge is apt to\nmistake himself for a philosopher, and swelling with his own importance,\nhe gives out, like Simon Magus, \"that himself is some great one.\" His\nvanity becomes inflamed more and more, until he begins to think he\nknows all things. He takes every occasion to show his accomplishments by\nfinding fault with the works of creation* and Providence; and this is an\nexercise in which he cannot long continue without learning to disbelieve\nin any Being greater than himself. It was to such a person, and not\nto the unpretending simpleton, that Solomon applied his often quoted\naphorism: \"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.\" These are\nwhat Paul refers to as \"vain babblings and the opposition of science,\nfalsely so called;\" but they are perfectly powerless to stop or turn\naside the great current of human thought on the subject of Christian\ntheology. That majestic stream, supplied from a thousand unfailing\nfountains, rolls on and will roll forever.\n\n_Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum_.\n\nMr. Ingersoll is not, as some have estimated him, the most formidable\nenemy that Christianity has encountered since the time of Julian the\nApostate. But he stands at the head of living infidels, \"by merit raised\nto that bad eminence.\" His mental organization has the peculiar defects\nwhich fit him for such a place. He is all imagination and no discretion.\nHe rises sometimes into a region of wild poetry, where he can color\neverything to suit himself. His motto well expresses the character of\nhis argumentation--\"mountains are as unstable as clouds:\" a fancy is\nas good as a fact, and a high-sounding period is rather better than a\nlogical demonstration. His inordinate self-confidence makes him at once\nferocious and fearless. He was a practical politician before he \"took\nthe stump\" against Christianity, and at all times he has proved his\ncapacity to \"split the ears of the groundlings,\" and make the unskillful\nlaugh. The article before us is the least objectionable of all his\nproductions. Its style is higher, and better suited to the weight of\nthe theme. Here the violence of his fierce invective is moderated; his\nscurrility gives place to an attempt at sophistry less shocking if not\nmore true; and his coarse jokes are either excluded altogether, or else\nveiled in the decent obscurity of general terms. Such a paper from such\na man, at a time like the present, is not wholly unworthy of a grave\ncontradiction.\n\nHe makes certain charges which we answer by an explicit denial, and thus\nan issue is made, upon which, as a pleader would say, we \"put\nourselves upon the country.\" He avers that a certain \"something called\nChristianity\" is a false faith imposed on the world without evidence;\nthat the facts it pretends to rest on are mere inventions; that its\ndoctrines are pernicious; that its requirements are unreasonable,\nand that its sanctions are cruel. I deny all this, and assert, on the\ncontrary, that its doctrines are divinely revealed; its fundamental\nfacts incontestably proved; its morality perfectly free from all taint\nof error, and its influence most beneficent upon society in general, and\nupon all individuals who accept it and make it their rule of action.\n\nHow shall this be determined? Not by what we call divine revelation, for\nthat would be begging the question; not by sentiment, taste, or temper,\nfor these are as likely to be false as true; but by inductive reasoning\nfrom evidence, of which the value is to be measured according to those\nrules of logic which enlightened and just men everywhere have adopted to\nguide them in the search for truth. We can appeal only to that rational\nlove of justice, and that detestation of falsehood, which fair-minded\npersons of good intelligence bring to the consideration of other\nimportant subjects when it becomes their duty to decide upon them. In\nshort, I want a decision upon sound judicial principles.\n\nGibson, the great Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania, once said to certain\nskeptical friends of his: \"Give Christianity a common-law trial; submit\nthe evidence _pro_ and _con_ to an impartial jury under the direction of\na competent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.\" This\ndeliverance, coming from the most illustrious judge of his time, not at\nall given to expressions of sentimental piety, and quite incapable of\nspeaking on any subject for mere effect, staggered the unbelief of those\nwho heard it. I did not know him then, except by his great reputation\nfor ability and integrity, but my thoughts were strongly influenced by\nhis authority, and I learned to set a still higher value upon all his\nopinions, when, in after life, I was honored with his close and intimate\nfriendship.\n\nLet Christianity have a trial on Mr. Ingersoll's indictment, and give\nus a decision _secundum allegata et probata_. I will confine myself\nstrictly to the record; that is to say, I will meet the accusations\ncontained in this paper, and not those made elsewhere by him or others.\n\nHis first specification against Christianity is the belief of its\ndisciples \"that there is a personal God, the creator of the material\nuniverse.\" If God made the world it was a most stupendous miracle, and\nall miracles, according to Mr. Ingersoll's idea are \"the children of\nmendacity.\" To admit the one great miracle of creation would be an\nadmission that other miracles are at least probable, and that would ruin\nhis whole case. But you cannot catch the leviathan of atheism with a\nhook. The universe, he says, is natural--it came into being of its own\naccord; it made its own laws at the start, and afterward improved itself\nconsiderably by spontaneous evolution. It would be a mere waste of\ntime and space to enumerate the proofs which show that the universe was\ncreated by a pre-existent and self-conscious Being, of power and wisdom\nto us inconceivable. Conviction of the fact (miraculous though it\nbe) forces itself on every one whose mental faculties are healthy and\ntolerably well balanced. The notion that all things owe their origin and\ntheir harmonious arrangement to the fortuitous concurrence of atoms is\na kind of lunacy which very few men in these days are afflicted with. I\nhope I may safely assume it as certain that all, or nearly all, who read\nthis page will have sense and reason enough to see for themselves that\nthe plan of the universe could not have been designed without a Designer\nor executed without a Maker.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll asserts that, at all events, this material world had\nnot a good and beneficent creator; it is a bad, savage, cruel piece of\nwork, with its pestilences, storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes; and man,\nwith his liability to sickness, suffering, and death, is not a success,\nbut, on the contrary, a failure. To defend the Creator of the world\nagainst an arraignment so foul as this would be almost as unbecoming\nas to make the accusation. We have neither jurisdiction nor capacity\nto rejudge the justice of God. Why man is made to fill this particular\nplace in the scale of creation--a little lower than the angels, yet far\nabove the brutes; not passionless and pure, like the former, nor mere\nmachines, like the latter; able to stand, yet free to fall; knowing the\nright, and accountable for going wrong; gifted with reason, and impelled\nby self-love to exercise the faculty--these are questions on which we\nmay have our speculative opinions, but knowledge is out of our reach.\nMeantime, we do not discredit our mental independence by taking it for\ngranted that the Supreme Being has done all things well. Our ignorance\nof the whole scheme makes us poor critics upon the small part that comes\nwithin our limited perceptions. Seeming defects in the structure of\nthe world may be its most perfect ornament--all apparent harshness the\ntenderest of mercies.\n\n     \"All discord, harmony not understood,\n     All partial evil, universal good.\"\n\nBut worse errors are imputed to God as moral ruler of the world than\nthose charged against him as creator. He made man badly, but governed\nhim worse; if the Jehovah of the Old Testament was not merely an\nimaginary being, then, according to Mr. Ingersoll, he was a prejudiced,\nbarbarous, criminal tyrant. We will see what ground he lays, if any, for\nthese outrageous assertions.\n\nMainly, principally, first and most important of all, is the unqualified\nassertion that the \"moral code\" which Jehovah gave to his people \"is\nin many respects abhorrent to every good and tender man.\" Does Mr.\nIngersoll know what he is talking about? The moral code of the Bible\nconsists of certain immutable rules to govern the conduct of all men, at\nall times and all places, in their private and personal relations with\none another. It is entirely separate and apart from the civil polity,\nthe religious forms, the sanitary provisions, the police regulations,\nand the system of international law laid down for the special and\nexclusive observance of the Jewish people. This is a distinction which\nevery intelligent man knows how to make. Has Mr. Ingersoll fallen into\nthe egregious blunder of confounding these things? or, understanding the\ntrue sense of his words, is he rash and shameless enough to assert that\nthe moral code of the Bible excites the abhorrence of good men? In\nfact, and in truth, this moral code, which he reviles, instead of being\nabhorred, is entitled to, and has received, the profoundest respect of\nall honest and sensible persons. The second table of the Decalogue is a\nperfect compendium of those duties which every man owes to himself, his\nfamily, and his neighbor. In a few simple words, which he can commit\nto memory almost in a minute, it teaches him to purify his heart from\ncovetousness; to live decently, to injure nobody in reputation, person,\nor property, and to give every one his own. By the poets, the prophets,\nand the sages of Israel, these great elements are expanded into a volume\nof minuter rules, so clear, so impressive, and yet so solemn and so\nlofty, that no pre-existing system of philosophy can compare with it for\na moment. If this vain mortal is not blind with passion, he will see,\nupon reflection, that he has attacked the Old Testament precisely where\nit is most impregnable.\n\nDismissing his groundless charge against the moral code, we come to his\nstrictures on the civil government of the Jews, which he says was so bad\nand unjust that the Lawgiver by whom it was established must have been\nas savagely cruel as the Creator that made storms and pestilences; and\nthe work of both was more worthy of a devil than a God. His language\nis recklessly bad, very defective in method, and altogether lacking\nin precision. But, apart from the ribaldry of it, which I do not\nfeel myself bound to notice, I find four objections to the Jewish\nconstitution--not more than four--which are definite enough to admit\nof an answer. These relate to the provisions of the Mosaic law on\nthe subjects of (1) Blasphemy and Idolatry; (2) War; (3) Slavery; (4)\nPolygamy. In these respects he pronounces the Jewish system not only\nunwise but criminally unjust.\n\nHere let me call attention to the difficulty of reasoning about justice\nwith a man who has no acknowledged standard of right and wrong. What is\njustice? That which accords with law; and the supreme law is the will of\nGod. But I am dealing with an adversary who does not admit that there is\na God. Then for him there is no standard at all; one thing is as right\nas another, and all things are equally wrong. Without a sovereign\nruler there is no law, and where there is no law there can be no\ntransgression. It is the misfortune of the atheistic theory that it\nmakes the moral world an anarchy; it refers all ethical questions to\nthat confused tribunal where chaos sits as umpire and \"by decision more\nembroils the fray.\" But through the whole of this cloudy paper there\nruns a vein of presumptuous egotism which says as plainly as words can\nspeak it that the author holds _himself_ to be the ultimate judge of\nall good and evil; what he approves is right, and what he dislikes is\ncertainly wrong. Of course I concede nothing to a claim like that. I\nwill not admit that the Jewish constitution is a thing to be condemned\nmerely because he curses it. I appeal from his profane malediction to\nthe conscience of men who have a rule to judge by. Such persons will\nreadily see that his specific objections to the statesmanship which\nestablished the civil government of the Hebrew people are extremely\nshallow, and do not furnish the shade of an excuse for the indecency of\nhis general abuse.\n\n_First_. He regards the punishments inflicted for blasphemy and idolatry\nas being immoderately cruel. Considering them merely as religious\noffences,--as sins against God alone,--I agree that civil laws should\nnotice them not at all. But sometimes they affect very injuriously\ncertain social rights which it is the duty of the state to protect.\nWantonly to shock the religious feelings of your neighbor is a grievous\nwrong. To utter blasphemy or obscenity in the presence of a Christian\nwoman is hardly better than to strike her in the face. Still, neither\npolicy nor justice requires them to be ranked among the highest crimes\nin a government constituted like ours. But things were wholly different\nunder the Jewish theocracy, where God was the personal head of the\nstate. There blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance; idolatry\nwas an overt act of treason; to worship the gods of the hostile heathen\nwas deserting to the public enemy, and giving him aid and comfort. These\nare crimes which every independent community has always punished with\nthe utmost rigor. In our own very recent history, they were repressed at\nthe cost of more lives than Judea ever contained at any one time.\n\nMr. Ingersoll not only ignores these considerations, but he goes the\nlength of calling God a religious persecutor and a tyrant because he\ndoes not encourage and reward the service and devotion paid by his\nenemies to the false gods of the pagan world. He professes to believe\nthat all kinds of worship are equally meritorious, and should meet the\nsame acceptance from the true God. It is almost incredible that such\ndrivel as this should be uttered by anybody. But Mr. Ingersoll not only\nexpresses the thought plainly--he urges it with the most extravagant\nfigures of his florid rhetoric. He quotes the first commandment, in\nwhich Jehovah claims for himself the exclusive worship of His people,\nand cites, in contrast, the promise put in the mouth of Brahma, that\nhe will appropriate the worship of all gods to himself, and reward all\nworshipers alike. These passages being compared, he declares the first\n\"a dungeon, where crawl the things begot of jealous slime;\" the other,\n\"great as the domed firmament, inlaid with suns.\" Why is the living God,\nwhom Christians believe to be the Lord of liberty and Father of lights,\ndenounced as the keeper of a loathsome dungeon? Because he refuses to\nencourage and reward the worship of Mammon and Moloch, of Belial and\nBaal; of Bacchus, with its drunken orgies, and Venus, with its wanton\nobscenities; the bestial religion which degraded the soul of Egypt and\nthe \"dark idolatries of alienated Judah,\" polluted with the moral filth\nof all the nations round about.\n\nLet the reader decide whether this man, entertaining such sentiments and\nopinions, is fit to be a teacher, or at all likely to lead us in the way\nwe should go.\n\n_Second_. Under the constitution which God provided for the Jews, they\nhad, like every other nation, the war-making power. They could not have\nlived a day without it. The right to exist implied the right to repel,\nwith all their strength, the opposing force which threatened their\ndestruction. It is true, also, that in the exercise of this power they\ndid not observe those rules of courtesy and humanity which have been\nadopted in modern times by civilized belligerents. Why? Because their\nenemies, being mere savages, did not understand and would not practise,\nany rule whatever; and the Jews were bound _ex necessitate rei_--not\nmerely justified by the _lex talionis_--to do as their enemies did. In\nyour treatment of hostile barbarians, you not only may lawfully, but\nmust necessarily, adopt their mode of warfare. If they come to conquer\nyou, they may be conquered by you; if they give no quarter, they\nare entitled to none; if the death of your whole population be their\npurpose, you may defeat it by exterminating theirs. This sufficiently\nanswers the silly talk of atheists and semi-atheists about the warlike\nwickedness of the Jews.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll positively, and with the emphasis of supreme and\nall-sufficient authority, declares that \"a war of conquest is simply\nmurder.\" He sustains this proposition by no argument founded in\nprinciple. He puts sentiment in place of law, and denounces aggressive\nfighting because it is offensive to his \"tender and refined soul;\" the\natrocity of it is therefore proportioned to the sensibilities of his own\nheart. He proves war a desperately wicked thing by continually vaunting\nhis own love for small children. Babes--sweet babes--the prattle of\nbabes--are the subjects of his most pathetic eloquence, and his idea\nof music is embodied in the commonplace expression of a Hindu, that the\nlute is sweet only to those who have not heard the prattle of their own\nchildren. All this is very amiable in him, and the more so, perhaps,\nas these objects of his affection are the young ones of a race in\nhis opinion miscreated by an evil-working chance. But his\n_philoprogenitiveness_ proves nothing against Jew or Gentile, seeing\nthat all have it in an equal degree, and those feel it most who make the\nleast parade of it. Certainly it gives him no authority to malign the\nGod who implanted it alike in the hearts of us all. But I admit that his\nbenevolence becomes peculiar and ultra when it extends to beasts as well\nas babes. He is struck with horror by the sacrificial solemnities of\nthe Jewish religion. \"The killing of those animals was,\" he says, \"a\nterrible system,\" a \"shedding of innocent blood,\" \"shocking to a\nrefined and sensitive soul.\" There is such a depth of tenderness in this\nfeeling, and such a splendor of refinement, that I give up without\na struggle to the superiority of a man who merely professes it. A\ncarnivorous American, full of beef and mutton, who mourns with indignant\nsorrow because bulls and goats were killed in Judea three thousand\nyears ago, has reached the climax of sentimental goodness, and should\nbe permitted to dictate on all questions of peace and war. Let Grotius,\nVattel, and Pufendorf, as well as Moses and the prophets, hide their\ndiminished heads.\n\nBut to show how inefficacious, for all practical purposes, a mere\nsentiment is when substituted for a principle, it is only necessary to\nrecollect that Mr. Ingersoll is himself a warrior who staid not behind\nthe mighty men of his tribe when they gathered themselves together for\na war of conquest. He took the lead of a regiment as eager as himself\nto spoil the Philistines, \"and out he went a-coloneling.\" How many\nAmale-kites, and Hittites, and Amorites he put to the edge of the sword,\nhow many wives he widowed, or how many mothers he \"unbabed\" cannot\nnow be told. I do not even know how many droves of innocent oxen he\ncondemned to the slaughter.\n\nBut it is certain that his refined and tender soul took great pleasure\nin the terror, conflagration, blood, and tears with which the war was\nattended, and in all the hard oppressions which the conquered people\nwere made to suffer afterwards. I do not say that the war was either\nbetter or worse for his participation and approval. But if his own\nconduct (for which he professes neither penitence nor shame) was right,\nit was right on grounds which make it an inexcusable outrage to call the\nchildren of Israel savage criminals for carrying on wars of aggression\nto save the life of their government. These inconsistencies are the\nnecessary consequence of having no rule of action and no guide for the\nconscience. When a man throws away the golden metewand of the law which\nGod has provided, and takes the elastic cord of feeling for his measure\nof righteousness, you cannot tell from day to day what he will think or\ndo.\n\n_Third_. But Jehovah permitted his chosen people to hold the captives\nthey took in war or purchased from the heathen as servants for life.\nThis was slavery, and Mr. Ingersoll declares that \"in all civilized\ncountries it is not only admitted, but it is passionately asserted, that\nslavery is, and always was, a hideous crime,\" therefore he concludes that\nJehovah was a criminal. This would be a _non sequitur_, even if the\npremises were true. But the premises are false; civilized countries have\nadmitted no such thing. That slavery is a crime, under all circumstances\nand at all times, is a doctrine first started by the adherents of a\npolitical faction in this country, less than forty years ago. They\ndenounced God and Christ for not agreeing with them, in terms very\nsimilar to those used here by Mr. Ingersoll. But they did not constitute\nthe civilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very\nrespectable portion of it. Politically, they were successful; I need not\nsay by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of the country.\nDoubtless Mr. Ingersoll gets a great advantage by invoking their\npassions and their interests to his aid, and he knows how to use it.\nI can only say that, whether American Abolitionism was right or wrong\nunder the circumstances in which we were placed, my faith and my reason\nboth assure me that the infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when\nhe authorized slavery in Judea. Subordination of inferiors to superiors\nis the groundwork of human society. All improvement of our race, in this\nworld and the next, must come from obedience to some master better and\nwiser than ourselves. There can be no question that, when a Jew took\na neighboring savage for his bond-servant, incorporated him into his\nfamily, tamed him, taught him to work, and gave him a knowledge of the\ntrue God, he conferred upon him a most beneficent boon.\n\n_Fourth_. Polygamy is another of his objections to the Mosaic\nconstitution. Strange to say, it is not there. It is neither commanded\nnor prohibited; it is only discouraged. If Mr. Ingersoll were a\nstatesman instead of a mere politician, he would see good and sufficient\nreasons for the forbearance to legislate directly upon the subject. It\nwould be improper for me to set them forth here. He knows, probably,\nthat the influence of the Christian Church alone, and without the aid\nof state enactments, has extirpated this bad feature of Asiatic manners\nwherever its doctrines were carried. As the Christian faith prevails in\nany community, in that proportion precisely marriage is consecrated\nto its true purpose, and all intercourse between the sexes refined\nand purified. Mr. Ingersoll got his own devotion to the principle of\nmonogamy--his own respect for the highest type of female character--his\nown belief in the virtue of fidelity to one good wife--from the example\nand precept of his Christian parents. I speak confidently, because these\nare sentiments which do not grow in the heart of the natural man without\nbeing planted. Why, then, does he throw polygamy into the face of the\nreligion which abhors it? Because he is nothing if not political. The\nMormons believe in polygamy, and the Mormons are unpopular. They are\nguilty of having not only many wives but much property, and if a war\ncould be hissed up against them, its fruits might be more \"gaynefull\npilladge than wee doe now conceyve of.\" It is a cunning maneuver, this,\nof strengthening atheism by enlisting anti-Mormon rapacity against the\nGod of the Christians. I can only protest against the use he would make\nof these and other political interests. It is not argument; it is mere\nstump oratory.\n\nI think I have repelled all of Mr. Ingersoll's accusations against the\nOld Testament that are worth noticing, and I might stop here. But I will\nnot close upon him without letting him see, at least, some part of the\ncase on the other side.\n\nI do not enumerate in detail the positive proofs which support the\nauthenticity of the Hebrew Bible, though they are at hand in great\nabundance, because the evidence in support of the new dispensation will\nestablish the verity of the old--the two being so connected together\nthat if one is true the other cannot be false.\n\nWhen Jesus of Nazareth announced himself to be Christ, the Son of God,\nin Judea, many thousand persons who heard his words and saw his works\nbelieved in his divinity without hesitation. Since the morning of the\ncreation, nothing has occurred so wonderful as the rapidity with which\nthis religion spread itself abroad. Men who were in the noon of life\nwhen Jesus was put to death as a malefactor lived to see him worshiped\nas God by organized bodies of believers in every province of the Roman\nempire. In a few more years it took complete possession of the general\nmind, supplanted all other religions, and wrought a radical change in\nhuman society. It did this in the face of obstacles which, according to\nevery human calculation, were insurmountable. It was antagonized by all\nthe evil propensities, the sensual wickedness, and the vulgar crimes of\nthe multitude, as well as the polished vices of the luxurious classes;\nand was most violently opposed even by those sentiments and habits of\nthought which were esteemed virtuous, such as patriotism and military\nheroism. It encountered not only the ignorance and superstition, but\nthe learning and philosophy, the poetry, eloquence, and art of the time.\nBarbarism and civilization were alike its deadly enemies. The priesthood\nof every established religion and the authority of every government were\narrayed against it. All these, combined together and roused to ferocious\nhostility, were overcome, not by the enticing words of man's wisdom, but\nby the simple presentation of a pure and peaceful doctrine, preached\nby obscure strangers at the daily peril of their lives. Is it Mr.\nIngersoll's idea that this happened by chance, like the creation of the\nworld? If not, there are but two other ways to account for it; either\nthe evidence by which the Apostles were able to prove the supernatural\norigin of the gospel was overwhelming and irresistible, or else its\npropagation was provided for and carried on by the direct aid of the\nDivine Being himself. Between these two, infidelity may make its own\nchoice.\n\nJust here another dilemma presents its horns to our adversary. If\nChristianity was a human fabrication, its authors must have been either\ngood men or bad. It is a moral impossibility--a mere contradiction in\nterms--to say that good, honest, and true men practised a gross and\nwillful deception upon the world. It is equally incredible that any\ncombination of knaves, however base, would fraudulently concoct a\nreligious system to denounce themselves, and to invoke the curse of God\nupon their own conduct. Men that love lies, love not such lies as that.\nIs there any way out of this difficulty, except by confessing that\nChristianity is what it purports to be--a divine revelation?\n\nThe acceptance of Christianity by a large portion of the generation\ncontemporary with its Founder and his apostles was, under the\ncircumstances, an adjudication as solemn and authoritative as mortal\nintelligence could pronounce. The record of that judgment has come down\nto us, accompanied by the depositions of the principal witnesses. In\nthe course of eighteen centuries many efforts have been made to open\nthe judgment or set it aside on the ground that the evidence was\ninsufficient to support it. But on every rehearing the wisdom and virtue\nof mankind have re-affirmed it. And now comes Mr. Ingersoll, to try\nthe experiment of another bold, bitter, and fierce reargument. I will\npresent some of the considerations which would compel me, if I were\na judge or juror in the cause, to decide it just as it was decided\noriginally.\n\n_First_. There is no good reason to doubt that the statements of the\nevangelists, as we have them now, are genuine. The multiplication of\ncopies was a sufficient guarantee against any material alteration of the\ntext. Mr. Ingersoll speaks of interpolations made by the fathers of the\nChurch. All he knows and all he has ever heard on that subject is\nthat some of the innumerable transcripts contained errors which were\ndiscovered and corrected. That simply proves the present integrity of\nthe documents.\n\n_Second_. I call these statements _depositions_, because they are\nentitled to that kind of credence which we give to declarations made\nunder oath--but in a much higher degree, for they are more than sworn\nto. They were made in the immediate prospect of death. Perhaps this\nwould not affect the conscience of an atheist,--neither would an\noath,--but these people manifestly believed in a judgment after death,\nbefore a God of truth, whose displeasure they feared above all things.\n\n_Third_. The witnesses could not have been mistaken. The nature of the\nfacts precluded the possibility of any delusion about them. For every\naverment they had \"the sensible and true avouch of their own eyes\" and\nears. Besides, they were plain-thinking, sober, unimaginative men, who,\nunlike Mr. Ingersoll, always, under all circumstances, and especially\nin the presence of eternity, recognized the difference between mountains\nand clouds. It is inconceivable how any fact could be proven by evidence\nmore conclusive than the statement of such persons, publicly given and\nsteadfastly persisted in through every kind of persecution, imprisonment\nand torture to the last agonies of a lingering death.\n\n_Fourth_. Apart from these terrible tests, the more ordinary claims to\ncredibility are not wanting. They were men of unimpeachable character.\nThe most virulent enemies of the cause they spoke and died for have\nnever suggested a reason for doubting their personal honesty. But there\nis affirmative proof that they and their fellow-disciples were held by\nthose who knew them in the highest estimation for truthfulness. Wherever\nthey made their report it was not only believed, but believed with a\nfaith so implicit that thousands were ready at once to seal it with\ntheir blood.\n\n_Fifth_. The tone and temper of their narrative impress us with a\nsentiment of profound respect. It is an artless, unimpassioned, simple\nstory. No argument, no rhetoric, no epithets, no praises of friends, no\ndenunciation of enemies, no attempts at concealment. How strongly these\nqualities commend the testimony of a witness to the confidence of judge\nand jury is well known to all who have any experience in such matters.\n\n_Sixth_. The statements made by the evangelists are alike upon every\nimportant point, but are different in form and expression, some of\nthem including details which the others omit. These variations make it\nperfectly certain that there could have been no previous concert\nbetween the witnesses, and that each spoke independently of the\nothers, according to his own conscience and from his own knowledge. In\nconsidering the testimony of several witnesses to the same transaction,\ntheir substantial agreement upon the main facts, with circumstantial\ndifferences in the detail, is always regarded as the great\ncharacteristic of truth and honesty. There is no rule of evidence\nmore universally adopted than this--none better sustained by general\nexperience, or more immovably fixed in the good sense of mankind. Mr.\nIngersoll, himself, admits the rule and concedes its soundness. The\nlogical consequence of that admission is that we are bound to take this\nevidence as incontestably true. But mark the infatuated perversity\nwith which he seeks to evade it. He says that when we claim that the\nwitnesses were inspired, the rule does not apply, because the witnesses\nthen speak what is known to him who inspired them, and all must speak\nexactly the same, even to the minutest detail. Mr. Ingersoll's notion\nof an inspired witness is that he is no witness at all, but an\nirresponsible medium who unconsciously and involuntarily raps out\nor writes down whatever he is prompted to say. But this is a false\nassumption, not countenanced or even suggested by anything contained in\nthe Scriptures. The apostles and evangelists are expressly declared\nto be witnesses, in the proper sense of the word, called and sent to\ntestify the truth according to their knowledge. If they had all told\nthe same story in the same way, without variation, and accounted for its\nuniformity by declaring that they were inspired, and had spoken without\nknowing whether their words were true or false, where would have been\ntheir claim to credibility? But they testified what they knew; and here\ncomes an infidel critic impugning their testimony because the impress of\ntruth is stamped upon its face.\n\n_Seventh_. It does not appear that the statements of the evangelists\nwere ever denied by any person who pretended to know the facts. Many\nthere were in that age and afterward who resisted the belief that\nJesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and only Saviour of man; but his\nwonderful works, the miraculous purity of his life, the unapproachable\nloftiness of his doctrines, his trial and condemnation by a judge who\npronounced him innocent, his patient suffering, his death on the\ncross, and resurrection from the grave,--of these not the faintest\ncontradiction was attempted, if we except the false and feeble story\nwhich the elders and chief priests bribed the guard at the tomb to put\nin circulation.\n\n_Eighth_. What we call the fundamental truths of Christianity consist\nof great public events which are sufficiently established by history\nwithout special proof. The value of mere historical evidence increases\naccording to the importance of the facts in question, their general\nnotoriety, and the magnitude of their visible consequences. Cornwallis\nsurrendered to Washington at Yorktown, and changed the destiny of Europe\nand America. Nobody would think of calling a witness or even citing an\nofficial report to prove it. Julius Caesar was assassinated. We do not\nneed to prove that fact like an ordinary murder. He was master of the\nworld, and his death was followed by a war with the conspirators, the\nbattle at Philippi, the quarrel of the victorious triumvirs, Actium, and\nthe permanent establishment of imperial government under Augustus. The\nlife and character, the death and resurrection, of Jesus are just as\nvisibly connected with events which even an infidel must admit to be of\nequal importance. The Church rose and armed herself in righteousness for\nconflict with the powers of darkness; innumerable multitudes of the best\nand wisest rallied to her standard and died in her cause; her enemies\nemployed the coarse and vulgar machinery of human government against\nher, and her professors were brutally murdered in large numbers, her\ntriumph was complete; the gods of Greece and Rome crumbled on their\naltars; the world was revolutionized and human society was transformed.\nThe course of these events, and a thousand others, which reach down to\nthe present hour, received its first propulsion from the transcendent\nfact of Christ's crucifixion. Moreover, we find the memorial monuments\nof the original truth planted all along the way. The sacraments of\nbaptism and the supper constantly point us back to the author and\nfinisher of our faith. The mere historical evidence is for these reasons\nmuch stronger than what we have for other occurrences which are regarded\nas undeniable. When to this is added the cumulative evidence given\ndirectly and positively by eye-witnesses of irreproachable character,\nand wholly uncontradicted, the proof becomes so strong that the\ndisbelief we hear of seems like a kind of insanity.\n\n     \"It is the very error of the moon,\n     Which comes more near the earth than she was wont,\n     And makes men mad!\"\n\nFrom the facts established by this evidence, it follows irresistibly\nthat the Gospel has come to us from God. That silences all reasoning\nabout the wisdom and justice of its doctrines, since it is impossible,\neven to imagine that wrong can be done or commanded by that Sovereign\nBeing whose will alone is the ultimate standard of all justice.\n\nBut Mr. Ingersoll is still dissatisfied. He raises objections as false,\nfleeting, and baseless as clouds, and insists that they are as stable as\nthe mountains, whose everlasting foundations are laid by the hand of the\nAlmighty. I will compress his propositions into plain words printed in\n_italics_, and, taking a look at his misty creations, let them roll away\nand vanish into air, one after another.\n\n_Christianity offers eternal salvation as the reward of belief alone_.\nThis is a misrepresentation simple and naked. No such doctrine is\npropounded in the Scriptures, or in the creed of any Christian church.\nOn the contrary, it is distinctly taught that faith avails nothing\nwithout repentance, reformation, and newness of life.\n\n_The mere failure to believe it is punished in hell_. I have never known\nany Christian man or woman to assert this. It is universally agreed that\nchildren too young to understand it do not need to believe it. And this\nexemption extends to adults who have never seen the evidence, or, from\nweakness of intellect, are incapable of weighing it. Lunatics and idiots\nare not in the least danger, and for aught I know, this category may, by\na stretch of God's mercy, include minds constitutionally sound, but with\nfaculties so perverted by education, habit, or passion that they are\nincapable of reasoning. I sincerely hope that, upon this or some other\nprinciple, Mr. Ingersoll may escape the hell he talks about so much. But\nthere is no direct promise to save him in spite of himself. The plan\nof redemption contains no express covenant to pardon one who rejects\nit with scorn and hatred. Our hope for him rests upon the infinite\ncompassion of that gracious Being who prayed on the cross for the\ninsulting enemies who nailed him there.\n\n_The mystery of the second birth is incomprehensible_. Christ\nestablished a new kingdom in the world, but not of it. Subjects were\nadmitted to the privileges and protection of its government by a process\nequivalent to naturalization. To be born again, or regenerated is to be\nnaturalized. The words all mean the same thing. Does Mr. Ingersoll want\nto disgrace his own intellect by pretending that he cannot see this\nsimple analogy?\n\n_The doctrine of the atonement is absurd, unjust, and immoral_. The\nplan of salvation, or any plan for the rescue of sinners from the legal\noperation of divine justice, could have been framed only in the councils\nof the Omniscient. Necessarily its heights and depths are not easily\nfathomed by finite intelligence. But the greatest, ablest, wisest,\nand most virtuous men that ever lived have given it their profoundest\nconsideration, and found it to be not only authorized by revelation,\nbut theoretically conformed to their best and highest conceptions of\ninfinite goodness. Nevertheless, here is a rash and superficial man,\nwithout training or habits of reflection, who, upon a mere glance,\ndeclares that it \"must be abandoned,\" because it _seems to him_ \"absurd,\nunjust, and immoral.\" I would not abridge his freedom of thought or\nspeech, and the _argumentum ad verecundiam_ would be lost upon him.\nOtherwise I might suggest that, when he finds all authority, human and\ndivine, against him, he had better speak in a tone less arrogant.\n\n_He does not comprehend how justice and mercy can be blended together in\nthe plan of redemption, and therefore it cannot be true_. A thing is\nnot necessarily false because he does not understand it: he cannot\nannihilate a principle or a fact by ignoring it. There are many truths\nin heaven and earth which no man can see through; for instance, the\nunion of man's soul with his body, is not only an unknowable but an\nunimaginable mystery. Is it therefore false that a connection does exist\nbetween matter and spirit?\n\n_How, he asks, can the sufferings of an innocent person satisfy justice\nfor the sins of the guilty?_ This raises a metaphysical question, which\nit is not necessary or possible for me to discuss here. As matter of\nfact, Christ died that sinners might be reconciled to God, and in that\nsense he died for them; that is, to furnish them with the means of\naverting divine justice, which their crimes had provoked..\n\n_What, he again asks, would we think of a man who allowed another to die\nfor a crime which he himself had committed?_ I answer that a man who, by\nany contrivance, causes his own offence to be visited upon the head of\nan innocent person is unspeakably depraved. But are Christians guilty of\nthis baseness because they accept the blessings of an institution which\ntheir great benefactor died to establish? Loyalty to the King who\nhas erected a most beneficent government for us at the cost of his\nlife--fidelity to the Master who bought us with his blood--is not the\nfraudulent substitution of an innocent person in place of a criminal.\n\n_The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of injuries, reconciliation\nwith enemies, as taught in the New Testament, is the child of weakness,\ndegrading and unjust_. This is the whole substance of a long, rambling\ndiatribe, as incoherent as a sick man's dream. Christianity does not\nforbid the necessary defense of civil society, or the proper vindication\nof personal rights. But to cherish animosity, to thirst for mere\nrevenge, to hoard up wrongs, real or fancied, and lie in wait for the\nchance of paying them back; to be impatient, unforgiving, malicious,\nand cruel to all who have crossed us--these diabolical propensities\nare checked and curbed by the authority and spirit of the Christian\nreligion, and the application of it has converted men from low savages\ninto refined and civilized beings.\n\n_The punishment of sinners in eternal hell is excessive_. The future of\nthe soul is a subject on which we have very dark views. In our present\nstate, the mind takes no idea except what is conveyed to it through the\nbodily senses. All our conceptions of the spiritual world are derived\nfrom some analogy to material things, and this analogy must necessarily\nbe very remote, because the nature of the subjects compared is so\ndiverse that a close similarity cannot be even supposed. No revelation\nhas lifted the veil between time and eternity; but in shadowy figures we\nare warned that a very marked distinction will be made between the\ngood and the bad in the next world. Speculative opinions concerning the\npunishment of the wicked, its nature and duration, vary with the temper\nand the imaginations of men. Doubtless we are many of us in error; but\nhow can Mr. Ingersoll enlighten us? Acknowledge ing no standard of\nright and wrong in this world, he can have no theory of rewards and\npunishments in the next. The deeds done in the body, whether good or\nevil, are all morally alike in his eyes, and if there be in heaven a\ncongregation of the just, he sees no reason why the worst rogue should\nnot be a member of it. It is supposed, however, that man has a soul as\nwell as a body, and that both are subject to certain laws, which cannot\nbe violated without incurring the proper penalty--or consequence, if he\nlikes that word better.\n\n_If Christ was God, he knew that his followers would persecute and\nmurder men for their opinions; yet he did not forbid it_. There is\nbut one way to deal with this accusation, and that is to contradict it\nflatly. Nothing can be conceived more striking than the prohibition, not\nonly of persecution, but of all the passions which lead or incite to\nit. No follower of Christ indulges in malice even to his enemy without\nviolating the plainest rule of his faith. He cannot love God and hate\nhis brother: if he says he can, St. John pronounces him a liar. The\nbroadest benevolence, universal philanthropy, inexhaustible charity,\nare inculcated in every line of the New Testament. It is plain that\nMr. Ingersoll never read a chapter of it; otherwise he would not have\nventured upon this palpable falsification of its doctrines. Who told him\nthat the devilish spirit of persecution was authorized, or encouraged,\nor not forbidden, by the Gospel? The person, whoever it was, who imposed\nupon his trusting ignorance should be given up to the just reprobation\nof his fellow-citizens.\n\n_Christians in modern times carry on wars of detraction and slander\nagainst one another_. The discussions of theological subjects by men who\nbelieve in the fundamental doctrines of Christ are singularly free from\nharshness and abuse. Of course I cannot speak with absolute certainty,\nbut I believe most confidently that there is not in all the religious\npolemics of this century as much slanderous invective as can be found\nin any ten lines of Mr. Ingersoll's writings. Of course I do not include\npolitical preachers among my models of charity and forbearance. They\nare a mendacious set, but Christianity is no more responsible for their\nmisconduct than it is for the treachery of Judas Iscariot or the wrongs\ndone to Paul by Alexander the coppersmith.\n\n_But, says he, Christians have been guilty of wanton and wicked\nPersecution_. It is true that some persons, professing Christianity,\nhave violated the fundamental principles of their faith by inflicting\nviolent injuries and bloody wrongs upon their fellow-men. But the\nperpetrators of these outrages were in fact not Christians: they were\neither hypocrites from the beginning or else base apostates--infidels or\nsomething worse--hireling wolves, whose gospel was their maw. Not one of\nthem ever pretended to find a warrant for his conduct in any precept\nof Christ or any doctrine of his Church. All the wrongs of this nature\nwhich history records have been the work of politicians, aided often by\npriests and ministers who were willing to deny their Lord and desert to\nthe enemy, for the sake of their temporal interests. Take the cases most\ncommonly cited and see if this be not a true account of them. The\n_auto da fe_ of Spain and Portugal, the burnings at Smithfield, and the\nwhipping of women in Massachusetts, were the outcome of a cruel, false,\nand antichristian policy. Coligny and his adherents were killed by\nan order of Charles IX., at the instance of the Guises, who headed a\nhostile faction, and merely for reasons of state. Louis XIV. revoked the\nedict of Nantes, and banished the Waldenses under pain of confiscation\nand death; but this was done on the declared ground that the victims\nwere not safe subjects. The brutal atrocities of Cromwell and the\noutrages of the Orange lodges against the Irish Catholics were not\npersecutions by religious people, but movements as purely political as\nthose of the Know-Nothings, Plug-Uglys, and Blood-Tubs of this country.\nIf the Gospel should be blamed for these acts in opposition to its\nprinciples, why not also charge it with the cruelties of Nero, or the\npresent persecution of the Jesuits by the infidel republic of France?\n\n_Christianity is opposed to freedom of thought_. The kingdom of Christ\nis based upon certain principles, to which it requires the assent of\nevery one who would enter therein. If you are unwilling to own his\nauthority and conform your moral conduct to his laws, you cannot\nexpect that he will admit you to the privileges of his government. But\nnaturalization is not forced upon you if you prefer to be an alien. The\nGospel makes the strongest and tenderest appeal to the heart, reason,\nand conscience of man--entreats him to take thought for his own highest\ninterest, and by all its moral influence provokes him to good works;\nbut he is not constrained by any kind of duress to leave the service or\nrelinquish the wages of sin. Is there anything that savors of tyranny in\nthis? A man of ordinary judgment will say, no. But Mr. Ingersoll thinks\nit as oppressive as the refusal of Jehovah to reward the worship of\ndemons.\n\n_The gospel of Christ does not satisfy the hunger of the heart_.\nThat depends upon what kind of a heart it is. If it hungers after\nrighteousness, it will surely be filled. It is probable, also, that if\nit hungers for the filthy food of a godless philosophy it will get what\nits appetite demands. That was an expressive phrase which Carlyle used\nwhen he called modern infidelity \"the gospel of dirt.\" Those who are\ngreedy to swallow it will doubless be supplied satisfactorily.\n\n_Accounts of miracles are always false_. Are miracles impossible? No one\nwill say so who opens his eyes to the miracles of creation with which\nwe are surrounded on every hand. You cannot even show that they are\n_a priori_ improbable. God would be likely to reveal his will to the\nrational creatures who were required to obey it; he would authenticate\nin some way the right of prophets and apostles to speak in his name;\nsupernatural power was the broad seal which he affixed to their\ncommission. From this it follows that the improbability of a miracle is\nno greater than the original improbability of a revelation, and that is\nnot improbable at all. Therefore, if the miracles of the New Testament\nare proved by sufficient evidence, we believe them as we believe any\nother established fact. They become deniable only when it is shown that\nthe great miracle of making the world was never performed. Accordingly\nMr. Ingersoll abolishes creation first, and thus clears the way to his\ndogmatic conclusion that _all_ miracles are \"the children of mendacity.\"\n\n_Christianity is pernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind,\nnarrows the soul, arrests the progress of human society, and hinders\ncivilization_. Mr. Ingersoll, as a zealous apostle of \"the gospel of\ndirt,\" must be expected to throw a good deal of mud. But this is too\nmuch: it injures himself instead of defiling the object of his assault.\nWhen I answer that all we have of virtue, justice, intellectual liberty,\nmoral elevation, refinement, benevolence, and true wisdom came to us\nfrom that source which he reviles as the fountain of evil, I am\nnot merely putting one assertion against the other; for I have\nthe advantage, which he has not, of speaking what every tolerably\nwell-informed man knows to be true. Reflect what kind of a world this\nwas when the disciples of Christ undertook to reform it, and compare it\nwith the condition in which their teachings have put it. In its mighty\nmetropolis, the center of its intellectual and political power, the best\nmen were addicted to vices so debasing that I could not even allude to\nthem without soiling the paper I write upon. All manner of unprincipled\nwickedness was practiced in the private life of the whole population\nwithout concealment or shame, and the magistrates were thoroughly and\nuniversally corrupt. Benevolence in any shape was altogether unknown.\nThe helpless and the weak got neither justice nor mercy. There was\nno relief for the poor, no succor for the sick, no refuge for the\nunfortunate. In all pagandom there was not a hospital, asylum,\nalmshouse, or organized charity of any sort. The indifference to human\nlife was literally frightful. The order of a successful leader to\nassassinate his opponents was always obeyed by his followers with the\nutmost alacrity and pleasure. It was a special amusement of the populace\nto witness the shows at which men were compelled to kill one another,\nto be torn in pieces by wild beasts, or otherwise \"butchered, to make a\nRoman holiday.\" In every province paganism enacted the same cold-blooded\ncruelties; oppression and robbery ruled supreme; murder went rampaging\nand red over all the earth. The Church came, and her light penetrated\nthis moral darkness like a new sun. She covered the globe with\ninstitutions of mercy, and thousands upon thousands of her disciples\ndevoted themselves exclusively to works of charity at the sacrifice\nof every earthly interest. Her earliest adherents were killed without\nremorse--beheaded, crucified, sawn asunder, thrown to the beasts, or\ncovered with pitch, piled up in great heaps, and slowly burnt to death.\nBut her faith was made perfect through suffering, and the law of love\nrose in triumph from the ashes of her martyrs. This religion has come\ndown to us through the ages, attended all the way by righteousness,\njustice, temperance, mercy, transparent truthfulness, exulting hope,\nand white-winged charity. Never was its influence for good more plainly\nperceptible than now. It has not converted, purified, and reformed all\nmen, for its first principle is the freedom of the human will, and there\nare those who choose to reject it. But to the mass of mankind, directly\nand indirectly, it has brought uncounted benefits and blessings. Abolish\nit--take away the restraints which it imposes on evil passions--silence\nthe admonitions of its preachers--let all Christians cease their\nlabors of charity--blot out from history the records of its heroic\nbenevolence--repeal the laws it has enacted and the institutions it has\nbuilt up--let its moral principles be abandoned and all its miracles\nof light be extinguished--what would we come to? I need not answer this\nquestion: the experiment has been partially tried. The French nation\nformally renounced Christianity, denied the existence of the Supreme\nBeing, and so satisfied the hunger of the infidel heart for a time.\nWhat followed? Universal depravity, garments rolled in blood, fantastic\ncrimes unimagined before, which startled the earth with their sublime\natrocity. The American people have and ought to have no special desire\nto follow that terrible example of guilt and misery.\n\nIt is impossible to discuss this subject within the limits of a review.\nNo doubt the effort to be short has made me obscure. If Mr. Ingersoll\nthinks himself wronged, or his doctrines misconstrued, let him not lay\nmy fault at the door of the Church, or cast his censure on the clergy.\n\n\"_Adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum_.\"\n\nJ. S. Black.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.\n\n\nIII.\n\n\n\"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do, in\norder to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and religious\nfolly.\" Kant.\n\n\"Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do, in\norder to become acceptable to God, is mere superstition and religious\nfolly.\" Kant.\n\n\nSEVERAL months ago, The North American Review asked me to write an\narticle, saying that it would be published if some one would furnish a\nreply. I wrote the article that appeared in the August number, and by\nme it was entitled \"Is All of the Bible Inspired?\" Not until the\narticle was written did I know who was expected to answer. I make this\nexplanation for the purpose of dissipating the impression that Mr. Black\nhad been challenged by me. To have struck his shield with my lance might\nhave given birth to the impression that I was somewhat doubtful as to\nthe correctness of my position. I naturally expected an answer from some\nprofessional theologian, and was surprised to find that a reply had been\nwritten by a \"policeman,\" who imagined that he had answered my arguments\nby simply telling me that my statements were false. It is somewhat\nunfortunate that in a discussion like this any one should resort to the\nslightest personal detraction. The theme is great enough to engage the\nhighest faculties of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a\nsubject vituperation is singularly and vulgarly out of place. Arguments\ncannot be answered with insults. It is unfortunate that the intellectual\narena should be entered by a \"policeman,\" who has more confidence in\nconcussion than discussion. Kindness is strength. Good-nature is often\nmistaken for virtue, and good health sometimes passes for genius.\nAnger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and\nimportant question, every one should be serene, slow-pulsed, and calm.\nIntelligence is not the foundation of arrogance. Insolence is not logic.\nEpithets are the arguments of malice. Candor is the courage of the soul.\nLeaving the objectionable portions of Mr. Black's reply, feeling that so\ngrand a subject should not be blown and tainted with malicious words, I\nproceed to answer as best I may the arguments he has urged.\n\nI am made to say that \"the universe is natural\"; that \"it came into\nbeing of its own accord\"; that \"it made its own laws at the start, and\nafterward improved itself considerably by spontaneous evolution.\"\n\nI did say that \"the universe is natural,\" but I did not say that \"it\ncame into being of its own accord\"; neither did I say that \"it made its\nown laws and afterward improved itself.\" The universe, according to my\nidea, is, always was, and forever will be. It did not \"come into being,\"\nit is the one eternal being,--the only thing that ever did, does, or can\nexist. It did not \"make its own laws.\" We know nothing of what we\ncall the laws of nature except as we gather the idea of law from the\nuniformity of phenomena springing from like conditions. To make myself\nclear: Water always runs down-hill. The theist says that this happens\nbecause there is behind the phenomenon an active law. As a matter\nof fact, law is this side of the phenomenon. Law does not cause the\nphenomenon, but the phenomenon causes the idea of law in our minds; and\nthis idea is produced from the fact that under like circumstances the\nsame phenomenon always happens. Mr. Black probably thinks that the\ndifference in the weight of rocks and clouds was created by law; that\nparallel lines fail to unite only because it is illegal that diameter\nand circumference could have been so made that it would be a greater\ndistance across than around a circle; that a straight line could enclose\na triangle if not prevented by law, and that a little legislation could\nmake it possible for two bodies to occupy the same space at the same\ntime. It seems to me that law cannot be the cause of phenomena, but is\nan effect produced in our minds by their succession and resemblance.\nTo put a God back of the universe, compels us to admit that there was a\ntime when nothing existed except this God; that this God had lived from\neternity in an infinite vacuum, and in absolute idleness. The mind of\nevery thoughtful man is forced to one of these two conclusions:\neither that the universe is self-existent, or that it was created by a\nself-existent being. To my mind, there are far more difficulties in the\nsecond hypothesis than in the first.\n\nOf course, upon a question like this, nothing can be absolutely known.\nWe live on an atom called Earth, and what we know of the infinite is\nalmost infinitely limited; but, little as we know, all have an equal\nright to give their honest thought. Life is a shadowy, strange,\nand winding road on which we travel for a little way--a few short\nsteps---just from the cradle, with its lullaby of love, to the low and\nquiet way-side inn, where all at last must sleep, and where the only\nsalutation is--Good-night.\n\nI know as little as any one else about the \"plan\" of the universe; and\nas to the \"design,\" I know just as little. It will not do to say that\nthe universe was designed, and therefore there must be a designer. There\nmust first be proof that it was \"designed.\" It will not do to say that\nthe universe has a \"plan,\" and then assert that there must have been an\ninfinite maker. The idea that a design must have a beginning and that a\ndesigner need not, is a simple expression of human ignorance. We find\na watch, and we say: \"So curious and wonderful a thing must have had a\nmaker.\" We find the watch-maker, and we say: \"So curious and wonderful\na thing as man must have had a maker.\" We find God, and we then say: \"He\nis so wonderful that he must _not_ have had a maker.\" In other words,\nall things a little wonderful must have been created, but it is possible\nfor something to be so wonderful that it always existed. One would\nsuppose that just as the wonder increased the necessity for a creator\nincreased, because it is the wonder of the thing that suggests the idea\nof creation. Is it possible that a designer exists from all eternity\nwithout design? Was there no design in having an infinite designer? For\nme, it is hard to see the plan or design in earthquakes and pestilences.\nIt is somewhat difficult to discern the design or the benevolence in so\nmaking the world that billions of animals live only on the agonies of\nothers. The justice of God is not visible to me in the history of this\nworld. When I think of the suffering and death, of the poverty and\ncrime, of the cruelty and malice, of the heartlessness of this \"design\"\nand \"plan,\" where beak and claw and tooth tear and rend the quivering\nflesh of weakness and despair, I cannot convince myself that it is the\nresult of infinite wisdom, benevolence, and justice.\n\nMost Christians have seen and recognized this difficulty, and have\nendeavored to avoid it by giving God an opportunity in another world\nto rectify the seeming mistakes of this. Mr. Black, however, avoids the\nentire question by saying: \"We have neither jurisdiction nor capacity to\nrejudge the justice of God.\" In other words, we have no right to think\nupon this subject, no right to examine the questions most vitally\naffecting human kind. We are simply to accept the ignorant statements of\nbarbarian dead. This question cannot be settled by saying that \"it would\nbe a mere waste of time and space to enumerate the proofs which show\nthat the Universe was created by a preexistent and self-conscious\nBeing.\" The time and space should have been \"wasted,\" and the proofs\nshould have been enumerated. These \"proofs\" are what the wisest and\ngreatest are trying to find. Logic is not satisfied with assertion.\nIt cares nothing for the opinions of the \"great,\"--nothing for the\nprejudices of the many, and least of all for the superstitions of the\ndead. In the world of Science, a fact is a legal tender. Assertions and\nmiracles are base and spurious coins. We have the right to rejudge the\njustice even of a god. No one should throw away his reason--the fruit\nof all experience. It is the intellectual capital of the soul, the only\nlight, the only guide, and without it the brain becomes the palace of an\nidiot king, attended by a retinue of thieves and hypocrites.\n\nOf course it is admitted that most of the Ten Commandments are wise and\njust. In passing, it may be well enough to say, that the commandment,\n\"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of\nanything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or\nthat is in the water under the earth,\" was the absolute death of Art,\nand that not until after the destruction of Jerusalem was there a Hebrew\npainter or sculptor. Surely a commandment is not inspired that drives\nfrom the earth the living canvas and the breathing stone--leaves all\nwalls bare and all the niches desolate. In the tenth commandment we find\nwoman placed on an exact equality with other property, which, to say the\nleast of it, has never tended to the amelioration of her condition.\n\nA very curious thing about these commandments is that their supposed\nauthor violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the account,\nhe said: \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and yet he ordered the murder of\nmillions; \"Thou shalt not commit adultery,\" and yet he gave captured\nmaidens to gratify the lust of captors; \"Thou shalt not steal,\" and yet\nhe gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and herds of others; \"Thou shalt\nnot covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife,\" and yet he allowed his\nchosen people to destroy the homes of neighbors and to steal their\nwives; \"Honor thy father and thy mother,\" and yet this same God had\nthousands of fathers butchered, and with the sword of war killed\nchildren yet unborn; \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy\nneighbor,\" and yet he sent abroad \"lying spirits\" to deceive his own\nprophets, and in a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit. So far as we\nknow, Jehovah kept only one of these commandments--he worshiped no other\ngod.\n\nThe religious intolerance of the Old Testament is justified upon the\nground that \"blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance,\" that\n\"idolatry was an act of overt treason,\" and that \"to worship the gods\nof the hostile heathen was deserting to the public enemy, and giving him\naid and comfort.\" According to Mr. Black, we should all have liberty of\nconscience except when directly governed by God. In that country where\nGod is king, liberty cannot exist. In this position, I admit that he\nis upheld and fortified by the \"sacred\" text. Within the Old Testament\nthere is no such thing as religious toleration. Within that volume can\nbe found no mercy for an unbeliever. For all who think for themselves,\nthere are threatenings, curses, and anathemas. Think of an infinite\nbeing who is so cruel, so unjust, that he will not allow one of his own\nchildren the liberty of thought! Think of an infinite God acting as the\ndirect governor of a people, and yet not able to command their love!\nThink of the author of all mercy imbruing his hands in the blood of\nhelpless men, women, and children, simply because he did not furnish\nthem with intelligence enough to understand his law! An earthly father\nwho cannot govern by affection is not fit to be a father; what,\nthen, shall we say of an infinite being who resorts to violence, to\npestilence, to disease, and famine, in the vain effort to obtain even\nthe respect of a savage? Read this passage, red from the heart of\ncruelty:\n\n\"_If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods which thou hast\nnot known, thou nor thy fathers,... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor\nhearken unto him, neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou\nspare, neither shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him;\nthine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards\nthe hand of all the people; and thou shalt stone him with stones, that\nhe die_.\"\n\nThis is the religious liberty of the Bible. If you had lived in\nPalestine, and if the wife of your bosom, dearer to you than your\nown soul, had said: \"I like the religion of India better than that of\nPalestine,\" it would have been your duty to kill her.\n\n\"Your eye must not pity her, your hand must be first upon her, and\nafterwards the hand of all the people.\" If she had said: \"Let us worship\nthe sun--the sun that clothes the earth in garments of green--the\nsun, the great fireside of the world--the sun that covers the hills and\nvalleys with flowers--that gave me your face, and made it possible for\nme to look into the eyes of my babe--let us worship the sun,\" it was\nyour duty to kill her. You must throw the first stone, and when against\nher bosom--a bosom filled with love for you--you had thrown the jagged\nand cruel rock, and had seen the red stream of her life oozing from\nthe dumb lips of death, you could then look up and receive the\ncongratulations of the God whose commandment you had obeyed. Is it\npossible that a being of infinite mercy ordered a husband to kill his\nwife for the crime of having expressed an opinion on the subject of\nreligion? Has there been found upon the records of the savage world\nanything more perfectly fiendish than this commandment of Jehovah? This\nis justified on the ground that \"blasphemy was a breach of political\nallegiance, and idolatry an act of overt treason.\" We can understand\nhow a human king stands in need of the service of his people. We can\nunderstand how the desertion of any of his soldiers weakens his army;\nbut were the king infinite in power, his strength would still remain the\nsame, and under no conceivable circumstances could the enemy triumph.\n\nI insist that, if there is an infinitely good and wise God, he beholds\nwith pity the misfortunes of his children. I insist that such a God\nwould know the mists, the clouds, the darkness enveloping the human\nmind. He would know how few stars are visible in the intellectual sky.\nHis pity, not his wrath, would be excited by the efforts of his\nblind children, groping in the night to find the cause of things, and\nendeavoring, through their tears, to see some dawn of hope. Filled with\nawe by their surroundings, by fear of the unknown, he would know that\nwhen, kneeling, they poured out their gratitude to some unseen power,\neven to a visible idol, it was, in fact, intended for him. An infinitely\ngood being, had he the power, would answer the reasonable prayer of an\nhonest savage, even when addressed to wood and stone.\n\nThe atrocities of the Old Testament, the threatenings, maledictions, and\ncurses of the \"inspired book,\" are defended on the ground that the Jews\nhad a right to treat their enemies as their enemies treated them; and\nin this connection is this remarkable statement: \"In your treatment\nof hostile barbarians you not only may lawfully, you must necessarily,\nadopt their mode of warfare. If they come to conquer you, they may be\nconquered by you; if they give no quarter, they are entitled to none; if\nthe death of your whole population be their purpose, you may defeat it\nby exterminating theirs.\"\n\nFor a man who is a \"Christian policeman,\" and has taken upon himself to\ndefend the Christian religion; for one who follows the Master who said\nthat when smitten on one cheek you must turn the other, and who again\nand again enforced the idea that you must overcome evil with good, it is\nhardly consistent to declare that a civilized nation must of necessity\nadopt the warfare of savages. Is it possible that in fighting, for\ninstance, the Indians of America, if they scalp our soldiers we should\nscalp theirs? If they ravish, murder, and mutilate our wives, must we\ntreat theirs in the same manner? If they kill the babes in our cradles,\nmust we brain theirs? If they take our captives, bind them to the trees,\nand if their squaws fill their quivering flesh with sharpened fagots and\nset them on fire, that they may die clothed with flame, must our wives,\nour mothers, and our daughters follow the fiendish example? Is this the\nconclusion of the most enlightened Christianity? Will the pulpits of the\nUnited States adopt the arguments of this \"policeman\"? Is this the last\nand most beautiful blossom of the Sermon on the Mount? Is this the echo\nof \"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do\"?\n\nMr. Black justifies the wars of extermination and conquest because the\nAmerican people fought for the integrity of their own country; fought to\ndo away with the infamous institution of slavery; fought to preserve the\njewels of liberty and justice for themselves and for their children.\nIs it possible that his mind is so clouded by political and religious\nprejudice, by the recollections of an unfortunate administration,\nthat he sees no difference between a war of extermination and one of\nself-preservation? that he sees no choice between the murder of helpless\nage, of weeping women and of sleeping babes, and the defence of liberty\nand nationality?\n\nThe soldiers of the Republic did not wage a war of extermination. They\ndid not seek to enslave their fellow-men. They did not murder trembling\nage. They did not sheathe their swords in women's breasts. They gave\nthe old men bread, and let the mothers rock their babes in peace.\nThey fought to save the world's great hope--to free a race and put the\nhumblest hut beneath the canopy of liberty and law.\n\nClaiming neither praise nor dispraise for the part taken by me in the\nCivil war, for the purposes of this argument, it is sufficient to say\nthat I am perfectly willing that my record, poor and barren as it is,\nshould be compared with his.\n\nNever for an instant did I suppose that any respectable American citizen\ncould be found willing at this day to defend the institution of slavery;\nand never was I more astonished than when I found Mr. Black denying that\ncivilized countries passionately assert that slavery is and always was\na hideous crime. I was amazed when he declared that \"the doctrine that\nslavery is a crime under all circumstances and at all times was first\nstarted by the adherents of a political faction in this country less\nthan forty years ago.\" He tells us that \"they denounced God and Christ\nfor not agreeing with them,\" but that \"they did not constitute the\ncivilized world; nor were they, if the truth must be told, a very\nrespectable portion of it. Politically they were successful; I need not\nsay by what means, or with what effect upon the morals of the country.\"\n\nSlavery held both branches of Congress, filled the chair of the\nExecutive, sat upon the Supreme Bench, had in its hands all rewards, all\noffices; knelt in the pew, occupied the pulpit, stole human beings in\nthe name of God, robbed the trundle-bed for love of Christ; incited\nmobs, led ignorance, ruled colleges, sat in the chairs of professors,\ndominated the public press, closed the lips of free speech, and\npolluted with its leprous hand every source and spring of power. The\nabolitionists attacked this monster. They were the bravest, grandest\nmen of their country and their century. Denounced by thieves, hated\nby hypocrites, mobbed by cowards, slandered by priests, shunned by\npoliticians, abhorred by the seekers of office,--these men \"of whom the\nworld was not worthy,\" in spite of all opposition, in spite of poverty\nand want, conquered innumerable obstacles, never faltering for one\nmoment, never dismayed--accepting defeat with a smile born of infinite\nhope--knowing that they were right--insisted and persisted until every\nchain was broken, until slave-pens became schoolhouses, and three\nmillions of slaves became free men, women, and children. They did not\nmeasure with \"the golden metewand of God,\" but with \"the elastic cord of\nhuman feeling.\" They were men the latchets of whose shoes no believer\nin human slavery was ever worthy to unloose. And yet we are told by\nthis modern defender of the slavery of Jehovah that they were not even\nrespectable; and this slander is justified because the writer is assured\n\"that the infallible God proceeded upon good grounds when he authorized\nslavery in Judea.\"\n\nNot satisfied with having slavery in this world, Mr. Black assures us\nthat it will last through all eternity, and that forever and forever\ninferiors must be subordinated to superiors. Who is the superior man?\nAccording to Mr. Black, he is superior who lives upon the unpaid labor\nof the inferior. With me, the superior man is the one who uses his\nsuperiority in bettering the condition of the inferior. The superior man\nis strength for the weak, eyes for the blind, brains for the simple;\nhe is the one who helps carry the burden that nature has put upon the\ninferior. Any man who helps another to gain and retain his liberty is\nsuperior to any infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea. For my\npart, I would rather be the slave than the master. It is better to be\nrobbed than to be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a\nthief.\n\nAccording to Mr. Black, there will be slavery in heaven, and fast by\nthe throne of God will be the auction-block, and the streets of the New\nJerusalem will be adorned with the whipping post, while the music of\nthe harp will be supplemented by the crack of the driver's whip. If some\ngood Republican would catch Mr. Black, \"incorporate him into his family,\ntame him, teach him to think, and give him a knowledge of the true\nprinciples of human liberty and government, he would confer upon him a\nmost beneficent boon.\"\n\nSlavery includes all other crimes. It is the joint product of the\nkidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer, and hypocrite. It degrades labor and\ncorrupts leisure. To lacerate the naked back, to sell wives, to steal\nbabes, to breed bloodhounds, to debauch your own soul--this is slavery.\nThis is what Jehovah \"authorized in Judea.\" This is what Mr. Black\nbelieves in still. He \"measures with the golden metewand of God.\" I\nabhor slavery. With me, liberty is not merely a means--it is an end.\nWithout that word, all other words are empty sounds.\n\nMr. Black is too late with his protest against the freedom of his\nfellow-man. Liberty is making the tour of the world. Russia has\nemancipated her serfs; the slave trade is prosecuted only by thieves and\npirates; Spain feels upon her cheek the burning blush of shame; Brazil\nwith proud and happy eyes is looking for the dawn of freedom's day; the\npeople of the South rejoice that slavery is no more, and every good and\nhonest man (excepting Mr. Black), of every land and clime, hopes that\nthe limbs of men will never feel again the weary weight of chains.\n\nWe are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy is neither commanded nor\nprohibited in the Old Testament--that it is only \"discouraged.\" It seems\nto me that a little legislation on that subject might have tended to its\n\"discouragement.\" But where is the legislation? In the moral code, which\nMr. Black assures us \"consists of certain immutable rules to govern the\nconduct of all men at all times and at all places in their private and\npersonal relations with others,\" not one word is found on the subject of\npolygamy. There is nothing \"discouraging\" in the Ten Commandments, nor\nin the records of any conversation Jehovah is claimed to have had with\nMoses upon Sinai. The life of Abraham, the story of Jacob and Laban,\nthe duty of a brother to be the husband of the widow of his deceased\nbrother, the life of David, taken in connection with the practice of\none who is claimed to have been the wisest of men--all these things are\nprobably relied on to show that polygamy was at least \"discouraged.\"\nCertainly, Jehovah had time to instruct Moses as to the infamy of\npolygamy. He could have spared a few moments from a description of the\npatterns of tongs and basins, for a subject so important as this. A\nfew words in favor of the one wife and the one husband--in favor of the\nvirtuous and loving home--might have taken the place of instructions\nas to cutting the garments of priests and fashioning candlesticks and\nouches of gold. If he had left out simply the order that rams' skins\nshould be dyed red, and in its place had said, \"A man shall have but one\nwife, and the wife but one husband,\" how much better would it have been.\n\nAll the languages of the world are not sufficient to express the filth\nof polygamy. It makes man a beast, and woman a slave. It destroys the\nfireside and makes virtue an outcast. It takes us back to the barbarism\nof animals, and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy\nserpents of most loathsome lust. And yet Mr. Black insists that we owe\nto the Bible the present elevation of woman. Where will he find in the\nOld Testament the rights of wife, and mother, and daughter defined?\nEven in the New Testament she is told to \"learn in silence, with all\nsubjection;\" that she \"is not suffered to teach, nor to usurp any\nauthority over the man, but to be in silence.\" She is told that \"the\nhead of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the\nhead of Christ is God.\" In other words, there is the same difference\nbetween the wife and husband that there is between the husband and\nChrist.\n\nThe reasons given for this infamous doctrine are that \"Adam was first\nformed, and then Eve;\" that \"Adam was not deceived,\" but that \"the woman\nbeing deceived, was in the transgression.\" These childish reasons are\nthe only ones given by the inspired writers. We are also told that \"a\nman, indeed, ought to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and\nglory of God;\" but that \"the woman is the glory of the man,\" and this is\njustified from the fact, and the remarkable fact, set forth in the very\nnext verse--that \"the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the\nman.\" And the same gallant apostle says: \"Neither was the man created\nfor the woman, but the woman for the man;\" \"Wives, submit yourselves\nunto your husbands as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the\nwife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the savior of\nthe body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the\nwives be subject to their own husbands in everything.\" These are the\npassages that have liberated woman!\n\nAccording to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had to be\npurified, for the crime of having borne sons and daughters. If in this\nworld there is a figure of perfect purity, it is a mother holding in her\nthrilled and happy arms her child. The doctrine that woman is the slave,\nor serf, of man--whether it comes from heaven or from hell, from God or\na demon, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem or from the very\nSodom of perdition--is savagery, pure and simple.\n\nIn no country in the world had women less liberty than in the Holy Land,\nand no monarch held in less esteem the rights of wives and mothers than\nJehovah of the Jews. The position of woman was far better in Egypt than\nin Palestine. Before the pyramids were built, the sacred songs of Isis\nwere sung by women, and women with pure hands had offered sacrifices to\nthe gods. Before Moses was born, women had sat upon the Egyptian throne.\nUpon ancient tombs the husband and wife are represented as seated in\nthe same chair. In Persia women were priests, and in some of the oldest\ncivilizations \"they were reverenced on earth, and worshiped afterward\nas goddesses in heaven.\" At the advent of Christianity, in all pagan\ncountries women officiated at the sacred altars. They guarded the\neternal fire. They kept the sacred books. From their lips came the\noracles of fate. Under the domination of the Christian Church, woman\nbecame the merest slave for at least a thousand years. It was claimed\nthat through woman the race had fallen, and that her loving kiss had\npoisoned all the springs of life. Christian priests asserted that but\nfor her crime the world would have been an Eden still. The ancient\nfathers exhausted their eloquence in the denunciation of woman, and\nrepeated again and again the slander of St. Paul. The condition of woman\nhas improved just in proportion that man has lost confidence in the\ninspiration of the Bible.\n\nFor the purpose of defending the character of his infallible God, Mr.\nBlack is forced to defend religious intolerance, wars of extermination,\nhuman slavery, and _almost_ polygamy. He admits that God established\nslavery; that he commanded his chosen people to buy the children of the\nheathen; that heathen fathers and mothers did right to sell their girls\nand boys; that God ordered the Jews to wage wars of extermination and\nconquest; that it was right to kill the old and young; that God forged\nmanacles for the human brain; that he commanded husbands to murder their\nwives for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon; and that every\ncruel, savage passage in the Old Testament was inspired by him. Such is\na \"policeman's\" view of God.\n\nWill Mr. Black have the kindness to state a few of his objections to the\ndevil?\n\nMr. Black should have answered my arguments, instead of calling me\n\"blasphemous\" and \"scurrilous.\" In the discussion of these questions\nI have nothing to do with the reputation of my opponent. His character\nthrows no light on the subject, and is to me a matter of perfect\nindifference. Neither will it do for one who enters the lists as the\nchampion of revealed religion to say that \"we have no right to rejudge\nthe justice of God.\"\n\nSuch a statement is a white flag. The warrior eludes the combat when he\ncries out that it is a \"metaphysical question.\" He deserts the field and\nthrows down his arms when he admits that \"no revelation has lifted the\nveil between time and eternity.\" Again I ask, why were the Jewish people\nas wicked, cruel, and ignorant with a revelation from God, as other\nnations were without? Why were the worshipers of false deities as brave,\nas kind, and generous as those who knew the only true and living God?\n\nHow do you explain the fact that while Jehovah was waging wars of\nextermination, establishing slavery, and persecuting for opinion's sake,\nheathen philosophers were teaching that all men are brothers, equally\nentitled to liberty and life? You insist that Jehovah believed in\nslavery and yet punished the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews. Was your\nGod once an abolitionist? Did he at that time \"denounce Christ for not\nagreeing with him\"? If slavery was a crime in Egypt, was it a virtue\nin Palestine? Did God treat the Canaanites better than Pharaoh did\nthe Jews? Was it right for Jehovah to kill the children of the people\nbecause of Pharaoh's sin? Should the peasant be punished for the king's\ncrime? Do you not know that the worst thing that can be said of Nero,\nCaligula, and Commodus is that they resembled the Jehovah of the Jews?\nWill you tell me why God failed to give his Bible to the whole world?\nWhy did he not give the Scriptures to the Hindu, the Greek, and Roman?\nWhy did he fail to enlighten the worshipers of \"Mammon\" and Moloch, of\nBelial and Baal, of Bacchus and Venus? After all, was not Bacchus as\ngood as Jehovah? Is it not better to drink wine than to shed blood?\nWas there anything in the worship of Venus worse than giving captured\nmaidens to satisfy the victor's lust? Did \"Mammon\" or Moloch do anything\nmore infamous than to establish slavery? Did they order their soldiers\nto kill men, women, and children, and to save alive nothing that had\nbreath? Do not answer these questions by saying that \"no veil has been\nlifted between time and eternity,\" and that \"we have no right to rejudge\nthe justice of God.\"\n\nIf Jehovah was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. He knew\nthat his Bible would be a breastwork behind which tyranny and hypocrisy\nwould crouch; that it would be quoted by tyrants; that it would be the\ndefence of robbers, called kings, and of hypocrites called priests. He\nknew that he had taught the Jewish people but little of importance. He\nknew that he found them free and left them captives. He knew that he\nhad never fulfilled the promises made to them. He knew that while other\nnations had advanced in art and science, his chosen people were savage\nstill. He promised them the world, and gave them a desert. He promised\nthem liberty, and he made them slaves. He promised them victory, and he\ngave them defeat. He said they should be kings, and he made them\nserfs. He promised them universal empire, and gave them exile. When one\nfinishes the Old Testament, he is compelled to say: Nothing can add to\nto the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!\n\nAnd here I take occasion to thank Mr. Black for having admitted that\nJehovah gave no commandment against the practice of polygamy, that he\nestablished slavery, waged wars of extermination, and persecuted for\nopinion's sake even unto death. Most theologians endeavor to putty,\npatch, and paint the wretched record of inspired crime, but Mr. Black\nhas been bold enough and honest enough to admit the truth. In this age\nof fact and demonstration it is refreshing to find a man who believes\nso thoroughly in the monstrous and miraculous, the impossible and\nimmoral--who still clings lovingly to the legends of the bib and\nrattle--who through the bitter experiences of a wicked world has kept\nthe credulity of the cradle, and finds comfort and joy in thinking about\nthe Garden of Eden, the subtle serpent, the flood, and Babel's tower,\nstopped by the jargon of a thousand tongues--who reads with happy eyes\nthe story of the burning brimstone storm that fell upon the cities\nof the plain, and smilingly explains the transformation of the\nretrospective Mrs. Lot--who laughs at Egypt's plagues and Pharaoh's\nwhelmed and drowning hosts--eats manna with the wandering Jews, warms\nhimself at the burning bush, sees Korah's company by the hungry earth\ndevoured, claps his wrinkled hands with glee above the heathens'\nbutchered babes, and longingly looks back to the patriarchal days of\nconcubines and slaves. How touching when the learned and wise crawl back\nin cribs and ask to hear the rhymes and fables once again! How charming\nin these hard and scientific times to see old age in Superstition's lap,\nwith eager lips upon her withered breast!\n\nMr. Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact\nharmony with the New Testament, and that the two are \"connected\ntogether;\" and \"that if one is true the other cannot be false.\"\n\nIf this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other\ncannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a\nright-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of\ninfinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate\nanother; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes;\never established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the\nauction-block as an altar, or a bloodhound as an apostle.\n\nMr. Black contends (after having answered my indictment against the Old\nTestament by admitting the allegations to be true) that the rapidity\nwith which Christianity spread \"proves the supernatural origin of the\nGospel, or that it was propagated by the direct aid of the Divine Being\nhimself.\"\n\nLet us see. In his efforts to show that the \"infallible God established\nslavery in Judea,\" he takes occasion to say that \"the doctrine that\nslavery is a crime under all circumstances was first started by the\nadherents of a political faction in this, country less than forty years\nago;\" that \"they denounced God and Christ for not agreeing with them;\"\nbut that \"they did not constitute the civilized world; nor were they,\nif the truth must be told, a very respectable portion of it.\" Let it be\nremembered that this was only forty years ago; and yet, according to Mr.\nBlack, a few disreputable men changed the ideas of nearly fifty millions\nof people, changed the Constitution of the United States, liberated\na race from slavery, clothed three millions of people with political\nrights, took possession of the Government, managed its affairs for more\nthan twenty years, and have compelled the admiration of the civilized\nworld. Is it Mr. Black's idea that this happened by chance? If not, then\naccording to him, there are but two ways to account for it; either the\nrapidity with which Republicanism spread proves its supernatural origin,\n\"or else its propagation was provided for and carried on by the direct\naid of the Divine Being himself.\" Between these two, Mr. Black may make\nhis choice. He will at once see that the rapid rise and spread of any\ndoctrine does not even tend to show that it was divinely revealed.\n\nThis argument is applicable to all religions. Mohammedans can use it as\nwell as Christians. Mohammed was a poor man, a driver of camels. He was\nwithout education, without influence, and without wealth, and yet in a\nfew years he consolidated thousands of tribes, and made millions of\nmen confess that there is \"one God, and Mohammed is his prophet.\"\nHis success was a thousand times greater during his life than that\nof Christ. He was not crucified; he was a conqueror. \"Of all men, he\nexercised the greatest influence upon the human race.\" Never in the\nworld's history did a religion spread with the rapidity of his. It burst\nlike a storm over the fairest portions of the globe. If Mr. Black is\nright in his position that rapidity is secured only by the direct aid of\nthe Divine Being, then Mohammed was most certainly the prophet of God.\nAs to wars of extermination and slavery, Mohammed agreed with Mr. Black,\nand upon polygamy, with Jehovah. As to religious toleration, he was\ngreat enough to say that \"men holding to any form of faith might be\nsaved, provided they were virtuous.\" In this, he was far in advance both\nof Jehovah and Mr. Black.\n\nIt will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and spread of a\nreligion demonstrates its divine character. Years before Gautama\ndied, his religion was established, and his disciples were numbered by\nmillions. His doctrines were not enforced by the sword, but by an\nappeal to the hopes, the fears, and the reason of mankind; and more than\none-third of the human race are to-day the followers of Gautama. His\nreligion has outlived all that existed in his time; and according to Dr.\nDraper, \"there is no other country in the world except India that\nhas the religion to-day it had at the birth of Jesus Christ.\" Gautama\nbelieved in the equality of all men; abhorred the spirit of caste, and\nproclaimed justice, mercy, and education for all.\n\nImagine a Mohammedan answering an infidel; would he not use the\nargument of Mr Black, simply substituting Mohammed for Christ, just as\neffectually as it has been used against me? There was a time when India\nwas the foremost nation of the world. Would not your argument, Mr.\nBlack, have been just as good in the mouth of a Brahmin then, as it is\nin yours now? Egypt, the mysterious mother of mankind, with her pyramids\nbuilt thirty-four hundred years before Christ, was once the first in\nall the earth, and gave to us our Trinity, and our symbol of the cross.\nCould not a priest of Isis and Osiris have used your arguments to prove\nthat his religion was divine, and could he not have closed by saying:\n\"From the facts established by this evidence it follows irresistibly\nthat our religion came to us from God\"? Do you not see that your\nargument proves too much, and that it is equally applicable to all the\nreligions of the world?\n\nAgain, it is urged that \"the acceptance of Christianity by a large\nportion of the generation contemporary with its founder and his\napostles was, under the circumstances, an adjudication as solemn and\nauthoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.\" If this is true,\nthen \"the acceptance of Buddhism by a large portion of the generation\ncontemporary with its founder was an adjudication as solemn and\nauthoritative as mortal intelligence could pronounce.\" The same could\nbe said of Mohammedanism, and, in fact, of every religion that has\never benefited or cursed this world. This argument, when reduced to its\nsimplest form, is this: All that succeeds is inspired.\n\nThe old argument that if Christianity is a human fabrication its authors\nmust have been either good men or bad men, takes it for granted that\nthere are but two classes of persons--the good and the bad. There is at\nleast one other class--_the mistaken_, and both of the other classes may\nbelong to this. Thousands of most excellent people have been deceived,\nand the history of the world is filled with instances where men have\nhonestly supposed that they had received communications from angels and\ngods.\n\nIn thousands of instances these pretended communications contained the\npurest and highest thoughts, together with the most important truths;\nyet it will not do to say that these accounts are true; neither can they\nbe proved by saying that the men who claimed to be inspired were good.\nWhat we must say is, that being good men, they were mistaken; and it is\nthe charitable mantle of a mistake that I throw over Mr. Black, when\nI find him defending the institution of slavery. He seems to think it\nutterly incredible that any \"combination of knaves, however base, would\nfraudulently concoct a religious system to denounce themselves, and to\ninvoke the curse of God upon their own conduct.\" How did religions\nother than Christianity and Judaism arise? Were they all \"concocted by\na combination of knaves\"? The religion of Gautama is filled with most\nbeautiful and tender thoughts, with most excellent laws, and hundreds of\nsentences urging mankind to deeds of love and self-denial. Was Gautama\ninspired?\n\nDoes not Mr. Black know that thousands of people charged with witchcraft\nactually confessed in open court their guilt? Does he not know that\nthey admitted that they had spoken face to face with Satan, and had sold\ntheir souls for gold and power? Does he not know that these admissions\nwere made in the presence and expectation of death? Does he not know\nthat hundreds of judges, some of them as great as the late lamented\nGibson, believed in the existence of an impossible crime?\n\nWe are told that \"there is no good reason to doubt that the statements\nof the Evangelists, as we have them now, are genuine.\" The fact is, no\none knows who made the \"statements of the Evangelists.\"\n\nThere are three important manuscripts upon which the Christian world\nrelies. \"The first appeared in the catalogue of the Vatican, in 1475.\nThis contains the Old Testament. Of the New, it contains the four\ngospels,--the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles, nine of the Pauline\nEpistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as far as the fourteenth verse\nof the ninth chapter,\"--and nothing more. This is known as the Codex\nVatican. \"The second, the Alexandrine, was presented to King Charles\nthe First, in 1628. It contains the Old and New Testaments, with\nsome exceptions; passages are wanting in Matthew, in John, and in II.\nCorinthians. It also contains the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, a letter\nof Athanasius, and the treatise of Eusebius on the Psalms.\" The last\nis the Sinaitic Codex, discovered about 1850, at the Convent of St.\nCatherine's, on Mount Sinai. \"It contains the Old and New Testaments,\nand in addition the entire Epistle of Barnabas, and a portion of the\nShepherd of Hermas--two books which, up to the beginning of the fourth\ncentury, were looked upon by many as Scripture.\" In this manuscript,\nor codex, the gospel of St. Mark concludes with the eighth verse of the\nsixteenth chapter, leaving out the frightful passage: \"Go ye into all\nthe world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be\ndamned.\"\n\nIn matters of the utmost importance these manuscripts disagree, but even\nif they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of\ntheir truth. It will not do to call the statements made in the gospels\n\"depositions,\" until it is absolutely established who made them, and the\ncircumstances under which they were made. Neither can we say that \"they\nwere made in the immediate prospect of death,\" until we know who made\nthem. It is absurd to say that \"the witnesses could not have been\nmistaken, because the nature of the facts precluded the possibility of\nany delusion about them.\" Can it be pretended that the witnesses could\nnot have been mistaken about the relation the Holy Ghost is alleged\nto have sustained to Jesus Christ? Is there no possibility of delusion\nabout a circumstance of that kind? Did the writers of the four gospels\nhave \"'the sensible and true avouch of their own eyes' and ears\" in\nthat behalf? How was it possible for any one of the four Evangelists\nto know that Christ was the Son of God, or that he was God? His mother\nwrote nothing on the subject. Matthew says that an angel of the Lord\ntold Joseph in a dream, but Joseph never wrote an account of this\nwonderful vision. Luke tells us that the angel had a conversation with\nMary, and that Mary told Elizabeth, but Elizabeth never wrote a word.\nThere is no account of Mary or Joseph or Elizabeth or the angel, having\nhad any conversation with Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in which one word\nwas said about the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. The persons who\nknew did not write, so that the account is nothing but hearsay. Does Mr.\nBlack pretend that such statements would be admitted as evidence in any\ncourt? But how do we know that the disciples of Christ wrote a word of\nthe gospels? How did it happen that Christ wrote nothing? How do we know\nthat the writers of the gospels \"were men of unimpeachable character\"?\n\nAll this is answered by saying \"that nothing was said by the most\nvirulent enemies against the personal honesty of the Evangelists.\" How\nis this known? If Christ performed the miracles recorded in the New\nTestament, why would the Jews put to death a man able to raise their\ndead? Why should they attempt to kill the Master of Death? How did\nit happen that a man who had done so many miracles was so obscure, so\nunknown, that one of his disciples had to be bribed to point him out? Is\nit not strange that the ones he had cured were not his disciples? Can\nwe believe, upon the testimony of those about whose character we know\nnothing, that Lazarus was raised from the dead? What became of Lazarus?\nWe never hear of him again. It seems to me that he would have been an\nobject of great interest. People would have said: \"He is the man who was\nonce dead.\" Thousands would have inquired of him about the other world;\nwould have asked him where he was when he received the information that\nhe was wanted on the earth. His experience would have been vastly\nmore interesting than everything else in the New Testament. A returned\ntraveler from the shores of Eternity--one who had walked twice through\nthe valley of the shadow--would have been the most interesting of human\nbeings. When he came to die again, people would have said: \"He is not\nafraid; he has had experience; he knows what death is.\" But, strangely\nenough, this Lazarus fades into obscurity with \"the wise men of the\nEast,\" and with the dead who came out of their graves on the night of\nthe crucifixion. How is it known that it was claimed, during the life of\nChrist, that he had wrought a miracle? And if the claim was made, how\nis it known that it was not denied? Did the Jews believe that Christ was\nclothed with miraculous power? Would they have dared to crucify a man\nwho had the power to clothe the dead with life? Is it not wonderful that\nno one at the trial of Christ said one word about the miracles he had\nwrought? Nothing about the sick he had healed, nor the dead he had\nraised?\n\nIs it not wonderful that Josephus, the best historian the Hebrews\nproduced, says nothing about the life or death of Christ; nothing about\nthe massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word about the wonderful\nstar that visited the sky at the birth of Christ; nothing about the\ndarkness that fell upon the world for several hours in the midst of day;\nand failed entirely to mention that hundreds of graves were opened, and\nthat multitudes of Jews arose from the dead, and visited the Holy\nCity? Is it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these\nprodigies? and is it not more amazing than all the rest, that Christ\nhimself concealed from Matthew, Mark, and Luke the dogma of the\natonement, the necessity of belief, and the mystery of the second birth?\n\nOf course I know that two letters were said to have been written by\nPilate to Tiberius, concerning the execution of Christ, but they have\nbeen shown to be forgeries. I also know that \"various letters were\ncirculated attributed to Jesus Christ,\" and that one letter is said to\nhave been written by him to Abgarus, king of Edessa; but as there was\nno king of Edessa at that time, this letter is admitted to have been a\nforgery. I also admit that a correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul\nwas forged.\n\nHere in our own country, only a few years ago, men claimed to have found\ngolden plates upon which was written a revelation from God. They founded\na new religion, and, according to their statement, did many miracles.\nThey were treated as outcasts, and their leader was murdered. These men\nmade their \"depositions\" \"in the immediate prospect of death.\" They were\nmobbed, persecuted, derided, and yet they insisted that their prophet\nhad miraculous power, and that he, too, could swing back the hingeless\ndoor of death. The followers of these men have increased, in these\nfew years, so that now the murdered prophet has at least two hundred\nthousand disciples. It will be hard to find a contradiction of these\npretended miracles, although this is an age filled with papers,\nmagazines, and books. As a matter of fact, the claims of Joseph Smith\nwere so preposterous that sensible people did not take the pains to\nwrite and print denials. When we remember that eighteen hundred years\nago there were but few people who could write, and that a manuscript did\nnot become public in any modern sense, it was possible for the gospels\nto have been written with all the foolish claims in reference to\nmiracles without exciting comment or denial. There is not, in all the\ncontemporaneous literature of the world, a single word about Christ\nor his apostles. The paragraph in Josephus is admitted to be an\ninterpolation, and the letters, the account of the trial, and several\nother documents forged by the zeal of the early fathers, are now\nadmitted to be false.\n\nNeither will it do to say that \"the statements made by the Evangelists\nare alike upon every important point.\" If there is anything of\nimportance in the New Testament, from the theological standpoint, it is\nthe ascension of Jesus Christ. If that happened, it was a miracle great\nenough to surfeit wonder. Are the statements of the inspired witnesses\nalike on this important point? Let us see.\n\nMatthew says nothing upon the subject. Either Matthew was not there, had\nnever heard of the ascension,--or, having heard of it, did not believe\nit, or, having seen it, thought it too unimportant to record. To this\nwonder of wonders Mark devotes one verse: \"So then, after the Lord\nhad spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the\nright-hand of God.\" Can we believe that this verse was written by one\nwho witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ; by one who watched his\nMaster slowly rising through the air till distance reft him from his\ntearful sight? Luke, another of the witnesses, says: \"And it came to\npass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried\nup into heaven.\" John corroborates Matthew by saying nothing on the\nsubject. Now, we find that the last chapter of Mark, after the eighth\nverse, is an interpolation; so that Mark really says nothing about the\noccurrence. Either the ascension of Christ must be given up, or it must\nbe admitted that the witnesses do not agree, and that three of them\nnever heard of that most stupendous event.\n\nAgain, if anything could have left its \"form and pressure\" on the\nbrain, it must have been the last words of Jesus Christ. The last words,\naccording to Matthew, are: \"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.\" The last words, according to the inspired witness known as Mark,\nare: \"And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall\nthey cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take\nup serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;\nthey shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\" Luke tells us\nthat the last words uttered by Christ, with the exception of a blessing,\nwere: \"And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but\ntarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from\non high.\" The last words, according to John, were: \"Peter, seeing Him,\nsaith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him,\nIf I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou\nme.\"\n\nAn account of the ascension is also given in the Acts of the Apostles;\nand the last words of Christ, according to that inspired witness, are:\n\"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you;\nand ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\" In this\naccount of the ascension we find that two men stood by the disciples in\nwhite apparel, and asked them: \"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing\nup into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.\"\nMatthew says nothing of the two men. Mark never saw them. Luke may have\nforgotten them when writing his gospel, and John may have regarded them\nas optical illusions.\n\nLuke testifies that Christ ascended on the very day of his resurrection.\nJohn deposes that eight days after the resurrection Christ appeared to\nthe disciples and convinced Thomas. In the Acts we are told that\nChrist remained on earth for forty days after his resurrection. These\n\"depositions\" do not agree. Neither do Matthew and Luke agree in their\nhistories of the infancy of Christ. It is impossible for both to be\ntrue. One of these \"witnesses\" must have been mistaken.\n\nThe most wonderful miracle recorded in the New Testament, as having been\nwrought by Christ, is the resurrection of Lazarus. While all the writers\nof the gospels, in many instances, record the same wonders and the\nsame conversations, is it not remarkable that the greatest miracle is\nmentioned alone by John?\n\nTwo of the witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give the genealogy of Christ.\nMatthew says that there were forty-two generations from Abraham to\nChrist. Luke insists that there were forty-two from Christ to David,\nwhile Matthew gives the number as twenty-eight. It may be said that\nthis is an old objection. An objection-remains young until it has been\nanswered. Is it not wonderful that Luke and Matthew do not agree on a\nsingle name of Christ's ancestors for thirty-seven generations?\n\nThere is a difference of opinion among the \"witnesses\" as to what the\ngospel of Christ is. If we take the \"depositions\" of Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke, then the gospel of Christ amounts simply to this: That God will\nforgive the forgiving, and that he will be merciful to the merciful.\nAccording to three witnesses, Christ knew nothing of the doctrine of the\natonement; never heard of the second birth; and did not base salvation,\nin whole nor in part, on belief. In the \"deposition\" of John, we find\nthat we must be born again; that we must believe on the Lord Jesus\nChrist; and that an atonement was made for us. If Christ ever said these\nthings to, or in the hearing of, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they forgot to\nmention them.\n\nTo my mind, the failure of the evangelists to agree as tu what is\nnecessary for man to do in order to insure the salvation of his soul, is\na demonstration that they were not inspired.\n\nNeither do the witnesses agree as to the last words of Christ when he\nwas crucified. Matthew says that he cried: \"My God, my God, why hast\nthou forsaken me?\" Mark agrees with Matthew. Luke testifies that his\nlast words were: \"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.\" John\nstates that he cried: \"It is finished.\"\n\nLuke says that Christ said of his murderers: \"Father, forgive them; for\nthey know not what they do.\" Matthew, Mark, and John do not record these\ntouching words. John says that Christ, on the day of his resurrection,\nsaid to his disciples: \"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted\nunto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.\"\n\nThe other disciples do not record this monstrous passage. They did not\nhear the abdication of God. They were not present when Christ placed\nin their hands the keys of heaven and hell, and put a world beneath the\nfeet of priests.\n\nIt is easy to account for the differences and contradictions in these\n\"depositions\" (and there are hundreds of them) by saying that each one\ntold the story as he remembered it, or as he had heard it, or that the\naccounts have been changed, but it will not do to say that the witnesses\nwere inspired of God. We can account for these contradictions by the\ninfirmities of human nature; but, as I said before, the infirmities of\nhuman nature cannot be predicated of a divine being.\n\nAgain, I ask, why should there be more than one inspired gospel? Of\nwhat use were the other three? There can be only one true account of\nanything. All other true accounts must simply be copies of that. And\nI ask again, why should there have been more than one inspired\ngospel? That which is the test of truth as to ordinary witnesses is a\ndemonstration against their inspiration. It will not do at this late day\nto say that the miracles worked by Christ demonstrated his divine origin\nor mission. The wonderful works he did, did not convince the people\nwith whom he lived. In spite of the miracles, he was crucified. He was\ncharged with blasphemy. \"Policemen\" denounced the \"scurrility\" of his\nwords, and the absurdity of his doctrines. He was no doubt told that\nit was \"almost a crime to utter blasphemy in the presence of a Jewish\nwoman;\" and it may be that he was taunted for throwing away \"the golden\nmetewand\" of the \"infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea,\" and\ntaking the \"elastic cord of human feeling.\"\n\nChristians tell us that the citizens of Mecca refused to believe on\nMohammed because he was an impostor, and that the citizens of Jerusalem\nrefused to believe on Jesus Christ because he was _not_ an impostor.\n\nIf Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him--if he had cured\nthe maimed, the leprous, and the halt--if he had changed the night of\nblindness into blessed day--if he had wrested from the fleshless hand\nof avaricious death the stolen jewel of a life, and clothed again with\nthrobbing flesh the pulseless dust, he would have won the love and\nadoration of mankind. If ever there shall stand upon this earth the king\nof death, all human knees will touch the ground.\n\nWe are further informed that \"what we call the fundamental truths of\nChristianity consist of great public events which are sufficiently\nestablished by history without special proof.\"\n\nOf course, we admit that the Roman Empire existed; that Julius Caesar\nwas assassinated; and we may admit that Rome was founded by Romulus and\nRemus; but will some one be kind enough to tell us how the assassination\nof Caesar even tends to prove that Romulus and Remus were suckled by\na wolf? We will all admit that, in the sixth century after Christ,\nMohammed was born at Mecca; that his victorious hosts vanquished half\nthe Christian world; that the crescent triumphed over the cross upon a\nthousand fields; that all the Christians of the earth were not able to\nrescue from the hands of an impostor the empty grave of Christ. We will\nall admit that the Mohammedans cultivated the arts and sciences; that\nthey gave us our numerals; taught us the higher mathematics; gave us our\nfirst ideas of astronomy, and that \"science was thrust into the brain of\nEurope on the point of a Moorish lance;\" and yet we will not admit that\nMohammed was divinely inspired, nor that he had frequent conversations\nwith the angel Gabriel, nor that after his death his coffin was\nsuspended in mid-air.\n\nA little while ago, in the city of Chicago, a gentleman addressed a\nnumber of Sunday-school children. In his address, he stated that some\npeople were wicked enough to deny the story of the deluge; that he was\na traveler; that he had been to the top of Mount Ararat, and had brought\nwith him a stone from that sacred locality. The children were then\ninvited to form in procession and walk by the pulpit, for the purpose of\nseeing this wonderful stone. After they had looked at it, the lecturer\nsaid: \"Now, children, if you ever hear anybody deny the story of the\ndeluge, or say that the ark did not rest on Mount Ararat, you can tell\nthem that you know better, because you have seen with your own eyes a\nstone from that very mountain.\"\n\nThe fact that Christ lived in Palestine does not tend to show that he\nwas in any way related to the Holy Ghost; nor does the existence of the\nChristian religion substantiate the ascension of Jesus Christ. We all\nadmit that Socrates lived in Athens, but we do not admit that he had a\nfamiliar spirit. I am satisfied that John Wesley was an Englishman, but\nI hardly believe that God postponed a rain because Mr. Wesley wanted\nto preach. All the natural things in the world are not sufficient to\nestablish the supernatural. Mr. Black reasons in this way: There was a\nhydra-headed monster. We know this, because Hercules killed him. There\nmust have been such a woman as Proserpine, otherwise Pluto could not\nhave carried her away. Christ must have been divine, because the Holy\nGhost was his father. And there must have been such a being as the Holy\nGhost, because without a father Christ could not have existed. Those who\nare disposed to deny everything because a part is false, reason exactly\nthe other way. They insist that because there was no hydra-headed\nmonster, Hercules did not exist. The true position, in my judgment, is\nthat the natural is not to be discarded because found in the company\nof the miraculous, neither should the miraculous be believed because\nassociated with the probable. There was in all probability such a man\nas Jesus Christ. He may have lived in Jerusalem. He may have been\ncrucified, but that he was the Son of God, or that he was raised from\nthe dead, and ascended bodily to heaven, has never been, and, in the\nnature of things, can never be, substantiated.\n\nApparently tired with his efforts to answer what I really said, Mr.\nBlack resorted to the expedient of \"compressing\" my propositions and\nputting them in italics. By his system of \"compression\" he was enabled\nto squeeze out what I really said, and substitute a few sentences of his\nown. I did not say that \"Christianity offers eternal salvation as the\nreward of belief alone,\" but I did say that no salvation is offered\n_without_ belief. There must be a difference of opinion in the minds of\nMr. Black's witnesses on this subject. In one place we are told that\na man is \"justified by faith without the deeds of the law;\" and in\nanother, \"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth\nthe ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness;\" and the\nfollowing passages seem to show the necessity of belief:\n\n\"_He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not\nis condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of\nthe only begotten Son of God.\" \"He that believeth on the Son hath\neverlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life;\nbut the wrath of God abideth on him.\" \"Jesus said unto her, I am the\nresurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me, though he were dead,\nyet shall he live.\" \"And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me, shall\nnever die.\" \"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.\"\n\"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves;\nit is the gift of God.\" \"Not of works, lest any man should boast.\"\n\"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in\nhim, and he in God.\" \"Whosoever believeth not shall be damned._\"\n\nI do not understand that the Christians of to-day insist that simple\nbelief will secure the salvation of the soul. I believe it is stated in\nthe Bible that \"the very devils believe;\" and it would seem from this\nthat belief is not such a meritorious thing, after all. But Christians\ndo insist that without belief no man can be saved; that faith is\nnecessary to salvation, and that there is \"none other name under heaven\ngiven among men whereby we can be saved,\" except that of Christ. My\ndoctrine is that there is only one way to be saved, and that is to act\nin harmony with your surroundings--to live in accordance with the facts\nof your being. A Being of infinite wisdom has no right to create a\nperson destined to everlasting pain. For the honest infidel, according\nto the American Evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven. For the upright\natheist, there is nothing in another world but punishment. Mr. Black\nadmits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of hell. This being\nso, his God should have created only lunatics and idiots. Why should the\nfatal gift of brain be given to any human being, if such gift renders\nhim liable to eternal hell? Better be a lunatic here and an angel there.\nBetter be an idiot in this world, if you can be a seraph in the next.\n\nAs to the doctrine of the atonement, Mr. Black has nothing to offer\nexcept the barren statement that it is believed by the wisest and the\nbest. A Mohammedan, speaking in Constantinople, will say the same of the\nKoran. A Brahmin, in a Hindu temple, will make the same remark, and so\nwill the American Indian, when he endeavors to enforce something upon\nthe young of his tribe. He will say: \"The best, the greatest of our\ntribe have believed in this.\" This is the argument of the cemetery, the\nphilosophy of epitaphs, the logic of the coffin. Who are the greatest\nand wisest and most virtuous of mankind? This statement, that it has\nbeen believed by the best, is made in connection with an admission that\nit cannot be fathomed by the wisest. It is not claimed that a thing is\nnecessarily false because it is not understood, but I do claim that\nit is not necessarily true because it cannot be comprehended. I still\ninsist that \"the plan of redemption,\" as usually preached, is absurd,\nunjust, and immoral.\n\nFor nearly two thousand years Judas Iscariot has been execrated by\nmankind; and yet, if the doctrine of the atonement is true, upon his\ntreachery hung the plan of salvation. Suppose Judas had known of this\nplan--known that he was selected by Christ for that very purpose, that\nChrist was depending on him. And suppose that he also knew that only\nby betraying Christ could he save either himself or others; what ought\nJudas to have done? Are you willing to rely upon an argument that\njustifies the treachery of that wretch?\n\nI insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of an innocent man could\nsatisfy justice for the sins of the guilty. To this, Mr. Black replies\nas follows: \"This raises a metaphysical question, which it is not\nnecessary or possible for me to discuss here.\" Is this considered an\nanswer? Is it in this way that \"my misty creations are made to roll away\nand vanish into air one after another?\" Is this the best that can be\ndone by one of the disciples of the infallible God who butchered babes\nin Judea? Is it possible for a \"policeman\" to \"silence a rude disturber\"\nin this way? To answer an argument, is it only necessary to say that\nit \"raises a metaphysical question\"? Again I say: The life of Christ\nis worth its example, its moral force, its heroism of benevolence. And\nagain I say: The effort to vindicate a law by inflicting punishment on\nthe innocent is a second violation instead of a vindication.\n\nMr. Black, under the pretence of \"compressing,\" puts in my mouth the\nfollowing: \"The doctrine of non-resistance, forgiveness of injuries,\nreconciliation with enemies, as taught in the New Testament, is the\nchild of weakness, degrading and unjust.\"\n\nThis is entirely untrue. What I did say is this: \"The idea of\nnon-resistance never occurred to a man who had the power to protect\nhimself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born when resistance\nwas impossible.\" I said not one word against the forgiveness of\ninjuries, not one word against the reconciliation of enemies--not\none word. I believe in the reconciliation of enemies. I believe in a\nreasonable forgiveness of injuries. But I do not believe in the doctrine\nof non-resistance. Mr. Black proceeds to say that Christianity forbids\nus \"to cherish animosity, to thirst for mere revenge, to hoard up wrongs\nreal or fancied, and lie in wait for the chance of paying them back; to\nbe impatient, unforgiving, malicious, and cruel to all who have crossed\nus.\" And yet the man who thus describes Christianity tells us that it is\nnot only our right, but our duty, to fight savages as savages fight us;\ninsists that where a nation tries to exterminate us, we have a right\nto exterminate them. This same man, who tells us that \"the diabolical\npropensities of the human heart are checked and curbed by the spirit of\nthe Christian religion,\" and that this religion \"has converted men from\nlow savages into refined and civilized beings,\" still insists that the\nauthor of the Christian religion established slavery, waged wars of\nextermination, abhorred the liberty of thought, and practiced the divine\nvirtues of retaliation and revenge. If it is our duty to forgive our\nenemies, ought not God to forgive his? Is it possible that God will hate\nhis enemies when he tells us that we must love ours? The enemies of\nGod cannot injure him, but ours can injure us. If it is the duty of the\ninjured to forgive, why should the uninjured insist upon having revenge?\nWhy should a being who destroys nations with pestilence and famine\nexpect that his children will be loving and forgiving?\n\nMr. Black insists that without a belief in God there can be no\nperception of right and wrong, and that it is impossible for an atheist\nto have a conscience. Mr. Black, the Christian, the believer in God,\nupholds wars of extermination. I denounce such wars as murder. He\nupholds the institution of slavery. I denounce that institution as the\nbasest of crimes. Yet I am told that I have no knowledge of right and\nwrong; that I measure with \"the elastic cord of human feeling,\" while\nthe believer in slavery and wars of extermination measures with \"the\ngolden metewand of God.\"\n\nWhat is right and what is wrong? Everything is right that tends to the\nhappiness of mankind, and everything is wrong that increases the sum of\nhuman misery. What can increase the happiness of this world more than to\ndo away with every form of slavery, and with all war? What can increase\nthe misery of mankind more than to increase wars and put chains\nupon more human limbs? What is conscience? If man were incapable of\nsuffering, if man could not feel pain, the word \"conscience\" never would\nhave passed his lips. The man who puts himself in the place of another,\nwhose imagination has been cultivated to the point of feeling the\nagonies suffered by another, is the man of conscience. But a man who\njustifies slavery, who justifies a God when he commands the soldier\nto rip open the mother and to pierce with the sword of war the child\nunborn, is controlled and dominated, not by conscience, but by a cruel\nand remorseless superstition.\n\nConsequences determine the quality of an action. If consequences are\ngood, so is the action. If actions had no consequences, they would be\nneither good nor bad. Man did not get his knowledge of the consequences\nof actions from God, but from experience and reason. If man can, by\nactual experiment, discover the right and wrong of actions, is it not\nutterly illogical to declare that they who do not believe in God can\nhave no standard of right and wrong? Consequences are the standard by\nwhich actions are judged. They are the children that testify as to the\nreal character of their parents. God or no God, larceny is the enemy of\nindustry--industry is the mother of prosperity--prosperity is a good,\nand therefore larceny is an evil. God or no God, murder is a crime.\nThere has always been a law against larceny, because the laborer wishes\nto enjoy the fruit of his toil. As long as men object to being killed,\nmurder will be illegal.\n\nAccording to Mr. Black, the man who does not believe in a supreme being\nacknowledges no standard of right and wrong in this world, and therefore\ncan have no theory of rewards and punishments in the next. Is it\npossible that only those who believe in the God who persecuted for\nopinion's sake have any standard of right and wrong? Were the greatest\nmen of all antiquity without this standard? In the eyes of intelligent\nmen of Greece and Rome, were all deeds, whether good or evil, morally\nalike? Is it necessary to believe in the existence of an infinite\nintelligence before you can have any standard of right and wrong? Is it\npossible that a being cannot be just or virtuous unless he believes in\nsome being infinitely superior to himself? If this doctrine be true, how\ncan God be just or virtuous? Does he believe in some being superior to\nhimself?\n\nIt may be said that the Pagans believed in a god, and consequently had\na standard of right and wrong. But the Pagans did not believe in the\n\"true\" God. They knew nothing of Jehovah. Of course it will not do to\nbelieve in the wrong God. In order to know the difference between right\nand wrong, you must believe in the right God--in the one who established\nslavery. Can this be avoided by saying that a false god is better than\nnone?\n\nThe idea of justice is not the child of superstition--it was not born of\nignorance; neither was it nurtured by the passages in the Old Testament\nupholding slavery, wars of extermination, and religious persecution.\nEvery human being necessarily has a standard of right and wrong; and\nwhere that standard has not been polluted by superstition, man abhors\nslavery, regards a war of extermination as murder, and looks upon\nreligious persecution as a hideous crime. If there is a God, infinite\nin power and wisdom, above him, poised in eternal calm, is the figure of\nJustice. At the shrine of Justice the infinite God must bow, and in her\nimpartial scales the actions even of Infinity must be weighed. There\nis no world, no star, no heaven, no hell, in which gratitude is not a\nvirtue and where slavery is not a crime.\n\nAccording to the logic of this \"reply,\" all good and evil become mixed\nand mingled--equally good and equally bad, unless we believe in the\nexistence of the infallible God who ordered husbands to kill their\nwives. We do not know right from wrong now, unless we are convinced\nthat a being of infinite mercy waged wars of extermination four thousand\nyears ago. We are incapable even of charity, unless we worship the being\nwho ordered the husband to kill his wife for differing with him on the\nsubject of religion.\n\nWe know that acts are good or bad only as they effect the actors, and\nothers. We know that from every good act good consequences flow, and\nthat from every bad act there are only evil results. Every virtuous deed\nis a star in the moral firmament. There is in the moral world, as in\nthe physical, the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect. For\nthis reason, the atonement becomes an impossibility. Others may suffer\nby your crime, but their suffering cannot discharge you; it simply\nincreases your guilt and adds to your burden. For this reason happiness\nis not a reward--it is a consequence. Suffering is not a punishment--it\nis a result.\n\nIt is insisted that Christianity is not opposed to freedom of thought,\nbut that \"it is based on certain principles to which it requires the\nassent of all.\" Is this a candid statement? Are we only required to\ngive our assent to certain principles in order to be saved? Are the\ninspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and the\nTrinity, principles? Will it be admitted by the orthodox world that good\ndeeds are sufficient unto salvation--that a man can get into heaven by\nliving in accordance with certain principles? This is a most excellent\ndoctrine, but it is not Christianity. And right here, it may be well\nenough to state what I mean by Christianity. The morality of the world\nis not distinctively Christian. Zoroaster, Gautama, Mohammed, Confucius,\nChrist, and, in fact, all founders of religions, have said to their\ndisciples: You must not steal; You must not murder; You must not bear\nfalse witness; You must discharge your obligations. Christianity is the\nordinary moral code, _plus_ the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ, his\ncrucifixion, his resurrection, his ascension, the inspiration of the\nBible, the doctrine of the atonement, and the necessity of belief.\nBuddhism is the ordinary moral code, _plus_ the miraculous illumination\nof Buddha, the performance of certain ceremonies, a belief in the\ntransmigration of the soul, and in the final absorption of the human\nby the infinite. The religion of Mohammed is the ordinary moral code,\n_plus_ the belief that Mohammed was the prophet of God, total abstinence\nfrom the use of intoxicating drinks, a harem for the faithful here and\nhereafter, ablutions, prayers, alms, pilgrimages, and fasts.\n\nThe morality in Christianity has never opposed the freedom of thought.\nIt has never put, nor tended to put, a chain on a human mind, nor a\nmanacle on a human limb; but the doctrines distinctively Christian--the\nnecessity of believing a certain thing; the idea that eternal punishment\nawaited him who failed to believe; the idea that the innocent can suffer\nfor the guilty--these things have opposed, and for a thousand years\nsubstantially destroyed, the freedom of the human mind. All religions\nhave, with ceremony, magic, and mystery, deformed, darkened, and\ncorrupted the soul. Around the sturdy oaks of morality have grown and\nclung the parasitic, poisonous vines of the miraculous and monstrous.\n\nI have insisted, and I still insist, that it is impossible for a finite\nman to commit a crime deserving infinite punishment; and upon this\nsubject Mr. Black admits that \"no revelation has lifted the veil between\ntime and eternity;\" and, consequently, neither the priest nor the\n\"policeman\" knows anything with certainty regarding another world. He\nsimply insists that \"in shadowy figures we are warned that a very marked\ndistinction will be made between the good and bad in the next world.\"\nThere is \"a very marked distinction\" in this; but there is this rainbow\non the darkest human cloud: The worst have hope of reform. All I insist\nis, if there is another life, the basest soul that finds its way to that\ndark or radiant shore will have the everlasting chance of doing right.\nNothing but the most cruel ignorance, the most heartless superstition,\nthe most ignorant theology, ever imagined that the few days of human\nlife spent here, surrounded by mists and clouds of darkness, blown over\nlife's sea by storms and tempests of passion, fixed for all eternity the\ncondition of the human race. If this doctrine be true, this life is but\na net, in which Jehovah catches souls for hell.\n\nThe idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation unsheathed the\nswords and lighted the fagots of persecution. As long as heaven is the\nreward of creed instead of deed, just so long will every orthodox church\nbe a bastile, every member a prisoner, and every priest a turnkey.\n\nIn the estimation of good orthodox Christians, I am a criminal, because\nI am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters,\nhusbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally arising from\na belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to tear, break, and\nscatter to the winds the God that priests erected in the fields of\ninnocent pleasure--a God made of sticks, called creeds, and of old\nclothes, called myths. I have tried to take from the coffin its horror,\nfrom the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge kindled by\nthe savages of the past. Is it necessary that heaven should borrow its\nlight from the glare of hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty,\nendless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler\nhardens, debases, and pollutes the soul. While there is one sad and\nbreaking heart in the universe, no perfectly good being can be perfectly\nhappy. Against the heartlessness of this doctrine every grand and\ngenerous soul should enter its solemn protest. I want no part in any\nheaven where the saved, the ransomed, and redeemed drown with\nmerry shouts the cries and sobs of hell--in which happiness forgets\nmisery--where the tears of the lost increase laughter and deepen the\ndimples of joy. The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality,\nfear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea tends to show that our remote\nancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves--only\nfrom mouths filled with cruel fangs--only from hearts of fear and\nhatred--only from the conscience of hunger and lust--only from the\nlowest and most debased, could come this most cruel, heartless, and\nabsurd of all dogmas.\n\nOur ancestors knew but little of nature. They were too astonished\nto investigate. They could not divest themselves of the idea that\neverything happened with reference to them; that they caused storms and\nearthquakes; that they brought the tempest and the whirlwind; that on\naccount of something they had done, or omitted to do, the lightning of\nvengeance leaped from the darkened sky. They made up their minds that\nat least two vast and powerful beings presided over this world; that\none was good and the other bad; that both of these beings wished to get\ncontrol of the souls of men; that they were relentless enemies, eternal\nfoes; that both welcomed recruits and hated deserters; that one offered\nrewards in this world, and the other in the next. Man saw cruelty and\nmercy in nature, because he imagined that phenomena were produced to\npunish or to reward him. It was supposed that God demanded worship; that\nhe loved to be flattered; that he delighted in sacrifice; that nothing\nmade him happier than to see ignorant faith upon its knees; that above\nall things he hated and despised doubters and heretics, and regarded\ninvestigation as rebellion. Each community felt it a duty to see that\nthe enemies of God were converted or killed. To allow a heretic to\nlive in peace was to invite the wrath of God. Every public evil--every\nmisfortune--was accounted for by something the community had permitted\nor done. When epidemics appeared, brought by ignorance and welcomed by\nfilth, the heretic was brought out and sacrificed to appease the anger\nof God. By putting intention behind what man called good, God was\nproduced. By putting intention behind what man called bad, the Devil was\ncreated. Leave this \"intention\" out, and gods and devils fade away. If\nnot a human being existed, the sun would continue to shine, and tempest\nnow and then would devastate the earth; the rain would fall in pleasant\nshowers; violets would spread their velvet bosoms to the sun, the\nearthquake would devour, birds would sing and daisies bloom and roses\nblush, and volcanoes fill the heavens with their lurid glare; the\nprocession of the seasons would not be broken, and the stars would shine\nas serenely as though the world were filled with loving hearts and happy\nhomes. Do not imagine that the doctrine of eternal revenge belongs\nto Christianity alone. Nearly all religions have had this dogma for a\ncorner-stone. Upon this burning foundation nearly all have built. Over\nthe abyss of pain rose the glittering dome of pleasure. This world was\nregarded as one of trial. Here, a God of infinite wisdom experimented\nwith man. Between the outstretched paws of the Infinite, the\nmouse--man--was allowed to play. Here, man had the opportunity of\nhearing priests and kneeling in temples. Here, he could read, and hear\nread, the sacred books. Here, he could have the example of the pious and\nthe counsels of the holy. Here, he could build churches and cathedrals.\nHere, he could burn incense, fast, wear hair-cloth, deny himself all the\npleasures of life, confess to priests, construct instruments of torture,\nbow before pictures and images, and persecute all who had the courage\nto despise superstition, and the goodness to tell their honest thoughts.\nAfter death, if he died out of the church, nothing could be done to make\nhim better. When he should come into the presence of God, nothing was\nleft except to damn him. Priests might convert him here, but God could\ndo nothing there. All of which shows how much more a priest can do for\na soul than its creator. Only here, on the earth, where the devil is\nconstantly active, only where his agents attack every soul, is there\nthe slightest hope of moral improvement. Strange! that a world cursed by\nGod, filled with temptations, and thick with fiends, should be the only\nplace where man can repent, the only place where reform is possible!\n\nMasters frightened slaves with the threat of hell, and slaves got a\nkind of shadowy revenge by whispering back the threat. The imprisoned\nimagined a hell for their gaolers; the weak built this place for the\nstrong; the arrogant for their rivals; the vanquished for their victors;\nthe priest for the thinker; religion for reason; superstition for\nscience. All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all\nthe cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is\ncapable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word--Hell. For\nthe nourishment of this dogma, cruelty was soil, ignorance was rain, and\nfear was light.\n\nWhy did Mr. Black fail to answer what I said in relation to the doctrine\nof inspiration? Did he consider that a \"metaphysical question\"? Let us\nsee what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea says\nsomething to him. It makes an impression on his mind. It awakens memory,\nand this impression depends upon his experience--upon his intellectual\ncapacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a different brain;\nhe has a different experience. The sea may speak to him of joy, to the\nother of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the same thing to any two\nhuman beings, because no two human beings have had the same experience.\nOne may think of wreck and ruin, and another, while listening to the\n\"multitudinous laughter of the sea,\" may say: Every drop has visited\nall the shores of earth; every one has been frozen in the vast and icy\nNorth, has fallen in snow, has whirled in storms around the mountain\npeaks, been kissed to vapor by the sun, worn the seven-hued robe of\nlight, fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs, and laughed in\nbrooks while lovers wooed upon the banks. Everything in nature tells a\ndifferent story to all eyes that see and to all ears that hear. So, when\nwe look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a violet, the\nmore we know, the more we have experienced, the more we have thought,\nthe more we remember, the more the statue, the star, the painting,\nthe violet has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am capable of\nunderstanding--gives all that I can receive. As with star, or flower,\nor sea, so with a book. A thoughtful man reads Shakespeare. What does he\nget? All that he has the mind to understand. Let another read him, who\nknows nothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of passion,\nand what does he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different\nstory for each reader. He is a world in which each recognizes his\nacquaintances. The impression that nature makes upon the mind, the\nstories told by sea and star and flower, must be the natural food\nof thought. Leaving out for the moment the impressions gained from\nancestors, the hereditary fears and drifts and trends--the natural food\nof thought must be the impressions made upon the brain by coming in\ncontact through the medium of the senses with what we call the outward\nworld. The brain is natural; its food is natural; the result, thought,\nmust be natural. Of the supernatural we have no conception. Thought may\nbe deformed, and the thought of one may be strange to, and denominated\nunnatural by, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it\nmay be insane, but it is not supernatural. Above the natural, man cannot\nrise. There can be deformed ideas, as there are deformed persons.\nThere may be religions monstrous and misshapen, but they were naturally\nproduced. The world is to each man according to each man. It takes the\nworld as it really is and that man to make that man's world.\n\nYou may ask, And what of all this? I reply, As with everything in\nnature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is,\nthen, the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It\nis. Can God, through the Bible, make precisely the same revelation to\ntwo persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads is not inspired.\nGod should inspire readers as well as writers.\n\nYou may reply: God knew that his book would be understood differently by\neach one, and intended that it should be understood as it is understood\nby each. If this is so, then my understanding of the Bible is the\nreal revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to take the\nunderstanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me through\nmy understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose then,\nthat I read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through am\ncompelled to say, \"The book is not true.\" If this is the honest result,\nthen you are compelled to say, either that God has made no revelation to\nme, or that the revelation that it is not true is the revelation made to\nme, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain are both the work\nof the same infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and brain do\nnot agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my brain, or\nshould have made my brain to fit his book. The inspiration of the Bible\ndepends on the credulity of him who reads. There was a time when\nits geology, its astronomy, its natural history, were thought to be\ninspired; that time has passed. There was a time when its morality\nsatisfied the men who ruled the world of thought; that time has passed.\n\nMr. Black, continuing his process of compressing my propositions,\nattributes to me the following statement: \"The gospel of Christ does not\nsatisfy the hunger of the heart.\" I did not say this. What I did say\nis: \"The dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest\nthought, nor satisfy the hunger of the heart.\" In so far as Christ\ntaught any doctrine in opposition to slavery, in favor of intellectual\nliberty, upholding kindness, enforcing the practice of justice and\nmercy, I most cheerfully admit that his teachings should be followed.\nSuch teachings do not need the assistance of miracles. They are not in\nthe region of the supernatural. They find their evidence in the glad\nresponse of every honest heart that superstition has not touched and\nstained. The great question under discussion is, whether the immoral,\nabsurd, and infamous can be established by the miraculous. It cannot be\ntoo often repeated, that truth scorns the assistance of miracle. That\nwhich actually happens sets in motion innumerable effects, which, in\nturn, become causes producing other effects. These are all \"witnesses\"\nwhose \"depositions\" continue. What I insist on is, that a miracle cannot\nbe established by human testimony. We have known people to be mistaken.\nWe know that all people will not tell the truth. We have never seen the\ndead raised. When people assert that they have, we are forced to weigh\nthe probabilities, and the probabilities are on the other side. It will\nnot do to assert that the universe was created, and then say that such\ncreation was miraculous, and, therefore, all miracles are possible. We\nmust be sure of our premises. Who knows that the universe was created?\nIf it was not; if it has existed from eternity; if the present is the\nnecessary child of all the past, then the miraculous is the impossible.\nThrow away all the miracles of the New Testament, and the good teachings\nof Christ remain--all that is worth preserving will be there still. Take\nfrom what is now known as Christianity the doctrine of the atonement,\nthe fearful dogma of eternal punishment, the absurd idea that a certain\nbelief is necessary to salvation, and with most of the remainder the\ngood and intelligent will most heartily agree.\n\nMr. Black attributes to me the following expression: \"Christianity is\npernicious in its moral effect, darkens the mind, narrows the soul,\narrests the progress of human society, and hinders civilization.\" I said\nno such thing. Strange, that he is only able to answer what I did\nnot say. I endeavored to show that the passages in the Old Testament\nupholding slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious\nintolerance had filled the world with blood and crime. I admitted\nthat there are many wise and good things in the Old Testament. I also\ninsisted that the doctrine of the atonement--that is to say, of moral\nbankruptcy--the idea that a certain belief is necessary to salvation,\nand the frightful dogma of eternal pain, had narrowed the soul, had\ndarkened the mind, and had arrested the progress of human society. Like\nother religions, Christianity is a mixture of good and evil. The church\nhas made more orphans than it has fed. It has never built asylums enough\nto hold the insane of its own making. It has shed more blood than light.\n\nMr. Black seems to think that miracles are the most natural things\nimaginable, and wonders that anybody should be insane enough to deny the\nprobability of the impossible. He regards all who doubt the miraculous\norigin, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, as afflicted\nwith some \"error of the moon,\" and declares that their \"disbelief seems\nlike a kind of insanity.\"\n\nTo ask for evidence is not generally regarded as a symptom of a brain\ndiseased. Delusions, illusions, phantoms, hallucinations, apparitions,\nchimeras, and visions are the common property of the religious and the\ninsane. Persons blessed with sound minds and healthy bodies rely on\nfacts, not fancies--on demonstrations instead of dreams. It seems to me\nthat the most orthodox Christians must admit that many of the miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament are extremely childish. They must see that\nthe miraculous draught of fishes, changing water into wine, fasting for\nforty days, inducing devils to leave an insane man by allowing them to\ntake possession of swine, walking on the water, and using a fish for a\npocket-book, are all unworthy of an infinite being, and are calculated\nto provoke laughter--to feed suspicion and engender doubt.\n\nMr. Black takes the ground that if a man believes in the creation of the\nuniverse--that being the most stupendous miracle of which the mind can\nconceive--he has no right to deny anything. He asserts that God created\nthe universe; that creation was a miracle; that \"God would be likely to\nreveal his will to the rational creatures who were required to obey it,\"\nand that he would authenticate his revelation by giving his prophets and\napostles supernatural power.\n\nAfter making these assertion, he triumphantly exclaims: \"It therefore\nfollows that the improbability of a miracle is no greater than the\noriginal improbability of a revelation, and that is not improbable at\nall.\"\n\nHow does he know that God made the universe? How does he know what God\nwould be likely to do? How does he know that any revelation was made?\nAnd how did he ascertain that any of the apostles and prophets were\nentrusted with supernatural power? It will not do to prove your premises\nby assertions, and then claim that your conclusions are correct, because\nthey agree with your premises.\n\nIf \"God would be likely to reveal his will to the rational creatures\nwho were required to obey it,\" why did he reveal it only to the Jews?\nAccording to Mr. Black, God is the only natural thing in the universe.\n\nWe should remember that ignorance is the mother of credulity; that\nthe early Christians believed everything but the truth, and that\nthey accepted Paganism, admitted the reality of all the Pagan\nmiracles--taking the ground that they were all forerunners of their own.\nPagan miracles were never denied by the Christian world until late in\nthe seventeenth century. Voltaire was the third man of note in Europe\nwho denied the truth of Greek and Roman mythology. \"The early Christians\ncited Pagan oracles predicting in detail the sufferings of Christ. They\nforged prophecies, and attributed them to the heathen sibyls, and they\nwere accepted as genuine by the entire church.\"\n\nSt. Irenaeus assures us that all Christians possessed the power of\nworking miracles; that they prophesied, cast out devils, healed the\nsick, and even raised the dead. St. Epiphanius asserts that some rivers\nand fountains were annually transmuted into wine, in attestation of the\nmiracle of Cana, adding that he himself had drunk of these fountains.\nSt. Augustine declares that one was told in a dream where the bones\nof St. Stephen were buried, that the bones were thus discovered, and\nbrought to Hippo, and that they raised five dead persons to life, and\nthat in two years seventy miracles were performed with these relics.\nJustin Martyr states that God once sent some angels to guard the human\nrace, that these angels fell in love with the daughters of men, and\nbecame the fathers of innumerable devils.\n\nFor hundreds of years, miracles were about the only things that\nhappened. They were wrought by thousands of Christians, and testified\nto by millions. The saints and martyrs, the best and greatest, were the\nwitnesses and workers of wonders. Even heretics, with the assistance\nof the devil, could suspend the \"laws of nature.\" Must we believe\nthese wonderful accounts because they were written by \"good men,\" by\nChristians, \"who made their statements in the presence and expectation\nof death\"? The truth is that these \"good men\" were mistaken. They\nexpected the miraculous. They breathed the air of the marvelous. They\nfed their minds on prodigies, and their imaginations feasted on effects\nwithout causes. They were incapable of investigating. Doubts were\nregarded as \"rude disturbers of the congregation.\" Credulity and\nsanctity walked hand in hand. Reason was danger. Belief was safety.\nAs the philosophy of the ancients was rendered almost worthless by the\ncredulity of the common people, so the proverbs of Christ, his religion\nof forgiveness, his creed of kindness, were lost in the mist of miracle\nand the darkness of superstition.\n\nIf Mr. Black is right, there were no virtue, justice, intellectual\nliberty, moral elevation, refinement, benevolence, or true wisdom,\nuntil Christianity was established. He asserts that when Christ came,\n\"benevolence, in any shape, was altogether unknown.\"\n\nHe insists that \"the infallible God who authorized slavery in Judea\"\nestablished a government; that he was the head and king of the Jewish\npeople; that for this reason heresy was treason. Is it possible that God\nestablished a government in which benevolence was unknown? How did it\nhappen that he established no asylums for the insane? How do you account\nfor the fact that your God permitted some of his children to become\ninsane? Why did Jehovah fail to establish hospitals and schools? Is it\nreasonable to believe that a good God would assist his chosen people to\nexterminate or enslave his other children? Why would your God people\na world, knowing that it would be destitute of benevolence for four\nthousand years? Jehovah should have sent missionaries to the heathen.\nHe ought to have reformed the inhabitants of Canaan. He should have sent\nteachers, not soldiers--missionaries, not murderers. A God should not\nexterminate his children; he should reform them.\n\nMr. Black gives us a terrible picture of the condition of the world at\nthe coming of Christ; but did the God of Judea treat his own children,\nthe Gentiles, better than the Pagans treated theirs? When Rome enslaved\nmankind--when with her victorious armies she sought to conquer or to\nexterminate tribes and nations, she but followed the example of Jehovah.\nIs it true that benevolence came with Christ, and that his coming\nheralded the birth of pity in the human heart? Does not Mr. Black know\nthat, thousands of years before Christ was born, there were hospitals\nand asylums for orphans in China? Does he not know that in Egypt, before\nMoses lived, the insane were treated with kindness and wooed back to\nnatural thought by music's golden voice? Does he not know that in all\ntimes, and in all countries, there have been great and loving souls who\nwrought, and toiled, and suffered, and died that others might enjoy? Is\nit possible that he knows nothing of the religion of Buddha--a religion\nbased upon equality, charity and forgiveness? Does he not know that,\ncenturies before the birth of the great Peasant of Palestine, another,\nupon the plains of India, had taught the doctrine of forgiveness; and\nthat, contrary to the tyranny of Jehovah, had given birth to the sublime\ndeclaration that all men are by nature free and equal? Does he not know\nthat a religion of absolute trust in God had been taught thousands of\nyears before Jerusalem was built--a religion based upon absolute special\nprovidence, carrying its confidence to the extremest edge of human\nthought, declaring that every evil is a blessing in disguise, and that\nevery step taken by mortal man, whether in the rags of poverty or the\nroyal robes of kings, is the step necessary to be taken by that soul in\norder to reach perfection and eternal joy? But how is it possible for\na man who believes in slavery to have the slightest conception of\nbenevolence, justice or charity? If Mr. Black is right, even Christ\nbelieved and taught that man could buy and sell his fellow-man. Will\nthe Christians of America admit this? Do they believe that Christ from\nheaven's throne mocked when colored mothers, reft of babes, knelt by\nempty cradles and besought his aid?\n\nFor the man Christ--for the reformer who loved his fellow-men--for the\nman who believed in an Infinite Father, who would shield the innocent\nand protect the just--for the martyr who expected to be rescued from the\ncruel cross, and who at last, finding that his hope was dust, cried out\nin the gathering gloom of death: \"My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken\nme?\"--for that great and suffering man, mistaken though he was, I have\nthe highest admiration and respect. That man did not, as I believe,\nclaim a miraculous origin; he did not pretend to heal the sick nor raise\nthe dead. He claimed simply to be a man, and taught his fellow-men\nthat love is stronger far than hate. His life was written by reverent\nignorance. Loving credulity belittled his career with feats of jugglery\nand magic art, and priests, wishing to persecute and slay, put in his\nmouth the words of hatred and revenge. The theological Christ is the\nimpossible union of the human and divine--man with the attributes of\nGod, and God with the limitations and weaknesses of man.\n\nAfter giving a terrible description of the Pagan world, Mr. Black says:\n\"The church came, and her light penetrated the moral darkness like a new\nsun; she covered the globe with institutions of mercy.\"\n\nIs this true? Do we not know that when the Roman empire fell, darkness\nsettled on the world? Do we not know that this darkness lasted for a\nthousand years, and that during all that time the church of Christ held,\nwith bloody hands, the sword of power? These years were the starless\nmidnight of our race. Art died, law was forgotten, toleration ceased\nto exist, charity fled from the human breast, and justice was unknown.\nKings were tyrants, priests were pitiless, and the poor multitude were\nslaves. In the name of Christ, men made instruments of torture, and the\n_auto da fe_ took the place of the gladiatorial show. Liberty was in\nchains, honesty in dungeons, while Christian superstition ruled mankind.\nChristianity compromised with Paganism. The statues of Jupiter were used\nto represent Jehovah. Isis and her babe were changed to Mary and the\ninfant Christ. The Trinity of Egypt became the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost. The simplicity of the early Christians was lost in heathen rites\nand Pagan pomp. The believers in the blessedness of poverty became rich,\navaricious, and grasping, and those who had said, \"Sell all, and give to\nthe poor,\" became the ruthless gatherers of tithes and taxes. In a\nfew years the teachings of Jesus were forgotten. The gospels were\ninterpolated by the designing and ambitious. The church was infinitely\ncorrupt. Crime was crowned, and virtue scourged. The minds of men were\nsaturated with superstition. Miracles, apparitions, angels, and devils\nhad possession of the world. \"The nights were filled with incubi and\nsuccubi; devils', clad in wondrous forms, and imps in hideous shapes,\nsought to tempt or fright the soldiers of the cross. The maddened\nspirits of the air sent hail and storm. Sorcerers wrought sudden death,\nand witches worked with spell and charm against the common weal.\"\nIn every town the stake arose. Faith carried fagots to the feet of\nphilosophy. Priests--not \"politicians\"--fed and fanned the eager flames.\nThe dungeon was the foundation of the cathedral.\n\nPriests sold charms and relics to their flocks to keep away the wolves\nof hell. Thousands of Christians, failing to find protection in the\nchurch, sold their poor souls to Satan for some magic wand. Suspicion\nsat in every house, families were divided, wives denounced husbands,\nhusbands denounced wives, and children their parents. Every calamity\nthen, as now, increased the power of the church. Pestilence supported\nthe' pulpit, and famine was the right hand of faith. Christendom was\ninsane.\n\nWill Mr. Black be kind enough to state at what time \"the church covered\nthe globe with institutions of mercy\"? In his reply, he conveys the\nimpression that these institutions were organized in the first century,\nor at least in the morning of Christianity. How many hospitals for the\nsick were established by the church during a thousand years? Do we not\nknow that for hundreds of years the Mohammedans erected more hospitals\nand asylums than the Christians? Christendom was filled with racks\nand thumbscrews, with stakes and fagots, with chains and dungeons, for\ncenturies before a hospital was built. Priests despised doctors. Prayer\nwas medicine. Physicians interfered with the sale of charms and relics.\nThe church did not cure--it killed. It practiced surgery with the sword.\nThe early Christians did not build asylums for the insane. They charged\nthem with witchcraft, and burnt them. They built asylums, not for the\nmentally diseased, but for the mentally developed. These asylums were\ngraves.\n\nAll the languages of the world have not words of horror enough to\npaint the agonies of man when the church had power. Tiberius, Caligula,\nClaudius, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus were not as cruel, false, and\nbase as many of the Christians Popes. Opposite the names of these\nimperial criminals write John the XII., Leo the VIII., Boniface the\nVII., Benedict the IX., Innocent the III., and Alexander the VI.\n\nWas it under these pontiffs that the \"church penetrated the moral\ndarkness like a new sun,\" and covered the globe with institutions of\nmercy? Rome was far better when Pagan than when Catholic. It was better\nto allow gladiators and criminals to fight than to burn honest men.\nThe greatest of the Romans denounced the cruelties of the arena. Seneca\ncondemned the combats even of wild beasts. He was tender enough to say\nthat \"we should have a bond of sympathy for all sentient beings, knowing\nthat only the depraved and base take pleasure in the sight of blood\nand suffering.\" Aurelius compelled the gladiators to fight with blunted\nswords. Roman lawyers declared that all men are by nature free and\nequal. Woman, under Pagan rule in Rome, became as free as man. Zeno,\nlong before the birth of Christ, taught that virtue alone establishes a\ndifference between men. We know that the Civil Law is the foundation\nof our codes. We know that fragments of Greek and Roman art--a few\nmanuscripts saved from Christian destruction, some inventions and\ndiscoveries of the Moors--were the seeds of modern civilization.\nChristianity, for a thousand years, taught memory to forget and reason\nto believe. Not one step was taken in advance. Over the manuscripts of\nphilosophers and poets, priests with their ignorant tongues thrust out,\ndevoutly scrawled the forgeries of faith. For a thousand years the torch\nof progress was extinguished in the blood of Christ, and his disciples,\nmoved by ignorant zeal, by insane, cruel creeds, destroyed with flame\nand sword a hundred millions of their fellow-men. They made this world\na hell. But if cathedrals had been universities--if dungeons of the\nInquisition had been laboratories--if Christians had believed in\ncharacter instead of creed--if they had taken from the Bible all the\ngood and thrown away the wicked and absurd--if domes of temples had been\nobservatories--if priests had been philosophers--if missionaries had\ntaught the useful arts--if astrology had been astronomy--if the black\nart had been chemistry--if superstition had been science--if religion\nhad been humanity--it' would have been a heaven filled with love, with\nliberty, and joy.\n\nWe did not get our freedom from the church. The great truth, that all\nmen are by nature free, was never told on Sinai's barren crags, nor by\nthe lonely shores of Galilee.\n\nThe Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and crime, and the New\ngives us a future filled with pain for nearly all the sons of men. The\nOld describes the hell of the past, and the New the hell of the future.\nThe Old tells us the frightful things that God has done--the New the\ncruel things that he will do. These two books give us the sufferings of\nthe past and future--the injustice, the agony, the tears of both\nworlds. If the Bible is true--if Jehovah is God--if the lot of countless\nmillions is to be eternal pain--better a thousand times that all the\nconstellations of the shoreless vast were eyeless darkness and eternal\nspace. Better that all that is should cease to be. Better that all the\nseeds and springs of things should fail and wither from great Nature's\nrealm. Better that causes and effects should lose relation and become\nunmeaning phrases and forgotten sounds. Better that every life should\nchange to breathless death, to voiceless blank, and every world to blind\noblivion and to moveless naught.\n\nMr. Black justifies all the crimes and horrors, excuses all the tortures\nof all the Christian years, by denouncing the cruelties of the French\nRevolution. Thinking people will not hasten to admit that an infinitely\ngood being authorized slavery in Judea, because of the atrocities of the\nFrench Revolution. They will remember the sufferings of the Huguenots.\nThey will remember the massacre of St. Bartholomew. They will not forget\nthe countless cruelties of priest and king. They will not forget the\ndungeons of the Bastile. They will know that the Revolution was an\neffect, and that liberty was not the cause--that atheism was not the\ncause. Behind the Revolution they will see altar and throne--sword and\nfagot--palace and cathedral--king and priest--master and slave--tyrant\nand hypocrite. They will see that the excesses, the cruelties, and\ncrimes were but the natural fruit of seeds the church had sown. But the\nRevolution was not entirely evil. Upon that cloud of war, black with\nthe myriad miseries of a thousand years, dabbled with blood of king and\nqueen, of patriot and priest, there was this bow: \"Beneath the flag of\nFrance all men are free.\" In spite of all the blood and crime, in spite\nof deeds that seem insanely base, the People placed upon a Nation's brow\nthese stars:--Liberty, Fraternity, Equality--grander words than ever\nissued from Jehovah's lips.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nFAITH OR AGNOSTICISM.\n\n[Ingersoll-Field.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE FIELD-INGERSOLL DISCUSSION.\n\nAn Open Letter to Robert G. Ingersoll.\n\nDear Sir: I am glad that I know you, even though some of my brethren\nlook upon you as a monster because of your unbelief. I shall never\nforget the long evening I spent at your house in Washington; and in what\nI have to say, however it may fail to convince you, I trust you\nwill feel that I have not shown myself unworthy of your courtesy or\nconfidence.\n\nYour conversation, then and at other times, interested me greatly. I\nrecognized at once the elements of your power over large audiences, in\nyour wit and dramatic talent--personating characters and imitating tones\nof voice and expressions of countenance--and your remarkable use of\nlanguage, which even in familiar talk often rose to a high degree of\neloquence. All this was a keen intellectual stimulus. I was, for the\nmost part, a listener; but as we talked freely of religious matters, I\nprotested against your unbelief as utterly without reason. Yet there\nwas no offence given or taken, and we parted, I trust, with a feeling of\nmutual respect.\n\nStill further, we found many points of sympathy. I do not hesitate to\nsay that there are many things in which I agree with you, in which I\nlove what you love and hate what you hate. A man's hatreds are not the\nleast important part of him; they are among the best indications of his\ncharacter. You love truth, and hate lying and hypocrisy--all the petty\narts and deceits of the world by which men represent themselves to be\nother than they are--as well as the pride and arrogance, in which they\nassume superiority over their fellow-beings. Above all, you hate every\nform of injustice and oppression. Nothing moves your indignation so\nmuch as \"man's inhumanity to man,\" and you mutter \"curses, not loud but\ndeep,\" on the whole race of tyrants and oppressors, whom you would sweep\nfrom the face of the earth. And yet, you do not hate oppression more\nthan I; nor love liberty more. Nor will I admit that you have any\nstronger desire for that intellectual freedom, to the attainment of\nwhich you look forward as the last and greatest emancipation of mankind.\n\nNor have you a greater horror of superstition. Indeed, I might say that\nyou cannot have so great, for the best of all reasons, that you have not\nseen so much of it; you have not stood on the banks of the Ganges, and\nseen the Hindoos by tens of thousands rushing madly to throw themselves\ninto the sacred river, even carrying the ashes of their dead to cast\nthem upon the waters. It seems but yesterday that I was sitting on\nthe back of an elephant, looking down on this horrible scene of human\ndegradation. Such superstition overthrows the very foundations of\nmorality. In place of the natural sense of right and wrong, which is\nwritten in men's consciences and hearts, it introduces an artificial\nstandard, by which the order of things is totally reversed: right is\nmade wrong, and wrong is made right. It makes that a virtue which is not\na virtue, and that a crime which is not a crime. Religion consists in a\nround of observances that have no relation whatever to natural goodness,\nbut which rather exclude it by being a substitute for it. Penances\nand pilgrimages take the place of justice and mercy, benevolence and\ncharity. Such a religion, so far from being a purifier, is the greatest\ncorrupter of morals; so that it is no extravagance to say of the\nHindoos, who are a gentle race, that they might be virtuous and good if\nthey were not so religious. But this colossal superstition weighs upon\ntheir very existence, crushing out even natural virtue. Such a religion\nis an immeasurable curse.\n\nI hope this language is strong enough to satisfy even your own intense\nhatred of superstition. You cannot loathe it more than I do. So far we\nagree perfectly. But unfortunately you do not limit your crusade to\nthe religions of Asia, but turn the same style of argument against\nthe religion of Europe and America, and, indeed, against the religious\nbelief and worship of every country and clime. In this matter you make\nno distinctions: you would sweep them all away; church and cathedral\nmust go with the temple and the pagoda, as alike manifestations of\nhuman credulity, and proofs of the intellectual feebleness and folly of\nmankind. While under the impression of that memorable evening at your\nhouse, I took up some of your public addresses, and experienced a\nstrange revulsion of feeling. I could hardly believe my eyes as I read,\nso inexpressibly was I shocked. Things which I held sacred you not only\nrejected with unbelief, but sneered at with contempt. Your words were\nfull of a bitterness so unlike anything I had heard from your lips, that\nI could not reconcile the two, till I reflected that in Robert Ingersoll\n(as in the most of us) there were two men, who were not only distinct,\nbut contrary the one to the other--the one gentle and sweet-tempered;\nthe other delighting in war as his native element. Between the two, I\nhave a decided preference for the former. I have no dispute with the\nquiet and peaceable gentleman, whose kindly spirit makes sunshine in his\nhome; but it is _that other man_ over yonder, who comes forth into\nthe arena like a gladiator, defiant and belligerent, that rouses my\nantagonism. And yet I do not intend to _stand up_ even against him; but\nif he will only _sit down_ and listen patiently, and answer in those\nsoft tones of voice which he knows so well how to use, we can have a\nquiet talk, which will certainly do him no harm, while it relieves my\ntroubled mind.\n\nWhat then is the basis of this religion which you despise? At the\nfoundation of every form of religious faith and worship, is the idea of\nGod. Here you take your stand; you do not believe in God. Of course you\ndo not deny absolutely the existence of a Creative Power: for that would\nbe to assume a knowledge which no human being can possess. How small is\nthe distance that we can see before us! The candle of our intelligence\nthrows its beams but a little way, beyond which the circle of light\nis compassed by universal darkness. Upon this no one insists more than\nyourself. I have heard you discourse upon the insignificance of man in\na way to put many preachers to shame. I remember your illustration from\nthe myriads of creatures that live on plants, from which you picked out,\nto represent human insignificance, an insect too small to be seen by the\nnaked eye, whose world was a leaf, and whose life lasted but a single\nday! Surely a creature that can only be seen with a microscope, cannot\n_know_ that a Creator does not exist!\n\nThis, I must do you the justice to say, you do not affirm. All that you\ncan say is, that if there be no knowledge on one side, neither is there\non the other; that it is only a matter of probability; and that, judging\nfrom such evidence as appeals to your senses and your understanding,\nyou do not _believe_ that there is a God. Whether this be a reasonable\nconclusion or not, it is at least an intelligible state of mind.\n\nNow I am not going to argue against what the Catholics call \"invincible\nignorance\"--an incapacity on account of temperament--for I hold that the\nbelief in God, like the belief in all spiritual things, comes to some\nminds by a kind of intuition. There are natures so finely strung that\nthey are sensitive to influences which do not touch others. You may say\nthat it is mere poetical rhapsody when Shelley writes:\n\n     \"The awful shadow of some unseen power,\n     Floats, though unseen, among us.\"\n\nBut there are natures which are not at all poetical or dreamy, only most\nsimple and pure, which, in moments of spiritual exaltation, are almost\n_conscious_ of a Presence that is not of this world. But this, which is\na matter of experience, will have no weight with those who do not have\nthat experience. For the present, therefore, I would not be swayed one\nparticle by mere sentiment, but look at the question in the cold light\nof reason alone.\n\nThe idea of God is, indeed, the grandest and most awful that can be\nentertained by the human mind. Its very greatness overpowers us, so that\nit seems impossible that such a Being should exist. But if it is hard\nto conceive of Infinity, it is still harder to get any intelligible\nexplanation of the present order of things without admitting the\nexistence of an intelligent Creator and Upholder of all. Galileo, when\nhe swept the sky with his telescope, traced the finger of God in every\nmovement of the heavenly bodies. Napoleon, when the French savants on\nthe voyage to Egypt argued that there was no God, disdained any other\nanswer than to point upward to the stars and ask, \"Who made all these?\"\nThis is the first question, and it is the last. The farther we go, the\nmore we are forced to one conclusion. No man ever studied nature with a\nmore simple desire to know the truth than Agassiz, and yet the more he\nexplored, the more he was startled as he found himself constantly face\nto face with the evidences of mind.\n\nDo you say this is \"a great mystery,\" meaning that it is something that\nwe do not know anything about? Of course, it is \"a mystery.\" But do\nyou think to escape mystery by denying the Divine existence? You only\nexchange one mystery for another. The first of all mysteries is, not\nthat God exists, but that _we_ exist. Here we are. How did we come here?\nWe go back to our ancestors; but that does not take away the difficulty;\nit only removes it farther off. Once begin to climb the stairway of past\ngenerations, and you will find that it is a Jacob's ladder, on which\nyou mount higher and higher until you step into the very presence of the\nAlmighty.\n\nBut even if we know that there is a God, what can we know of His\ncharacter? You say, \"God is whatever we conceive Him to be.\" We frame\nan image of Deity out of our consciousness--it is simply a reflection of\nour own personality, cast upon the sky like the image seen in the Alps\nin certain states of the atmosphere--and then fall down and worship that\nwhich we have created, not indeed with our hands, but out of our minds.\nThis may be true to some extent of the gods of mythology, but not of the\nGod of Nature, who is as inflexible as Nature itself. You might as well\nsay that the laws of nature are whatever we imagine them to be. But we\ndo not go far before we find that, instead of being pliant to our will,\nthey are rigid and inexorable, and we dash ourselves against them to our\nown destruction. So God does not bend to human thought any more than to\nhuman will. The more we study Him the more we find that He is _not_ what\nwe imagined him to be; that He is far greater than any image of Him that\nwe could frame.\n\nBut, after all, you rejoin that the conception of a Supreme Being is\nmerely an abstract idea, of no practical importance, with no bearing\nupon human life. I answer, it is of immeasurable importance. Let go the\nidea of God, and you have let go the highest moral restraint. There is\nno Ruler above man; he is a law unto himself--a law which is as impotent\nto produce order, and to hold society together, as man is with his\nlittle hands to hold the stars in their courses.\n\nI know how you reason against the Divine existence from the moral\ndisorder of the world. The argument is one that takes strong hold of the\nimagination, and may be used with tremendous effect. You set forth in\ncolors none too strong the injustice that prevails in the relations of\nmen to one another--the inequalities of society; the haughtiness of the\nrich and the misery of the poor; you draw lurid pictures of the vice\nand crime which run riot in the great capitals which are the centres of\ncivilization; and when you have wound up your audience to the highest\npitch, you ask, \"How can it be that there is a just God in heaven, who\nlooks down upon the earth and sees all this horrible confusion, and yet\ndoes not lift His hand to avenge the innocent or punish the guilty?\"\nTo this I will make but one answer: Does it convince yourself? I do not\nmean to imply that you are conscious of insincerity. But an orator is\nsometimes carried away by his own eloquence, and states things more\nstrongly than he would in his cooler moments. So I venture to ask: With\nall your tendency to skepticism, do you really believe that there is\nno moral government of the world--no Power behind nature \"making for\nrighteousness?\" Are there no retributions in history? When Lincoln\nstood on the field of Gettysburg, so lately drenched with blood,\nand, reviewing the carnage of that terrible day, accepted it as the\npunishment of our national sins, was it a mere theatrical flourish in\nhim to lift his hand to heaven, and exclaim, \"Just and true are Thy\nways, Lord God Almighty!\"\n\nHaving settled it to your own satisfaction that there is no God, you\nproceed in the same easy way to dispose of that other belief which lies\nat the foundation of all religion--the immortality of the soul. With an\nair of modesty and diffidence that would carry an audience by storm, you\nconfess your ignorance of what, perhaps, others are better acquainted\nwith, when you say, \"This world is all that _I_ know anything about, _so\nfar as I recollect_.\" This is very wittily put, and some may suppose\nit contains an argument; but do you really mean to say that you do not\n_know_ anything except what you \"recollect,\" or what you have seen with\nyour eyes? Perhaps you never saw your grandparents; but have you any\nmore doubt of their existence than of that of your father and mother\nwhom you did see?\n\nHere, as when you speak of the existence of God, you carefully avoid\nany positive affirmation: you neither affirm nor deny. You are ready\nfor whatever may \"turn up.\" In your jaunty style, if you find yourself\nhereafter in some new and unexpected situation, you will accept it and\nmake the best of it, and be \"as ready as the next man to enter on any\nremunerative occupation!\"\n\nBut while airing this pleasant fancy, you plainly regard the hope of\nanother life as a beggar's dream--the momentary illusion of one who,\nstumbling along life's highway, sets him down by the roadside, footsore\nand weary, cold and hungry, and falls asleep, and dreams of a time when\nhe shall have riches and plenty. Poor creature! let him dream; it helps\nhim to forget his misery, and may give him a little courage for his\nrude awaking to the hard reality of life. But it is all a dream, which\ndissolves in thin air, and floats away and disappears. This illustration\nI do not take from you, but simply choose to set forth what (as I infer\nfrom the sentences above quoted and many like expressions) may describe,\nnot unfairly, your state of mind. Your treatment of the subject is one\nof trifling. You do not speak of it in a serious way, but lightly and\nflippantly, as if it were all a matter of fancy and conjecture, and not\nworthy of sober consideration.\n\nNow, does it never occur to you that there is something very cruel in\nthis treatment of the belief of your fellow-creatures, on whose hope\nof another life hangs all that relieves the darkness of their present\nexistence? To many of them life is a burden to carry, and they need all\nthe helps to carry it that can be found in reason, in philosophy, or in\nreligion. But what support does your hollow creed supply? You are a man\nof warm heart, of the tenderest sympathies. Those who know you best, and\nlove you most, tell me that you cannot bear the sight of suffering\neven in animals; that your natural sensibility is such that you find no\npleasure in sports, in hunting or fishing; to shoot a robin would make\nyou feel like a murderer. If you see a poor man in trouble your first\nimpulse is to help him. You cannot see a child in tears but you want to\ntake up the little fellow in your arms, and make him smile again.\nAnd yet, with all your sensibility, you hold the most remorseless and\npitiless creed in the world--a creed in which there is not a gleam of\nmercy or of hope. A mother has lost her only son. She goes to his grave\nand throws herself upon it, the very picture of woe. One thought only\nkeeps her from despair: it is that beyond this life there is a world\nwhere she may once more clasp her boy in her arms. What will you say to\nthat mother? You are silent, and your silence is a sentence of death to\nher hopes. By that grave you cannot speak; for if you were to open your\nlips and tell that mother what you really believe, it would be that her\nson is blotted out of existence, and that she can never look upon his\nface again. Thus with your iron heel do you trample down and crush the\nlast hope of a broken heart.\n\nWhen such sorrow comes to you, you feel it as keenly as any man. With\nyour strong domestic attachments one cannot pass out of your little\ncircle without leaving a great void in your heart, and your grief is as\neloquent as it is hopeless. No sadder words ever fell from human lips\nthan these, spoken over the coffin of one to whom you were tenderly\nattached: \"Life is but a narrow vale, between the cold and barren peaks\nof two eternities!\" This is a doom of annihilation, which strikes a\nchill to the stoutest heart. Even you must envy the faith which, as\nit looks upward, sees those \"peaks of two eternities,\" not \"cold and\nbarren,\" but warm with the glow of the setting sun, which gives promise\nof a happier to-morrow!\n\nI think I hear you say, \"So might it be! Would that I could believe\nit!\" for no one recognizes more the emptiness of life as it is. I do not\nforget the tone in which you said: \"Life is very sad to me; it is very\npitiful; there isn't much to it.\" True indeed! With your belief, or want\nof belief, there is very little to it; and if this were all, it would be\na fair question whether life were worth living. In the name of humanity,\nlet us cling to all that is left us that can bring a ray of hope into\nits darkness, and thus lighten its otherwise impenetrable gloom.\n\nI observe that you not unfrequently entertain yourself and your\naudiences by caricaturing certain doctrines of the Christian religion.\nThe \"Atonement,\" as you look upon it, is simply \"punishing the wrong\nman\"--letting the guilty escape and putting the innocent to death. This\nis vindicating justice by permitting injustice. But is there not another\nside to this? Does not the idea of sacrifice run through human life,\nand ennoble human character? You see a mother denying herself for her\nchildren, foregoing every comfort, enduring every hardship, till at\nlast, worn out by her labor and her privation, she folds her hands upon\nher breast. May it not be said truly that she gives her life for the\nlife of her children? History is full of sacrifice, and it is the best\npart of history. I will not speak of \"the noble army of martyrs,\" but\nof heroes who have died for their country or for liberty--what is it but\nthis element of devotion for the good of others that gives such glory\nto their immortal names? How then should it be thought a thing without\nreason that a Deliverer of the race should give His life for the life of\nthe world?\n\nSo, too, you find a subject for caricature in the doctrine of\n\"Regeneration.\" But what is regeneration but a change of character\nshown in a change of life? Is that so very absurd? Have you never seen a\ndrunkard reformed? Have you never seen a man of impure life, who, after\nrunning his evil course, had, like the prodigal, \"come to himself\"--that\nis, awakened to his shame, and turning from it, come back to the path\nof purity, and finally regained a true and noble manhood? Probably you\nwould admit this, but say that the change was the result of reflection,\nand of the man's own strength of will. The doctrine of regeneration only\nadds to the will of man the power of God. We believe that man is weak,\nbut that God is mighty; and that when man tries to raise himself, an arm\nis stretched out to lift him up to a height which he could not attain\nalone. Sometimes one who has led the worst life, after being plunged\ninto such remorse and despair that he feels as if he were enduring the\nagonies of hell, turns back and takes another course: he becomes \"a new\ncreature,\" whom his friends can hardly recognize as he \"sits clothed and\nin his right mind.\" The change is from darkness to light, from death\nto life; and he who has known but one such case will never say that the\nlanguage is too strong which describes that man as \"born again.\"\n\nIf you think that I pass lightly over these doctrines, not bringing out\nall the meaning which they bear, I admit it. I am not writing an essay\nin theology, but would only show, in passing, by your favorite method of\nillustration, that the principles involved are the same with which you\nare familiar in everyday life.\n\nBut the doctrine which excites your bitterest animosity is that of\nFuture Retribution. The prospect of another life, reaching on into an\nunknown futurity, you would contemplate with composure were it not for\nthe dark shadow hanging over it. But to live only to suffer; to live\nwhen asking to die; to \"long for death, and not be able to find it\"--is\na prospect which arouses the anger of one who would look with calmness\nupon death as an eternal sleep. The doctrine loses none of its terrors\nin passing through your hands; for it is one of the means by which\nyou work upon the feelings of your hearers. You pronounce it \"the most\nhorrible belief that ever entered the human mind: that the Creator\nshould bring beings into existence to destroy them! This would make\nHim the most fearful tyrant in the universe--a Moloch devouring his\nown children!\" I shudder when I recall the fierce energy with which\nyou spoke as you said, \"Such a God I hate with all the intensity of my\nbeing!\"\n\nBut gently, gently, Sir! We will let this burst of fury pass before we\nresume the conversation. When you are a little more tranquil, I would\nmodestly suggest that perhaps you are fighting a figment of your\nimagination. I never heard of any Christian teacher who said that \"the\nCreator brought beings into the world to destroy them!\" Is it not better\nto moderate yourself to exact statements, especially when, with all\nmodifications, the subject is one to awaken a feeling the most solemn\nand profound?\n\nNow I am not going to enter into a discussion of this doctrine. I will\nnot quote a single text. I only ask you whether it is not a scientific\ntruth that _the effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause\nis eternal_. Science has opened our eyes to some very strange facts\nin nature. The theory of vibrations is carried by the physicists to an\nalarming extent. They tell us that it is literally and mathematically\ntrue that you cannot throw a ball in the air but it shakes the solar\nsystem. Thus all things act upon all. What is true in space may be true\nin time, and the law of physics may hold in the spiritual realm.\nWhen the soul of man departs out of the body, being released from the\ngrossness of the flesh, it may enter on a life a thousand times more\nintense than this: in which it will not need the dull senses as avenues\nof knowledge, because the spirit itself will be all eye, all ear, all\nintelligence; while memory, like an electric flash, will in an instant\nbring the whole of the past into view; and the moral sense will be\nquickened as never before. Here then we have all the conditions of\nretribution--a world which, however shadowy it may be seem, is yet as\nreal as the homes and habitations and activities of our present state;\nwith memory trailing the deeds of a lifetime behind it, and conscience,\nmore inexorable than any judge, giving its solemn and final verdict.\n\nWith such conditions assumed, let us take a case which would awaken your\njust indignation--that of a selfish, hardhearted, and cruel man; who\nsacrifices the interests of everybody to his own; who grinds the faces\nof the poor, robbing the widow and the orphan of their little all; and\nwho, so far from making restitution, dies with his ill-gotten gains held\nfast in his clenched hand. How long must the night be to sleep away the\nmemory of such a hideous life? If he wakes, will not the recollection\ncling to him still? Are there any waters of oblivion that can cleanse\nhis miserable soul? If not--if he cannot forget--surely he cannot\nforgive himself for the baseness which now he has no opportunity to\nrepair. Here, then, is a retribution which is inseparable from his\nbeing, which is a part of his very existence. The undying memory brings\nthe undying pain.\n\nTake another case--alas! too sadly frequent. A man of pleasure betrays\na young, innocent, trusting woman by the promise of his love, and then\ncasts her off, leaving her to sink down, down, through every degree\nof misery and shame, till she is lost in depths, which plummet never\nsounded, and disappears. Is he not to suffer for this poor creature's\nruin? Can he rid himself of it by fleeing beyond \"that bourne from\nwhence no traveler returns\"? Not unless he can flee from himself: for\nin the lowest depths of the under-world--a world in which the sun never\nshines--that image will still pursue him. As he wanders in its gloomy\nshades a pale form glides by him like an affrighted ghost. The face is\nthe same, beautiful even in its sorrow, but with a look upon it as of\none who has already suffered an eternity of woe. In an instant all the\npast comes back again. He sees the young, unblessed mother wandering in\nsome lonely place, that only the heavens may witness her agony and her\ndespair. There he sees her holding up in her arms the babe that had no\nright to be born, and calling upon God to judge her betrayer. How far\nin the future must he travel to forget that look? Is there any escape\nexcept by plunging into the gulf of annihilation?\n\nThus far in this paper I have taken a tone of defence. But I do not\nadmit that the Christian religion needs any apology,--it needs only to\nbe rightly understood to furnish its own complete vindication. Instead\nof considering its \"evidences,\" which is but going round the outer\nwalls, let us enter the gates of the temple and see what is within. Here\nwe find something better than \"towers and bulwarks\" in the character of\nHim who is the Founder of our Religion, and not its Founder only but its\nvery core and being. Christ is Christianity. Not only is He the Great\nTeacher, but the central subject of what He taught, so that the whole\nstands or falls with Him.\n\nIn our first conversation, I observed that, with all your sharp\ncomments on things sacred, you professed great respect for the ethics\nof Christianity, and for its author. \"Make the Sermon on the Mount your\nreligion,\" you said, \"and there I am with you.\" Very well! So far, so\ngood. And now, if you will go a little further, you may find still more\nfood for reflection.\n\nAll who have made a study of the character and teachings of Christ, even\nthose who utterly deny the supernatural, stand in awe and wonder before\nthe gigantic figure which is here revealed. Renan closes his \"Life of\nJesus\" with this as the result of his long study: \"Jesus will never\nbe surpassed. His worship will be renewed without ceasing; his\nstory [legende] will draw tears from beautiful eyes without end; his\nsufferings will touch the finest natures; all the ages will proclaim\n\nTHAT AMONG THE SONS OF MEN THERE HAS NOT RISEN A GREATER THAN JESUS;\"\n\nwhile Rousseau closes his immortal eulogy by saying, \"Socrates died like\na philosopher, but Jesus Christ like a God!\"\n\nHere is an argument for Christianity to which I pray you to address\nyourself. As you do not believe in miracles, and are ready to explain\neverything by natural causes, I beg you to tell us how came it to pass\nthat a Hebrew peasant, born among the hills of Judea, had a wisdom above\nthat of Socrates or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha? This is the greatest\nof miracles, that such a Being has lived and died on the earth.\n\nSince this is the chief argument for Religion, does it not become\none who undertakes to destroy it to set himself first to this central\nposition, instead of wasting his time on mere outposts? When you next\naddress one of the great audiences that hang upon your words, is it\nunfair to ask that you lay aside such familiar topics as Miracles or\nGhosts, or a reply to Talmage, and tell us what you think of Jesus\nChrist; whether you look upon Him as an impostor, or merely as a\ndreamer--a mild and harmless enthusiast; or are you ready to acknowledge\nthat He is entitled to rank among the great teachers of mankind?\n\nBut if you are compelled to admit the greatness of Christ, you take your\nrevenge on the Apostles, whom you do not hesitate to say that you \"don't\nthink much of.\" In fact, you set them down in a most peremptory way\nas \"a poor lot.\" It did seem rather an unpromising \"lot,\" that of\na boat-load of fishermen, from which to choose the apostles of a\nreligion--almost as unpromising as it was to take a rail-splitter to be\nthe head of a nation in the greatest crisis of its history! But perhaps\nin both cases there was a wisdom higher than ours, that chose better\nthan we. It might puzzle even you to give a better definition of\nreligion than this of the Apostle James: \"Pure religion and undefiled\nbefore God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows\nin their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world,\" or\nto find among those sages of antiquity, with whose writings you are\nfamiliar, a more complete and perfect delineation of that which is\nthe essence of all goodness and virtue, than Paul's description of the\ncharity which \"suffereth long and is kind;\" or to find in the sayings of\nConfucius or of Buddha anything more sublime than this aphorism of John:\n\"God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in\nhim.\"\n\nAnd here you must allow me to make a remark, which is not intended as a\npersonal retort, but simply in the interest of that truth which we both\nprofess to seek, and to count worth more than victory. Your language is\ntoo sweeping to indicate the careful thinker, who measures his words\nand weighs them in a balance. Your lectures remind me of the pictures of\nGustave Dore, who preferred to paint on a large canvas, with figures as\ngigantesque as those of Michael Angelo in his Last Judgment. The effect\nis very powerful, but if he had softened his colors a little,--if there\nwere a few delicate touches, a mingling of light and shade, as when\ntwilight is stealing over the earth,--the landscape would be more true\nto nature. So, believe me, your words would be more weighty if they were\nnot so strong. But whenever you touch upon religion you seem to lose\ncontrol of yourself, and a vindictive feeling takes possession of\nyou, which causes you to see things so distorted from their natural\nappearance that you cannot help running into the broadest caricature.\nYou swing your sentences as the woodman swings his axe. Of course, this\n\"slashing\" style is very effective before a popular audience, which does\nnot care for nice distinctions, or for evidence that has to be sifted\nand weighed; but wants opinions off hand, and likes to have its\nprejudices and hatreds echoed back in a ringing voice. This carries\nthe crowd, but does not convince the philosophic mind. The truth-seeker\ncannot cut a road through the forest with sturdy blows; he has a hidden\npath to trace, and must pick his way with slow and cautious step to find\nthat which is more precious than gold.\n\nBut if it were possible for you to sweep away the \"evidences of\nChristianity,\" you have not swept away Christianity itself; it still\nlives, not only in tradition, but in the hearts of the people, entwined\nwith all that is sweetest in their domestic life, from which it must\nbe torn out with unsparing hand before it can be exterminated. To\nbegin with, you turn your back upon history. All that men have done and\nsuffered for the sake of religion was folly. The Pilgrims, who crossed\nthe sea to find freedom to worship God in the forests of the New World,\nwere miserable fanatics. There is no more place in the world for heroes\nand martyrs. He who sacrifices his life for a faith, or an idea, is\na fool. The only practical wisdom is to have a sharp eye to the main\nchance. If you keep on in this work of demolition, you will soon destroy\nall our ideals. Family life withers under the cold sneer--half pity and\nhalf scorn--with which you look down on household worship. Take from\nour American firesides such scenes as that pictured in the _Cotter's\nSaturday Night_, and you have taken from them their most sacred hours\nand their tenderest memories.\n\nThe same destructive spirit which intrudes into our domestic as well as\nour religious life, would take away the beauty of our villages as well\nas the sweetness of our homes. In the weary round of a week of toil,\nthere comes an interval of rest; the laborer lays down his burden, and\nfor a few hours breathes a serener air. The Sabbath morning has come:\n\n     \"Sweet day I so cool, so calm, so bright,\n     The bridal of the earth and sky.\"\n\nAt the appointed hour the bell rings across the valley, and sends its\nechoes among the hills; and from all the roads the people come trooping\nto the village church. Here they gather, old and young, rich and poor;\nand as they join in the same act of worship, feel that God is the maker\nof them all? Is there in our national life any influence more elevating\nthan this--one which tends more to bring a community together; to\npromote neighborly feeling; to refine the manners of the people; to\nbreed true courtesy, and all that makes a Christian village different\nfrom a cluster of Indian wigwams--a civilized community different from a\ntribe of savages?\n\nAll this you would destroy: you would abolish the Sabbath, or have it\nturned into a holiday; you would tear down the old church, so full of\ntender associations of the living and the dead, or at least have it\n\"razeed,\" cutting off the tall spire that points upward to heaven;\nand the interior you would turn into an Assembly room--a place of\nentertainment, where the young people could have their merry-makings,\nexcept perchance in the warm' Summer-time, when they could dance on the\nvillage green! So far you would have gained your object. But would that\nbe a more orderly community, more refined or more truly happy?\n\nYou may think this a mere sentiment--that we care more for the\npicturesque than for the true. But there is one result which is\nfearfully real: the destructive creed, or no creed, which despoils\nour churches and our homes, attacks society in its first principles\nby taking away the support of morality. I do not believe that general\nmorality can be upheld without the sanctions of religion. There may\nbe individuals of great natural force of character, who can stand\nalone--men of superior intellect and strong will. But in general human\nnature is weak, and virtue is not the spontaneous growth of childish\ninnocence. Men do not become pure and good by instinct. Character, like\nmind, has to be developed by education; and it needs all the elements\nof strength which can be given it, from without as well as from within,\nfrom the government of man and the government of God. To let go of these\nrestraints is a peril to public morality.\n\nYou feel strong in the strength of a robust manhood, well poised in body\nand mind, and in the centre of a happy home, where loving hearts cling\nto you like vines round the oak. But many to whom you speak are quite\notherwise. You address thousands of young men who have come out of\ncountry homes, where they have been brought up in the fear of God, and\nhave heard the morning and evening prayer. They come into a city full of\ntemptations, but are restrained from evil by the thought of father and\nmother, and reverence for Him who is the Father of us all--a feeling\nwhich, though it may not have taken the form of any profession, is yet\nat the bottom of their hearts, and keeps them from many a wrong and\nwayward step. A young man, who is thus \"guarded and defended\" as by\nunseen angels, some evening when he feels very lonely, is invited\nto \"go and hear Ingersoll,\" and for a couple of hours listens to your\ncaricatures of religion, with descriptions of the prayers and the\npsalm-singing, illustrated by devout grimaces and nasal tones, which\nset the house in roars of laughter, and are received with tumultuous\napplause. When it is all over, and the young man finds himself again\nunder the flaring lamps of the city streets, he is conscious of a\nchange; the faith of his childhood has been rudely torn from him, and\nwith it \"a glory has passed away from the earth;\" the Bible which his\nmother gave him, the morning that he came away, is \"a mass of fables;\"\nthe sentence which she wished him to hang on the wall, \"Thou, God, seest\nme,\" has lost its power, for there is no God that sees him, no moral\ngovernment, no law and no retribution. So he reasons as he walks\nslowly homeward, meeting the temptations which haunt these streets at\nnight--temptations from which he has hitherto turned with a shudder, but\nwhich he now meets with a diminished power of resistance. Have you done\nthat young man any good in taking from him what he held sacred before?\nHave you not left him morally weakened? From sneering at religion, it\nis but a step to sneering at morality, and then but one step more to a\nvicious and profligate career. How are you going to stop this downward\ntendency? When you have stripped him of former restraints, do you\nleave him anything in their stead, except indeed a sense of honor,\nself-respect, and self-interest?--worthy motives, no doubt, but all\ntoo feeble to withstand the fearful temptations that assail him. Is the\nchance of his resistance as good as it was before? Watch him as he goes\nalong that street at midnight! He passes by the places of evil resort,\nof drinking and gambling--those open mouths of hell; he hears the sound\nof music and dancing, and for the first time pauses to listen. How long\nwill it be before he will venture in?\n\nWith such dangers in his path, it is a grave responsibility to loosen\nthe restraints which hold such a young man to virtue. These gibes\nand sneers which you utter so lightly, may have a sad echo in a lost\ncharacter and a wretched life. Many a young man has been thus taunted\nuntil he has pushed off from the shore, under the idea of gaining his\n\"liberty,\" and ventured into the rapids, only to be carried down the\nstream, and left a wreck in the whirlpool below.\n\nYou tell me that your object is to drive fear out of the world. That\nis a noble ambition; if you succeed, you will be indeed a deliverer. Of\ncourse you mean only irrational fears. You would not have men throw\noff the fear of violating the laws of nature; for that would lead to\nincalculable misery. You aim only at the terrors born of ignorance and\nsuperstition. But how are you going to get rid of these? You trust to\nthe progress of science, which has dispelled so many fears arising from\nphysical phenomena, by showing that calamities ascribed to spiritual\nagencies are explained by natural causes. But science can only go a\ncertain way, beyond which we come into the sphere of the unknown, where\nall is dark as before. How can you relieve the fears of others--indeed\nhow can you rid yourself of fear, believing as you do that there is no\nPower above which can help you in any extremity; that you are the sport\nof accident, and may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of nature?\nIf I believed this, I should feel that I was in the grasp of some\nterrible machinery which was crushing me to atoms, with no possibility\nof escape.\n\nNot so does Religion leave man here on the earth, helpless and\nhopeless--in abject terror, as he is in utter darkness as to\nhis fate--but opening the heaven above him, it discovers a Great\nIntelligence, compassing all things, seeing the end from the beginning,\nand ordering our little lives so that even the trials that we bear, as\nthey call out the finer elements of character, conduce to our future\nhappiness. God is our Father. We look up into His face with childlike\nconfidence, and find that \"His service is perfect freedom.\" \"Love casts\nout fear.\" That, I beg to assure you, is the way, and the only way,\nby which man can be delivered from those fears by which he is all his\nlifetime subject to bondage.\n\nIn your attacks upon Religion you do violence to your own manliness.\nKnowing you as I do, I feel sure that you do not realize where your\nblows fall, or whom they wound, or you would not use your weapons so\nfreely. The faiths of men are as sacred as the most delicate manly or\nwomanly sentiments of love and honor. They are dear as the beloved\nfaces that have passed from our sight. I should think myself wanting in\nrespect to the memory of my father and mother if I could speak lightly\nof the faith in which they lived and died. Surely this must be mere\nthoughtlessness, for I cannot believe that you find pleasure in giving\npain. I have not forgotten the gentle hand that was laid upon your\nshoulder, and the gentle voice which said, \"Uncle Robert wouldn't hurt\na fly.\" And yet you bruise the tenderest sensibilities, and trample down\nwhat is most cherished by millions of sisters and daughters and mothers,\nlittle heeding that you are sporting with \"human creatures' lives.\"\n\nYou are waging a hopeless war--a war in which you are certain only of\ndefeat. The Christian Religion began to be nearly two thousand years\nbefore you and I were born, and it will live two thousand years after we\nare dead. Why is it that it lives on and on, while nations and kingdoms\nperish? Is not this \"the survival of the fittest?\" Contend against\nit with all your wit and eloquence, you will fail, as all have failed\nbefore you. You cannot fight against the instincts of humanity. It is as\nnatural for men to look up to a Higher Power as it is to look up to the\nstars. Tell them that there is no God! You might as well tell them that\nthere is no Sun in heaven, even while on that central light and heat all\nlife on earth depends.\n\nI do not presume to, think that I have convinced you, or changed your\nopinion; but it is always right to appeal to a man's \"sober second\nthought\"--to that better judgment that comes with increasing knowledge\nand advancing years; and I will not give up hope that you will yet see\nthings more clearly, and recognize the mistake you have made in not\ndistinguishing Religion from Superstition--two things as far apart as\n\"the hither from the utmost pole.\" Superstition is the greatest enemy\nof Religion. It is the nightmare of the mind, filling it with all\nimaginable terrors--a black cloud which broods over half the world.\nAgainst this you may well invoke the light of science to scatter its\ndarkness. Whoever helps to sweep it away, is a benefactor of his race.\nBut when this is done, and the moral atmosphere is made pure and sweet,\nthen you as well as we may be conscious of a new Presence coming into\nthe hushed and vacant air, as Religion, daughter of the skies, descends\nto earth to bring peace and good will to men.\n\nHenry M. Field.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. HENRY M. FIELD, D.D.\n\n     \"Doubt is called the beacon of the wise.\"\n\nMy Dear Mr. Field:\n\nI answer your letter because it is manly, candid and generous. It is not\noften that a minister of the gospel of universal benevolence speaks of\nan unbeliever except in terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek\nare often malicious. The statement in your letter, that some of your\nbrethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief, tends\nto show that those who love God are not always the friends of their\nfellow-men.\n\nIs it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be eternally\ndamned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and that there is no\nsoundness or health in them, can be so arrogantly egotistic as to look\nupon others as \"monsters\"? And yet \"some of your brethren,\" who regard\nunbelievers as infamous, rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of\nanother, and expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy.\n\nThe first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence of\nhonest error--as to the right to express an honest thought.\n\nYou must know that perfectly honest men differ on many important\nsubjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the advocates of\nprotection. There are honest Democrats and sincere Republicans. How do\nyou account for these differences? Educated men, presidents of colleges,\ncannot agree upon questions capable of solution--questions that the mind\ncan grasp, concerning which the evidence is open to all and where the\nfacts can be with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this? If\nsuch differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those\nwho differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining different\nviews on subjects about which nothing can be positively known?\n\nYou do not regard me as a monster. \"Some of your brethren\" do. How do\nyou account for this difference? Of course, your brethren--their hearts\nhaving been softened by the Presbyterian God--are governed by charity\nand love. They do not regard me as a monster because I have committed\nan infamous crime, but simply for the reason that I have expressed my\nhonest thoughts.\n\nWhat should I have done? I have read the Bible with great care, and\nthe conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only that it is\nnot inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to speak or act\ncontrary to this conclusion? Was it my duty to remain silent? If I had\nbeen untrue to myself, if I had joined the majority,--if I had declared\nthe book to be the inspired word of God,--would your brethren still have\nregarded me as a monster? Has religion had control of the world so long\nthat an honest man seems monstrous?\n\nAccording to your creed--according to your Bible--the same Being who\nmade the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and sowed within\nthose wondrous fields the seeds of every thought and deed, inspired the\nBible's every word, and gave it as a guide to all the world. Surely the\nbook should satisfy the brain. And yet, there are millions who do not\nbelieve in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and\nbest have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian\never stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar\nwith Nature from sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries\nand conclusions, \"more precious than the tested gold,\" to all mankind.\nYet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied\nthe existence of their God. Certainly, Charles Darwin was one of the\ngreatest and purest of men,--as free from prejudice as the mariner's\ncompass,--desiring only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance\nthe star of truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the\nintellectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate\nconclusion, destroy the creeds and sacred Scriptures of mankind. In the\nlight of \"Natural Selection,\" \"The Survival of the Fittest,\" and \"The\nOrigin of Species,\" even the Christian religion becomes a gross and\ncruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest, thoughtful, brave and\ngenerous man.\n\nCompare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with the founders\nof the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of Spinoza, the loving\npantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and tell me, candidly, which,\nin your opinion, was a \"monster.\" Even your brethren do not claim that\nmen are to be eternally punished for having been mistaken as to the\ntruths of geology, astronomy, or mathematics. A man may deny the\nrotundity and rotation of the earth, laugh at the attraction of\ngravitation, scout the nebular hypothesis, and hold the multiplication\ntable in abhorrence, and yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist\nupon the same freedom of thought in all departments of human knowledge.\nReason is the supreme and final test.\n\nIf God has made a revelation to man, it must have been addressed to his\nreason. There is no other faculty that could even decipher the address.\nI admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by\nstumblers carried in the starless night,--blown and flared by passion's\nstorm,--and yet it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought\nremains.\n\nYou draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call\n\"superstition\" and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo mother when\nshe gives her child to death at the supposed command of her God. What\ndo you think of Abraham, of Jephthah? What is your opinion of Jehovah\nhimself? Is not the sacrifice of a child to a phantom as horrible in\nPalestine as in India? Why should a God demand a sacrifice from man? Why\nshould the infinite ask anything from the finite? Should the sun beg\nof the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of the\nsource of light?\n\nYou must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her child will be\nforever blest--that it will become the especial care of the God to whom\nit has been given. This is a sacrifice through a false belief on the\npart of the mother. She breaks her heart for the love of her babe. But\nwhat do you think of the Christian mother who expects to be happy in\nheaven, with her child a convict in the eternal prison--a prison in\nwhich none die, and from which none escape? What do you say of those\nChristians who believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with\necstasy that all the loved of earth will be forgotten--that all the\nsacred relations of life, and all the passions of the heart, will fade\nand die, so that they will look with stony, un-replying, happy eyes upon\nthe miseries of the lost?\n\nYou have laid down a rule by which superstition can be distinguished\nfrom religion. It is this: \"It makes that a crime which is not a crime,\nand that a virtue which is not a virtue.\" Let us test your religion by\nthis rule.\n\nIs it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe? Is it\na crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and is it\ninfamous to express your honest thought? There is also another question:\nIs credulity a virtue? Is the open mouth of ignorant wonder the only\nentrance to Paradise?\n\nAccording to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and those\nwho do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you condemn men to\neverlasting pain for unbelief--that is to say, for acting in accordance\nwith that which is evidence to them--do you not make that a crime which\nis not a crime? And when you reward men with an eternity of joy for\nsimply believing that which happens to be in accord with their minds, do\nyou not make that a virtue which is not a virtue? In other words, do\nyou not bring your own religion exactly within your own definition of\nsuperstition?\n\nThe truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his\nthoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, or we\ndisbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the\neffect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who\nwatches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in the\nformation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of\ndesire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.\n\nThat which must be, has the right to be.\n\nWe think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart beats,\nas the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old accustomed\nways.\n\nThe question then is, not have we the right to think,--that being a\nnecessity,--but have we the right to express our honest thoughts? You\ncertainly have the right to express yours, and you have exercised that\nright. Some of your brethren, who regard me as a monster, have expressed\ntheirs. The question now is, have I the right to express mine? In other\nwords, have I the right to answer your letter? To make that a crime in\nme which is a virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition\nof superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is\nsimply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your\nhonest thoughts? When, and where, and how did I lose mine?\n\nYou would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because I differ\nwith you on a subject about which neither of us knows anything. To you\nthe savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof of the depravity of man.\nYou are far better than your creed. You believe that even the Christian\nworld is outgrowing the frightful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and\nthumb-screw are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon\nwhom they are used, that the religion of those who use them was\nfounded by a God of infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now\npersecutes for opinion's sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship\nwill, according to your creed, torture through all the endless years\nthe man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is the\nfoundation and cause of all religious persecution. You may reply that\nonly the belief in a false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you\nmust admit that the Jews believed in the true God, and you are forced\nto say that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they\ncrucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was\nCommitted, not in spite of their religion, but in accordance with it.\nThey simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the followers of this\nSinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have denounced the cruelty\nof the Jews for crucifying a man on account of his opinion, have\ndestroyed millions and millions of their fellow-men for differing with\nthem. And this same Sinless Being threatens to torture in eternal fire\ncountless myriads for the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency\ncannot go. At this point absurdity becomes infinite.\n\nYour creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making it\neternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, who\ndenies to his countless victims even the mercy of death. And this you\ncall \"a consolation.\"\n\nYou insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea of God.\nAccording to your creed, all ideas of God, except those entertained by\nthose of your faith, are absolutely false. You are not called upon to\ndefend the Gods of the nations dead; nor the Gods of heretics. It\nis your business to defend the God of the Bible--the God of the\nPresbyterian Church. When in the ranks doing battle for your creed,\nyou must wear the uniform of your church. You dare not say that it is\nsufficient to insure the salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in\nsome god. According to your creed, man must believe in your God. All\nthe nations dead believed in gods, and all the worshipers of Zeus, and\nJupiter, and Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in\nvain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were not saved.\nSurely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe in any one of\nthe heathen gods.\n\nWhat right have you to occupy the position of the deists, and to put\nforth arguments that even Christians have answered? The deist denounced\nthe God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and at the same time lauded\nthe God of Nature. The Christian replied that the God of Nature was as\ncruel as the God of the Bible. This answer was complete.\n\nI feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have been, that\nnone are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the supernatural;\nand I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few--and\nthey among the wisest, noblest, and purest of the human race--have\nregarded all gods as monstrous myths. Yet a belief in \"the true God\"\ndoes not seem to make men charitable or just. For most people, theism\nis the easiest solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying\nthat there must be a Being who created and who governs the world. But\nthe universality of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The\nbelief in the existence of a malignant Devil has been as universal as\nthe belief in a beneficent God, yet few intelligent men will say that\nthe universality of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to prove\nhis existence. In the world of thought, majorities count for nothing.\nTruth has always dwelt with the few.\n\nMan has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has been the\nsport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and hope and fear. To\nappease the wrath of these monsters man has sacrificed his fellow-man.\nHe has shed the blood of wife and child; he has fasted and prayed; he\nhas suffered beyond the power of language to express, and yet he has\nreceived nothing from these gods--they have heard no supplication, they\nhave answered no prayer.\n\nYou may reply that your God \"sends his rain on the just and on the\nunjust,\" and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all alike.\nI answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just and on the\nunjust--that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones rend and wreck the\nloving and the vicious, the honest and the criminal. Do not these facts\nprove that your God is cruel to all alike? In other words, do they not\ndemonstrate the absolute impartiality of divine negligence?\n\nDo you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence, having\nabsolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is being done?\nCertainly there would be no droughts or floods; the crops would not be\npermitted to wither and die, while rain was being wasted in the sea. Is\nit conceivable that a good man with power to control the winds would not\nprevent cyclones? Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with\nthe lightning?\n\nWhy should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and\npreserve the vile? Why should he treat all alike here, and in another\nworld make an infinite difference? Why should your God allow his\nworshipers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his enemies? Why should he\nallow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at the stake? Can you\nanswer these questions? Does it not seem to you that your God must have\nfelt a touch of shame when the poor slave mother--one that had been\nrobbed of her babe--knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with\nsobs, commenced her prayer with the words \"Our Father\"?\n\nIt gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed, you are\nphilosophical enough to say that some men are incapacitated, by reason\nof temperament, for believing in the existence of God. Now, if a belief\nin God is necessary to the salvation of the soul, why should God create\na soul without this capacity? Why should he create souls that he knew\nwould be lost? You seem to think that it is necessary to be poetical, or\ndreamy, in order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny\ncertain qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for the\natheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you quote\nhis lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being he so\npassionately denied? Is it possible that Napoleon--one of the most\ninfamous of men--had a nature so finely strung that he was sensitive to\nthe divine influences? Are you driven to the necessity of proving the\nexistence of one tyrant by the words of another? Personally, I have but\nlittle confidence in a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who,\nto gratify his ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans.\nIn regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast amount\nof testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of Charles Darwin,\nand then denied the correctness of these theories--preferring the\ngood opinions of Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause of the\nintellectual world.\n\nI agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that\neverything in nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no way of\nescape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the crystallization of\nthe snow is as mysterious as the constellations. But when you endeavor\nto explain the mystery of the universe by the mystery of God, you do not\neven exchange mysteries--you simply make one more.\n\nNothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.\n\nThe mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God. That\nmystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it cannot grasp\nthe idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond the circumference.\nThis being so, it is impossible that man can be convinced by any\nevidence of the existence of that which he cannot in any measure\ncomprehend. Such evidence would be equally incomprehensible with the\nincomprehensible fact sought to be established by it, and the intellect\nof man can grasp neither the one nor the other.\n\nYou admit that the God of Nature--that is to say, your God--is as\ninflexible as nature itself. Why should man worship the inflexible? Why\nshould he kneel to the unchangeable? You say that your God \"does not\nbend to human thought any more than to human will,\" and that \"the more\nwe study him, the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to\nbe.\" So that, after all, the only thing you are really certain of in\nrelation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is it\nnot almost absurd to insist that such a state of mind is necessary to\nsalvation, or that it is a moral restraint, or that it is the foundation\nof social order?\n\nThe most religious nations have been the most immoral, the cruelest\nand the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the Popes than under the\nCaesars. Was there ever a barbarian nation more savage than the Spain\nof the sixteenth century? Certainly you must know that what you call\nreligion has produced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the\nsword all the natural ties that produce \"the unity and married calm of\nStates.\" Theology is the fruitful mother of discord; order is the child\nof reason. If you will candidly consider this question--if you will for\na few moments forget your preconceived opinions--you will instantly see\nthat the instinct of self-preservation holds society together. Religion\nitself was born of this instinct. People, being ignorant, believed that\nthe Gods were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms\nthat demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms\nthat could be flattered by praise and changed by prayer. These ignorant\npeople wished to preserve themselves. They supposed that they could in\nthis way avoid pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the day of\ndeath. Do you not see that self-preservation lies at the foundation\nof worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and protect themselves.\nNations, like individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the\naccomplishment of certain ends. Men defend their property because it\nis of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men, as a rule, desire to\nlive, and for that reason murder is a crime. Fraud is hateful to the\nvictim. The majority of mankind work and produce the necessities, the\ncomforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to retain the fruits\nof their labor. Government is one of the instrumentalities for the\npreservation of what man deems of value. This is the foundation of\nsocial order, and this holds society together.\n\nReligion has been the enemy of social order, because it directs the\nattention of man to another world. Religion teaches its votaries to\nsacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The effect is to weaken\nthe ties that hold families and States together. Of what consequence is\nanything in this world compared with eternal joy?\n\nYou insist that man is not capable of self-government, and that God made\nthe mistake of filling a world with failures--in other words, that man\nmust be governed not by himself, but by your God, and that your God\nproduces order, and establishes and preserves all the nations of the\nearth. This being so, your God is responsible for the government of this\nworld. Does he preserve order in Russia? Is he accountable for Siberia?\nDid he establish the institution of slavery? Was he the founder of the\nInquisition?\n\nYou answer all these questions by calling my attention to \"the\nretributions of history.\" What are the retributions of history? The\nhonest were burned at the stake; the patriotic, the generous, and\nthe noble were allowed to die in dungeons; whole races were enslaved;\nmillions of mothers were robbed of their babes. What were the\nretributions of history? They who committed these crimes wore crowns,\nand they who justified these infamies were adorned with the tiara.\n\nYou are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg said: \"Just and\ntrue are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.\" Something like this occurs\nin his last inaugural, in which he says,--speaking of his hope that\nthe war might soon be ended,--\"If it shall continue until every drop of\nblood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,\nstill it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous\naltogether.'\" But admitting that you are correct in the assertion, let\nme ask you one question: Could one standing over the body of Lincoln,\nthe blood slowly oozing from the madman's wound, have truthfully said:\n\"Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty\"?\n\nDo you really believe that this world is governed by an infinitely wise\nand good God? Have you convinced even yourself of this? Why should God\npermit the triumph of injustice? Why should the loving be tortured? Why\nshould the noblest be destroyed? Why should the world be filled\nwith misery, with ignorance, and with want? What reason have you for\nbelieving that your God will do better in another world than he has done\nand is doing in this? Will he be wiser? Will he have more power? Will he\nbe more merciful?\n\nWhen I say \"your God,\" of course I mean the God described in the Bible\nand the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. But again I say, that in\nthe nature of things, there can be no evidence of the existence of an\ninfinite being.\n\nAn infinite being must be conditionless, and for that reason there is\nnothing that a finite being can do that can by any possibility affect\nthe well-being of the conditionless. This being so, man can neither owe\nnor discharge any debt or duty to an infinite being. The infinite\ncannot want, and man can do nothing for a being who wants nothing.\nA conditioned being can be made happy, or miserable, by changing\nconditions, but the conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and\neffect.\n\nI do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a God does\nexist; but I say that I do not know--that there can be no evidence to my\nmind of the existence of such a being, and that my mind is so that it\nis incapable of even thinking of an infinite personality. I know that in\nyour creed you describe God as \"without body, parts, or passions.\" This,\nto my mind, is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had\nno experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I am\nacquainted, and I was surprised to find in your letter the expression\nthat \"perhaps others are better acquainted with that of which I am so\nignorant.\" Did you, by this, intend to say that you know anything of\nany other state of existence--that you have inhabited some other\nplanet--that you lived before you were born, and that you recollect\nsomething of that other world, or of that other state?\n\nUpon the question of immortality you have done me, unintentionally,\na great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have never uttered \"a\nflippant or a trivial\" word. I have said a thousand times, and I say\nagain, that the idea of immortality, that, like a sea, has ebbed and\nflowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear\nbeating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of\nany book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human\naffection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and\nclouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death.\n\nI have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not know, we\ncannot say, whether death is a wall or a door--the beginning, or end,\nof a day--the spreading of pinions to soar, or the folding forever of\nwings--the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless life, that brings\nrapture and love to every one.\n\nThe belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thousands of\nyears before Christ was born billions of people had lived and died in\nthat hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in love and tears the\nemblems of another life. The heaven of the New Testament was to be in\nthis world. The dead, after they were raised, were to live here. Not\none satisfactory word was said to have been uttered by Christ--nothing\nphilosophic, nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise,\nthe cloud of doubt.\n\nAccording to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead for a\nperiod of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did not some\none of his disciples ask him where he had been? Why did he not tell them\nwhat world he had visited? There was the opportunity to \"bring life and\nimmortality to light.\" And yet he was as silent as the grave that he had\nleft--speechless as the stone that angels had rolled away.\n\nHow do you account for this? Was it not infinitely cruel to leave the\nworld in darkness and in doubt, when one word could have filled all time\nwith hope and light?\n\nThe hope of immortality is the great oak round which have climbed\nthe poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not supported the\noak--the oak has supported the vines. As long as men live and love and\ndie, this hope will blossom in the human heart.\n\nAll I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope and\nconfess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look have I expressed\nany other feeling than sympathy with those who hope to live again--for\nthose who bend above their dead and dream of life to come. But I have\ndenounced the selfishness and heartlessness of those who expect for\nthemselves an eternity of joy, and for the rest of mankind predict,\nwithout a tear, a world of endless pain. Nothing can be more\ncontemptible than such a hope--a hope that can give satisfaction only to\nthe hyenas of the human race.\n\nWhen I say that I do not know--when I deny the existence of perdition,\nyou reply that \"there is something very cruel in this treatment of the\nbelief of my fellow-creatures.\"\n\nYou have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which a mother\nbends and weeps for her only son. I accept your invitation. We will\ngo together. Do not, I pray you, deal in splendid generalities. Be\nexplicit. Remember that the son for whom the loving mother weeps was not\na Christian, not a believer in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the\ndivinity of Jesus Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for\nsome star of hope in the midnight of her grief. What must you say? Do\nnot desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings\nof Jesus Christ. What must you say? Will you read a portion of the\nPresbyterian Confession of Faith? Will you read this?\n\n\"Although the light of Nature, and the works of creation and Providence,\ndo so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave\nman inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of\nGod and of his will which is necessary to salvation.\"\n\nOr, will you read this?\n\n\"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and\nangels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained\nto everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and\nforeordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their\nnumber is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or\ndiminished.\"\n\nSuppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say: \"My son\nwas good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life for me. Is there\nno hope for him?\" Would you then put this serpent in her breast?\n\n\"Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any\nother way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives\naccording to the light of Nature. We cannot by our best works merit\npardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation.\nWorks done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of that, they\nmay be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and\nothers, are sinful and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive\nChrist or God.\"\n\nAnd suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask: \"What has become of\nmy son? Where is he now?\" Would you still read from your Confession of\nFaith, or from your Catechism--this?\n\n\"The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in\ntorment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.\nAt the last day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the\nwicked shall be cast into eternal torment and punished with everlasting\ndestruction. The wicked shall be cast into hell, to be punished with\nunspeakable torment, both of body and soul, with the devil and his\nangels forever.\"\n\nIf the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would you\nthrust this dagger in her heart?\n\n\"At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds,\nshall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and\nacquitted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.\"\n\nIf this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would you\nrepeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of Christ?\n\n\"They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and they who believe\nnot shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting fire\nprepared for the devil and his angels.\"\n\nWould you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell this\nmother that \"there is but one name given under heaven and among men\nwhereby\" the souls of men can enter the gates of Paradise? Would you not\nbe compelled to say: \"Your son lived in a Christian land. The means of\ngrace were within his reach. He died not having experienced a change of\nheart, and your son is forever lost. You can meet your son again only by\ndying in your sins; but if you will give your heart to God you can never\nclasp him to your breast again.\"\n\nWhat could I say? Let me tell you:\n\n\"My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of another\nworld. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply stated to you the\nsuperstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear. If there be in this\nuniverse a God, he certainly is as good as you are. Why should he have\nloved your son in life--loved him, according to this reverend gentleman,\nto that degree that he gave his life for him; and why should that love\nbe changed to hatred the moment your son was dead?\n\n\"My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no rewards--there\nare consequences; and of one thing you may rest assured, and that is,\nthat every soul, no matter what sphere it may inhabit, will have the\neverlasting opportunity of doing right.\n\n\"If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you weep\nis all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not within the\npower of this reverend gentleman's God--that is something. Your son does\nnot suffer. Next to a life of joy is the dreamless sleep of death.\"\n\nDoes it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox Christianity\n\"a consolation\"? Here in this world, where every human being is\nenshrouded in cloud and mist,--where all lives are filled with\nmistakes,--where no one claims to be perfect, is it \"a consolation\" to\nsay that \"the smallest sin deserves eternal pain\"? Is it possible for\nthe ingenuity of man to extract from the doctrine of hell one drop,\none ray, of \"consolation\"? If that doctrine be true, is not your God\nan infinite criminal? Why should he have created uncounted billions\ndestined to suffer forever? Why did he not leave them unconscious dust?\nCompared with this crime, any crime that man can by any possibility\ncommit is a virtue.\n\nThink for a moment of your God,--the keeper of an infinite penitentiary\nfilled with immortal convicts,--your God an eternal turnkey, without\nthe pardoning power. In the presence of this infinite horror, you\ncomplacently speak of the atonement,--a scheme that has not yet gathered\nwithin its horizon a billionth part of the human race,--an atonement\nwith one-half the world remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years\nafter it was made.\n\nIf there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To unjustly cause\nsuffering is the only possible crime. How can a God accept the suffering\nof the innocent in lieu of the punishment of the guilty?\n\nAccording to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will, makes\nright and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong exist in the\nnature of things--in the relation they bear to man, and to sentient\nbeings. You have already admitted that \"Nature is inflexible, and that a\nviolated law calls for its consequences.\" I insist that no God can step\nbetween an act and its natural effects. If God exists, he has nothing\nto do with punishment, nothing to do with reward. From certain acts\nflow certain consequences; these consequences increase or decrease the\nhappiness of man; and the consequences must be borne.\n\nA man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be pardoned,\nbut a man who has violated a condition of his own well-being cannot be\npardoned--there is no pardoning power. The laws of the State are made,\nand, being made, can be changed; but the facts of the universe cannot be\nchanged. The relation of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is\nabove all power, and, consequently, there is no analogy between the laws\nof the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not change\nthe relation between the diameter and circumference of the circle.\n\nA man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny the right\nof the State to punish an innocent man in the place of the pardoned--no\nmatter how willing the innocent man may be to suffer the punishment.\nThere is no law in Nature, no fact in Nature, by which the innocent can\nbe justly punished to the end that the guilty may go free. Let it be\nunderstood once for all: Nature cannot pardon.\n\nYou have recognized this truth. You have asked me what is to become\nof one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with the blood of\nhis victim upon his hands? Without the slightest hesitation I answer,\nwhoever commits a crime against another must, to the utmost of his\npower in this world and in another, if there be one, make full and ample\nrestitution, and in addition must bear the natural consequences of his\noffence. No man can be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any\nother, who has by his perfidy broken a loving and confiding heart.\nNo power can step between acts and consequences--no forgiveness, no\natonement.\n\nBut, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if you are a\nPresbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man may seduce and\nbetray, and that the poor victim, driven to insanity, leaping from\nsome wharf at night where ships strain at their anchors in storm and\ndarkness--you have taught that this poor girl may be tormented forever\nby a God of infinite compassion. This is not all that you have taught.\nYou have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would not\nlisten to her wailing cry,--who would not even stretch forth his hand\nto catch her fluttering garments,--you have said to him: \"Believe in the\nLord Jesus Christ, and you shall be happy forever; you shall live in the\nrealm of infinite delight, from which you can, without a shadow falling\nupon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the\nagonies of hell.\" You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how an\nangel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed on the earth,\ncould feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any decent angel, no matter\nif sitting at the right hand of God, should he see in hell one of his\nvictims, would leave heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear\nfrom the cheek of the damned.\n\nYou seem to have forgotten your statement in the commencement of your\nletter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature--that he bends not to\nhuman thought nor to human will. You seem to have forgotten the line\nwhich you emphasized with italics: \"_The effect of everything which is\nof the nature of a cause, is eternal_.\" In the light of this sentence,\nwhere do you find a place for forgiveness--for your atonement? Where is\na way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not\nsee that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands? The\nscientific part of your letter destroys the theological. You have put\n\"new wine into old bottles,\" and the predicted result has followed. Will\nthe angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose their memory? Will\nnot all the redeemed rascals remember their rascality? Will not all\nthe redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead? Will not all the\nseducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and the tones of\nher voice, and will not the conscience of the redeemed be as inexorable\nas the conscience of the damned?\n\nIf memory is to be forever \"the warder of the brain,\" and if the\nredeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain and anguish\nthey caused, then they can never be perfectly happy; and if the lost can\nnever forget the good they did, the kind actions, the loving words,\nthe heroic deeds; and if the memory of good deeds gives the slightest\npleasure, then the lost can never be perfectly miserable. Ought not the\nmemory of a good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one? So\nthat the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying pain, and\nthe undying memory of those in hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not\nsee that if men have done good and bad, the future can have neither a\nperfect heaven nor a perfect hell?\n\nI believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must bear the\nconsequences of his acts, and that no man can be justly saved or damned\non account of the goodness or the wickedness of another.\n\nIf by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice, the\neffects following a noble and disinterested action; if you mean that\nthe life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the human\nrace,--which your letter seems to show,--then there is no question\nbetween us. If you have thrown away the old and barbarous idea that a\nlaw had been broken, that God demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the\ninnocent, was offered up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and\nsuffered in our place, then I congratulate you with all my heart.\n\nIt seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous to any\none who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and its tears.\nI know that as darkness follows light around the globe, so misery and\nmisfortune follow the sons of men. According to your creed, the future\nstate will be worse than this. Here, the vicious may reform; here, the\nwicked may repent; here, a few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the\ndarkest life. But in your future state, for countless billions of the\nhuman race, there will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and\nno possible gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not\nsee that your future state is infinitely worse than this? You seem to\nmistake the glare of hell for the light of morning.\n\nLet us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us \"cling to all\nthat can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of this life.\"\n\nYou have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for caricature\nin the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, you mean\nreformation,--if you mean that there comes a time in the life of a young\nman when he feels the touch of responsibility, and that he leaves his\nfoolish or vicious ways, and concludes to act like an honest man,--if\nthis is what you mean by regeneration, I am a believer. But that is\nnot the definition of regeneration in your creed--that is not Christian\nregeneration. There is some mysterious, miraculous, supernatural,\ninvisible agency, called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and\nchanges the heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind,\nunder the control, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and\nwhither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regeneration\nthat I have attacked.\n\nYou ask me how it came to' pass that a Hebrew peasant, born among the\nhills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates or Plato, of\nConfucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying, \"This is the greatest\nof miracles--that such a being should live and die on the earth.\"\n\nI can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that Christ said\nnothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter of fact, his life\ntended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said nothing against the\ninstitution of slavery; nothing against the tyranny of government;\nnothing of our treatment of animals; nothing about education, about\nintellectual progress; nothing of art, declared no scientific truth, and\nsaid nothing as to the rights and duties of nations.\n\nYou may reply that all this is included in \"Do unto others as you would\nbe done by;\" and \"Resist not evil.\" More than this is necessary to\neducate the human race. It is not enough to say to your child or to\nyour pupil, \"Do right.\" The great question still remains: What is right?\nNeither is there any wisdom in the idea of non-resistance. Force without\nmercy is tyranny. Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take\nfrom virtue the right of self-defence and vice becomes the master of the\nworld.\n\nLet me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of camels,\na man without family, without wealth, became master of hundreds of\nmillions of human beings? How is it that he conquered and overran more\nthan half of the Christian world? How is it that on a thousand fields\nthe banner of the cross went down in blood, while that of the crescent\nfloated in triumph? How do you account for the fact that the flag of\nthis impostor floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ? Was this a\nmiracle? Was Mohammed inspired? How do you account for Confucius, whose\nname is known wherever the sky bends? Was he inspired--this man who\nfor many centuries has stood first, and who has been acknowledged\nthe superior of all men by hundreds and thousands of millions of\nhis fellow-men? How do you account for Buddha,--in many respects the\ngreatest religious teacher this world has ever known,--the broadest,\nthe most intellectual of them all; he who was great enough, hundreds of\nyears before Christ was born, to declare the universal brotherhood of\nman, great enough to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of\nraising mankind? How do you account for him, who has had more followers\nthan any other? Are you willing to say that all success is divine? How\ndo you account for Shakespeare, born of parents who could neither read\nnor write, held in the lap of ignorance and love, nursed at the breast\nof poverty--how do you account for him, by far the greatest of the human\nrace, the wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human\nthought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly acquainted with the human heart,\nknew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and in whose mind were\nthe fruit of all thought, of all experience, and a prophecy of all to\nbe; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty and depth of whose words increase\nwith the intelligence and civilization of mankind? How do you account\nfor this miracle? Do you believe that any founder of any religion could\nhave written \"Lear\" or \"Hamlet\"? Did Greece produce a man who could\nby any possibility have been the author of \"Troilus and Cressida\"? Was\nthere among all the countless millions of almighty Rome an intellect\nthat could have written the tragedy of \"Julius Caesar\"? Is not the play\nof \"Antony and Cleopatra\" as Egyptian as the Nile? How do you account\nfor this man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of every\nrace, and in whose brain there were the poetry and philosophy of a\nworld?\n\nYou ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here, once for all,\nthat for the man Christ--for the man who, in the darkness, cried out,\n\"My God, why hast thou forsaken me!\" --for that man I have the greatest\npossible respect. And let me say, once for all, that the place where man\nhas died for man is holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of\nPalestine I gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was\na reformer in his day--an infidel in his time. Back of the theological\nmask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a\ngreat and genuine man.\n\nIt is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course pursued\nby Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness \"the religion of\nothers.\" It did not occur to him that \"there was something very cruel in\nthis treatment of the belief of his fellow-creatures.\" He denounced the\nchosen people of God as a \"generation of vipers.\" He compared them to\n\"whited sepulchres.\" How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries?\nThey go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They\ntell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their\nreligion is a lie, not only that their gods are myths, but that the\nancestors of these people--their fathers and mothers who never heard\nof God, of the Bible, or of Christ--are all in perdition. Is not this a\ncruel treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature?\n\nA religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack with\nsmiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain. A\nreligion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out: \"Do not, I\npray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my feelings,\" is fit only\nfor asylums.\n\nYou believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power. While in\nJerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the dead, and opened the\neyes of the blind. Did he do these things because he loved mankind, or\ndid he do these miracles simply to establish the fact that he was the\nvery Christ? If he was actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as\nhe was then? Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now? Why does\nhe not with a touch make the leper clean? If you had the power to give\nsight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not exercise it,\nwhat would be thought of you? What is the difference between one who can\nand will not cure, and one who causes disease?\n\nOnly the other day I saw a beautiful girl--a paralytic, and yet her\nbrave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of her body like\nmorning on the desert. What would I think of myself, had I the power by\na word to send the blood through all her withered limbs freighted again\nwith life, should I refuse?\n\nMost theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been produced by\nand are really the children of religion.\n\nReligion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties and\nobligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct by means\nof which happiness can be attained in another world. The result here is\nonly an incident. The virtues are secular. They have nothing whatever to\ndo with the supernatural, and are of no kindred to any religion. A man\nmay be honest, courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving\nand pure, without being religious--that is to say, without any belief\nin the supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same\ntime a sincere believer in the creed of any church--that is to say, in\nthe existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the Scriptures and\nin the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes in the Bible may or\nmay not be kind to his family, and a man who is kind and loving in his\nfamily may or may not believe in the Bible.\n\nIn order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation of\ncharacter, it is only necessary to call your attention to the fact that\nyour Bible shows that the devil himself is a believer in the existence\nof your God, in the inspiration of the Scriptures, and in the divinity\nof Jesus Christ. He not only believes these things, but he knows them,\nand yet, in spite of it all, he remains a devil still.\n\nFew religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural goodness\nin the human heart. In the deepest midnight of superstition some natural\nvirtues, like stars, have been visible in the heavens. Man has committed\nevery crime in the name of Christianity--or at least crimes that\ninvolved the commission of all others. Those who paid for labor with\nthe lash, and who made blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who\nengaged in the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One\nslave ship was called \"The Jehovah.\" Those who pursued with hounds the\nfugitive led by the Northern star prayed fervently to Christ to crown\ntheir efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just before\nfalling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of the Most High.\n\nAs you have mentioned the apostles, let me call your attention to an\nincident.\n\nYou remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The apostles, having\nnothing themselves, conceived the idea of having all things in common.\nTheir followers who had something were to sell what little they had, and\nturn the proceeds over to these theological financiers. It seems that\nAnanias and Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after\ntalking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the\ncollaterals, concluded to keep a little--just enough to keep them from\nstarvation if the good and pious bankers should abscond.\n\nWhen Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had kept back\na part of the price. He said that he had not. Whereupon God, the\ncompassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the corpse was removed, the\napostles sent for his wife. They did not tell her that her husband had\nbeen killed. They deliberately set a trap for her life. Not one of them\nwas good enough or noble enough to put her on her guard; they allowed\nher to believe that her husband had told his story, and that she was\nfree to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that they were\ngiving more than they could afford, and, with the instinct of woman,\nwanted to keep a little. She denied that any part of the price had been\nkept back. That moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart.\n\nWill you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles in the\nlight of this story? Certainly murder is a greater crime than mendacity.\n\nYou have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give me some\nadvice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and that my words\nwould be more weighty if not so strong. Do you really desire that I\nshould add weight to my words? Do you really wish me to succeed? If the\ncommander of one army should send word to the general of the other that\nhis men were firing too high, do you think the general would be misled?\nCan you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the message?\n\nI deny that \"the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to worship\nGod in the forests of the new world.\" They came not in the interest of\nfreedom. It never entered their minds that other men had the same right\nto worship God according to the dictates of their consciences that the\nPilgrims themselves had. The moment they had power they were ready to\nwhip and brand, to imprison and burn. They did not believe in religious\nfreedom. They had no more idea of liberty of conscience than Jehovah.\n\nI do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and martyrs.\nOn the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have was won for us\nby heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these martyrs were burned, or\nflayed alive, or torn in pieces, or assassinated by the church of God.\nThe heroism was shown in fighting the hordes of religious superstition.\n\nGiordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed in no God, in no\nheaven, and in no hell, yet he perished by fire. He was offered liberty\non condition that he would recant. There was no God to please, no heaven\nto expect, no hell to fear, and yet he died by fire, simply to preserve\nthe unstained whiteness of his soul.\n\nFor hundreds of years every man who attacked the church was a hero. The\nsword of Christianity has been wet for many centuries with the blood of\nthe noblest. Christianity has been ready with whip and chain and fire to\nbanish freedom from the earth.\n\nNeither is it true that \"family life withers under the cold sneer--half\npity and half scorn--with which I look down on household worship.\"\n\nThose who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they are\nindebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in this\nlife, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have my entire\nrespect. Never have I said one word against the spirit of thankfulness.\nI understand the feeling of the man who gathers his family about him\nafter the storm, or after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours\nout his heart in thankfulness to the supposed God who has protected his\nfireside. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol of\nstone, or his fetich of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one or of the\nother that I respect, it is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt\nthe prayer.\n\nI believe in the family. I believe in family life; and one of my\nobjections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this\nsubject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the\nroof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, cool\nclasp of earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the\nsun, and like a spendthrift gives its perfume to the air. The home where\nvirtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire, the fairest\nflower in all this world.\n\nWhat did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home? What have\nnunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorification of celibacy\ndone for the family? Do you not know that Christ himself offered rewards\nin this world and eternal happiness in another to those who would desert\ntheir wives and children and follow him? What effect has that promise\nhad upon family life?\n\nAs a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Christianity\nteaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ, and that all\nother relations are as nothing compared with that. Christianity teaches\nthe husband to desert the wife, the wife to desert the husband, children\nto desert their parents, for the miserable and selfish purpose of saving\ntheir own little, shriveled souls.\n\nIt is far better for a man to love his fellow-men than to love God. It\nis better to love wife and children than to love Christ. It is better\nto serve your neighbor than to serve your God--even if God exists. The\nreason is palpable. You can do nothing for God. You can do something for\nwife and children. You can add to the sunshine of a life. You can plant\nflowers in the pathway of another.\n\nIt is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox Sabbath. It is true that\nI do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the service of\nsuperstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be understood by any\nintelligent man in one day. Why should he waste a seventh of his whole\nlife in hearing the same thoughts repeated again and again?\n\nNothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The mechanic who has\nworked during the week in heat and dust, the laboring man who has barely\nsucceeded in keeping his soul in his body, the poor woman who has\nbeen sewing for the rich, may go to the village church which you have\ndescribed. They answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in\nthis village church? Is it that God is the Father of the human race; is\nthat all? If that were all, you never would have heard an objection from\nmy lips. That is not all. If all ministers said: Bear the evils of this\nlife; your Father in heaven counts your tears; the time will come when\npain and death and grief will be forgotten words; I should have listened\nwith the rest. What else does the minister say to the poor people\nwho have answered the chimes of your bell? He says: \"The smallest sin\ndeserves eternal pain.\" \"A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer\nthe wrath of God forever.\" He fills the present with fear and the future\nwith fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the many. He describes a\nlittle grass-grown path that leads to heaven, where travelers are \"few\nand far between,\" and a great highway worn with countless feet that\nleads to everlasting death.\n\nSuch Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real savages. Gladly\nwould I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I turn it into a holiday,\na day of rest and peace, a day to get acquainted with your wife and\nchildren, a day to exchange civilities with your neighbors; and gladly\nwould I see the church in which such sermons are preached changed to\na place of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox\nsermons--the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in crevices\nand corners--driven out by the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven.\nGladly would I see the Sunday school where the doctrine of eternal fire\nis taught, changed to a happy dance upon the village green.\n\nMusic refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades. Science\ncivilizes. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.\n\nYou do not believe that general morality can be upheld without the\nsanctions of religion.\n\nChristianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on a credit. It\nhas taught, and it still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all. Of\ncourse it teaches morality. It says: \"Do not steal, do not murder;\" but\nit adds, \"but if you do both, there is a way of escape: believe on\nthe Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.\" I insist that such a\nreligion is no restraint. It is far better to teach that there is no\nforgiveness, and that every human being must bear the consequences of\nhis acts.\n\nThe first great step toward national reformation is the universal\nacceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the consequences of\nour acts. The young men who come from their country homes into a city\nfilled with temptations, may be restrained by the thought of father and\nmother. This is a natural restraint. They may be restrained by\ntheir knowledge of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its\nconsequences, and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot\nconceive of such a man being more liable to temptation because he has\nheard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only good\nis happiness--that the only way to attain that good is by doing what he\nbelieves to be right. I cannot imagine that his moral character will be\nweakened by the statement that there is no escape from the consequences\nof his acts. You seem to think that he will be instantly led\nastray--that he will go off under the flaring lamps to the riot of\npassion. Do you think the Bible calculated to restrain him? To prevent\nthis would you recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and\nof Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament? Should he\nread the life of David, and of Solomon? Do you think this would enable\nhim to withstand temptation? Would it not be far better to fill the\nyoung man's mind with facts so that he may know exactly the physical\nconsequences of such acts? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of\nvirtue? Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man?\n\nYou seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that the best\nchemists are most likely to poison themselves.\n\nYou say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering at\nmorality, and then only another step to that which is vicious and\nprofligate.\n\nThe Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of Christ. He\nsneered at their religion. The Christians have entertained the same\nopinion of every philosopher. Let me say to you again--and let me say\nit once for all--that morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality\ndoes not depend upon the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the\ncrutches of miracles. Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It\ncares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends\nupon facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product of\nwhich can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It\nbelieves in the freedom of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It\nis founded upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has\nto do with this world, and with this world alone.\n\nMy object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the jailer of\nthe mind. Christianity, superstition--that is to say, the\nsupernatural--makes every brain a prison and every soul a convict. Under\nthe government of a personal deity, consequences partake of the nature\nof punishments and rewards.\n\nUnder the government of Nature, what you call punishments and rewards\nare simply consequences. Nature does not punish. Nature does not reward.\nNature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do not think: \"This is\nbeing done by a tyrant.\" When the sun shines, I do not say: \"This is\nbeing done by a friend.\" Liberty means freedom from personal dictation.\nIt does not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in\nNature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Temperance\nwalks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain from the body puts\nan additional responsibility upon the soul. Liberty says to the man:\nYou injure or benefit yourself; you increase or decrease your own\nwell-being. It is a question of intelligence. You need not bow to\na supposed tyrant, or to infinite goodness. You are responsible to\nyourself and to those you injure, and to none other.\n\nI rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power above\nwhich can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do that there is\nno power above or below that can injure me in any extremity. I do not\nbelieve that I am the sport of accident, or that I may be dashed in\npieces by the blind agency of Nature. There is no accident, and there is\nno agency. That which happens must happen. The present is the necessary\nchild of all the past, the mother of all the future.\n\nDoes it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some God who\nwill help them in extremity? What evidence have they on which to found\nthis belief? When has any God listened to the prayer of any man? The\nwater drowns, the cold freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns,\nthe bolt of heaven falls--when and where has the prayer of man been\nanswered?\n\nIs the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of prayer?\nOnly a few years ago it was tested in the United States. The Christians\nof Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their knees and asked God to\nspare the life of one man. You know the result. You know just as well\nas I that the forces of Nature produce the good and bad alike. You know\nthat the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You know\nthat the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking to death the\nhonest man that it does or would in striking the assassin with his knife\nlifted above the bosom of innocence.\n\nDid God hear the prayers of the slaves? Did he hear the prayers of\nimprisoned philosophers and patriots? Did he hear the prayers of\nmartyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his followers, to\npile the fagots round the forms of glorious men? Did he allow the flames\nto devour the flesh of those whose hearts were his? Why should any man\ndepend on the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing\nthat they would suffer eternal grief?\n\nThe faith that you call sacred--\"sacred as the most delicate manly or\nwomanly sentiment of love and honor\"--is the faith that nearly all of\nyour fellow-men are to be lost. Ought an honest man to be restrained\nfrom denouncing that faith because those who entertain it say that their\nfeelings are hurt? You say to me: \"There is a hell. A man advocating the\nopinions you advocate will go there when he dies.\" I answer: \"There is\nno hell. The Bible that teaches it is not true.\" And you say: \"How can\nyou hurt my feelings?\"\n\nYou seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his parents is\nwanting in respect to his father and his mother.\n\nWere the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers and\nmothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless sons and\ndaughters? What have you to say of the apostles? Did they not heap\ncontempt upon the religion of their fathers and mothers? Did they not\njoin with him who denounced their people as a \"generation of vipers\"?\nDid they not follow one who offered a reward to those who would\ndesert fathers and mothers? Of course you have only to go back a few\ngenerations in your family to find a Field who was not a Presbyterian.\nAfter that you find a Presbyterian. Was he base enough and infamous\nenough to heap contempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All\nthe Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion\nof their fathers and mothers. According to your idea, Progress is a\nProdigal Son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and mother,\nand his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his mother a Catholic,\nwhat is he to do? Do you not see that your doctrine gives intellectual\nfreedom only to foundlings?\n\nIf by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of forgiveness, the\nbenevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and the principal part,\nof that peculiar religion, then I do not agree with you when you say\nthat \"Christ is Christianity and that it stands or falls with him.\"\nYou have narrowed unnecessarily the foundation of your religion. If it\nshould be established beyond doubt that Christ never existed, all that\nis of value in Christianity would remain, and remain unimpaired.\nSuppose that we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known\nas mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who painted\nor chiseled the greatest pictures and statues, so long as we have the\npictures and statues. When he who has given the world a truth passes\nfrom the earth, the truth is left. A truth dies only when forgotten\nby the human race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the\nvirtues that ever blossomed in the human heart, were known and practiced\nfor uncounted ages before the birth of Christ.\n\nYou insist that religion does not leave man in \"abject terror\"--does not\nleave him \"in utter darkness as to his fate.\"\n\nIs it possible to know who will be saved? Can you read the names\nmentioned in the decrees of the Infinite? Is it possible to tell who\nis to be eternally lost? Can the imagination conceive a worse fate than\nyour religion predicts for a majority of the race? Why should not every\nhuman being be in \"abject terror\" who believes your doctrine? How many\nloving and sincere women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they\nhave committed \"the unpardonable sin\"--a sin to which your God has\nattached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe\nthe offence? Can tyranny go beyond this--fixing the penalty of eternal\npain for the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the\nsecrecy of infinite darkness? How much happier it is to know nothing\nabout it, and to believe nothing about it! How much better to have no\nGod!\n\nYou discover a \"Great Intelligence ordering our little lives, so that\neven the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer elements\nof character, conduce to our future happiness.\" This is an old\nexplanation--probably as good as any. The idea is, that this world is a\nschool in which man becomes educated through tribulation--the muscles\nof character being developed by wrestling with misfortune. If it is\nnecessary to live this life in order to develop character, in order to\nbecome worthy of a better world, how do you account for the fact that\nbillions of the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of\nthis necessary education and development? What would you think of a\nschoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his scholars during\nthe first day, before they had even had the opportunity to look at \"A\"?\n\nYou insist that \"there is a power behind Nature making for\nrighteousness.\"\n\nIf Nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of Nature? If\nyou mean by \"a power making for righteousness\" that man, as he becomes\ncivilized, as he becomes intelligent, not only takes advantage of\nthe forces of Nature for his own benefit, but perceives more and more\nclearly that if he is to be happy he must live in harmony with the\nconditions of his being, in harmony with the facts by which he is\nsurrounded, in harmony with the relations he sustains to others and\nto things; if this is what you mean, then there is \"a power making for\nrighteousness.\" But if you mean that there is something supernatural\nback of Nature directing events, then I insist that there can by no\npossibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power.\n\nThe history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall. There\nis a limit to the life of a race; so that it can be said of every\ndead nation, that there was a period when it laid the foundations of\nprosperity, when the combined intelligence and virtue of the people\nconstituted a power working for righteousness, and that there came\na time when this nation became a spendthrift, when it ceased to\naccumulate, when it lived on the labors of its youth, and passed from\nstrength and glory to the weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied\nto its tomb.\n\nThe intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only power that\nmakes for righteousness.\n\nYou tell me that I am waging \"a hopeless war,\" and you give as a reason\nthat the Christian religion began to be nearly two thousand years before\nI was born, and that it will live two thousand years after I am dead.\n\nIs this an argument? Does it tend to convince even yourself? Could not\nCaiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this to Christ? Could\nhe not have said: \"The religion of Jehovah began to be four thousand\nyears before you were born, and it will live two thousand years after\nyou are dead\"? Could not a follower of Buddha make the same illogical\nremark to a missionary from Andover with the glad tidings? Could he not\nsay: \"You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha began to be\ntwenty-five hundred years before you were born, and hundreds of millions\nof people still worship at Great Buddha's shrine\"?\n\nDo you insist that nothing except the right can live for two thousand\nyears? Why is it that the Catholic Church \"lives on and on, while\nnations and kingdoms perish\"? Do you consider that the \"survival of the\nfittest\"?\n\nIs it the same Christian religion now living that lived during the\nMiddle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the\nInquisition and invented the thumbscrew? Do you see no difference\nbetween the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the Christianity\nof to-day? Do you really think that it is the same Christianity that\nhas been living all these years? Have you noticed any change in the last\ngeneration? Do you remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory\nby a passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in\nthe Bible are exceedingly anxious to prove its truth by some fact that\nscience has demonstrated? Do you know that the standard has changed?\nOther things are not measured by the Bible, but the Bible has to submit\nto another test. It no longer owns the scales. It has to be weighed,--it\nis being weighed,--it is growing lighter and lighter every day. Do you\nknow that only a few years ago \"the glad tidings of great joy\"\nconsisted mostly in a description of hell? Do you know that nearly every\nintelligent minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about\nit, or to talk about it? Is there any change? Do you know that but few\nministers now believe in the \"plenary inspiration\" of the Bible,\nthat from thousands of pulpits people are now told that the creation\naccording to Genesis is a mistake, that it, never was as wet as the\nflood, and that the miracles of the Old Testament are considered simply\nas myths or mistakes?\n\nHow long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes as\nrapidly during the next century as it has during the last? What will\nthere be left of the supernatural?\n\nIt does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many years,\nbelieve that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the Old\nTestament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld polygamy\nand slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to massacre their\nneighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers to persecute wives\nand daughters unto death for opinion's sake.\n\nIt does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the cruel,\nthe jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the creator and\npreserver of the universe.\n\nDoes it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a world in\nwhich life feeds on life, in which everything devours and is devoured?\nCan there be a sadder fact than this: Innocence is not a certain shield?\n\nIt is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment. If\nthat doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.\n\nDay after day there are mournful processions of men and women, patriots\nand mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word Liberty burst into\nflower between their pure and loving lips, driven like beasts across\nthe melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. These men, these women, these\ndaughters, go to exile and to slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied\nwith death. Does it seem possible to you that an \"Infinite Father\" sees\nall this and sits as silent as a god of stone?\n\nAnd yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your\ninspired book, according to your Christ, there is another procession, in\nwhich are the noblest and the best, in which you will find the wondrous\nspirits of this world, the lovers of the human race, the teachers of\ntheir fellow-men, the greatest soldiers that ever battled for the right;\nand this procession of countless millions, in which you will find the\nmost generous and the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is\nmoving on to the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony\nbecomes immortal.\n\nHow can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this infinite\nlie?\n\nIs there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy? After all, is\nit not possible that we may find that everything has been necessarily\nproduced, that all religions and superstitions, all mistakes and all\ncrimes, were simply necessities? Is it not possible that out of this\nperception may come not only love and pity for others, but absolute\njustification for the individual? May we not find that every soul\nhas, like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild horse of passion, or like\nPrometheus to the rocks of fate?\n\nYou ask me to take the \"sober second thought.\" I beg of you to take the\nfirst, and if you do, you will throw away the Presbyterian creed; you\nwill instantly perceive that he who commits the \"smallest sin\" no\nmore deserves eternal pain than he who does the smallest virtuous deed\ndeserves eternal bliss; you will become convinced that an infinite God\nwho creates billions of men knowing that they will suffer through all\nthe countless years is an infinite demon; you will be satisfied that\nthe Bible, with its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its\ncruelty, is but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and\ncannot exist.\n\nFor you personally, I have the highest regard and the sincerest\nrespect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not\nto furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a creed that should be\nshrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle as terrible as the\ncoffin. Preach, I pray you, the gospel of Intellectual Hospitality--the\nliberty of thought and speech. Take from loving hearts the awful fear.\nHave mercy on your fellow-men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose\ntears are falling on the pallid faces of those who died in unbelief.\nPity the erring, wayward, suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as\n\"tidings of great joy\" that an Infinite Spider is weaving webs to catch\nthe souls of men.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nA LAST WORD TO ROBERT G. INGERSOLL\n\nMy Dear Colonel Ingersoll:\n\nI have read your Reply to my Open Letter half a dozen times, and each\ntime with new appreciation of your skill as an advocate. It is written\nwith great ingenuity, and furnishes probably as complete an argument as\nyou are able to give for the faith (or want of faith) that is in you.\nDoubtless you think it unanswerable, and so it will seem to those who\nare predisposed to your way of thinking. To quote a homely saying of Mr.\nLincoln, in which there is as much of wisdom as of wit, \"For those who\nlike that sort of thing, no doubt that is the sort of thing they do\nlike.\" You may answer that we, who cling to the faith of our fathers,\nare equally prejudiced, and that it is for that reason that we are not\nmore impressed by the force of your pleading. I do not deny a strong\nleaning that way, and yet our real interest is the same--to get at the\ntruth; and, therefore, I have tried to give due weight to whatever of\nargument there is in the midst of so much eloquence; but must confess\nthat, in spite of all, I remain in the same obdurate frame of mind as\nbefore. With all the candor that I can bring to bear upon the question,\nI find on reviewing my Open Letter scarcely a sentence to change and\nnothing to withdraw; and am quite willing to leave it as my Declaration\nof Faith, to stand side by side with your Reply, for intelligent and\ncandid men to judge between us. I need only to add a few words in taking\nleave of the subject.\n\nYou seem a little disturbed that \"some of my brethren\" should look upon\nyou as \"a monster\" because of your unbelief. I certainly do not approve\nof such language, although they would tell me that it is the only word\nwhich is a fit response to your ferocious attacks upon what they hold\nmost sacred. You are a born gladiator, and when you descend into the\narena, you strike heavy blows, which provoke blows in return. In this\nvery Reply you manifest a particular animosity against Presbyterians.\nIs it because you were brought up in that Church, of which your father,\nwhom you regard with filial respect and affection, was an honored\nminister? You even speak of \"the Presbyterian God!\" as if we assumed to\nappropriate the Supreme Being, claiming to be the special objects of\nHis favor. Is there any ground for this imputation of narrowness? On the\ncontrary, when we bow our knees before our Maker, it is as the God and\nFather of all mankind; and the expression you permit yourself to use,\ncan only be regarded as grossly offensive. Was it necessary to offer\nthis rudeness to the religious denomination in which you were born?\n\nAnd this may explain, what you do not seem fully to understand, why it\nis that you are sometimes treated to sharp epithets by the religious\npress and public. You think yourself persecuted for your opinions. But\nothers hold the same opinions without offence. Nor is it because you\nexpress your opinions. Nobody would deny you the same freedom which is\naccorded to Huxley or Herbert Spencer. It is not because you exercise\nyour liberty of judgment or of speech, but because of the way in which\nyou attack others, holding up their faith to all manner of ridicule,\nand speaking of those who profess it as if they must be either knaves or\nfools. It is not in human nature not to resent such imputations on that\nwhich, however incredible to you, is very precious to them. Hence it is\nthat they think you a rough antagonist; and when you shock them by\nsuch expressions as I have quoted, you must expect some pretty strong\nlanguage in return. I do not join them in this, because I know you,\nand appreciate that other side of you which is manly and kindly and\nchivalrous. But while I recognize these better qualities, I must add\nin all frankness that I am compelled to look upon you as a man so\nembittered against religion that you cannot think of it except as\nassociated with cant, bigotry, and hypocrisy. In such a state of mind\nit is hardly possible for you to judge fairly of the arguments for its\ntruth.\n\nI believe with you, that reason was given us to be exercised, and that\nwhen man seeks after truth, his mind should be, as you say Darwin's was,\n\"as free from prejudice as the mariner's compass.\" But if he is warped\nby passion so that he cannot see things truly, then is he responsible.\nIt is the moral element which alone makes the responsibility. Nor do I\nbelieve that any man will be judged in this world or the next for what\ndoes not involve a moral wrong. Hence your appalling statement, \"The God\nyou worship will, according to your creed, torture (!) through all the\nendless years the man who entertains an honest doubt,\" does not produce\nthe effect intended, simply because I do not affirm nor believe any such\nthing. I believe that, in the future world, every man will be judged\naccording to the deeds done in the body, and that the judgment, whatever\nit may be, will be transparently just. God is more merciful than man.\nHe desireth not the death of the wicked. Christ forgave, where men would\ncondemn, and whatever be the fate of any human soul, it can never be\nsaid that the Supreme Ruler was wanting either in justice or mercy.\nThis I emphasize because you dwell so much upon the subject of future\nretribution, giving it an attention so constant as to be almost\nexclusive. Whatever else you touch upon, you soon come back to this as\nthe black thunder-cloud that darkens all the horizon, casting its\nmighty shadows over the life that now is and that which is to come. Your\ndenunciations of this \"inhuman\" belief are so reiterated that one would\nbe left to infer that there is nothing else in Religion; that it is all\nwrath and terror. But this is putting a part for the whole. Religion\nis a vast system, of which this is but a single feature: it is but one\ndoctrine of many; and indeed some whom no one will deny to be devout\nChristians, do not hold it at all, or only in a modified form, while\nwith all their hearts they accept and profess the Religion that Christ\ncame to bring into the world.\n\nArchdeacon Farrar, of Westminster Abbey, the most eloquent preacher in\nthe Church of England, has written a book entitled \"Eternal Hope,\" in\nwhich he argues from reason and the Bible, that this life is not \"the\nbe-all and end-all\" of human probation; but that in the world to come\nthere will be another opportunity, when countless millions, made wiser\nby unhappy experience, will turn again to the paths of life; and that so\nin the end the whole human race, with the exception of perhaps a few who\nremain irreclaimable, will be recovered and made happy forever. Others\nlook upon \"eternal death\" as merely the extinction of being, while\nimmortality is the reward of pre-eminent virtue, interpreting in that\nsense the words, \"The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is\neternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\" The latter view might\nrecommend itself to you as the application of \"the survival of the\nfittest\" to another world, the worthless, the incurably bad, of the\nhuman race being allowed to drop out of existence (an end which can\nhave no terrors for you, since you look upon it as the common lot of all\nmen,) while the good are continued in being forever. The acceptance\nof either of these theories would relieve your mind of that \"horror of\ngreat darkness\" which seems to come over it whenever you look forward to\nretribution beyond the grave.\n\nBut while conceding all liberty to others I cannot so easily relieve\nmyself of this stern and rugged truth. To me moral evil in the universe\nis a tremendous reality, and I do not see how to limit it within the\nbounds of time. Retribution is to me a necessary part of the Divine law.\nA law without a penalty for its violations is no law. But I rest the\nargument for it, not on the Bible, but _on principles which you yourself\nacknowledge_. You say, \"There are no punishments, no rewards: there are\nconsequences.\" Very well, take the \"consequences,\" and see where they\nlead you. When a man by his vices has reduced his body to a wreck and\nhis mind to idiocy, you say this is the \"consequence\" of his vicious\nlife. Is it a great stretch of language to say that it is his\n\"punishment,\" and nonetheless punishment because self-inflicted? To the\npoor sufferer raving in a madhouse, it matters little what it is called,\nso long as he is experiencing the agonies of hell. And here your theory\nof \"consequences,\" if followed up, will lead you very far. For if\nman lives after death, and keeps his personal identity, do not the\n\"consequences\" of his past life follow him into the future? And if his\nexistence is immortal, are not the consequences immortal also? And what\nis this but endless retribution?\n\nBut you tell me that the moral effect of retribution is destroyed by the\neasy way in which a man escapes the penalty. He has but to repent, and\nhe is restored to the same condition before the law as if he had not\nsinned. Not so do I understand it. \"I believe in the forgiveness of\nsins,\" but forgiveness does not reverse the course of nature; it does\nnot prevent the operation of natural law. A drunkard may repent as he is\nnearing his end, but that does not undo the wrong that he has done, nor\navert the consequences. In spite of his tears, he dies in an agony of\nshame and remorse. The inexorable law must be fulfilled.\n\nAnd so in the future world. Even though a man be forgiven, he does not\nwholly escape the evil of his past life. A retribution follows him even\nwithin the heavenly gates; for if he does not suffer, still that bad\nlife has so shriveled up his moral nature as to diminish his power of\nenjoyment. There are degrees of happiness, as one star differeth from\nanother star in glory; and he who begins wrong, will find that it is\nnot as well to sin and repent of it as not to sin at all. He enters the\nother world in a state of spiritual infancy, and will have to begin at\nthe bottom and climb slowly upward.\n\nWe might go a step farther, and say that perhaps heaven itself has not\nonly its lights but its shadows, in the reflections that must come even\nthere. We read of \"the book of God's remembrance,\" but is there not\nanother book of remembrance in the mind itself--a book which any man may\nwell fear to open and to look thereon? When that book is opened, and we\nread its awful pages, shall we not all think \"what might have been?\" And\nwill those thoughts be wholly free from sadness? The drunken brute who\nbreaks the heart that loved him may weep bitterly, and his poor wife may\nforgive him with her dying lips; but _he cannot forgive himself _, and\n_never_ can he recall without grief that bowed head and that broken\nheart. This preserves the element of retribution, while it does not shut\nthe door to forgiveness and mercy.\n\nBut we need not travel over again the round of Christian doctrines.\nMy faith is very simple; it revolves around two words; God and\nChrist. These are the two centres, or, as an astronomer might say, the\ndouble-star, or double-sun, of the great orbit of religious truth.\n\nAs to the first of these, you say \"There can be no evidence to my mind\nof the existence of such a being, and my mind is so that it is incapable\nof even thinking of an infinite personality;\" and you gravely put to me\nthis question: \"Do you really believe that this world is governed by an\ninfinitely wise and good God? Have you convinced even yourself of this?\"\nHere are two questions--one as to the existence of God, and the other\nas to His benevolence. I will answer both in language as plain as it is\npossible for me to use.\n\nFirst, Do I believe in the existence of God? I answer that it is\nimpossible for me not to believe it. I could not disbelieve it if I\nwould. You insist that belief or unbelief is not a matter of choice or\nof the will, but of evidence. You say \"the brain thinks as the\nheart beats, as the eyes see.\" Then let us stand aside with all our\nprepossessions, and open our eyes to what we can see.\n\nWhen Robinson Crusoe in his desert island came down one day to the\nseashore, and saw in the sand the print of a human foot, could he help\nthe instantaneous conviction that a man had been there? You might have\ntried to persuade him that it was all chance,--that the sand had been\nwashed up by the waves or blown by the winds, and taken this form, or\nthat some marine insect had traced a figure like a human foot,--you\nwould not have moved him a particle. The imprint was there, and the\nconclusion was irresistible: he did not believe--he knew that some human\nbeing, whether friend or foe, civilized or savage, had set his foot upon\nthat desolate shore. So when I discover in the world (as I think I do)\nmysterious footprints that are certainly not human, it is not a question\nwhether I shall believe or not: I cannot help believing that some Power\ngreater than man has set foot upon the earth.\n\nIt is a fashion among atheistic philosophers to make light of the\nargument from design; but \"my mind is so that it is incapable\" of\nresisting the conclusion to which it leads me. And (since personal\nquestions are in order) I beg to ask if it is possible for you to take\nin your hands a watch, and believe that there was no \"design\" in its\nconstruction; that it was not made to keep time, but only \"happened\" so;\nthat it is the product of some freak of nature, which brought together\nits parts and set it going. Do you not know with as much positiveness as\ncan belong to any conviction of your mind, that it was not the work of\naccident, but of design; and that if there was a design, there was a\ndesigner? And if the watch was made to keep time, was not the eye made\nto see and the ear to hear? Skeptics may fight against this argument as\nmuch as they please, and try to evade the inevitable conclusion, and\nyet it remains forever entwined in the living frame of man as well as\nimbedded in the solid foundations of the globe. Wherefore I repeat, it\nis not a question with me whether I will believe or not--I cannot help\nbelieving; and I am not only surprised, but amazed, that you or\nany thoughtful man can come to any other conclusion.' In wonder and\nastonishment I ask, \"Do you really believe\" that in all the wide\nuniverse there is no Higher Intelligence than that of the poor human\ncreatures that creep on this earthly ball? For myself, it is with the\npro-foundest conviction as well as the deepest reverence that I repeat\nthe first sentence of my faith: \"I believe in God the Father Almighty.\"\n\nAnd not the Almighty only, but the Wise and the Good. Again I ask, How\ncan I help believing what I see every day of my life? Every morning,\nas the sun rises in the East, sending light and life over the world, I\nbehold a glorious image of the beneficent Creator. The exquisite beauty\nof the dawn, the dewy freshness of the air, the fleecy clouds floating\nin the sky--all speak of Him. And when the sun goes down, sending shafts\nof light through the dense masses that would hide his setting, and\ncasting a glory over the earth and sky, this wondrous illumination is\nto me but the reflection of Him who \"spreadeth out the heavens like a\ncurtain; who maketh the clouds His chariot; who walketh upon the wings\nof the wind.\"\n\nHow much more do we find the evidences of goodness in man himself:\nin the power of thought; of acquiring knowledge; of penetrating the\nmysteries of nature and climbing among the stars. Can a being endowed\nwith such transcendent gifts doubt the goodness of his Creator?\n\nYes, I believe with all my heart and soul in One who is not only\nInfinitely Great, but Infinitely Good; who loves all the creatures He\nhas made; bending over them as the bow in the cloud spans the arch of\nheaven, stretching from horizon to horizon; looking down upon them with\na tenderness compared to which all human love is faint and cold. \"Like\nas a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear\nHim; for He knoweth our frame, He remembereth that we are dust.\"\n\nOn the question of immortality you are equally \"at sea.\" You know\nnothing and believe nothing; or, rather, you know only that you do not\nknow, and believe that you do not believe. You confess indeed to a faint\nhope, and admit a bare possibility, that there may be another life,\nthough you are in an uncertainty about it that is altogether bewildering\nand desperate. But your mind is so poetical that you give a certain\nattractiveness even to the prospect of annihilation. You strew the\nsepulchre with such flowers as these:\n\n\"I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of\nimmortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart,\nwith its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and\nrocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor\nof any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to\nebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long\nas love kisses the lips of death.\n\n\"I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not know, we\ncannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the beginning or end of a\nday; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the folding forever of wings;\nthe rise or the set of a sun, or an endless life that brings rapture and\nlove to every one.\"\n\nBeautiful words! but inexpressibly sad! It is a silver lining to the\ncloud, and yet the cloud is there, dark and impenetrable. But perhaps\nwe ought not to expect anything clearer and brighter from one who\nrecognizes no light but that of Nature.\n\nThat light is very dim. If it were all we had, we should be just where\nCicero was, and say with him, and with you, that a future life was \"to\nbe hoped for rather than believed.\" But does not that very uncertainty\nshow the need of a something above Nature, which is furnished in Him who\n\"was crucified, dead and buried, and the third day rose again from the\ndead?\" It is the Conqueror of Death who calls to the fainthearted: \"I am\nthe Resurrection and the Life.\" Since He has gone before us, lighting\nup the dark passage of the grave, we need not fear to follow, resting on\nthe word of our Leader: \"Because I live, ye shall live also.\"\n\nThis faith in another life is a precious inheritance, which cannot\nbe torn from the agonized bosom without a wrench that tears every\nheartstring; and it was to this I referred as the last refuge of a poor,\nsuffering, despairing soul, when I asked: \"Does it never occur to you\nthat there is something very cruel in this treatment of the belief of\nyour fellow-creatures, on whose hope of another life hangs all that\nrelieves the darkness of their present existence?\" The imputation of\ncruelty you repel with some warmth, saying (with a slight variation of\nmy language): \"_When I deny the existence of perdition_, you reply that\nthere is something very cruel in this treatment of the belief of my\nfellow-creatures.\" Of course, this change of words, putting perdition in\nthe place of immortal life and hope, was a mere inadvertence. But it\nwas enough to change the whole character of what I wrote. As I described\n\"the treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures,\" I did think it\n\"very cruel,\" and I think so still.\n\nWhile correcting this slight misquotation, I must remove from your mind\na misapprehension, which is so very absurd as to be absolutely comical.\nIn my Letter referring to your disbelief of immortality, I had said:\n\"With an air of modesty and diffidence that would carry an audience\nby storm, you confess your ignorance of what perhaps others are better\nacquainted with, when you say, 'This world is all that I know anything\nabout, _so far as I recollect_'\" Of course \"what perhaps others are\nbetter acquainted with\" was a part of what you said, or at least implied\nby your manner (for you do not convey your meaning merely by words,\nbut by a tone of voice, by arched eyebrows, or a curled lip); and yet,\ninstead of taking the sentence in its plain and obvious sense, you\naffect to understand it as an assumption on my part to have some private\nand mysterious knowledge of another world (!), and gravely ask me, \"Did\nyou by this intend to say that you know anything of any other state of\nexistence; that you have inhabited some other planet; that you lived\nbefore you were born; and that you recollect something of that other\nworld or of that other state?\" No, my dear Colonel! I have been a good\ndeal of a traveler, and have seen all parts of this world, but I have\nnever visited any other. In reading your sober question, if I did not\nknow you to be one of the brightest wits of the day, I should be tempted\nto quote what Sidney Smith says of a Scotchman, that \"you cannot get a\njoke into his head except by a surgical operation!\"\n\nBut to return to what is serious: you make light of our faith and\nour hopes, because you know not the infinite solace they bring to the\ntroubled human heart. You sneer at the idea that religion can be a\n\"consolation.\" Indeed! Is it not a consolation to have an Almighty\nFriend? Was it a light matter for the poor slave mother, who sat alone\nin her cabin, having been robbed of her children, to sing in her wild,\nwailing accents:\n\n     \"Nobody knows the sorrows I've seen:\n     Nobody knows but Jesus?\"\n\nWould you rob her of that Unseen Friend--the only Friend she had on\nearth or in heaven?\n\nBut I will do you the justice to say that your want of religious faith\ncomes in part from your very sensibility and tenderness of heart. You\ncannot recognize an overruling Providence, because your mind is so\nharassed by scenes that you witness. Why, you ask, do men suffer so? You\ndraw frightful pictures of the misery which exists in the world, as a\nproof of the incapacity of its Ruler and Governor, and do not hesitate\nto say that \"any honest man of average intelligence could do vastly\nbetter.\" If you could have your way, you would make everybody happy;\nthere should be no more poverty, and no more sickness or pain.\n\nThis is a pleasant picture to look at, and yet you must excuse me for\nsaying that it is rather a child's picture than that of a stalwart man.\nThe world is not a playground in which men are to be petted and indulged\nlike children: spoiled children they would soon become. It is an arena\nof conflict, in which we are to develop the manhood that is in us. We\nall have to take the \"rough-and-tumble\" of life, and are the better\nfor it--physically, intellectually, and morally. If there be any true\nmanliness within us, we come out of the struggle stronger and better;\nwith larger minds and kinder hearts; a broader wisdom and a gentler\ncharity.\n\nPerhaps we should not differ on this point if we could agree as to the\ntrue end of life. But here I fear the difference is irreconcilable. You\nthink that end is happiness: I think it is character. I do not believe\nthat the highest end of life upon earth is to \"have a good time to get\nfrom it the utmost amount of enjoyment;\" but to be truly and greatly\nGOOD; and that to that end no discipline can be too severe which leads\nus \"to suffer and be strong.\" That discipline answers its end when it\nraises the spirit to the highest pitch of courage and endurance. The\nsplendor of virtue never appears so bright as when set against a dark\nbackground. It was in prisons and dungeons that the martyrs showed the\ngreatest degree of moral heroism, the power of\n\n     \"Man's unconquerable mind.\"\n\nBut I know well that these illustrations do not cover the whole case.\nThere is another picture to be added to those of heroic struggle and\nmartyrdom--that of silent suffering, which makes of life one long agony,\nand which often comes upon the good, so that it seems as if the best\nsuffered the most. And yet when you sit by a sick bed, and look into a\nface whiter than the pillow on which it rests, do you not sometimes mark\nhow that very suffering refines the nature that bears it so meekly? This\nis the Christian theory: that suffering, patiently borne, is a means\nof the greatest elevation of character, and, in the end, of the highest\nenjoyment. Looking at it in this light, we can understand how it should\nbe that \"the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be\ncompared [or even to be named] with the glory which shall be revealed.\"\nWhen the heavenly morning breaks, brighter than any dawn that blushes\n\"o'er the world,\" there will be \"a restitution of all things:\" the poor\nwill be made rich, and the most suffering the most serenely happy; as in\nthe vision of the Apocalypse, when it is asked \"What are these which are\narrayed in white robes, and whence came they?\" the answer is, \"These are\nthey which came our of great tribulation.\"\n\nIn this conclusion, which is not adopted lightly, but after innumerable\nstruggles with doubt, after the experience and the reflection of years,\nI feel \"a great peace.\" It is the glow of sunset that gilds the approach\nof evening. For (we must confess it) it is towards that you and I are\nadvancing. The sun has passed the meridian, and hastens to his going\ndown. Whatever of good this life has for us (and I am far from being one\nof those who look upon it as a vale of tears) will soon be behind us. I\nsee the shadows creeping on; yet I welcome the twilight that will soon\ndarken into night, for I know that it will be a night all glorious with\nstars. As I look upward, the feeling of awe is blended with a strange,\noverpowering sense of the Infinite Goodness, which surrounding me like\nan atmosphere:\n\n     \"And so beside the Silent Sea,\n     I wait the muffled oar;\n     No harm from Him can come to me\n     On ocean or on shore.\n\n     I know not where His Islands lift\n     Their fronded palms in air;\n     I only know I cannot drift\n     Beyond His love and care.\"\n\nWould that you could share with me this confidence and this hope! But\nyou seem to be receding farther from any kind of faith. In one of your\nclosing paragraphs, you give what is to you \"the conclusion of the whole\nmatter.\" After repudiating religion with scorn, you ask, \"Is there not\nroom for a better, for a higher philosophy?\" and thus indicate the true\nanswer to be given, to which no words can do justice but your own:\n\n\"After all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been\nnecessarily produced; that all religions and superstitions, all mistakes\nand all crimes, were simply necessities? Is it not possible that out of\nthis perception may come not only love and pity for others, but absolute\njustification for the individual? May we not find that every soul\nhas, like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild horse of passion, or like\nPrometheus to the rocks of fate?\"\n\nIf this be the end of all philosophy, it is equally the end of \"all\nthings.\" Not only does it make an end of us and of our hopes of\nfuturity, but of all that makes the present life worth living--of\nall freedom, and hence of all virtue. There are no more any moral\ndistinctions in the world--no good and no evil, no right and no wrong;\nnothing but grim necessity. With such a creed, I wonder how you can ever\nstand at the bar, and argue for the conviction of a criminal. Why should\nhe be convicted and punished for what he could not help? Indeed he is\nnot a criminal, since there is no such thing as crime. He is not to\nblame. Was he not \"lashed to the wild horse of passion,\" carried away by\na power beyond his control?\n\nWhat cruelty to thrust him behind iron bars! Poor fellow! he deserves\nour pity. Let us hasten to relieve him from a position which must be so\npainful, and make our humble apology for having presumed to punish him\nfor an act in which he only obeyed an impulse which he could not resist.\nThis will be \"absolute justification for the individual.\" But what will\nbecome of society, you do not tell us.\n\nAre you aware that in this last attainment of \"a better, a higher\nphilosophy\" (which is simply absolute fatalism), you have swung round\nto the side of John Calvin, and gone far beyond him? That you, who have\nexhausted all the resources of the English language in denouncing\nhis creed as the most horrible of human beliefs--brainless, soulless,\nheartless; who have held it up to scorn and derision; now hold to the\nblackest Calvinism that was ever taught by man? You cannot find words\nsufficient to express your horror of the doctrine of Divine decrees;\nand yet here you have decrees with a vengeance--predestination and\ndamnation, both in one. Under such a creed, man is a thousand times\nworse off than under ours: for he has absolutely no hope. You may say\nthat at any rate he cannot suffer forever. You do not know even that;\nbut at any rate _he suffers as long as he exists_. There is no God above\nto show him pity, and grant him release; but as long as the ages roll,\nhe is \"lashed to the rocks of fate,\" with the insatiate vulture tearing\nat his heart!\n\nIn reading your glittering phrases, I seem to be losing hold of\neverything, and to be sinking, sinking, till I touch the lowest\ndepths of an abyss; while from the blackness above me a sound like a\ndeath-knell tolls the midnight of the soul. If I believed this I should\ncry, God help us all! Or no--for there would be no God, and even this\nlast consolation would be denied us: for why should we offer a prayer\nwhich can neither be heard nor answered? As well might we ask mercy from\n\"the rocks of fate\" to which we are chained forever!\n\nRecoiling from this Gospel of Despair, I turn to One in whose face there\nis something at once human and divine--an indescribable majesty, united\nwith more than human tenderness and pity; One who was born among the\npoor, and had not where to lay His head, and yet went about doing good;\npoor, yet making many rich; who trod the world in deepest loneliness,\nand yet whose presence lighted up every dwelling into which He came; who\ntook up little children in His arms, and blessed them; a giver of joy to\nothers, and yet a sufferer himself; who tasted every human sorrow, and\nyet was always ready to minister to others' grief; weeping with them\nthat wept; coming to Bethany to comfort Mary and Martha concerning their\nbrother; rebuking the proud, but gentle and pitiful to the most abject\nof human creatures; stopping amid the throng at the cry of a blind\nbeggar by the wayside; willing to be known as \"the friend of sinners,\"\nif He might recall them into the way of peace; who did not scorn even\nthe fallen woman who sank at His feet, but by His gentle word, \"Neither\ndo I condemn thee; go and sin no more,\" lifted her up, and set her in\nthe path of a virtuous womanhood; and who, when dying on the cross,\nprayed: \"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.\" In this\nFriend of the friendless, Comforter of the comfortless, Forgiver of the\npenitent, and Guide of the erring, I find a greatness that I had not\nfound in any of the philosophers or teachers of the world. No voice\nin all the ages thrills me like that which whispers close to my heart,\n\"Come unto me and I will give you rest,\" to which I answer: This is my\nMaster, and I will follow Him.\n\nHenry M. Field.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO DR. FIELD.\n\nMy Dear Mr. Field:\n\nWith great pleasure I have read your second letter, in which you seem to\nadmit that men may differ even about religion without being responsible\nfor that difference; that every man has the right to read the Bible for\nhimself, state freely the conclusion at which he arrives, and that it is\nnot only his privilege, but his duty to speak the truth; that Christians\ncan hardly be happy in heaven, while those they loved on earth are\nsuffering with the lost; that it is not a crime to investigate, to\nthink, to reason, to observe, and to be governed by evidence; that\ncredulity is not a virtue, and that the open mouth of ignorant wonder\nis not the only entrance to Paradise; that belief is not necessary to\nsalvation, and that no man can justly be made to suffer eternal pain for\nhaving expressed an intellectual conviction.\n\nYou seem to admit that no man can justly be held responsible for his\nthoughts; that the brain thinks without asking our consent, and that we\nbelieve or disbelieve without an effort of the will.\n\nI congratulate you upon the advance that you have made. You not only\nadmit that we have the right to think, but that we have the right to\nexpress our honest thoughts. You admit that the Christian world no\nlonger believes in the fagot, the dungeon, and the thumbscrew. Has the\nChristian world outgrown its God? Has man become more merciful than his\nmaker? If man will not torture his fellow-man on account of a difference\nof opinion, will a God of infinite love torture one of his children for\nwhat is called the sin of unbelief? Has man outgrown the Inquisition,\nand will God forever be the warden of a penitentiary? The walls of the\nold dungeons have fallen, and light now visits the cell where brave\nmen perished in darkness. Is Jehovah to keep the cells of perdition in\nrepair forever, and are his children to be the eternal prisoners?\n\nIt seems hard for you to appreciate the mental condition of one who\nregards all gods as substantially the same; that is to say, who thinks\nof them all as myths and phantoms born of the imagination,--characters\nin the religious fictions of the race. To you it probably seems strange\nthat a man should think far more of Jupiter than of Jehovah. Regarding\nthem both as creations of the mind, I choose between them, and I prefer\nthe God of the Greeks, on the same principle that I prefer Portia\nto Iago; and yet I regard them, one and all, as children of the\nimagination, as phantoms born of human fears and human hopes.\n\nSurely nothing was further from my mind than to hurt the feelings of any\none by speaking of the Presbyterian God. I simply intended to speak of\nthe God of the Presbyterians. Certainly the God of the Presbyterian\nis not the God of the Catholic, nor is he the God of the Mohammedan or\nHindoo. He is a special creation suited only to certain minds. These\nminds have naturally come together, and they form what we call the\nPresbyterian Church. As a matter of fact, no two churches can by any\npossibility have precisely the same God; neither can any two human\nbeings conceive of precisely the same Deity. In every man's God there\nis, to say the least, a part of that man. The lower the man, the lower\nhis conception of God. The higher the man, the grander his Deity must\nbe. The savage who adorns his body with a belt from which hang the\nscalps of enemies slain in battle, has no conception of a loving, of\na forgiving God; his God, of necessity, must be as revengeful, as\nheartless, as infamous as the God of John Calvin.\n\nYou do not exactly appreciate my feeling. I do not hate Presbyterians; I\nhate Presbyterianism. I hate with all my heart the creed of that church,\nand I most heartily despise the God described in the Confession of\nFaith. But some of the best friends I have in the world are afflicted\nwith the mental malady known as Presbyterianism. They are the victims of\nthe consolation growing out of the belief that a vast majority of their\nfellow-men are doomed to suffer eternal torment, to the end that their\nCreator may be eternally glorified. I have said many times, and I say\nagain, that I do not despise a man because he has the rheumatism; I\ndespise the rheumatism because it has a man.\n\nBut I do insist that the Presbyterians have assumed to appropriate to\nthemselves their Supreme Being, and that they have claimed, and that\nthey do claim, to be the \"special objects of his favor.\" They do claim\nto be the very elect, and they do insist that God looks upon them as\nthe objects of his special care. They do claim that the light of Nature,\nwithout the torch of the Presbyterian creed, is insufficient to guide\nany soul to the gate of heaven. They do insist that even those who never\nheard of Christ, or never heard of the God of the Presbyterians, will be\neternally lost; and they not only claim this, but that their fate will\nillustrate not only the justice but the mercy of God. Not only so, but\nthey insist that the morality of an unbeliever is displeasing to God,\nand that the love of an unconverted mother for her helpless child is\nnothing less than sin.\n\nWhen I meet a man who really believes the Presbyterian creed, I think of\nthe Laocoon. I feel as though looking upon a human being helpless in the\ncoils of an immense and poisonous serpent. But I congratulate you with\nall my heart that you have repudiated this infamous, this savage creed;\nthat you now admit that reason was given us to be exercised; that God\nwill not torture any man for entertaining an honest doubt, and that in\nthe world to come \"every man will be judged according to the deeds done\nin the body.\"\n\nLet me quote your exact language: \"I believe that in the future world\nevery man will be judged according to the deeds done in the body.\" Do\nyou not see that you have bidden farewell to the Presbyterian Church?\nIn that sentence you have thrown away the atonement, you have denied the\nefficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ, and you have denied the necessity\nof belief. If we are to be judged by the deeds done in the body, that\nis the end of the Presbyterian scheme of salvation. I sincerely\ncongratulate you for having repudiated the savagery of Calvinism.\n\nIt also gave me great pleasure to find that you have thrown away, with\na kind of glad shudder, that infamy of infamies, the dogma of eternal\npain. I have denounced that inhuman belief; I have denounced every creed\nthat had coiled within it that viper; I have denounced every man who\npreached it, the book that contains it, and with all my heart the God\nwho threatens it; and at last I have the happiness of seeing the editor\nof the New York _Evangelist_ admit that devout Christians do not believe\nthat lie, and quote with approbation the words of a minister of the\nChurch of England to the effect that all men will be finally recovered\nand made happy.\n\nDo you find this doctrine of hope in the Presbyterian creed? Is this\nstar, that sheds light on every grave, found in your Bible? Did Christ\nhave in his mind the shining truth that all the children of men will at\nlast be filled with joy, when he uttered these comforting words: \"Depart\nfrom me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his\nangels\"?\n\nDo you find in this flame the bud of hope, or the flower of promise?\n\nYou suggest that it is possible that \"the incurably bad will be\nannihilated,\" and you say that such a fate can have no terrors for me,\nas I look upon annihilation as the common lot of all. Let us examine\nthis position. Why should a God of infinite wisdom create men and women\nwhom he knew would be \"incurably bad\"? What would you say of a mechanic\nwho was forced to destroy his own productions on the ground that they\nwere \"incurably bad\"? Would you say that he was an infinitely wise\nmechanic? Does infinite justice annihilate the work of infinite wisdom?\nDoes God, like an ignorant doctor, bury his mistakes?\n\nBesides, what right have you to say that I \"look upon annihilation as\nthe common lot of all\"? Was there any such thought in my Reply? Do you\nfind it in any published words of mine? Do you find anything in what I\nhave written tending to show that I believe in annihilation? Is it not\ntrue that I say now, and that I have always said, that I do not know?\nDoes a lack of knowledge as to the fate of the human soul imply a belief\nin annihilation? Does it not equally imply a belief in immortality?\n\nYou have been--at least until recently--a believer in the inspiration\nof the Bible and in the truth of its every word. What do you say to the\nfollowing: \"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;\neven one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;\nyea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above\na beast.\" You will see that the inspired writer is not satisfied with\nadmitting that he does not know. \"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth\naway; so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.\" Was it\nnot cruel for an inspired man to attack a sacred belief?\n\nYou seem surprised that I should speak of the doctrine of eternal pain\nas \"the black thunder-cloud that darkens all the horizon, casting its\nmighty shadows over the life that now is and that which is to come.\"\nIf that doctrine be true, what else is there worthy of engaging the\nattention of the human mind? It is the blackness that extinguishes\nevery star. It is the abyss in which every hope must perish. It leaves a\nuniverse without justice and without mercy--a future without one ray\nof light, and a present with nothing but fear. It makes heaven an\nimpossibility, God an infinite monster, and man an eternal victim.\nNothing can redeem a religion in which this dogma is found. Clustered\nabout it are all the snakes of the Furies.\n\nBut you have abandoned this infamy, and you have admitted that we are to\nbe judged according to the deeds done in the body. Nothing can be nearer\nself-evident than the fact that a finite being cannot commit an infinite\nsin; neither can a finite being do an infinitely good deed. That is to\nsay, no one can deserve for any act eternal pain, and no one for any\ndeed can deserve eternal joy. If we are to be judged by the deeds done\nin the body, the old orthodox hell and heaven both become impossible.\n\nSo, too, you have recognized the great and splendid truth that sin\ncannot be predicated of an intellectual conviction. This is the first\ngreat step toward the liberty of soul. You admit that there is no\nmorality and no immorality in belief--that is to say, in the simple\noperation of the mind in weighing evidence, in observing facts, and in\ndrawing conclusions. You admit that these things are without sin and\nwithout guilt. Had all men so believed there never could have been\nreligious persecution--the Inquisition could not have been built, and\nthe idea of eternal pain never could have polluted the human heart.\n\nYou have been driven to the passions for the purpose of finding what you\nare pleased to call \"sin\" and \"responsibility\" and you say, speaking of\na human being, \"but if he is warped by passion so that he cannot see\nthings truly, then is he responsible.\" One would suppose that the use of\nthe word \"cannot\" is inconsistent with the idea of responsibility. What\nis passion? There are certain desires, swift, thrilling, that quicken\nthe action of the heart--desires that fill the brain with blood, with\nfire and flame--desires that bear the same relation to judgment that\nstorms and waves bear to the compass on a ship. Is passion necessarily\nproduced? Is there an adequate cause for every effect? Can you by any\npossibility think of an effect without a cause, and can you by any\npossibility think of an effect that is not a cause, or can you think of\na cause that is not an effect? Is not the history of real civilization\nthe slow and gradual emancipation of the intellect, of the judgment,\nfrom the mastery of passion? Is not that man civilized whose reason sits\nthe crowned monarch of his brain--whose passions are his servants?\n\nWho knows the strength of the temptation to another? Who knows how\nlittle has been resisted by those who stand, how much has been resisted\nby those who fall? Who knows whether the victor or the victim made the\nbraver and the more gallant fight? In judging of our fellow-men we\nmust take into consideration the circumstances of ancestry, of race,\nof nationality, of employment, of opportunity, of education, and of the\nthousand influences that tend to mold or mar the character of man. Such\na view is the mother of charity, and makes the God of the Presbyterians\nimpossible.\n\nAt last you have seen the impossibility of forgiveness. That is to say,\nyou perceive that after forgiveness the crime remains, and its children,\ncalled consequences, still live. You recognize the lack of philosophy\nin that doctrine. You still believe in what you call \"the forgiveness\nof sins,\" but you admit that forgiveness cannot reverse the course of\nnature, and cannot prevent the operation of natural law. You also admit\nthat if a man lives after death, he preserves his personal identity, his\nmemory, and that the consequences of his actions will follow him through\nall the eternal years. You admit that consequences are immortal. After\nmaking this admission, of what use is the old idea of the forgiveness\nof sins? How can the criminal be washed clean and pure in the blood of\nanother? In spite of this forgiveness, in spite of this blood, you have\ntaken the ground that consequences, like the dogs of Actaeon, follow even\na Presbyterian, even one of the elect, within the heavenly gates. If you\nwish to be logical, you must also admit that the consequences of good\ndeeds, like winged angels, follow even the atheist within the gates of\nhell.\n\nYou have had the courage of your convictions, and you have said that\nwe are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. By that\njudgment I am willing to abide. But, whether willing or not, I must\nabide, because there is no power, no God that can step between me and\nthe consequences of my acts. I wish no heaven that I have not earned,\nno happiness to which I am not entitled. I do not wish to become an\nimmortal pauper; neither am I willing to extend unworthy hands for alms.\n\nMy dear Mr. Field, you have outgrown your creed--as every Presbyterian\nmust who grows at all. You are far better than the spirit of the Old\nTestament; far better, in my judgment, even than the spirit of the New.\nThe creed that you have left behind, that you have repudiated, teaches\nthat a man may be guilty of every crime--that he may have driven his\nwife to insanity, that his example may have led his children to the\npenitentiary, or to the gallows, and that yet, at the eleventh hour, he\nmay, by what is called \"repentance,\" be washed absolutely pure by\nthe blood of another and receive and wear upon his brow the laurels of\neternal peace. Not only so, but that creed has taught that this wretch\nin heaven could look back on the poor earth and see the wife, whom he\nswore to love and cherish, in the mad-house, surrounded by imaginary\nserpents, struggling in the darkness of night, made insane by his\nheartlessness--that creed has taught and teaches that he could look back\nand see his children in prison cells, or on the scaffold with the noose\nabout their necks, and that these visions would not bring a shade of\nsadness to his redeemed and happy face. It is this doctrine, it is this\ndogma--so bestial, so savage as to beggar all the languages of men--that\nI have denounced. All the words of hatred, loathing and contempt, found\nin all the dialects and tongues of men, are not sufficient to express my\nhatred, my contempt, and my loathing of this creed.\n\nYou say that it is impossible for you not to believe in the existence of\nGod. With this statement, I find no fault. Your mind is so that a belief\nin the existence of a Supreme Being gives satisfaction and content. Of\ncourse, you are entitled to no credit for this belief, as you ought\nnot to be rewarded for believing that which you cannot help believing;\nneither should I be punished for failing to believe that which I cannot\nbelieve.\n\nYou believe because you see in the world around you such an adaptation\nof means to ends that you are satisfied there is design. I admit that\nwhen Robinson Crusoe saw in the sand the print of a human foot, like and\nyet unlike his own, he was justified in drawing the conclusion that\na human being had been there. The inference was drawn from his own\nexperience, and was within the scope of his own mind. But I do not\nagree with you that he \"knew\" a human being had been there; he had only\nsufficient evidence upon which to found a belief. He did not know the\nfootsteps of all animals; he could not have known that no animal except\nman could have made that footprint: In order to have known that it was\nthe foot of man, he must have known that no other animal was capable of\nmaking it, and he must have known that no other being had produced in\nthe sand the likeness of this human foot.\n\nYou see what you call evidences of intelligence in the universe, and you\ndraw the conclusion that there must be an infinite intelligence. Your\nconclusion is far wider than your premise. Let us suppose, as Mr.\nHume supposed, that there is a pair of scales, one end of which is\nin darkness, and you find that a pound weight, or a ten-pound weight,\nplaced upon that end of the scale in the light is raised; have you the\nright to say that there is an infinite weight on the end in darkness, or\nare you compelled to say only that there is weight enough on the end in\ndarkness to raise the weight on the end in light?\n\nIt is illogical to say, because of the existence of this earth and\nof what you can see in and about it, that there must be an infinite\nintelligence. You do not know that even the creation of this world,\nand of all planets discovered, required an infinite power, or infinite\nwisdom. I admit that it is impossible for me to look at a watch and draw\nthe inference that there was no design in its construction, or that\nit only happened. I could not regard it as a product of some freak of\nnature, neither could I imagine that its various parts were brought\ntogether and set in motion by chance. I am not a believer in chance. But\nthere is a vast difference between what man has made and the materials\nof which he has constructed the things he has made. You find a watch,\nand you say that it exhibits, or shows design. You insist that it is so\nwonderful it must have had a designer--in other words, that it is too\nwonderful not to have been constructed. You then find the watchmaker,\nand you say with regard to him that he too must have had a designer, for\nhe is more wonderful than the watch. In imagagination you go from\nthe watchmaker to the being you call God, and you say he designed the\nwatchmaker, but he himself was not designed because he is too wonderful\nto have been designed. And yet in the case of the watch and of the\nwatchmaker, it was the wonder that suggested design, while in the case\nof the maker of the watchmaker the wonder denied a designer. Do you not\nsee that this argument devours itself?\n\nIf wonder suggests a designer, can it go on increasing until it denies\nthat which it suggested?\n\nYou must remember, too, that the argument of design is applicable to\nall. You are not at liberty to stop at sunrise and sunset and growing\ncorn and all that adds to the happiness of man; you must go further. You\nmust admit that an infinitely wise and merciful God designed the fangs\nof serpents, the machinery by which the poison is distilled, the ducts\nby which it is carried to the fang, and that the same intelligence\nimpressed this serpent with a desire to deposit this deadly virus in\nthe flesh of man. You must believe that an infinitely wise God so\nconstructed this world, that in the process of cooling, earthquakes\nwould be caused--earthquakes that devour and overwhelm cities and\nstates. Do you see any design in the volcano that sends its rivers of\nlava over the fields and the homes of men? Do you really think that a\nperfectly good being designed the invisible parasites that infest the\nair, that inhabit the water, and that finally attack and destroy the\nhealth and life of man? Do you see the same design in cancers that you\ndo in wheat and corn? Did God invent tumors for the brain? Was it his\ningenuity that so designed the human race that millions of people should\nbe born deaf and dumb, that millions should be idiotic? Did he knowingly\nplant in the blood or brain the seeds of insanity? Did he cultivate\nthose seeds? Do you see any design in this?\n\nMan calls that good which increases his happiness, and that evil which\ngives him pain. In the olden time, back of the good he placed a God;\nback of the evil a devil; but now the orthodox world is driven to admit\nthat the God is the author of all.\n\nFor my part, I see no goodness in the pestilence--no mercy in the bolt\nthat leaps from the cloud and leaves the mark of death on the breast of\na loving mother. I see no generosity in famine, no goodness in disease,\nno mercy in want and agony.\n\nAnd yet you say that the being who created parasites that live only\nby inflicting pain--the being responsible for all the sufferings of\nmankind--you say that he has \"a tenderness compared to which all human\nlove is faint and cold.\" Yet according to the doctrine of the orthodox\nworld, this being of infinite love and tenderness so created nature\nthat its light misleads, and left a vast majority of the human race to\nblindly grope their way to endless pain.\n\nYou insist that a knowledge of God--a belief in God--is the foundation\nof social order; and yet this God of infinite tenderness has left for\nthousands and thousands of years nearly all of his children without a\nrevelation. Why should infinite goodness leave the existence of God in\ndoubt? Why should he see millions in savagery destroying the lives of\neach other, eating the flesh of each other, and keep his existence a\nsecret from man? Why did he allow the savages to depend on sunrise\nand sunset and clouds? Why did he leave this great truth to a few\nhalf-crazed prophets, or to a cruel, heartless, and ignorant church? The\nsentence \"There is a God\".could have been imprinted on every blade of\ngrass, on every leaf, on every star. An infinite God has no excuse for\nleaving his children in doubt and darkness.\n\nThere is still another point. You know that for thousands of ages men\nworshiped wild beasts as God. You know that for countless generations\nthey knelt by coiled serpents, believing those serpents to be gods. Why\ndid the real God secrete himself and allow his poor, ignorant, savage\nchildren to imagine that he was a beast, a serpent? Why did this God\nallow mothers to sacrifice their babes? Why did he not emerge from the\ndarkness? Why did he not say to the poor mother, \"Do not sacrifice your\nbabe; keep it in your arms; press it to your bosom; let it be the solace\nof your declining years. I take no delight in the death of children; I\nam not what you suppose me to be; I am not a beast; I am not a serpent;\nI am full of love and kindness and mercy, and I want my children to be\nhappy in this world\"? Did the God who allowed a mother to sacrifice her\nbabe through the mistaken idea that he, the God, demanded the sacrifice,\nfeel a tenderness toward that mother \"compared to which all human love\nis faint and cold\"? Would a good father allow some of his children to\nkill others of his children to please him?\n\nThere is still another question. Why should God, a being of infinite\ntenderness, leave the question of immortality in doubt? How is it that\nthere is nothing in the Old Testament on this subject? Why is it that\nhe who made all the constellations did not put in his heaven the star\nof hope? How do you account for the fact that you do not find in the\nOld Testament, from the first mistake in Genesis, to the last curse in\nMalachi, a funeral service? Is it not strange that some one in the Old\nTestament did not stand by an open grave of father or mother and say:\n\"We shall meet again\"? Was it because the divinely inspired men did not\nknow?\n\nYou taunt me by saying that I know no more of the immortality of the\nsoul than Cicero knew. I admit it. I know no more than the lowest\nsavage, no more than a doctor of divinity--that is to say, nothing.\n\nIs it not, however, a curious fact that there is less belief in\nthe immortality of the soul in Christian countries than in heathen\nlands--that the belief in immortality, in an orthodox church, is faint\nand cold and speculative, compared with that belief in India, in China,\nor in the Pacific Isles? Compare the belief in immortality in America,\nof Christians, with that of the followers of Mohammed. Do not Christians\nweep above their dead? Does a belief in immortality keep back their\ntears? After all, the promises are so far away, and the dead are so\nnear--the echoes of words said to have been spoken more than eighteen\ncenturies ago are lost in the sounds of the clods that fall on the\ncoffin, And yet, compared with the orthodox hell, compared with the\nprison-house of God, how ecstatic is the grave--the grave without a\nsigh, without a tear, without a dream, without a fear. Compared with\nthe immortality promised by the Presbyterian creed, how beautiful\nannihilation seems. To be nothing--how much better than to be a convict\nforever. To be unconscious dust--how much better than to be a heartless\nangel.\n\nThere is not, there never has been, there never will be, any consolation\nin orthodox Christianity. It offers no consolation to any good and\nloving man. I prefer the consolation of Nature, the consolation of hope,\nthe consolation springing from human affection. I prefer the simple\ndesire to live and love forever.\n\nOf course, it would be a consolation to know that we have an \"Almighty\nFriend\" in heaven; but an \"Almighty Friend\" who cares nothing for us,\nwho allows us to be stricken by his lightning, frozen by his winter,\nstarved by his famine, and at last imprisoned in his hell, is a friend I\ndo not care to have.\n\nI remember \"the poor slave mother who sat alone in her cabin, having\nbeen robbed of her children;\" and, my dear Mr. Field, I also remember\nthat the people who robbed her justified the robbery by reading passages\nfrom the sacred Scriptures. I remember that while the mother wept, the\nrobbers, some of whom were Christians, read this: \"Buy of the heathen\nround about, and they shall be your bondmen and bondwomen forever.\" I\nremember, too, that the robbers read: \"Servants be obedient unto your\nmasters;\" and they said, this passage is the only message from the\nheart of God to the scarred back of the slave. I remember this, and I\nremember, also, that the poor slave mother upon her knees in wild and\nwailing accents called on the \"Almighty Friend,\" and I remember that her\nprayer was never heard, and that her sobs died in the negligent air.\n\nYou ask me whether I would \"rob this poor woman of such a friend?\" My\nanswer is this: I would give her liberty; I would break her chains. But\nlet me ask you, did an \"Almighty Friend\" see the woman he loved \"with a\ntenderness compared to which all human love is faint and cold,\" and\nthe woman who loved him, robbed of her children? What was the \"Almighty\nFriend\" worth to her? She preferred her babe.\n\nHow could the \"Almighty Friend\" see his poor children pursued by\nhounds--his children whose only crime was the love of liberty--how could\nhe see that, and take sides with the hounds? Do you believe that the\n\"Almighty Friend\" then governed the world? Do you really think that he\n\n     \"Bade the slave-ship speed from coast to coast,\n     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost\"?\n\nDo you believe that the \"Almighty Friend\" saw all of the tragedies that\nwere enacted in the jungles of Africa--that he watched the wretched\nslave-ships, saw the miseries of the middle passage, heard the blows of\nall the whips, saw all the streams of blood, all the agonized faces of\nwomen, all the tears that were shed? Do you believe that he saw and knew\nall these things, and that he, the \"Almighty Friend,\" looked coldly down\nand stretched no hand to save?\n\nYou persist, however, in endeavoring to account for the miseries of the\nworld by taking the ground that happiness is not the end of life. You\nsay that \"the real end of life is character, and that no discipline can\nbe too severe which leads us to suffer and be strong.\" Upon this subject\nyou use the following language: \"If you could have your way you would\nmake everybody happy; there would be no more poverty, and no more\nsickness or pain.\" And this you say, is a \"child's picture, hardly\nworthy of a stalwart man.\" Let me read you another \"child's picture,\"\nwhich you will find in the twenty-first chapter of Revelation, supposed\nto have been written by St. John, the Divine: \"And I heard a great voice\nout of heaven saying, behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and\nhe will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself\nshall be with them, and be their God; and God shall wipe away all tears\nfrom their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor\ncrying, neither shall there be any more pain.\".\n\nIf you visited some woman living in a tenement, supporting by her poor\nlabor a little family--a poor woman on the edge of famine, sewing, it\nmay be, her eyes blinded by tears--would you tell her that \"the world\nis not a playground in which men are to be petted and indulged like\nchildren.\"? Would you tell her that to think of a world without poverty,\nwithout tears, without pain, is \"a child's picture\"? If she asked you\nfor a little assistance, would you refuse it on the ground that by being\nhelped she might lose character? Would you tell her: \"God does not wish\nto have you happy; happiness is a very foolish end; character is what\nyou want, and God has put you here with these helpless, starving babes,\nand he has put this burden on your young life simply that you may suffer\nand be strong. I would help you gladly, but I do not wish to defeat the\nplans of your Almighty Friend\"? You can reason one way, but you would\nact the other.\n\nI agree with you that work is good, that struggle is essential; that\nmen are made manly by contending with each other and with the forces\nof nature; but there is a point beyond which struggle does not make\ncharacter; there is a point at which struggle becomes failure.\n\nCan you conceive of an \"Almighty Friend\" deforming his children because\nhe loves them? Did he allow the innocent to languish in dungeons because\nhe was their friend? Did he allow the noble to perish upon the scaffold,\nthe great and the self-denying to be burned at the stake, because he had\nthe power to save? Was he restrained by love? Did this \"Almighty Friend\"\nallow millions of his children to be enslaved to the end that the\n\"splendor of virtue might have a dark background\"? You insist that\n\"suffering patiently borne, is a means of the greatest elevation of\ncharacter, and in the end of the highest enjoyment.\" Do you not then\nsee that your \"Almighty Friend\" has been unjust to the happy--that he is\ncruel to those whom we call the fortunate--that he is indifferent to the\nmen who do not suffer--that he leaves all the happy and prosperous\nand joyous without character, and that in the end, according to your\ndoctrine, they are the losers?\n\nBut, after all, there is no need of arguing this question further. There\nis one fact that destroys forever your theory--and that is the fact that\nmillions upon millions die in infancy. Where do they get \"elevation of\ncharacter\"? What opportunity is given to them to \"suffer and be strong\"?\nLet us admit that we do not know. Let us say that the mysteries of\nlife, of good and evil, of joy and pain, have never been explained. Is\ncharacter of no importance in heaven? How is it possible for angels,\nliving in \"a child's picture,\" to \"suffer and be strong\"? Do you not see\nthat, according to your philosophy, only the damned can grow great--only\nthe lost can become sublime?\n\nYou do not seem to understand what I say with regard to what I call the\nhigher philosophy. When that philosophy is accepted, of course there\nwill be good in the world, there will be evil, there will still be right\nand wrong. What is good? That which tends to the happiness of sentient\nbeings. What is evil? That which tends to the misery, or tends to lessen\nthe happiness of sentient beings. What is right? The best thing to\nbe done under the circumstances--that is to say, the thing that will\nincrease or preserve the happiness of man. What is wrong? That which\ntends to the misery of man.\n\nWhat you call liberty, choice, morality, responsibility, have nothing\nwhatever to do with this. There is no difference between necessity and\nliberty. He who is free, acts from choice. What is the foundation of\nhis choice? What we really mean by liberty is freedom from personal\ndictation--we do not wish to be controlled by the will of others. To us\nthe nature of things does not seem to be a master--Nature has no will.\n\nSociety has the right to protect itself by imprisoning those who prey\nupon its interests; but it has no right to punish. It may have the right\nto destroy the life of one dangerous to the community; but what has\nfreedom to do with this? Do you kill the poisonous serpent because\nhe knew better than to bite? Do you chain a wild beast because he is\nmorally responsible? Do you not think that the criminal deserves the\npity of the virtuous?\n\nI was looking forward to the time when the individual might feel\njustified--when the convict who had worn the garment of disgrace might\nknow and feel that he had acted as he must.\n\nThere is an old Hindoo prayer to which I call your attention:\n\n     \"Have mercy, God, upon the vicious;\n     Thou hast already had mercy upon the just by making them just.\"\n\nIs it not possible that we may find that everything has been necessarily\nproduced? This, of course, would end in the justification of men. Is not\nthat a desirable thing? Is it not possible that intelligence may at last\nraise the human race to that sublime and philosophic height?\n\nYou insist, however, that this is Calvinism. I take it for granted that\nyou understand Calvinism--but let me tell you what it is. Calvinism\nasserts that man does as he must, and that, notwithstanding this fact,\nhe is responsible for what he does--that is to say, for what he is\ncompelled to do--that is to say, for what God does with him; and that,\nfor doing that which he must, an infinite God, who compelled him to do\nit, is justified in punishing the man in eternal fire; this, not because\nthe man ought to be damned, but simply for the glory of God.\n\nStarting from the same declaration, that man does as he must, I reach\nthe conclusion that we shall finally perceive in this fact justification\nfor every individual. And yet you see no difference between my\ndoctrine and Calvinism. You insist that damnation and justification\nare substantially the same; and yet the difference is as great as human\nlanguage can express. You call the justification of all the world \"the\nGospel of Despair,\" and the damnation of nearly all the human race the\n\"Consolation of Religion.\"\n\nAfter all, my dear friend, do you not see that when you come to speak\nof that which is really good, you are compelled to describe your ideal\nhuman being? It is the human in Christ, and only the human, that you by\nany possibility can understand. You speak of one who was born among\nthe poor, who went about doing good, who sympathized with those who\nsuffered. You have described, not only one, but many millions of the\nhuman race, Millions of others have carried light to those sitting\nin darkness; millions and millions have taken children in their arms;\nmillions have wept that those they love might smile. No language can\nexpress the goodness, the heroism, the patience and self-denial of the\nmany millions, dead and living, who have preserved in the family of man\nthe jewels of the heart. You have clad one being in all the virtues of\nthe race, in all the attributes of gentleness, patience, goodness, and\nlove, and yet that being, according to the New Testament, had to his\ncharacter another side. True, he said, \"Come unto me and I will give\nyou rest;\" but what did he say to those who failed to come? You pour out\nyour whole heart in thankfulness to this one man who suffered for the\nright, while I thank not only this one, but all the rest. My heart goes\nout to all the great, the self-denying and the good,--to the founders of\nnations, singers of songs, builders of homes; to the inventors, to\nthe artists who have filled the world with beauty, to the composers of\nmusic, to the soldiers of the right, to the makers of mirth, to honest\nmen, and to all the loving mothers of the race.\n\nCompare, for one moment, all that the Savior did, all the pain and\nsuffering that he relieved,--compare all this with the discovery of\nanaesthetics. Compare your prophets with the inventors, your Apostles\nwith the Keplers, the Humboldts and the Darwins.\n\nI belong to the great church that holds the world within its starlit\naisles; that claims the great and good of every race and clime; that\nfinds with joy the grain of gold in every creed, and floods with light\nand love the germs of good in every soul.\n\nMost men are provincial, narrow, one sided, only partially developed. In\na new country we often see a little patch of land, a clearing in which\nthe pioneer has built his cabin. This little clearing is just large\nenough to support a family, and the remainder of the farm is still\nforest, in which snakes crawl and wild beasts occasionally crouch. It\nis thus with the brain of the average man. There is a little clearing,\na little patch, just large enough to practice medicine with, or sell\ngoods, or practice law; or preach with, or do some kind of business,\nsufficient to obtain bread and food and shelter for a family, while\nall the rest of the brain is covered with primeval forest, in which\nlie coiled the serpents of superstition and from which spring the wild\nbeasts of orthodox religion.\n\nNeither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is it\nnecessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great enough to\ndemand a sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and death, of good\nand evil, have never yet been solved.\n\nI combat those only who, knowing nothing of the future, prophesy an\neternity of pain--those only who sow the seeds of fear in the hearts of\nmen--those only who poison all the springs of life, and seat a skeleton\nat every feast.\n\nLet us banish the shriveled hags of superstition; let us welcome the\nbeautiful daughters of truth and joy.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nCONTROVERSY ON CHRISTIANTY\n\n[Ingersoll-Gladstone.]\n\n\nCOLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY; SOME REMARKS ON HIS REPLY TO DR.\nFIELD.\n\nBy Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone.\n\nAS a listener from across the broad Atlantic to the clash of arms in the\ncombat between Colonel Ingersoll and Dr. Field on the most momentous\nof all subjects, I have not the personal knowledge which assisted these\ndoughty champions in making reciprocal acknowledgments, as broad as\ncould be desired, with reference to personal character and motive. Such\nacknowledgments are of high value in keeping the issue clear, if not\nalways of all adventitious, yet of all venomous matter. Destitute of\nthe experience on which to found them as original testimonies, still,\nin attempting partially to criticise the remarkable Reply of Colonel\nIngersoll, I can both accept in good faith what has been said by Dr.\nField, and add that it seems to me consonant with the strain of the\npages I have set before me. Having said this, I shall allow myself the\nutmost freedom in remarks, which will be addressed exclusively to the\nmatter, not the man.\n\nLet me begin by making several acknowledgments of another kind, but\nwhich I feel to be serious. The Christian Church has lived long enough\nin external triumph and prosperity to expose those of whom it is\ncomposed to all such perils of error and misfeasance, as triumph\nand prosperity bring with them. Belief in divine guidance is not of\nnecessity belief that such guidance can never be frustrated by the\nlaxity, the infirmity, the perversity of man, alike in the domain of\naction and in the domain of thought. Believers in the perpetuity of the\nlife of the Church are not tied to believing in the perpetual health\nof the Church. Even the great Latin Communion, and that communion even\nsince the Council of the Vatican in 1870, theoretically admits, or does\nnot exclude, the possibility of a wide range of local and partial error\nin opinion as well as conduct. Elsewhere the admission would be more\nunequivocal. Of such errors in tenet, or in temper and feeling more\nor less hardened into tenet, there has been a crop alike abundant and\nmultifarious. Each Christian party is sufficiently apt to recognize this\nfact with regard to every other Christian party; and the more impartial\nand reflective minds are aware that no party is exempt from mischiefs,\nwhich lie at the root of the human constitution in its warped, impaired,\nand dislocated condition. Naturally enough, these deformities help\nto indispose men towards belief; and when this indisposition has been\ndeveloped into a system of negative warfare, all the faults of all the\nChristian bodies, and sub-divisions of bodies, are, as it was natural\nto expect they would be, carefully raked together, and become part and\nparcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of redemption. I\nnotice these things in the mass, without particularity, which might be\ninvidious, for two important purposes. First, that we all, who hold by\nthe Gospel and the Christian Church, may learn humility and modesty, as\nwell as charity and indulgence, in the treatment of opponents, from\nour consciousness that we all, alike by our exaggerations and our\nshortcomings in belief, no less than by faults of conduct, have\ncontributed to bring about this condition of fashionable hostility to\nreligious faith: and, secondly, that we may resolutely decline to be\nheld bound to tenets, or to consequences of tenets, which represent not\nthe great Christendom of the past and present, but only some hole and\ncorner of its vast organization; and not the heavenly treasure, but the\nrust or the canker to which that treasure has been exposed through the\nincidents of its custody in earthen vessels.\n\nI do not remember ever to have read a composition, in which the\nmerely local coloring of particular, and even very limited sections of\nChristianity, was more systematically used as if it had been available\nand legitimate argument against the whole, than in the Reply before us.\nColonel Ingersoll writes with a rare and enviable brilliancy, but also\nwith an impetus which he seems unable to control. Denunciation, sarcasm,\nand invective, may in consequence be said to constitute the staple of\nhis work; and, if argument or some favorable admission here and there\npeeps out for a moment, the writer soon leaves the dry and barren\nheights for his favorite and more luxurious galloping grounds beneath.\nThus, when the Reply has consecrated a line (N. A. R., No. 372, p. 473)\nto the pleasing contemplation of his opponent as \"manly, candid, and\ngenerous,\" it immediately devotes more than twelve to a declamatory\ndenunciation of a practice (as if it were his) altogether contrary to\ngenerosity and to candor, and reproaches those who expect (_ibid._) \"to\nreceive as alms an eternity of joy.\" I take this as a specimen of\nthe mode of statement which permeates the whole Reply. It is not the\nstatement of an untruth. The Christian receives as alms all whatsoever\nhe receives at all. _Qui salvandos salvas gratis_ is his song of\nthankful praise. But it is the statement of one-half of a truth, which\nlives only in its entirety, and of which the Reply gives us only a\nmangled and bleeding _frustum_. For the gospel teaches that the faith\nwhich saves is a living and energizing faith, and that the most precious\npart of the alms which we receive lies in an ethical and spiritual\nprocess, which partly qualifies for, but also and emphatically composes,\nthis conferred eternity of joy. Restore this ethical element to the\ndoctrine from which the Reply has rudely displaced it, and the whole\nforce of the assault is gone, for there is now a total absence of point\nin the accusation; it conies only to this, that \"mercy and judgment are\nmet together,\" and that \"righteousness and peace have kissed each other\"\n(Ps. lxxxv. 10).\n\nPerhaps, as we proceed, there will be supplied ampler means of judging\nwhether I am warranted in saying that the instance I have here given\nis a normal instance of a practice so largely followed as to divest\nthe entire Reply of that calmness and sobriety of movement which are\nessential to the just exercise of the reasoning power in subject matter\nnot only grave, but solemn. Pascal has supplied us, in the \"Provincial\nLetters,\" with an unique example of easy, brilliant, and fascinating\ntreatment of a theme both profound and complex. But where shall we find\nanother Pascal? And, if we had found him, he would be entitled to point\nout to us that the famous work was not less close and logical than it\nwas witty. In this case, all attempt at continuous argument appears to\nbe deliberately abjured, not only as to pages, but, as may almost be\nsaid, even as to lines. The paper, noteworthy as it is, leaves on my\nmind the impression of a battle-field where every man strikes at every\nman, and all is noise, hurry, and confusion. Better surely had it been,\nand worthier of the great weight and elevation of the subject, if the\ncontroversy had been waged after the pattern of those engagements where\na chosen champion on either side, in a space carefully limited and\nreserved, does battle on behalf of each silent and expectant host. The\npromiscuous crowds represent all the lower elements which enter\ninto human conflicts: the chosen champions, and the order of their\nproceeding, signify the dominion of reason over force, and its just\nplace as the sovereign arbiter of the great questions that involve the\nmain destiny of man.\n\nI will give another instance of the tumultuous method in which the\nReply conducts, not, indeed, its argument, but its case. Dr. Field had\nexhibited an example of what he thought superstition, and had drawn a\ndistinction between superstition and religion. But to the author of\nthe Reply all religion is superstition, and, accordingly, he writes as\nfollows (p. 475): \"You are shocked at the Hindoo mother, when she gives\nher child to death at the supposed command of her God. What do you think\nof Abraham? of Jephthah? What is your opinion of Jehovah himself?\"\n\nTaking these three appeals in the reverse order to that in which they\nare written, I will briefly ask, as to the closing challenge, \"What\ndo you think of Jehovah himself?\" whether this is the tone in which\ncontroversy ought to be carried on? Not only is the name of Jehovah\nencircled in the heart of every believer with the profoundest reverence\nand love, but the Christian religion teaches, through the Incarnation,\na doctrine of personal union with God so lofty that it can only be\napproached in a deep, reverential calm. I do not deny that a person\nwho deems a given religion to be wicked may be led onward by logical\nconsistency to impugn in strong terms the character of the Author and\nObject of that religion. But he is surely bound by the laws of social\nmorality and decency to consider well the terms and the manner of his\nindictment. If he founds it upon allegations of fact, these allegations\nshould be carefully stated, so as to give his antagonists reasonable\nevidence that it is truth and not temper which wrings from him a\nsentence of condemnation, delivered in sobriety and sadness, and\nnot without a due commiseration for those, whom he is attempting to\nundeceive, who think he is himself both deceived and a deceiver, but who\nsurely are entitled, while this question is in process of decision, to\nrequire that He whom they adore should at least be treated with those\ndecent reserves which are deemed essential when a human being, say\na parent, wife, or sister, is in question. But here a contemptuous\nreference to Jehovah follows, not upon a careful investigation of the\ncases of Abraham and of Jephthah, but upon a mere summary citation of\nthem to surrender themselves, so to speak, as culprits; that is to say,\na summons to accept at once, on the authority of the Reply, the view\nwhich the writer is pleased to take of those cases. It is true that he\nassures us in another part of his paper that he has read the scriptures\nwith care; and I feel bound to accept this assurance, but at the same\ntime to add that if it had not been given I should, for one, not\nhave made the discovery, but might have supposed that the author had\ngalloped, not through, but about, the sacred volume, as a man glances\nover the pages of an ordinary newspaper or novel.\n\nAlthough there is no argument as to Abraham or Jephthah expressed upon\nthe surface, we must assume that one is intended, and it seems to be of\nthe following kind: \"You are not entitled to reprove the Hindoo mother\nwho cast her child under the wheels of the car of Juggernaut, for\nyou approve of the conduct of Jephthah, who (probably) sacrificed his\ndaughter in fulfilment of a vow (Judges xi. 31) that he would make a\nburnt offering of whatsoever, on his safe return, he should meet coming\nforth from the doors of his dwelling.\" Now the whole force of this\nrejoinder depends upon our supposed obligation as believers to approve\nthe conduct of Jephthah. It is, therefore, a very serious question\nwhether we are or are not so obliged. But this question the Reply does\nnot condescend either to argue, or even to state. It jumps to an extreme\nconclusion without the decency of an intermediate step. Are not such\nmethods of proceeding more suited to placards at an election, than to\ndisquisitions on these most solemn subjects?\n\nI am aware of no reason why any believer in Christianity should not\nbe free to canvass, regret, condemn the act of Jephthah. So far as the\nnarration which details it is concerned, there is not a word of sanction\ngiven to it more than to the falsehood of Abraham in Egypt, or of\nJacob and Rebecca in the matter of the hunting (Gen. xx. 1-18, and Gen.\nxxiii.); or to the dissembling of St. Peter in the case of the Judaizing\nconverts (Gai. ii. 11). I am aware of no color of approval given to\nit elsewhere. But possibly the author of the Reply may have thought he\nfound such an approval in the famous eleventh chapter of the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews, where the apostle, handling his subject with a discernment\nand care very different from those of the Reply, writes thus (Heb. xi.\n32):\n\n\"And what shall I say more? For the time would fail me to tell of\nGideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah: of David also, and\nSamuel, and of the prophets.\"\n\nJephthah, then, is distinctly held up to us by a canonical writer as an\nobject of praise. But of praise on what account? Why should the Reply\nassume that it is on account of the sacrifice of his child? The writer\nof the Reply has given us no reason, and no rag of a reason, in support\nof such a proposition. But this was the very thing he was bound by every\nconsideration to prove, upon making his indictment against the Almighty.\nIn my opinion, he could have one reason only for not giving a reason,\nand that was that no reason could be found.\n\nThe matter, however, is so full of interest, as illustrating both the\nmethod of the Reply and that of the Apostolic writer, that I shall enter\nfarther into it, and draw attention to the very remarkable structure of\nthis noble chapter, which is to Faith what the thirteenth of Cor. I. is\nto Charity. From the first to the thirty-first verse, it commemorates\nthe achievements of faith in ten persons: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham,\nSarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses (in greater detail than any one\nelse), and finally Rahab, in whom, I observe in passing, it will hardly\nbe pretended that she appears in this list on account of the profession\nshe had pursued. Then comes the rapid recital (v. 31), without any\nspecification of particulars whatever, of these four names: Gideon,\nBarak, Samson, Jephthah. Next follows a kind of recommencement,\nindicated by the word also; and the glorious acts and sufferings of the\nprophets are set forth largely with a singular power and warmth, headed\nby the names of David and Samuel, the rest of the sacred band being\nmentioned only in the mass.\n\nNow, it is surely very remarkable that, in the whole of this recital,\nthe Apostle, whose \"feet were shod with the preparation of the gospel\nof peace,\" seems with a tender instinct to avoid anything like stress\non the exploits of warriors. Of the twelve persons having a share in the\ndetailed expositions, David is the only warrior, and his character as\na man of war is eclipsed by his greater attributes as a prophet, or\ndeclarer of the Divine counsels. It is yet more noteworthy that Joshua,\nwho had so fair a fame, but who was only a warrior, is never named in\nthe chapter, and we are simply told that \"by faith the walls of Jericho\nfell down, after they had been compassed about seven times\" (Hebrews\nxi. 30). But the series of four names, which are given without any\nspecification of their title to appear in the list, are all names\nof distinguished warriors. They had all done great acts of faith\nand patriotism against the enemies of Israel,--Gideon against the\nMidianites, Barak against the hosts of Syria, Samson against the\nPhilistines, and Jephthah against the children of Ammon. Their tide to\nappear in the list at all is in their acts of war, and the mode of their\ntreatment as men of war is in striking accordance with the analogies\nof the chapter. All of them had committed errors. Gideon had again and\nagain demanded a sign, and had made a golden ephod, \"which thing became\na snare unto Gideon and to his house\" (Judges viii. 27). Barak had\nrefused to go up against Jabin unless Deborah would join the venture\n(Judges v. 8). Samson had been in dalliance with Delilah. Last came\nJephthah, who had, as we assume, sacrificed his daughter in fulfilment\nof a rash vow. No one supposes that any of the others are honored by\nmention in the chapter on account of his sin or error: why should that\nsupposition be made in the case of Jephthah, at the cost of all the\nrules of orderly interpretation?\n\nHaving now answered the challenge as to Jephthah, I proceed to the\ncase of Abraham. It would not be fair to shrink from touching it in\nits tenderest point. That point is nowhere expressly touched by the\ncommendations bestowed upon Abraham in Scripture. I speak now of the\nspecial form, of the words that are employed. He is not commended\nbecause, being a father, he made all the preparations antecedent to\nplunging the knife into his son. He is commended (as I read the text)\nbecause, having received a glorious promise, a promise that his wife\nshould be a mother of nations, and that kings should be born of her\n(Gen. xvii. 6), and that by his seed the blessings of redemption should\nbe conveyed to man, and the fulfilment of this promise depending solely\nupon the life of Isaac, he was, nevertheless, willing that the chain of\nthese promises should be broken by the extinction of that life, because\nhis faith assured him that the Almighty would find the way to give\neffect to His own designs (Heb. xi. 17-19). The offering of Isaac is\nmentioned as a completed offering, and the intended blood-shedding, of\nwhich I shall speak presently, is not here brought into view.\n\nThe facts, however, which we have before us, and which are treated in\nScripture with caution, are grave and startling. A father is commanded\nto sacrifice his son. Before consummation, the sacrifice is interrupted.\nYet the intention of obedience had been formed, and certified by a\nseries of acts. It may have been qualified by a reserve of hope that God\nwould interpose before the final act, but of this we have no distinct\nstatement, and it can only stand as an allowable conjecture. It may be\nconceded that the narrative does not supply us with a complete statement\nof particulars. That being so, it behooves us to tread cautiously in\napproaching it. Thus much, however, I think, may further be said: the\ncommand was addressed to Abraham under conditions essentially different\nfrom those which now determine for us the limits of moral obligation.\n\nFor the conditions, both socially and otherwise, were indeed very\ndifferent. The estimate of human life at the time was different. The\nposition of the father in the family was different: its members were\nregarded as in some sense his property. There is every reason to suppose\nthat, around Abraham in \"the land of Moriah,\" the practice of human\nsacrifice as an act of religion was in vigor. But we may look more\ndeeply into the matter. According to the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve\nwere placed under a law, not of consciously perceived right and wrong,\nbut of simple obedience. The tree, of which alone they were forbidden to\neat, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Duty lay for them\nin following the command of the Most High, before and until they,\nor their descendants, should become capable of appreciating it by an\nethical standard. Their condition was greatly analogous to that of the\ninfant, who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that\nhe is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the thing\nso ordered. To the external standard of right and wrong, and to the\nobligation it entails per se, the child is introduced by a process\ngradually unfolded with the development of his nature, and the opening\nout of what we term a moral sense. If we pass at once from the epoch\nof Paradise to the period of the prophets, we perceive the important\nprogress that has been made in the education of the race. The Almighty,\nin His mediate intercourse with Israel, deigns to appeal to an\nindependently conceived criterion, as to an arbiter between His people\nand Himself. \"Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord\"\n(Isaiah i. 18). \"Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now,\nO house of Israel, is not my way equal, are not your ways unequal?\"\n(Ezekiel xvii. 25). Between these two epochs how wide a space of moral\nteaching has been traversed! But Abraham, so far as we may judge from\nthe pages of Scripture, belongs essentially to the Adamic period, far\nmore than to the prophetic. The notion of righteousness and sin was not\nindeed hidden from him: transgression itself had opened that chapter,\nand it was never to be closed: but as yet they lay wrapped up, so to\nspeak, in Divine command and prohibition. And what God commanded, it was\nfor Abraham to believe that He himself would adjust to the harmony of\nHis own character.\n\nThe faith of Abraham, with respect to this supreme trial, appears to\nhave been centered in this, that he would trust God to all extremities,\nand in despite of all appearances. The command received was obviously\ninconsistent with the promises which had preceded it. It was also\ninconsistent with the morality acknowledged in later times, and perhaps\ntoo definitely reflected in our minds, by an anachronism easy to\nconceive, on the day of Abraham. There can be little doubt, as between\nthese two points of view, that the strain upon his faith was felt\nmainly, to say the least, in connection with the first mentioned.\nThis faith is not wholly unlike the faith of Job; for Job believed, in\ndespite of what was to the eye of flesh an unrighteous government of\nthe world. If we may still trust the Authorized Version, his cry was,\n\"though he slay me, yet will I trust in him\" (Job xiii. 15). This cry\nwas, however, the expression of one who did not expect to be slain; and\nit may be that Abraham, when he said, \"My son, God will provide Himself\na lamb for a burnt offering,\" not only believed explicitly that God\nwould do what was right, but, moreover, believed implicitly that a way\nof rescue would be found for his son. I do not say that this case is\nlike the case of Jephthah, where the introduction of difficulty is only\ngratuitous. I confine myself to these propositions. Though the law\nof moral action is the same everywhere and always, it is variously\napplicable to the human being, as we know from experience, in the\nvarious stages of his development; and its first form is that of\nsimple obedience to a superior whom there is every ground to trust. And\nfurther, if the few straggling rays of our knowledge in a case of this\nkind rather exhibit a darkness lying around us than dispel it, we do\nnot even know all that was in the mind of Abraham, and are not in a\ncondition to pronounce upon it, and cannot, without departure from sound\nreason, abandon that anchorage by which he probably held, that the law\nof Nature was safe in the hands of the Author of Nature, though the\nmeans of the reconciliation between the law and the appearances have not\nbeen fully placed within our reach.\n\nBut the Reply is not entitled to so wide an answer as that which I\nhave given. In the parallel with the case of the Hindoo widow, it\nsins against first principles. An established and habitual practice\nof child-slaughter, in a country of an old and learned civilization,\npresents to us a case totally different from the issue of a command\nwhich was not designed to be obeyed and which belongs to a period when\nthe years of manhood were associated in great part with the character\nthat appertains to childhood.\n\nIt will already have been seen that the method of this Reply is not to\nargue seriously from point to point, but to set out in masses, without\nthe labor of proof, crowds of imputations, which may overwhelm an\nopponent like balls from a _mitrailleuse_. As the charges lightly run\nover in a line or two require pages for exhibition and confutation, an\nexhaustive answer to the Reply within the just limits of an article is\non this account out of the question; and the only proper course left\nopen seems to be to make a selection of what appears to be the favorite,\nor the most formidable and telling assertions, and to deal with these in\nthe serious way which the grave interests of the theme, not the manner\nof their presentation, may deserve.\n\nIt was an observation of Aristotle that weight attaches to the\nundemonstrated propositions of those who are able to speak on any given\nsubject matter from experience. The Reply abounds in undemonstrated\npropositions. They appear, however, to be delivered without any sense of\na necessity that either experience or reasoning are required in order\nto give them a title to acceptance. Thus, for example, the system of\nMr. Darwin is hurled against Christianity as a dart which cannot but be\nfatal (p. 475):\n\n\"His discoveries, carried to their legitimate conclusion, destroy the\ncreeds and sacred Scriptures of mankind.\"\n\nThis wide-sweeping proposition is imposed upon us with no exposition\nof the how or the why; and the whole controversy of belief one might\nsuppose is to be determined, as if from St. Petersburgh, by a series of\n_ukases_. It is only advanced, indeed, to decorate the introduction of\nDarwin's name in support of the proposition, which I certainly should\nsupport and not contest, that error and honesty are compatible.\n\nOn what ground, then, and for what reason, is the system of Darwin fatal\nto Scriptures and to creeds? I do not enter into the question whether\nit has passed from the stage of working hypothesis into that of\ndemonstration, but I assume, for the purposes of the argument, all that,\nin this respect, the Reply can desire.\n\nIt is not possible to discover, from the random language of the Reply,\nwhether the scheme of Darwin is to sweep away all theism, or is to be\ncontent with extinguishing revealed religion. If the latter is meant, I\nshould reply that the moral history of man, in its principal stream,\nhas been distinctly an evolution from the first until now; and that the\nsuccinct though grand account of the Creation in Genesis is singularly\naccordant with the same idea, but is wider than Darwinism, since it\nincludes in the grand progression the inanimate world as well as the\nhistory of organisms. But, as this could not be shown without much\ndetail, the Reply reduces me to the necessity of following its own\nunsatisfactory example in the bald form of an assertion, that there\nis no colorable ground for assuming evolution and revelation to be at\nvariance with one another.\n\nIf, however, the meaning be that theism is swept away by Darwinism, I\nobserve that, as before, we have only an unreasoned dogma or dictum to\ndeal with, and, dealing perforce with the unknown, we are in danger of\nstriking at a will of the wisp. Still, I venture on remarking that the\ndoctrine of Evolution has acquired both praise and dispraise which\nit does not deserve. It is lauded in the skeptical camp because it is\nsupposed to get rid of the shocking idea of what are termed sudden acts\nof creation; and it is as unjustly dispraised, on the opposing side,\nbecause it is thought to bridge over the gap between man and the\ninferior animals, and to give emphasis to the relationship between them.\nBut long before the day either of Mr. Darwin or his grandfather, Dr.\nErasmus Darwin, this relationship had been stated, perhaps even more\nemphatically by one whom, were it not that I have small title to deal\nin undemonstrated assertion, I should venture to call the most cautious,\nthe most robust, and the most comprehensive of our philosophers.\nSuppose, says Bishop Butler (Analogy, Part 2, Chap. 2), that it were\nimplied in the natural immortality of brutes, that they must arrive at\ngreat attainments, and become (like us) rational and moral agents; even\nthis would be no difficulty, since we know not what latent powers and\ncapacities they may be endowed with. And if pride causes us to deem it\nan indignity that our race should have proceeded by propagation from an\nascending scale of inferior organisms, why should it be a more repulsive\nidea to have sprung immediately from something less than man in brain\nand body, than to have been fashioned according to the expression in\nGenesis (Chap. II., v. 7), \"out of the dust of the ground?\" There are\nhalls and galleries of introduction in a palace, but none in a cottage;\nand this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever\naspiring preparatory series, rather than by transition at a step from\nthe inanimate mould of earth, may tend rather to magnify than to\nlower the creation of man on its physical side. But if belief has\n(as commonly) been premature in its alarms, has non-belief been more\nreflective in its exulting anticipations, and its paeans on the assumed\ndisappearance of what are strangely enough termed sudden acts of\ncreation from the sphere of our study and contemplation?\n\nOne striking effect of the Darwinian theory of descent is, so far as I\nunderstand, to reduce the breadth of all intermediate distinctions\nin the scale of animated life. It does not bring all creatures into a\nsingle lineage, but all diversities are to be traced back, at some point\nin the scale and by stages indefinitely minute, to a common ancestry.\nAll is done by steps, nothing by strides, leaps, or bounds; all from\nprotoplasm up to Shakespeare, and, again, all from primal night and\nchaos up to protoplasm. I do not ask, and am incompetent to judge,\nwhether this is among the things proven, but I take it so for the sake\nof the argument; and I ask, first, why and whereby does this doctrine\neliminate the idea of creation? Does the new philosophy teach that if\nthe passage from pure reptile to pure bird is achieved by a spring (so\nto speak) over a chasm, this implies and requires creation; but that\nif reptile passes into bird, and rudimental into finished bird, by a\nthousand slight and but just discernible modifications, each one of\nthese is so small that they are not entitled to a name so lofty, may be\nset down to any cause or no cause, as we please? I should have supposed\nit miserably unphilosophical to treat the distinction between creative\nand non-creative function as a simply quantitative distinction. As\nrespects the subjective effect on the human mind, creation in small,\nwhen closely regarded, awakens reason to admiring wonder, not less than\ncreation in great: and as regards that function itself, to me it appears\nno less than ridiculous to hold that the broadly outlined and large\nadvances of so-called Mosaism are creation, but the refined and stealthy\nonward steps of Darwinism are only manufacture, and relegate the\nquestion of a cause into obscurity, insignificance, or oblivion.\n\nBut does not reason really require us to go farther, to turn the tables\non the adversary, and to contend that evolution, by how much it binds\nmore closely together the myriad ranks of the living, aye, and of all\nother orders, by so much the more consolidates, enlarges, and enhances\nthe true argument of design, and the entire theistic position? If orders\nare not mutually related, it is easier to conceive of them as sent at\nhaphazard into the world. We may, indeed, sufficiently, draw an argument\nof design from each separate structure, but we have no further title to\nbuild upon the position which each of them holds as towards any other.\nBut when the connexion between these objects has been established, and\nso established that the points of transition are almost as indiscernible\nas the passage from day to night, then, indeed, each preceding stage is\na prophecy of the following, each succeeding one is a memorial of the\npast, and, throughout the immeasurable series, every single member of\nit is a witness to all the rest. The Reply ought surely to dispose of\nthese, and probably many more arguments in the case, before assuming\nso absolutely the rights of dictatorship, and laying it down that\nDarwinism, carried to its legitimate conclusion (and I have nowhere\nendeavored to cut short its career), destroys the creeds and Scriptures\nof mankind. That I maybe the more definite in my challenge, I would,\nwith all respect, ask the author of the Reply to set about confuting the\nsuccinct and clear argument of his countryman, Mr. Fiske, who, in the\nearlier part of the small work entitled _Man's Destiny_ (Macmillan,\nLondon, 1887) has given what seems to me an admissible and also striking\ninterpretation of the leading Darwinian idea in its bearings on the\ntheistic argument. To this very partial treatment of a great subject I\nmust at present confine myself; and I proceed to another of the notions,\nas confident as they seem to be crude, which the Reply has drawn into\nits wide-casting net (p. 475):\n\n\"Why should God demand a sacrifice from; man? Why should the Infinite\nask anything from the finite? Should the sun beg of the glow-worm, and\nshould the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light?\"\n\nThis is one of the cases in which happy or showy illustration is, in the\nReply before me, set to carry with a rush the position which argument\nwould have to approach more laboriously and more slowly. The case of the\nglow-worm with the sun cannot but move a reader's pity, it seems so\nvery hard. But let us suppose for a moment that the glow-worm was so\nconstituted, and so related to the sun that an interaction between them\nwas a fundamental condition of its health and life; that the glowworm\nmust, by the law of its nature, like the moon, reflect upon the sun,\naccording to its strength and measure, the light which it receives,\nand that only by a process involving that reflection its own store of\nvitality could be upheld? It will be said that this is a very large\n_petitio_ to import into the glowworm's case. Yes, but it is the very\n_petitio_ which is absolutely requisite in order to make it parallel to\nthe case of the Christian. The argument which the Reply has to destroy\nis and must be the Christian argument, and not some figure of straw,\nfabricated at will. It is needless, perhaps, but it is refreshing, to\nquote the noble Psalm (Ps. 1. 10, 12, 14, 15), in which this assumption\nof the Reply is rebuked. \"All the beasts of the forest are mine; and so\nare the cattle upon a thousand hills.... If I be hungry I will not tell\nthee; for the whole world is mine, and all that is therein.... Offer\nunto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most Highest, and call\nupon Me in the time of trouble; so will I hear thee, and thou shalt\npraise Me.\" Let me try my hand at a counter-illustration. If the Infinite\nis to make no demand upon the finite, by parity of reasoning the great\nand strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small. Why then\nshould the father make demands of love, obedience, and sacrifice, from\nhis young child? Is there not some flavor of the sun and glow-worm here?\nBut every man does so make them, if he is a man of sense and feeling;\nand he makes them for the sake and in the interest of the son himself,\nwhose nature, expanding in the warmth of affection and pious care,\nrequires, by an inward law, to return as well as to receive. And so God\nasks of us, in order that what we give to Him may be far more our own\nthan it ever was before the giving, or than it could have been unless\nfirst rendered up to Him, to become a part of what the gospel calls our\ntreasure in heaven.\n\nAlthough the Reply is not careful to supply us with whys, it does not\nhesitate to ask for them (p. 479):\n\n\"Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and\npreserve the vile? Why should He treat all alike here, and in another\nworld make an infinite difference? Why should your God allow His\nworshipers, His adorers, to be destroyed by His enemies? Why should He\nallow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at the stake?\"\n\nThe upholders of belief or of revelation, from Claudian down to Cardinal\nNewman (see the very remarkable passage of the _Apologia pro vita sua_,\npp. 376-78), cannot and do not, seek to deny that the methods of divine\ngovernment, as they are exhibited by experience, present to us many and\nvaried moral problems, insoluble by our understanding. Their existence\nmay not, and should not, be dissembled. But neither should they be\nexaggerated. Now exaggeration by mere suggestion is the fault, the\nglaring fault, of these queries. One who had no knowledge of mundane\naffairs beyond the conception they insinuate would assume that, as a\nrule, evil has the upper hand in the management of the world. Is this\nthe grave philosophical conclusion of a careful observer, or is it a\ncrude, hasty, and careless overstatement?\n\nIt is not difficult to conceive how, in times of sadness and of storm,\nwhen the suffering soul can discern no light at any point of the\nhorizon, place is found for such an idea of life. It is, of course,\nopposed to the Apostolic declaration that godliness hath the promise\nof the life that now is (1 Tim. iv. 8), but I am not to expect such a\ndeclaration to be accepted as current coin, even of the meanest value,\nby the author of the Reply. Yet I will offer two observations founded\non experience in support of it, one taken from a limited, another from\na larger and more open sphere. John Wesley, in the full prime of his\nmission, warned the converts whom he was making among English laborers\nof a spiritual danger that lay far ahead. It was that, becoming godly,\nthey would become careful, and, becoming careful, they would become\nwealthy. It was a just and sober forecast, and it represented with\ntruth the general rule of life, although it be a rule perplexed with\nexceptions. But, if this be too narrow a sphere of observation, let\nus take a wider one, the widest of all. It is comprised in the brief\nstatement that Christendom rules the world, and rules it, perhaps it\nshould be added, by the possession of a vast surplus of material as well\nas moral force. Therefore the assertions carried by implication in the\nqueries of the Reply, which are general, are because general untrue,\nalthough they might have been true within those prudent limitations\nwhich the method of this Reply appears especially to eschew.\n\nTaking, then, these challenges as they ought to have been given, I admit\nthat great believers, who have been also great masters of wisdom and\nknowledge, are not able to explain the inequalities of adjustment\nbetween human beings and the conditions in which they have been set down\nto work out their destiny. The climax of these inequalities is perhaps\nto be found in the fact that, whereas rational belief, viewed at large,\nfounds the Providential government of the world upon the hypothesis of\nfree agency, there are so many cases in which the overbearing mastery\nof circumstance appears to reduce it to extinction or paralysis. Now,\nin one sense, without doubt, these difficulties are matter for our\nlegitimate and necessary cognizance. It is a duty incumbent upon us\nrespectively, according to our means and opportunities, to decide for\nourselves, by the use of the faculty of reason given us, the great\nquestions of natural and revealed religion. They are to be decided\naccording to the evidence; and, if we cannot trim the evidence into a\nconsistent whole, then according to the balance of the evidence. We are\nnot entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in this province\nany rule of investigation, except such as common-sense teaches us to\nuse in the ordinary conduct of life. As in ordinary conduct, so in\nconsidering the basis of belief, we are bound to look at the evidence as\na whole. We have no right to demand demonstrative proofs, or the removal\nof all conflicting elements, either in the one sphere or in the other.\nWhat guides us sufficiently in matters of common practice has the very\nsame authority to guide us in matters of speculation; more properly,\nperhaps, to be called the practice of the soul. If the evidence in the\naggregate shows the being of a moral Governor of the world, with the\nsame force as would suffice to establish an obligation to act in a\nmatter of common conduct, we are bound in duty to accept it, and have no\nright to demand as a condition previous that all occasions of doubt or\nquestion be removed out of the way. Our demands for evidence must be\nlimited by the general reason of the case. Does that general reason of\nthe case make it probable that a finite being, with a finite place in\na comprehensive scheme, devised and administered by a Being who is\ninfinite, would be able either to embrace within his view, or rightly to\nappreciate, all the motives and the aims that may have been in the\nmind of the Divine Disposer? On the contrary, a demand so unreasonable\ndeserves to be met with the scornful challenge of Dante (Paradise xix.\n79):\n\n     Or tu chi sei, che vuoi sedere a scranna\n     Per giudicar da lungi mille miglia\n     Colla veduta corta d'una spanna?\n\nUndoubtedly a great deal here depends upon the question whether, and in\nwhat degree, our knowledge is limited. And here the Reply seems to be\nby no means in accord with Newton and with Butler. By its contempt for\nauthority, the Reply seems to cut off from us all knowledge that is not\nat first hand; but then also it seems to assume an original and first\nhand knowledge of all possible kinds of things. I will take an instance,\nall the easier to deal with because it is outside the immediate sphere\nof controversy. In one of those pieces of fine writing with which the\nReply abounds, it is determined _obiter_ by a backhanded stroke (N. A.\nR., p. 491) that Shakespeare is \"by far the greatest of the human\nrace.\" I do not feel entitled to assert that he is not; but how vast and\ncomplex a question is here determined for us in this airy manner! Has\nthe writer of the Reply really weighed the force, and measured the sweep\nof his own words? Whether Shakespeare has or has not the primacy of\ngenius over a very few other names which might be placed in competition\nwith his, is a question which has not yet been determined by the general\nor deliberate judgment of lettered mankind. But behind it lies another\nquestion, inexpressibly difficult, except for the Reply, to solve. That\nquestion is, what is the relation of human genius to human greatness.\nIs genius the sole constitutive element of greatness, or with what other\nelements, and in what relations to them, is it combined? Is every man\ngreat in proportion to his genius? Was Goldsmith, or was Sheridan,\nor was Burns, or was Byron, or was Goethe, or was Napoleon, or\nwas Alcibiades, no smaller, and was Johnson, or was Howard, or was\nWashington, or was Phocion, or Leonidas, no greater, than in proportion\nto his genius properly so-called? How are we to find a common measure,\nagain, for different kinds of greatness; how weigh, for example, Dante\nagainst Julius Caesar? And I am speaking of greatness properly so\ncalled, not of goodness properly so called. We might seem to be dealing\nwith a writer whose contempt for authority in general is fully balanced,\nperhaps outweighed, by his respect for one authority in particular.\n\nThe religions of the world, again, have in many cases given to many men\nmaterial for life-long study. The study of the Christian Scriptures,\nto say nothing of Christian life and institutions, has been to many and\njustly famous men a study \"never ending, still beginning\"; not, like\nthe world of Alexander, too limited for the powerful faculty that ranged\nover it; but, on the contrary, opening height on height, and with deep\nanswering to deep, and with increase of fruit ever prescribing increase\nof effort. But the Reply has sounded all these depths, has found them\nvery shallow, and is quite able to point out (p. 490) the way in which\nthe Saviour of the world might have been a much greater teacher than\nHe actually was; had He said anything, for instance, of the family\nrelation, had He spoken against slavery and tyranny, had He issued a\nsort of _code Napoleon_ embracing education, progress, scientific truth,\nand international law. This observation on the family relation seems to\nme beyond even the usual measure of extravagance when we bear in mind\nthat, according to the Christian scheme, the Lord of heaven and earth\n\"was subject\" (St. Luke ii. 51) to a human mother and a reputed human\nfather, and that He taught (according to the widest and, I believe, the\nbest opinion) the absolute indissolubility of marriage. I might cite\nmany other instances in reply. But the broader and the true answer to\nthe objection is, that the Gospel was promulgated to teach principles\nand not a code; that it included the foundation of a society in which\nthose principles were to be conserved, developed, and applied; and that\ndown to this day there is not a moral question of all those which\nthe Reply does or does not enumerate, nor is there a question of duty\narising in the course of life for any of us, that is not determinable\nin all its essentials by applying to it as a touchstone the principles\ndeclared in the Gospel. Is not, then, the _hiatus_, which the Reply has\ndiscovered in the teaching of our Lord, an imaginary _hiatus_? Nay, are\nthe suggested improvements of that teaching really gross deteriorations?\nWhere would have been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed\npopulation of a particular age a codified religion, which was to serve\nfor all nations, all ages, all states of civilization? Why was not\nroom to be left for the career of human thought in finding out, and in\nworking out, the adaptation of Christianity to the ever varying\nmovement of the world? And how is it that they who will not admit that a\nrevelation is in place when it has in view the great and necessary work\nof conflict against sin, are so free in recommending enlargements of\nthat Revelation for purposes, as to which no such necessity can be\npleaded?\n\nI have known a person who, after studying the old classical or Olympian\nreligion for the third part of a century, at length began to hope that\nhe had some partial comprehension of it, some inkling of what it meant.\nWoe is him that he was not conversant either with the faculties or with\nthe methods of the Reply, which apparently can dispose in half an hour\nof any problem, dogmatic, historical, or moral: and which accordingly\ntakes occasion to assure us that Buddha was \"in many respects the\ngreatest religious teacher this world has ever known, the broadest, the\nmost intellectual of them all\" (p. 491). On this I shall only say that\nan attempt to bring Buddha and Buddhism into line together is far beyond\nmy reach, but that every Christian, knowing in some degree what Christ\nis, and what He has done for the world, can only be the more thankful if\nBuddha, or Confucius, or any other teacher has in any point, and in\nany measure, come near to the outskirts of His ineffable greatness and\nglory.\n\nIt is my fault or my misfortune to remark, in this Reply, an inaccuracy\nof reference, which would of itself suffice to render it remarkable.\nChrist, we are told (pp. 492, 500), denounced the chosen people of God\nas \"a generation of vipers.\" This phrase is applied by the Baptist to\nthe crowd who came to seek baptism from him; but it is only applied\nby our Lord to Scribes or Pharisees (Luke iii. 7, Matthew xxiii. 33,\nand xii.34), who are so commonly placed by Him in contrast with the\npeople. The error is repeated in the mention of whited sepulchres. Take\nagain the version of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. We are told\n(p. 494) that the Apostles conceived the idea \"of having all things in\ncommon.\" In the narrative there is no statement, no suggestion of\nthe kind; it is a pure interpolation (Acts iv. 32-7). Motives of a\nreasonable prudence are stated as a mattei of fact to have influenced\nthe offending couple--another pure interpolation. After the catastrophe\nof Ananias \"the Apostles sent for his wife\"--a third interpolation. I\nrefer only to these points as exhibitions of an habitual and dangerous\ninaccuracy, and without any attempt at present to discuss the case, in\nwhich the judgments of God are exhibited on their severer side, and in\nwhich I cannot, like the Reply, undertake summarily to determine for\nwhat causes the Almighty should or should not take life, or delegate the\npower to take it.\n\nAgain, we have (p. 486) these words given as a quotation from the Bible:\n\n\"They who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and they who believe\nnot shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting fire,\nprepared for the devil and his angels.\"\n\nThe second clause thus reads as if applicable to the persons mentioned\nin the first; that is to say, to those who reject the tidings of the\nGospel. But instead of its being a continuous passage, the latter\nsection is brought out of another gospel (St. Matthew's) and another\nconnection; and it is really written, not of those who do not believe,\nbut those who refuse to perform offices of charity to their neighbor in\nhis need. It would be wrong to call this intentional misrepresentation;\nbut can it be called less than somewhat reckless negligence?\n\nIt is a more special misfortune to find a writer arguing on the same\nside with his critic, and yet for the critic not to be able to\nagree with him. But so it is with reference to the great subject of\nimmortality, as treated in the Reply.\n\n\"The idea of immortality, that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the\nhuman heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against\nthe shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of\nany creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection; and it\nwill continue to ebb and flow beneath the mist and clouds of doubt and\ndarkness, as long as love kisses the lips of death\" (p. 483).\n\nHere we have a very interesting chapter of the history of human opinion\ndisposed of in the usual summary way, by a statement which, as it\nappears to me, is developed out of the writer's inner consciousness.\nIf the belief in immortality is not connected with any revelation\nor religion, but is simply the expression of a subjective want, then\nplainly we may expect the expression of it to be strong and clear in\nproportion to the various degrees in which faculty is developed\namong the various races of mankind. But how does the matter stand\nhistorically? The Egyptians were not a people of high intellectual\ndevelopment, and yet their religious system was strictly associated\nwith, I might rather say founded on, the belief in immortality. The\nancient Greeks, on the other hand, were a race of astonishing, perhaps\nunrivalled, intellectual capacity. But not only did they, in prehistoric\nages, derive their scheme of a future world from Egypt; we find\nalso that, with the lapse of time and the advance of the Hellenic\ncivilization, the constructive ideas of the system lost all life and\ndefinite outline, and the most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy,\nthat of Aristotle, had no clear perception whatever of a personal\nexistence in a future state.\n\nThe favorite doctrine of the Reply is the immunity of all error in\nbelief from moral responsibility. In the first page (p. 473) this is\nstated with reserve as the \"innocence of honest error.\" But why such a\nlimitation? The Reply warms with its subject; it shows us that no\nerror can be otherwise than honest, inasmuch as nothing which involves\nhonesty, or its reverse, can, from the constitution of our nature, enter\ninto the formation of opinion. Here is the full blown exposition (p.\n476):\n\n\"The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, or we\ndisbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the\neffect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who\nwatches. _There is no opportunity of being honesty or dishonest, in\nthe formation of an opinion_. The conclusion is entirely independent of\ndesire.\"\n\nThe reasoning faculty is, therefore, wholly extrinsic to our moral\nnature, and no influence is or can be received or imparted between them.\nI know not whether the meaning is that all the faculties of our nature\nare like so many separate departments in one of the modern shops that\nsupply all human wants; that will, memory, imagination, affection,\npassion, each has its own separate domain, and that they meet only for a\ncomparison of results, just to tell one another what they have severally\nbeen doing. It is difficult to conceive, if this be so, wherein consists\nthe personality, or individuality or organic unity of man. It is not\ndifficult to see that while the Reply aims at uplifting human nature,\nit in reality plunges us (p. 475) into the abyss of degradation by the\ndestruction of moral freedom, responsibility, and unity. For we are\njustly told that \"reason is the supreme and final test.\" Action may be\nmerely instinctive and habitual, or it may be consciously founded\non formulated thought; but, in the cases where it is instinctive and\nhabitual, it passes over, so soon as it is challenged, into the other\ncategory, and finds a basis for itself in some form of opinion. But,\nsays the Reply, we have no responsibility for our opinions: we cannot\nhelp forming them according to the evidence as it presents itself to us.\nObserve, the doctrine embraces every kind of opinion, and embraces all\nalike, opinion on subjects where we like or dislike, as well as upon\nsubjects where we merely affirm or deny in some medium absolutely\ncolorless. For, if a distinction be taken between the colorless and the\ncolored medium, between conclusions to which passion or propensity or\nimagination inclines us, and conclusions to which these have nothing to\nsay, then the whole ground will be cut away from under the feet of the\nReply, and it will have to build again _ab initio_. Let us try this by\na test case. A father who has believed his son to have been through\nlife upright, suddenly finds that charges are made from various quarters\nagainst his integrity. Or a friend, greatly dependent for the work\nof his life on the co-operation of another friend, is told that that\ncomrade is counterworking and betraying him. I make no assumption now\nas to the evidence or the result; but I ask which of them could approach\nthe investigation without feeling a desire to be able to acquit? And\nwhat shall we say of the desire to condemn? Would Elizabeth have had\nno leaning towards finding Mary Stuart implicated in a conspiracy? Did\nEnglish judges and juries approach with an unbiassed mind the trials for\nthe Popish plot? Were the opinions formed by the English Parliament on\nthe Treaty of Limerick formed without the intervention of the will? Did\nNapoleon judge according to the evidence when he acquitted himself in\nthe matter of the Due d' Enghien? Does the intellect sit in a solitary\nchamber, like Galileo in the palace of the Vatican, and pursue celestial\nobservation all untouched, while the turmoil of earthly business is\nraging everywhere around? According to the Reply, it must be a mistake\nto suppose that there is anywhere in the world such a thing as bias, or\nprejudice, or prepossession: they are words without meaning in regard to\nour judgments, for even if they could raise a clamor from without, the\nintellect sits within, in an atmosphere of serenity, and, like Justice,\nis deaf and blind, as well as calm.\n\nIn addition to all other faults, I hold that this philosophy, or\nphantasm of philosophy, is eminently retrogressive. Human nature, in its\ncompound of flesh and spirit, becomes more complex with the progress of\ncivilization; with the steady multiplication of wants, and of means for\ntheir supply. With complication, introspection has largely extended, and\nI believe that, as observation extends its field, so far from isolating\nthe intelligence and making it autocratic, it tends more and more to\nenhance and multiply the infinitely subtle, as well as the broader and\nmore palpable modes, in which the interaction of the human faculties is\ncarried on. Who among us has not had occasion to observe, in the course\nof his experience, how largely the intellectual power of a man is\naffected by the demands of life on his moral powers, and how they open\nand grow, or dry up and dwindle, according to the manner in which those\ndemands are met.\n\nGenius itself, however purely a conception of the intellect, is not\nexempt from the strong influences of joy and suffering, love and hatred,\nhope and fear, in the development of its powers. It may be that Homer,\nShakespeare, Goethe, basking upon the whole in the sunshine of life,\ndrew little supplementary force from its trials and agitations. But\nthe history of one not less wonderful than any of these, the career of\nDante, tells a different tale; and one of the latest and most searching\ninvestigators of his history (Scartazzini, Dante Alighieri, _seine zeit,\nsein leben, und seine werkes_, B. II. Ch. 5, p. 119; also pp. 438,\n9. Biel, 1869) tells and shows us, how the experience of his life\nco-operated with his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities to\nmake him what he was. Under the three great heads of love, belief, and\npatriotism, his life was a continued course of ecstatic or agonizing\ntrials. The strain of these trials was discipline; discipline was\nexperience; and experience was elevation. No reader of his greatest work\nwill, I believe, hold with the Reply that his thoughts, conclusions,\njudgments, were simple results of an automatic process, in which the\nwill and affections had no share, that reasoning operations are like the\nwhir of a clock running down, and we can no more arrest the process\nor alter the conclusion than the wheels can stop the movement or the\nnoise.*\n\n     * I possess the confession of an illiterate criminal, made,\n     I think, in 1834, under the following circumstances: The new\n     poor law had just been passed in England, and it required\n     persons needing relief to go into the workhouse as a\n     condition of receiving it. In some parts of the country,\n     this provision produced a profound popular panic. The man in\n     question was destitute at the time. He was (I think) an old\n     widower with four very young sons. He rose in the night and\n     strangled them all, one after another, with a blue\n     handkerchief, not from want of fatherly affection, but to\n     keep them out of the workhouse. The confession of this\n     peasant, simple in phrase, but intensely impassioned,\n     strongly reminds me of the Ugolino of Dante, and appears to\n     make some approach to its sublimity. Such, in given\n     circumstances, is the effect of moral agony on mental power.\n\nThe doctrine taught in the Reply, that belief is, as a general, nay,\nuniversal law, independent of the will, surely proves, when examined, to\nbe a plausibility of the shallowest kind. Even in arithmetic, if a boy,\nthrough dislike of his employment, and consequent lack of attention,\nbrings out a wrong result for his sum, it can hardly be said that his\nconclusion is absolutely and in all respects independent of his will.\nMoving onward, point by point, toward the centre of the argument, I will\nnext take an illustration from mathematics. It has (I apprehend) been\ndemonstrated that the relation of the diameter to the circumference of\na circle is not susceptible of full numerical expression. Yet, from time\nto time, treatises are published which boldly announce that they set\nforth the quadrature of the circle. I do not deny that this may be\npurely intellectual error; but would it not, on the other hand, be\nhazardous to assert that no grain of egotism or ambition has ever\nentered into the composition of any one of such treatises? I have\nselected these instances as, perhaps, the most favorable that can be\nfound to the doctrine of the Reply. But the truth is that, if we\nset aside matters of trivial import, the enormous majority of human\njudgments are those into which the biassing power off likes and dislikes\nmore or less largely enters. I admit, indeed, that the illative faculty\nworks under rules upon which choice and inclination ought to exercise no\ninfluence whatever. But even if it were granted that in fact the\nfaculty of discourse is exempted from all such influence within its own\nprovince, yet we come no nearer to the mark, because that faculty has\nto work upon materials supplied to it by other faculties; it draws\nconclusions according to premises, and the question has to be determined\nwhether our conceptions set forth in those premises are or are not\ninfluenced by moral causes. For, if they be so influenced, then in vain\nwill be the proof that the understanding has dealt loyally and exactly\nwith the materials it had to work upon; inasmuch as, although the\nintellectual process be normal in itself, the operation may have been\ntainted _ab initio_ by coloring and distorting influences which have\nfalsified the primary conceptions.\n\nLet me now take an illustration from the extreme opposite quarter to\nthat which I first drew upon. The system called Thuggism, represented\nin the practice of the Thugs, taught that the act, which we describe\nas murder, was innocent. Was this an honest error? Was it due, in its\nauthors as well as in those who blindly followed them, to an automatic\nprocess of thought, in which the will was not consulted, and which\naccordingly could entail no responsibility? If it was, then it is plain\nthat the whole foundations, not of belief, but of social morality, are\nbroken up. If it was not, then the sweeping doctrine of the present\nwriter on the necessary blamelessness of erroneous conclusions tumbles\nto the ground like a house of cards at the breath of the child who built\nit.\n\nIn truth, the pages of the Reply, and the Letter which has more recently\nfollowed it,* themselves demonstrate that what the writer has asserted\nwholesale he overthrows and denies in detail.\n\n     * North American Review for January, 1888, \"Another Letter\n     to Dr. Field.\"\n\n\"You will admit,\" says the Reply (p. 477), \"that he who now persecutes\nfor opinion's sake is infamous.\" But why? Suppose he thinks that by\npersecution he can bring a man from soul-destroying falsehood to\nsoul-saving truth, this opinion may reflect on his intellectual\ndebility: but that is his misfortune, not his fault. His brain has\nthought without asking his consent; he has believed or disbelieved\nwithout an effort of the will (p. 476). Yet the very writer, who has\nthus established his title to think, is the first to hurl at him an\nanathema for thinking. And again, in the Letter to Dr. Field (N. A. R.,\nvol. 146, p. 33), \"the dogma of eternal pain\" is described as \"that\ninfamy of infamies.\" I am not about to discuss the subject of future\nretribution. If I were, it would be my first duty to show that this\nwriter has not adequately considered either the scope of his own\narguments (which in no way solve the difficulties he presents) or the\nmeaning of his words; and my second would be to recommend his perusal of\nwhat Bishop Butler has suggested on this head. But I am at present on\nground altogether different. I am trying another issue. This author says\nwe believe or disbelieve without the action of the will, and,\nconsequently, belief or disbelief is not the proper subject of praise or\nblame. And yet, according to the very same authority, the dogma of\neternal pain is what?--not \"an error of errors,\" but an \"infamy of\ninfamies;\" and though to hold a negative may not be a subject of moral\nreproach, yet to hold the affirmative may. Truly it may be asked, is not\nthis a fountain which sends forth at once sweet waters and bitter?\n\nOnce more. I will pass away from tender ground, and will endeavor to\nlodge a broader appeal to the enlightened judgment of the author. Says\nOdysseus in the Illiad (B. II.) [--Greek--]: and a large part of the\nworld, stretching this sentiment beyond its original meaning, have held\nthat the root of civil power is not in the community, but in its head.\nIn opposition to this doctrine, the American written Constitution, and\nthe entire American tradition, teach the right of a nation to\nself-government. And these propositions, which have divided and still\ndivide the world, open out respectively into vast systems of\nirreconcilable ideas and laws, practices and habits of mind. Will any\nrational man, above all will any American, contend that these\nconflicting systems have been adopted, upheld, and enforced on one side\nand the other, in the daylight of pure reasoning only, and that moral,\nor immoral, causes have had nothing to do with their adoption? That the\nintellect has worked impartially, like a steam-engine, and that\nselfishness, love of fame, love of money, love of power, envy, wrath,\nand malice, or again bias, in its least noxious form, have never had\nanything to do with generating the opposing movements, or the frightful\ncollisions in which they have resulted? If we say that they have not, we\ncontradict the universal judgment of mankind. If we say they have, then\nmental processes are not automatic, but may be influenced by the will\nand by the passions, affections, habits, fancies that sway the will; and\nthis writer will not have advanced a step toward proving the universal\ninnocence of error, until he has shown that propositions of religion are\nessentially unlike almost all other propositions, and that no man ever\nhas been, or from the nature of the case can be, affected in their\nacceptance or rejection by moral causes.*\n\n     * The chief part of these observations were written before I\n     had received the January number of the Review, with Col.\n     Ingersoll's additional letter to Dr. Field. Much, of this\n     letter is specially pointed at Dr. Field, who can defend\n     himself, and at Calvin, whose ideas I certainly cannot\n     undertake to defend all along the line. I do not see that\n     the Letter adds to those, the most salient, points of the\n     earlier article which I have endeavored to select for\n     animadversion.\n\nTo sum up. There are many passages in these noteworthy papers, which,\ntaken by themselves, are calculated to command warm sympathy. Towards\nthe close of his final, or latest letter, the writer expresses himself\nas follows (N. A. R., vol. 146, p. 46.):\n\n\"Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is it\nnecessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great enough to\ndemand a sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and death, of good\nand evil, have never yet been solved.\" How good, how wise are these\nwords! But coming at the close of the controversy, have they not some of\nthe ineffectual features of a death-bed repentance? They can hardly\nbe said to represent in all points the rules under which the pages\npreceding them have been composed; or he, who so justly says that we\nought not to assert what we do not know, could hardly have laid down\nthe law as we find it a few pages earlier (ibid, p. 40) when it is\npronounced that \"an infinite God has no excuse for leaving his children\nin doubt and darkness.\" Candor and upright intention are indeed every\nwhere manifest amidst the flashing corruscations which really compose\nthe staple of the articles. Candor and upright intention also impose\nupon a commentator the duty of formulating his animadversions. I sum\nthem up under two heads. Whereas we are placed in an atmosphere of\nmystery, relieved only by a little sphere of light round each of us,\nlike a clearing in an American forest (which this writer has so well\ndescribed), and rarely can see farther than is necessary for the\ndirection of our own conduct from day to day, we find here, assumed by\na particular person, the character of an universal judge without appeal.\nAnd whereas the highest self-restraint is necessary in these dark but,\ntherefore, all the more exciting inquiries, in order to maintain the\never quivering balance of our faculties, this rider chooses to ride an\nunbroken horse, and to throw the reins upon his neck. I have endeavored\nto give a sample of the results.\n\nW. E. Gladstone.\n\n\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL TO MR. GLADSTONE.\n\nTo The Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, M. P.:\n\nMy Dear Sir:\n\nAt the threshold of this Reply, it gives me pleasure to say that for\nyour intellect and character I have the greatest respect; and let me\nsay further, that I shall consider your arguments, assertions, and\ninferences entirely apart from your personality--apart from the exalted\nposition that you occupy in the estimation of the civilized world. I\ngladly acknowledge the inestimable services that you have rendered, not\nonly to England, but to mankind. Most men are chilled and narrowed by\nthe snows of age; their thoughts are darkened by the approach of night.\nBut you, for many years, have hastened toward the light, and your mind\nhas been \"an autumn that grew the more by reaping.\"\n\nUnder no circumstances could I feel justified in taking advantage of the\nadmissions that you have made as to the \"errors\" the \"misfeasance\" the\n\"infirmities and the perversity\" of the Christian Church.\n\nIt is perfectly apparent that churches, being only aggregations of\npeople, contain the prejudice, the ignorance, the vices and the\nvirtues of ordinary human beings. The perfect cannot be made out of the\nimperfect.\n\nA man is not necessarily a great mathematician because he admits the\ncorrectness of the multiplication table. The best creed may be believed\nby the worst of the human race. Neither the crimes nor the virtues\nof the church tend to prove or disprove the supernatural origin of\nreligion. The massacre of St. Bartholomew tends no more to establish the\ninspiration of the Scriptures, than the bombardment of Alexandria.\n\nBut there is one thing that cannot be admitted, and that is your\nstatement that the constitution of man is in a \"warped, impaired, and\ndislocated condition,\" and that \"these deformities indispose men to\nbelief.\" Let us examine this.\n\nWe say that a thing is \"warped\" that was once nearer level, flat, or\nstraight; that it is \"impaired\" when it was once nearer perfect, and\nthat it is \"dislocated\" when once it was united. Consequently, you have\nsaid that at some time the human constitution was unwarped, unimpaired,\nand with each part working in harmony with all. You seem to believe\nin the degeneracy of man, and that our unfortunate race, starting at\nperfection, has traveled downward through all the wasted years.\n\nIt is hardly possible that our ancestors were perfect. If history proves\nanything, it establishes the fact that civilization was not first, and\nsavagery afterwards. Certainly the tendency of man is not now toward\nbarbarism. There must have been a time when language was unknown,\nwhen lips had never formed a word. That which man knows, man must have\nlearned. The victories of our race have been slowly and painfully won.\nIt is a long distance from the gibberish of the savage to the sonnets\nof Shakespeare--a long and weary road from the pipe of Pan to the great\norchestra voiced with every tone from the glad warble of a mated bird\nto the hoarse thunder of the sea. The road is long that lies between the\ndiscordant cries uttered by the barbarian over the gashed body of\nhis foe and the marvelous music of Wagner and Beethoven. It is hardly\npossible to conceive of the years that lie between the caves in which\ncrouched our naked ancestors crunching the bones of wild beasts, and the\nhome of a civilized man with its comforts, its articles of luxury and\nuse,--with its works of art, with its enriched and illuminated walls.\nThink of the billowed years that must have rolled between these shores.\nThink of the vast distance that man has slowly groped from the dark dens\nand lairs of ignorance and fear to the intellectual conquests of our\nday.\n\nIs it true that these deformities, these warped, impaired, and\ndislocated constitutions indispose men to belief? Can we in this\nway account for the doubts entertained by the intellectual leaders of\nmankind?\n\nIt will not do, in this age and time, to account for unbelief in this\ndeformed and dislocated way. The exact opposite must be true. Ignorance\nand credulity sustain the relation of cause and effect. Ignorance is\nsatisfied with assertion, with appearance. As man rises in the scale of\nintelligence he demands evidence. He begins to look back of appearance.\nHe asks the priest for reasons. The most ignorant part of Christendom is\nthe most orthodox.\n\nYou have simply repeated a favorite assertion of the clergy, to the\neffect that man rejects the gospel because he is naturally depraved and\nhard of heart--because, owing to the sin of Adam and Eve, he has fallen\nfrom the perfection and purity of Paradise to that \"impaired\" condition\nin which he is satisfied with the filthy rags of reason, observation and\nexperience.\n\nThe truth is, that what you call unbelief is only a higher and holier\nfaith. Millions of men reject Christianity because of its cruelty. The\nBible was never rejected by the cruel. It has been upheld by countless\ntyrants--by the dealers in human flesh--by the destroyers of nations--by\nthe enemies of intelligence--by the stealers of babes and the whippers\nof women.\n\nIt is also true that it has been held as sacred by the good, the\nself-denying, the virtuous and the loving, who clung to the sacred\nvolume on account of the good it contains and in spite of all its\ncruelties and crimes.\n\nYou are mistaken when you say that all \"the faults of all the Christian\nbodies and subdivisions of bodies have been carefully raked together,\"\nin my Reply to Dr. Field, \"and made part and parcel of the indictment\nagainst the divine scheme of salvation.\"\n\nNo thoughtful man pretends that any fault of any Christian body can\nbe used as an argument against what you call the \"divine scheme of\nredemption.\"\n\nI find in your Remarks the frequent charge that I am guilty of making\nassertions and leaving them to stand without the assistance of argument\nor fact, and it may be proper, at this particular point, to inquire how\nyou know that there is \"a divine scheme of redemption.\"\n\nMy objections to this \"divine scheme of redemption\" are: _first_, that\nthere is not the slightest evidence that it is divine; _second_, that\nit is not in any sense a \"scheme,\" human or divine; and _third_, that it\ncannot, by any possibility, result in the redemption of a human being.\n\nIt cannot be divine, because it has no foundation in the nature of\nthings, and is not in accordance with reason. It is based on the idea\nthat right and wrong are the expression of an arbitrary will, and not\nwords applied to and descriptive of acts in the light of consequences.\nIt rests upon the absurdity called \"pardon,\" upon the assumption that\nwhen a crime has been committed justice will be satisfied with the\npunishment of the innocent. One person may suffer, or reap a benefit, in\nconsequence of the act of another, but no man can be justly punished for\nthe crime, or justly rewarded for the virtues, of another. A \"scheme\"\nthat punishes an innocent man for the vices of another can hardly be\ncalled divine. Can a murderer find justification in the agonies of his\nvictim? There is no vicarious vice; there is no vicarious virtue. For me\nit is hard to understand how a just and loving being can charge one of\nhis children with the vices, or credit him with the virtues, of another.\n\nAnd why should we call anything a \"divine scheme\" that has been a\nfailure from the \"fall of man\" until the present moment? What race, what\nnation, has been redeemed through the instrumentality of this \"divine\nscheme\"? Have not the subjects of redemption been for the most part the\nenemies of civilization? Has not almost every valuable book since the\ninvention of printing been denounced by the believers in the \"divine\nscheme\"? Intelligence, the development of the mind, the discoveries of\nscience, the inventions of genius, the cultivation of the imagination\nthrough art and music, and the practice of virtue will redeem the human\nrace. These are the saviors of mankind.\n\nYou admit that the \"Christian churches have by their exaggerations and\nshortcomings, and by their faults of conduct, contributed to bring about\na condition of hostility to religious faith.\"\n\nIf one wishes to know the worst that man has done, all that power guided\nby cruelty can do, all the excuses that can be framed for the commission\nof every crime, the infinite difference that can exist between that\nwhich is professed and that which is practiced, the marvelous malignity\nof meekness, the arrogance of humility and the savagery of what is known\nas \"universal love,\" let him read the history of the Christian Church.\n\nYet, I not only admit that millions of Christians have been honest in\nthe expression of their opinions, but that they have been among the best\nand noblest of our race.\n\nAnd it is further admitted that a creed should be examined apart from\nthe conduct of those who have assented to its truth. The church should\nbe judged as a whole, and its faults should be accounted for either by\nthe weakness of human nature, or by reason of some defect or vice in the\nreligion taught,--or by both.\n\nIs there anything in the Christian religion--anything in what you are\npleased to call the \"Sacred Scriptures\" tending to cause the crimes and\natrocities that have been committed by the church?\n\nIt seems to be natural for man to defend himself and the ones he loves.\nThe father slays the man who would kill his child--he defends the body.\nThe Christian father burns the heretic--he defends the soul.\n\nIf \"orthodox Christianity\" be true, an infidel has not the right to\nlive. Every book in which the Bible is attacked should be burned with\nits author. Why hesitate to burn a man whose constitution is \"warped,\nimpaired and dislocated,\" for a few moments, when hundreds of others\nwill be saved from eternal flames?\n\nIn Christianity you will find the cause of persecution. The idea\nthat belief is essential to salvation--this ignorant and merciless\ndogma--accounts for the atrocities of the church. This absurd\ndeclaration built the dungeons, used the instruments of torture, erected\nthe scaffolds and lighted the fagots of a thousand years.\n\nWhat, I pray you, is the \"heavenly treasure\" in the keeping of your\nchurch? Is it a belief in an infinite God? That was believed thousands\nof years before the serpent tempted Eve. Is it the belief in the\nimmortality of the soul? That is far older. Is it that man should treat\nhis neighbor as himself? That is more ancient. What is the treasure in\nthe keeping of the church? Let me tell you. It is this: That there is\nbut one true religion--Christianity,--and that all others are false;\nthat the prophets, and Christs, and priests of all others have been and\nare impostors, or the victims of insanity; that the Bible is the one\ninspired book--the one authentic record of the words of God; that all\nmen are naturally depraved and deserve to be punished with unspeakable\ntorments forever; that there is only one path that leads to heaven,\nwhile countless highways lead to hell; that there is only one name under\nheaven by which a human being can be saved; that we must believe in\nthe Lord Jesus Christ; that this life, with its few and fleeting years,\nfixes the fate of man; that the few will be saved and the many forever\nlost. This is \"the heavenly treasure\" within the keeping of your church.\n\nAnd this \"treasure\" has been guarded by the cherubim of persecution,\nwhose flaming swords were wet for many centuries with the best and\nbravest blood. It has been guarded by cunning, by hypocrisy, by\nmendacity, by honesty, by calumniating the generous, by maligning the\ngood, by thumbscrews and racks, by charity and love, by robbery and\nassassination, by poison and fire, by the virtues of the ignorant and\nthe vices of the learned, by the violence of mobs and the whirlwinds of\nwar, by every hope and every fear, by every cruelty and every crime, and\nby all there is of the wild beast in the heart of man.\n\nWith great propriety it may be asked: In the keeping of which church is\nthis \"heavenly treasure\"? Did the Catholics have it, and was it taken\nby Luther? Did Henry the VIII. seize it, and is it now in the keeping\nof the Church of England? Which of the warring sects in America has this\ntreasure; or have we, in this country, only the \"rust and cankers\"? Is\nit in an Episcopal Church, that refuses to associate with a colored\nman for whom Christ died, and who is good enough for the society of the\nangelic host?\n\nBut wherever this \"heavenly treasure\" has been, about it have always\nhovered the Stymphalian birds of superstition, thrusting their brazen\nbeaks and claws deep into the flesh of honest men.\n\nYou were pleased to point out as the particular line justifying your\nassertion \"that denunciation, sarcasm, and invective constitute the\nstaple of my work,\" that line in which I speak of those who expect to\nreceive as alms an eternity of joy, and add: \"I take this as a specimen\nof the mode of statement which permeates the whole.\"\n\nDr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying: \"I am glad that I know\nyou, _even though some of my brethren look upon you as a monster,\nbecause of your unbelief_.\"\n\nIn reply I simply said: \"The statement in your Letter that some of your\nbrethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief tends\nto show that those who love God are not always the friends of their\nfellow-men. Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to\nbe eternally damned--that they are by nature depraved--that there is no\nsoundness or health in them, can be so arrogantly egotistic as to look\nupon others as monsters? And yet some of your brethren, who regard\nunbelievers as infamous, rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of\nanother, and expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy.\" Is there any\ndenunciation, sarcasm or invective in this?\n\nWhy should one who admits that he himself is totally depraved call\nany other man, by way of reproach, a monster? Possibly, he might be\njustified in addressing him as a fellow-monster.\n\nI am not satisfied with your statement that \"the Christian receives as\nalms all whatsoever he receives at all.\" Is it true that man deserves\nonly punishment? Does the man who makes the world better, who works and\nbattles for the right, and dies for the good of his fellow-men, deserve\nnothing but pain and anguish? Is happiness a gift or a consequence? Is\nheaven only a well-conducted poorhouse? Are the angels in their highest\nestate nothing but happy paupers? Must all the redeemed feel that they\nare in heaven simply because there was a miscarriage of justice? Will\nthe lost be the only ones who will know that the right thing has been\ndone, and will they alone appreciate the \"ethical elements of religion\"?\nWill they repeat the words that you have quoted: \"Mercy and judgment are\nmet together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other\"? or will\nthose words be spoken by the redeemed as they joyously contemplate the\nwrithings of the lost?\n\nNo one will dispute \"that in the discussion of important questions\ncalmness and sobriety are essential.\" But solemnity need not be carried\nto the verge of mental paralysis. In the search for truth,--that\neverything in nature seems to hide,--man needs the assistance of all his\nfaculties. All the senses should be awake. Humor should carry a torch,\nWit should give its sudden light, Candor should hold the scales, Reason,\nthe final arbiter, should put his royal stamp on every fact, and Memory,\nwith a miser's care, should keep and guard the mental gold.\n\nThe church has always despised the man of humor, hated laughter, and\nencouraged the lethargy of solemnity. It is not willing that the mind\nshould subject its creed to every test of truth. It wishes to overawe.\nIt does not say, \"He that hath a mind to think, let him think;\" but, \"He\nthat hath ears to hear, let him hear.\" The church has always abhorred\nwit,--that is to say, it does not enjoy being struck by the lightning\nof the soul. The foundation of wit is logic, and it has always been the\nenemy of the supernatural, the solemn and absurd.\n\nYou express great regret that no one at the present day is able to\nwrite like Pascal. You admire his wit and tenderness, and the unique,\nbrilliant, and fascinating manner in which he treated the profoundest\nand most complex themes. Sharing in your admiration and regret, I\ncall your attention to what might be called one of his religious\ngeneralizations: \"Disease is the natural state of a Christian.\"\nCertainly it cannot be said that I have ever mingled the profound and\ncomplex in a more fascinating manner.\n\nAnother instance is given of the \"tumultuous method in which I conduct,\nnot, indeed, my argument, but my case.\"\n\nDr. Field had drawn a distinction between superstition and religion, to\nwhich I replied: \"You are shocked at the Hindoo mother when she gives\nher child to death at the supposed command of her God. What do you think\nof Abraham, of Jephthah? What is your opinion of Jehovah himself?\"\n\nThese simple questions seem to have excited you to an unusual degree,\nand you ask in words of some severity:\n\n\"Whether this is the tone in which controversies ought be carried on?\"\nAnd you say that--\"not only is the name of Jehovah encircled in the\nheart of every believer with the pro-foundest reverence and love, but\nthat the Christian religion teaches, through the incarnation, a personal\nrelation with God so lofty that it can only be approached in a deep,\nreverential calm.\" You admit that \"a person who deems a given religion\nto be wicked, may be led onward by logical consistency to impugn in\nstrong terms the character of the author and object of that religion,\"\nbut you insist that such person is \"bound by the laws of social morality\nand decency to consider well the terms and meaning of his indictment.\"\n\nWas there any lack of \"reverential calm\" in my question? I gave no\nopinion, drew no indictment, but simply asked for the opinion of\nanother. Was that a violation of the \"laws of social morality and\ndecency\"?\n\nIt is not necessary for me to discuss this question with you. It has\nbeen settled by Jehovah himself. You probably remember the account given\nin the eighteenth chapter of I. Kings, of a contest between the prophets\nof Baal and the prophets of Jehovah. There were four hundred and fifty\nprophets of the false God who endeavored to induce their deity to\nconsume with fire from heaven the sacrifice upon his altar. According\nto the account, they were greatly in earnest. They certainly appeared to\nhave some hope of success, but the fire did not descend.\n\n\"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said 'Cry\naloud, for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he\nis in a journey, or peradventure, he sleepeth and must be awaked.'\"\n\nDo you consider that the proper way to attack the God of another? Did\nnot Elijah know that the name of Baal \"was encircled in the heart of\nevery believer with the profoundest reverence and love\"? Did he \"violate\nthe laws of social morality and decency\"?\n\nBut Jehovah and Elijah did not stop at this point. They were not\nsatisfied with mocking the prophets of Baal, but they brought them down\nto the brook Kishon--four hundred and fifty of them--and there they\nmurdered every one.\n\nDoes it appear to you that on that occasion, on the banks of the brook\nKishon--\"Mercy and judgment met together, and that righteousness and\npeace kissed each other\"?\n\nThe question arises: Has every one who reads the Old Testament the right\nto express his thought as to the character of Jehovah? You will admit\nthat as he reads his mind will receive some impression, and that when\nhe finishes the \"inspired volume\" he will have some opinion as to the\ncharacter of Jehovah. Has he the right to express that opinion? Is the\nBible a revelation from God to man? Is it a revelation to the man who\nreads it, or to the man who does not read it? If to the man who reads\nit, has he the right to give to others the revelation that God has given\nto him? If he comes to the conclusion at which you have arrived,--that\nJehovah is God,--has he the right to express that opinion?\n\nIf he concludes, as I have done, that Jehovah is a myth, must he refrain\nfrom giving his honest thought? Christians do not hesitate to give their\nopinion of heretics, philosophers, and infidels. They are not restrained\nby the \"laws of social morality and decency.\" They have persecuted to\nthe extent of their power, and their Jehovah pronounced upon unbelievers\nevery curse capable of being expressed in the Hebrew dialect. At this\nmoment, thousands of missionaries are attacking the gods of the heathen\nworld, and heaping contempt on the religion of others.\n\nBut as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a moment\nexamine this deity of the ancient Jews.\n\nThere are several tests of character. It may be that all the virtues can\nbe expressed in the word \"kindness,\" and that nearly all the vices are\ngathered together in the word \"cruelty.\"\n\nLaughter is a test of character. When we know what a man laughs at,\nwe know what he really is. Does he laugh at misfortune, at poverty,\nat honesty in rags, at industry without food, at the agonies of his\nfellow-men? Does he laugh when he sees the convict clothed in the\ngarments of shame--at the criminal on the scaffold? Does he rub his\nhands with glee over the embers of an enemy's home? Think of a man\ncapable ol laughing while looking at Marguerite in the prison cell with\nher dead babe by her side. What must be the real character of a God who\nlaughs at the calamities of his children, mocks at their fears, their\ndesolation, their distress and anguish? Would an infinitely loving God\nhold his ignorant children in derision? Would he pity, or mock? Save, or\ndestroy? Educate, or exterminate? Would he lead them with gentle hands\ntoward the light, or lie in wait for them like a wild beast? Think of\nthe echoes of Jehovah's laughter in the rayless caverns of the eternal\nprison. Can a good man mock at the children of deformity? Will he deride\nthe misshapen? Your Jehovah deformed some of his own children, and then\nheld them up to scorn and hatred. These divine mistakes--these blunders\nof the infinite--were not allowed to enter the temple erected in honor\nof him who had dishonored them. Does a kind father mock his deformed\nchild? What would you think of a mother who would deride and taunt her\nmisshapen babe?\n\nThere is another test. How does a man use power? Is he gentle or cruel?\nDoes he defend the weak, succor the oppressed, or trample on the fallen?\n\nIf you will read again the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, you\nwill find how Jehovah, the compassionate, whose name is enshrined in so\nmany hearts, threatened to use his power.\n\n\"The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and\nwith an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword,\nand with blasting and mildew. And thy heaven that is over thy head shall\nbe brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord shall\nmake the rain of thy land powder and dust.\".... \"And thy carcass shall\nbe meat unto all fowls of the air and unto the beasts of the earth.\"....\n\"The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness. And thou shalt\neat of the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy\ndaughters. The tender and delicate woman among you,... her eye shall be\nevil... toward her young one and toward her children which she shall\nbear; for she shall eat them.\"\n\nShould it be found that these curses were in fact uttered by the God of\nhell, and that the translators had made a mistake in attributing them\nto Jehovah, could you say that the sentiments expressed are inconsistent\nwith the supposed character of the Infinite Fiend?\n\nA nation is judged by its laws--by the punishment it inflicts. The\nnation that punishes ordinary offences with death is regarded as\nbarbarous, and the nation that tortures before it kills is denounced as\nsavage.\n\nWhat can you say of the government of Jehovah, in which death was the\npenalty for hundreds of offences?--death for the expression of an honest\nthought--death for touching with a good intention a sacred ark--death\nfor making hair oil--for eating shew bread--for imitating incense and\nperfumery?\n\nIn the history of the world a more cruel code cannot be found. Crimes\nseem to have been invented to gratify a fiendish desire to shed the\nblood of men.\n\nThere is another test: How does a man treat the animals in his\npower--his faithful horse--his patient ox--his loving dog?\n\nHow did Jehovah treat the animals in Egypt? Would a loving God, with\nfierce hail from heaven, bruise and kill the innocent cattle for the\ncrimes of their owners? Would he torment, torture and destroy them for\nthe sins of men?\n\nJehovah was a God of blood. His altar was adorned with the horns of\na beast. He established a religion in which every temple was a\nslaughter-house, and every priest a butcher--a religion that demanded\nthe death of the first-born, and delighted in the destruction of life.\n\nThere is still another test: The civilized man gives to others the\nrights that he claims for himself. He believes in the liberty of thought\nand expression, and abhors persecution for conscience sake.\n\nDid Jehovah believe in the innocence of thought and the liberty of\nexpression? Kindness is found with true greatness. Tyranny lodges only\nin the breast of the small, the narrow, the shriveled and the selfish.\nDid Jehovah teach and practice generosity? Was he a believer in\nreligious liberty? If he was and is, in fact, God, he must have known,\neven four thousand years ago, that worship must be free, and that he who\nis forced upon his knees cannot, by any possibility, have the spirit of\nprayer.\n\nLet me call your attention to a few passages in the thirteenth chapter\nof Deuteronomy:\n\n\"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,... thou shalt\nnot consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity\nhim, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; but thou\nshalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to\ndeath, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone\nhim with stones, that he die.\"\n\nIs it possible for you to find in the literature of this world more\nawful passages than these? Did ever savagery, with strange and uncouth\nmarks, with awkward forms of beast and bird, pollute the dripping walls\nof caves with such commands? Are these the words of infinite mercy? When\nthey were uttered, did \"righteousness and peace kiss each other\"? How\ncan any loving man or woman \"encircle the name of Jehovah\"--author of\nthese words--\"with profoundest reverence and love\"? Do I rebel because\nmy \"constitution is warped, impaired and dislocated\"? Is it because of\n\"total depravity\" that I denounce the brutality of Jehovah? If my heart\nwere only good--if I loved my neighbor as myself--would I then see\ninfinite mercy in these hideous words? Do I lack \"reverential calm\"?\n\nThese frightful passages, like coiled adders, were in the hearts of\nJehovah's chosen people when they crucified \"the Sinless Man.\"\n\nJehovah did not tell the husband to reason with his wife. She was to\nbe answered only with death. She was to be bruised and mangled to a\nbleeding, shapeless mass of quivering flesh, for having breathed an\nhonest thought.\n\nIf there is anything of importance in this world, it is the family, the\nhome, the marriage of true souls, the equality of husband and wife--the\ntrue republicanism of the heart--the real democracy of the fireside.\n\nLet us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis:\n\n\"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy\nconception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire\nshall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.\"\n\nNever will I worship any being who added to the sorrows and agonies of\nmaternity. Never will I bow to any God who introduced slavery into every\nhome--who made the wife a slave and the husband a tyrant.\n\nThe Old Testament shows that Jehovah, like his creators, held women\nin contempt. They were regarded as property: \"Thou shalt not covet thy\nneighbor's wife,--nor his ox.\"\n\nWhy should a pure woman worship a God who upheld polygamy? Let us finish\nthis subject: The institution of slavery involves all crimes. Jehovah\nwas a believer in slavery. This is enough. Why should any civilized man\nworship him? Why should his name \"be encircled with love and tenderness\nin any human heart\"?\n\nHe believed that man could become the property of man--that it was right\nfor his chosen people to deal in human flesh--to buy and sell mothers\nand babes. He taught that the captives were the property of the captors\nand directed his chosen people to kill, to enslave, or to pollute.\n\nIn the presence of these commandments, what becomes of the fine\nsaying, \"Love thy neighbor as thyself\"? What shall we say of a God who\nestablished slavery, and then had the effrontery to say, \"Thou shalt not\nsteal\"?\n\nIt may be insisted that Jehovah is the Father of all--and that he\nhas \"made of one blood all the nations of the earth.\" How then can we\naccount for the wars of extermination? Does not the commandment \"Love\nthy neighbor as thyself,\" apply to nations precisely the same as to\nindividuals? Nations, like individuals, become great by the practice of\nvirtue. How did Jehovah command his people to treat their neighbors?\n\nHe commanded his generals to destroy all, men, women and babes: \"Thou\nshalt save nothing alive that breatheth.\"\n\n\"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour\nflesh.\"\n\n\"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the\ntongue of thy dogs in the same.\"\n\n\"... I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of\nserpents of the dust....\"\n\n\"The sword without and terror within shall destroy both the young man\nand the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of gray hairs.\"\n\nIs it possible that these words fell from the lips of the Most Merciful?\n\nYou may reply that the inhabitants of Canaan were unfit to live--that\nthey were ignorant and cruel. Why did not Jehovah, the \"Father of all,\"\ngive them the Ten Commandments? Why did he leave them without a bible,\nwithout prophets and priests? Why did he shower all the blessings of\nrevelation on one poor and wretched tribe, and leave the great world\nin ignorance and crime--and why did he order his favorite children to\nmurder those whom he had neglected?\n\nBy the question I asked of Dr. Field, the intention was to show that\nJephthah, when he sacrificed his daughter to Jehovah, was as much the\nslave of superstition as is the Hindoo mother when she throws her babe\ninto the yellow waves of the Ganges.\n\nIt seems that this savage Jephthah was in direct communication with\nJehovah at Mizpeh, and that he made a vow unto the Lord and said:\n\n\"If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine\nhands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of\nmy house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon,\nshall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.\"\n\nIn the first place, it is perfectly clear that the sacrifice intended\nwas a human sacrifice, from the words: \"that whatsoever cometh forth\nof the doors of my house to meet me.\" Some human being--wife,\ndaughter, friend, was expected to come. According to the account, his\ndaughter--his only daughter--his only child--came first.\n\nIf Jephthah was in communication with God, why did God allow this man\nto make this vow; and why did he allow the daughter that he loved to be\nfirst, and why did he keep silent and allow the vow to be kept, while\nflames devoured the daughter's flesh?\n\nSt. Paul is not authority. He praises Samuel, the man who hewed Agag in\npieces; David, who compelled hundreds to pass under the saws and\nharrows of death, and many others who shed the blood of the innocent and\nhelpless. Paul is an unsafe guide. He who commends the brutalities of\nthe past, sows the seeds of future crimes.\n\nIf \"believers are not obliged to approve of the conduct of Jephthah\"\nare they free to condemn the conduct of Jehovah? If you will read the\naccount you will see that the \"spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah\"\nwhen he made the cruel vow. If Paul did not commend Jephthah for keeping\nthis vow, what was the act that excited his admiration? Was it because\nJephthah slew on the banks of the Jordan \"forty and two thousand\" of the\nsons of Ephraim?\n\nIn regard to Abraham, the argument is precisely the same, except that\nJehovah is said to have interfered, and allowed an animal to be slain\ninstead.\n\nOne of the answers given by you is that \"it may be allowed that the\nnarrative is not within our comprehension\"; and for that reason you\nsay that \"it behooves us to tread cautiously in approaching it.\" Why\ncautiously?\n\nThese stories of Abraham and Jephthah have cost many an innocent life.\nOnly a few years ago, here in my country, a man by the name of Freeman,\nbelieving that God demanded at least the show of obedience--believing\nwhat he had read in the Old Testament that \"without the shedding of\nblood there is no remission,\" and so believing, touched with insanity,\nsacrificed his little girl--plunged into her innocent breast the dagger,\nbelieving it to be God's will, and thinking that if it were not God's\nwill his hand would be stayed.\n\nI know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime told by\nthis man.\n\nNothing can be more monstrous than the conception of a God who demands\nsacrifice--of a God who would ask of a father that he murder his\nson--of a father that he would burn his daughter. It is far beyond my\ncomprehension how any man ever could have believed such an infinite,\nsuch a cruel absurdity.\n\nAt the command of the real God--if there be one--I would not sacrifice\nmy child, I would not murder my wife. But as long as there are people\nin the world whose minds are so that they can believe the stories of\nAbraham and Jephthah, just so long there will be men who will take the\nlives of the ones they love best.\n\nYou have taken the position that the conditions are different; and you\nsay that: \"According to the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were placed\nunder a law, not of consciously perceived right and wrong, but of simple\nobedience. The tree of which alone they were forbidden to eat was the\ntree of the knowledge of good and evil; duty lay for them in following\nthe command of the Most High, before and until they became capable of\nappreciating it by an ethical standard. Their knowledge was but that of\nan infant who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that\nhe is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the things so\nordered.\".\n\nIf Adam and Eve could not \"consciously perceive right and wrong,\" how\nis it possible for you to say that \"duty lay for them in following the\ncommand of the Most High\"? How can a person \"incapable of perceiving\nright and wrong\" have an idea of duty? You are driven to say that Adam\nand Eve had no moral sense. How under such circumstances could they have\nthe sense of guilt, or of obligation? And why should such persons be\npunished? And why should the whole human race become tainted by the\noffence of those who had no moral sense?\n\nDo you intend to be understood as saying that Jehovah allowed his\nchildren to enslave each other because \"duty lay for them in following\nthe command of the Most High\"? Was it for this reason that he caused\nthem to exterminate each other? Do you account for the severity of his\npunishments by the fact that the poor creatures punished were not aware\nof the enormity of the offences they had committed? What shall we say of\na God who has one of his children stoned to death for picking up sticks\non Sunday, and allows another to enslave his fellow-man? Have you\ndiscovered any theory that will account for both of these facts?\n\nAnother word as to Abraham:--You defend his willingness to kill his son\nbecause \"the estimate of human life at the time was different\"--because\n\"the position of the father in the family was different; its members\nwere regarded as in some sense his property;\" and because \"there is\nevery reason to suppose that around Abraham in the 'land of Moriah' the\npractice of human sacrifice as an act of religion was in full vigor.\"\n\nLet us examine these three excuses: Was Jehovah justified in putting a\nlow estimate on human life? Was he in earnest when he said \"that whoso\nsheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed\"? Did he pander\nto the barbarian view of the worthlessness of life? If the estimate of\nhuman life was low, what was the sacrifice worth?\n\nWas the son the property of the father? Did Jehovah uphold this savage\nview? Had the father the right to sell or kill his child?\n\nDo you defend Jehovah and Abraham because the ignorant wretches in the\n\"land of Moriah,\" knowing nothing of the true God, cut the throats of\ntheir babes \"as an act of religion\"?\n\nWas Jehovah led away by the example of the Gods of Moriah? Do you not\nsee that your excuses are simply the suggestions of other crimes?\n\nYou see clearly that the Hindoo mother, when she throws her babe into\nthe Ganges at the command of her God, \"sins against first principles\";\nbut you excuse Abraham because he lived in the childhood of the race.\nCan Jehovah be excused because of his youth? Not satisfied with your\nexplanation, your defences and excuses, you take the ground that when\nAbraham said: \"My son, God will provide a lamb for a burnt offering,\"\nhe may have \"believed implicitly that a way of rescue would be found for\nhis son.\" In other words, that Abraham did not believe that he would be\nrequired to shed the blood of Isaac. So that, after all, the faith of\nAbraham consisted in \"believing implicitly\" that Jehovah was not in\nearnest.\n\nYou have discovered a way by which, as you think, the neck of orthodoxy\ncan escape the noose of Darwin, and in that connection you use this\nremarkable language:\n\n\"I should reply that the moral history of man, in its principal stream,\nhas been distinctly an evolution from the first until now.\" It is hard\nto see how this statement agrees with the one in the beginning of your\nRemarks, in which you speak of the human constitution in its \"warped,\nimpaired and dislocated\" condition. When you wrote that line you were\ncertainly a theologian--a believer in the Episcopal creed--and your\nmind, by mere force of habit, was at that moment contemplating man as\nhe is supposed to have been created--perfect in every part. At that time\nyou were endeavoring to account for the unbelief now in the world, and\nyou did this by stating that the human constitution is \"warped, impaired\nand dislocated\"; but the moment you are brought face to face with the\ngreat truths uttered by Darwin, you admit \"that the moral history of man\nhas been distinctly an evolution from the first until now.\" Is not this\na fountain that brings forth sweet and bitter waters?\n\nI insist, that the discoveries of Darwin do away absolutely with the\ninspiration of the Scriptures--with the account of creation in Genesis,\nand demonstrate not simply the falsity, not simply the wickedness, but\nthe foolishness of the \"sacred volume.\" There is nothing in Darwin to\nshow that all has been evolved from \"primal night and from chaos.\" There\nis no evidence of \"primal night.\" There is no proof of universal chaos.\nDid your Jehovah spend an eternity in \"primal night,\" with no companion\nbut chaos.\n\nIt makes no difference how long a lower form may require to reach a\nhigher. It makes no difference whether forms can be simply modified or\nabsolutely changed. These facts have not the slightest tendency to throw\nthe slightest light on the beginning or on the destiny of things.\n\nI most cheerfully admit that gods have the right to create swiftly\nor slowly. The reptile may become a bird in one day, or in a thousand\nbillion years--this fact has nothing to do with the existence or\nnon-existence of a first cause, but it has something to do with the\ntruth of the Bible, and with the existence of a personal God of infinite\npower and wisdom.\n\nDoes not a gradual improvement in the thing created show a corresponding\nimprovement in the creator? The church demonstrated the falsity and\nfolly of Darwin's theories by showing that they contradicted the Mosaic\naccount of creation, and now the theories of Darwin having been fairly\nestablished, the church says that the Mosaic account is true, because\nit is in harmony with Darwin. Now, if it should turn out that Darwin was\nmistaken, what then?\n\nTo me it is somewhat difficult to understand the mental processes of one\nwho really feels that \"the gap between man and the inferior animals or\ntheir relationship was stated, perhaps, even more emphatically by Bishop\nButler than by Darwin.\"\n\nButler answered deists, who objected to the cruelties of the Bible, and\nyet lauded the God of Nature by showing that the God of Nature is as\ncruel as the God of the Bible. That is to say, he succeeded in showing\nthat both Gods are bad. He had no possible conception of the splendid\ngeneralizations of Darwin--the great truths that have revolutionized the\nthought of the world.\n\nBut there was one question asked by Bishop Butler that throws a flame\nof light upon the probable origin of most, if not all, religions: \"Why\nmight not whole communities and public bodies be seized with fits of\ninsanity as well as individuals?\"\n\nIf you are convinced that Moses and Darwin are in exact accord, will you\nbe good enough to tell who, in your judgment, were the parents of Adam\nand Eve? Do you find in Darwin any theory that satisfactorily\naccounts for the \"inspired fact\" that a Rib, commencing with\nMonogonic Propagation--falling into halves by a contraction in the\nmiddle--reaching, after many ages of Evolution, the Amphigonie stage,\nand then, by the Survival of the Fittest, assisted by Natural Selection,\nmoulded and modified by Environment, became at last, the mother of the\nhuman race?\n\nHere is a world in which there are countless varieties of life--these\nvarieties in all probability related to each other--all living upon\neach other--everything devouring something, and in its turn devoured by\nsomething else--everywhere claw and beak, hoof and tooth,--everything\nseeking the life of something else--every drop of water a battle-field,\nevery atom being for some wild beast a jungle--every place a\ngolgotha--and such a world is declared to be the work of the infinitely\nwise and compassionate.\n\nAccording to your idea, Jehovah prepared a home for his children--first\na garden in which they should be tempted and from which they should\nbe driven; then a world filled with briers and thorns and wild and\npoisonous beasts--a world in which the air should be filled with the\nenemies of human life--a world in which disease should be contagious,\nand in which it was impossible to tell, except by actual experiment, the\npoisonous from the nutritious. And these children were allowed to live\nin dens and holes and fight their way against monstrous serpents and\ncrouching beasts--were allowed to live in ignorance and fear--to have\nfalse ideas of this good and loving God--ideas so false, that they made\nof him a fiend--ideas so false, that they sacrificed their wives and\nbabes to appease the imaginary wrath of this monster. And this God\ngave to different nations different ideas of himself, knowing that in\nconsequence of that these nations would meet upon countless fields of\ndeath and drain each other's veins.\n\nWould it not have been better had the world been so that parents would\ntransmit only their virtues--only their perfections, physical and\nmental,--allowing their diseases and their vices to perish with them?\n\nIn my reply to Dr. Field I had asked: Why should God demand a sacrifice\nfrom man? Why should the infinite ask anything from the finite? Should\nthe sun beg from the glowworm, and should the momentary spark excite the\nenvy of the source of light?\n\nUpon which you remark, \"that if the infinite is to make no demands upon\nthe finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong should scarcely\nmake them on the weak and small.\" Can this be called reasoning? Why\nshould the infinite demand a sacrifice from man? In the first place, the\ninfinite is conditionless--the infinite cannot want--the infinite has.\nA conditioned being may want; but the gratification of a want involves\na change of condition. If God be conditionless, he can have no\nwants--consequently, no human being can gratify the infinite.\n\nBut you insist that \"if the infinite is to make no demands upon the\nfinite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong should scarcely\nmake them on the weak and small.\"\n\nThe great have wants. The strong are often in need, in peril, and the\ngreat and strong often need the services of the small and weak. It\nwas the mouse that freed the lion. England is a great and powerful\nnation--yet she may need the assistance of the weakest of her citizens.\nThe world is filled with illustrations.\n\nThe lack of logic is in this: The infinite cannot want anything; the\nstrong and the great may, and as a fact always do. The great and the\nstrong cannot help the infinite--they can help the small and the weak,\nand the small and the weak can often help the great and strong.\n\nYou ask: \"Why then should the father make demands of love, obedience,\nand sacrifice from his young child?\"\n\nNo sensible father ever demanded love from his child. Every civilized\nfather knows that love rises like the perfume from a flower. You cannot\ncommand it by simple authority.\n\nIt cannot obey. A father demands obedience from a child for the good\nof the child and for the good of himself. But suppose the father to be\ninfinite--why should the child sacrifice anything for him?\n\nBut it may be that you answer all these questions, all these\ndifficulties, by admitting, as you have in your Remarks, \"that these\nproblems are insoluble by our understanding.\"\n\nWhy, then, do you accept them? Why do you defend that which you cannot\nunderstand? Why does your reason volunteer as a soldier under the flag\nof the incomprehensible?\n\nI asked of Dr. Field, and I ask again, this question: Why should an\ninfinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve the vile?\n\nWhat do I mean by this question? Simply this: The earthquake, the\nlightning, the pestilence, are no respecters of persons. The vile are\nnot always destroyed, the good are not always saved. I asked: Why should\nGod treat all alike in this world, and in another make an infinite\ndifference? This, I suppose, is \"insoluble to our understanding.\"\n\nWhy should Jehovah allow his worshipers, his adorers, to be destroyed by\nhis enemies? Can you by any possibility answer this question?\n\nYou may account for all these inconsistencies, these cruel\ncontradictions, as John Wesley accounted for earthquakes when he\ninsisted that they were produced by the wickedness of men, and that the\nonly way to prevent them was for everybody to believe on the Lord Jesus\nChrist. And you may have some way of showing that Mr. Wesley's idea is\nentirely consistent with the theories of Mr. Darwin.\n\nYou seem to think that as long as there is more goodness than evil in\nthe world--as long as there is more joy than sadness--we are compelled\nto infer that the author of the world is infinitely good, powerful, and\nwise, and that as long as a majority are out of gutters and prisons, the\n\"divine scheme\" is a success.\n\nAccording to this system of logic, if there were a few more\nunfortunates--if there was just a little more evil than good--then\nwe would be driven to acknowledge that the world was created by an\ninfinitely malevolent being.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the history of the world has been such that not\nonly your theologians but your apostles, and not only your apostles but\nyour prophets, and not only your prophets but your Jehovah, have all\nbeen forced to account for the evil, the injustice and the suffering, by\nthe wickedness of man, the natural depravity of the human heart and the\nwiles and machinations of a malevolent being second only in power to\nJehovah himself.\n\nAgain and again you have called me to account for \"mere suggestions\nand assertions without proof\"; and yet your remarks are filled with\nassertions and mere suggestions without proof.\n\nYou admit that \"great believers are not able to explain the inequalities\nof adjustment between human beings and the conditions in which they have\nbeen set down to work out their destiny.\"\n\nHow do you know \"that they have been set down to work out their\ndestiny\"? If that was, and is, the purpose, then the being who settled\nthe \"destiny,\" and the means by which it tvas to be \"worked out,\" is\nresponsible for all that happens.\n\nAnd is this the end of your argument, \"That you are not able to explain\nthe inequalities of adjustment between human beings\"? Is the solution\nof this problem beyond your power? Does the Bible shed no light? Is the\nChristian in the presence of this question as dumb as the agnostic? When\nthe injustice of this world is so flagrant that you cannot harmonize\nthat awful fact with the wisdom and goodness of an infinite God, do you\nnot see that you have surrendered, or at least that you have raised\na flag of truce beneath which your adversary accepts as final your\nstatement that you do not know and that your imagination is not\nsufficient to frame an excuse for God?\n\nIt gave me great pleasure to find that at last even you have been driven\nto say that: \"it is a duty incumbent upon us respectively according\nto our means and opportunities, to decide by the use of the faculty of\nreason given us, the great questions of natural and revealed religion.\"\n\nYou admit \"that I am to decide for myself, by the use of my reason,\"\nwhether the Bible is the word of God or not--whether there is any\nrevealed religion--and whether there be or be not an infinite being who\ncreated and who governs this world.\n\nYou also admit that we are to decide these questions according to the\nbalance of the evidence.\n\nIs this in accordance with the doctrine of Jehovah? Did Jehovah say to\nthe husband that if his wife became convinced, according to her means\nand her opportunities, and decided according to her reason, that it was\nbetter to worship some other God than Jehovah, then that he was to say\nto her: \"You are entitled to decide according to the balance of the\nevidence as it seems to you\"?\n\nHave you abandoned Jehovah? Is man more just than he? Have you appealed\nfrom him to the standard of reason? Is it possible that the leader of\nthe English Liberals is nearer civilized than Jehovah?\n\nDo you know that in this sentence you demonstrate the existence of a\ndawn in your mind? This sentence makes it certain that in the East of\nthe midnight of Episcopal superstition there is the herald of the coming\nday. And if this sentence shows a dawn, what shall I say of the next:\n\n\"We are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in this\nprovince any rule of investigation except such as common sense teaches\nus to use in the ordinary conduct of life\"?\n\nThis certainly is a morning star. Let me take this statement, let me\nhold it as a torch, and by its light I beg of you to read the Bible once\nagain.\n\nIs it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and loving God\nwould drown a world that he had taken no means to civilize--to whom he\nhad given no bible, no gospel,--taught no scientific fact and in which\nthe seeds of art had not been sown; that he would create a world that\nought to be drowned? That a being of infinite wisdom would create a\nrival, knowing that the rival would fill perdition with countless souls\ndestined to suffer eternal pain? Is it according to common sense that\nan infinitely good God would order some of his children to kill others?\nThat he would command soldiers to rip open with the sword of war the\nbodies of women--wreaking vengeance on babes unborn? Is it according to\nreason that a good, loving, compassionate, and just God would establish\nslavery among men, and that a pure God would uphold polygamy? Is it\naccording to common sense that he who wished to make men merciful and\nloving would demand the sacrifice of animals, so that his altars would\nbe wet with the blood of oxen, sheep, and doves? Is it according\nto reason that a good God would inflict tortures upon his ignorant\nchildren--that he would torture animals to death--and is it in\naccordance with common sense and reason that this God would create\ncountless billions of people knowing that they would be eternally\ndamned?\n\nWhat is common sense? Is it the result of observation, reason and\nexperience, or is it the child of credulity?\n\nThere is this curious fact: The far past and the far future seem to\nbelong to the miraculous and the monstrous. The present, as a rule, is\nthe realm of common sense. If you say to a man: \"Eighteen hundred years\nago the dead were raised,\" he will reply: \"Yes, I know that.\" And if you\nsay: \"A hundred thousand years from now all the dead will be raised,\" he\nwill probably reply: \"I presume so.\" But if you tell him: \"I saw a dead\nman raised to-day,\" he will ask, \"From what madhouse have you escaped?\"\n\nThe moment we decide \"according to reason,\" \"according to the balance\nof evidence,\" we are charged with \"having violated the laws of social\nmorality and decency,\" and the defender of the miraculous and the\nincomprehensible takes another position.\n\nThe theologian has a city of refuge to which he flies--an old breastwork\nbehind which he kneels--a rifle-pit into which he crawls. You have\ndescribed this city, this breastwork, this rifle-pit and also the leaf\nunder which the ostrich of theology thrusts its head. Let me quote:\n\n\"Our demands for evidence must be limited by the general reason of\nthe case. Does that general reason of the case make it probable that a\nfinite being, with a finite place in a comprehensive scheme devised and\nadministered by a being who is infinite, would be able even to embrace\nwithin his view, or rightly to appreciate all the motives or aims that\nthere may have been in the mind of the divine disposer?\"\n\nAnd this is what you call \"deciding by the use of the faculty of\nreason,\" \"according to the evidence,\" or at least \"according to the\nbalance of evidence.\" This is a conclusion reached by a \"rule of\ninvestigation such as common sense teaches us to use in the ordinary\nconduct of life.\" Will you have the kindness to explain what it is to\nact contrary to evidence, or contrary to common sense? Can you imagine a\nsuperstition so gross that it cannot be defended by that argument?\n\nNothing, it seems to me, could have been easier than for Jehovah to have\nreasonably explained his scheme. You may answer that the human intellect\nis not sufficient to understand the explanation. Why then do not\ntheologians stop explaining? Why do they feel it incumbent upon them\nto explain that which they admit God would have explained had the human\nmind been capable of understanding it?\n\nHow much better would it have been if Jehovah had said a few things on\nthese subjects. It always seemed wonderful to me that he spent several\ndays and nights on Mount Sinai explain* ing to Moses how he could\ndetect the presence of leprosy, without once thinking to give him a\nprescription for its cure.\n\nThere were thousands and thousands of opportunities for this God to\nwithdraw from these questions the shadow and the cloud. When Jehovah out\nof the whirlwind asked questions of Job, how much better it would have\nbeen if Job had asked and Jehovah had answered.\n\nYou say that we should be governed by evidence and by common sense. Then\nyou tell us that the questions are beyond the reach of reason, and with\nwhich common sense has nothing to do. If we then ask for an explanation,\nyou reply in the scornful challenge of Dante.\n\nYou seem to imagine that every man who gives an opinion, takes his\nsolemn oath that the opinion is the absolute end of all investigation on\nthat subject.\n\nIn my opinion, Shakespeare was, intellectually, the greatest of the\nhuman race, and my intention was simply to express that view. It never\noccurred to me that any one would suppose that I thought Shakespeare\na greater actor than Garrick, a more wonderful composer than Wagner, a\nbetter violinist than Remenyi, or a heavier man than Daniel Lambert. It\nis to be regretted that you were misled by my words and really supposed\nthat I intended to say that Shakespeare was a greater general than\nCaesar. But, after all, your criticism has no possible bearing on the\npoint at issue. Is it an effort to avoid that which cannot be met?\nThe real question is this: If we cannot account for Christ without a\nmiracle, how can we account for Shakespeare? Dr. Field took the ground\nthat Christ himself was a miracle; that it was impossible to account for\nsuch a being in any natural way; and, guided by common sense, guided\nby the rule of investigation such as common sense teaches, I called\nattention to Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, and Shakespeare.\n\nIn another place in your Remarks, when my statement about Shakespeare\nwas not in your mind, you say: \"All is done by steps--nothing by\nstrides, leaps or bounds--all from protoplasm up to Shakespeare.\" Why\ndid you end the series with Shakespeare? Did you intend to say Dante, or\nBishop Butler?\n\nIt is curious to see how much ingenuity a great man exercises when\nguided by what he calls \"the rule of investigation as suggested\nby common sense.\" I pointed out some things that Christ did not\nteach--among others, that he said nothing with regard to the family\nrelation, nothing against slavery, nothing about education, nothing as\nto the rights and duties of nations, nothing as to any scientific truth.\nAnd this is answered by saying that \"I am quite able to point out the\nway in which the Savior of the world might have been much greater as a\nteacher than he actually was.\"\n\nIs this an answer, or is it simply taking refuge behind a name? Would it\nnot have been better if Christ had told his disciples that they must not\npersecute; that they had no right to destroy their fellow-men; that they\nmust not put heretics in dungeons, or destroy them with flames; that\nthey must not invent and use instruments of torture; that they must not\nappeal to brutality, nor endeavor to sow with bloody hands the seeds\nof peace? Would it not have been far better had he said: \"I come not to\nbring a sword, but peace\"? Would not this have saved countless cruelties\nand countless lives?\n\nYou seem to think that you have fully answered my objection when you say\nthat Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage.\n\nWhy should a husband and wife be compelled to live with each other after\nlove is dead? Why should the wife still be bound in indissoluble chains\nto a husband who is cruel, infamous, and false? Why should her life be\ndestroyed because of his? Why should she be chained to a criminal and an\noutcast? Nothing can be more unphilosophic than this. Why fill the world\nwith the children of indifference and hatred?\n\nThe marriage contract is the most important, the most sacred, that human\nbeings can make. It will be sacredly kept by good men and by good women.\nBut if a loving woman--tender, noble, and true--makes this contract with\na man whom she believed to be worthy of all respect and love, and who is\nfound to be a cruel, worthless wretch, why should her life be lost?\n\nDo you not know that the indissolubility of the marriage contract leads\nto its violation, forms an excuse for immorality, eats out the very\nheart of truth, and gives to vice that which alone belongs to love?\n\nBut in order that you may know why the objection was raised, I call your\nattention to the fact that Christ offered a reward, not only in this\nworld but in another, to any husband who would desert his wife. And do\nyou know that this hideous offer caused millions to desert their wives\nand children?\n\nTheologians have the habit of using names instead of arguments--of\nappealing to some man, great in some direction, to establish their\ncreed; but we all know that no man is great enough to be an authority,\nexcept in that particular domain in which he won his eminence; and we\nall know that great men are not great in all directions. Bacon died\na believer in the Ptolemaic system of astronomy. Tycho Brahe kept an\nimbecile in his service, putting down with great care the words that\nfell from the hanging lip of idiocy, and then endeavored to put them\ntogether in a way to form prophecies. Sir Matthew Hale believed in\nwitchcraft not only, but in its lowest and most vulgar forms; and some\nof the greatest men of antiquity examined the entrails of birds to find\nthe secrets of the future.\n\nIt has always seemed to me that reasons are better than names.\n\nAfter taking the ground that Christ could not have been a greater\nteacher than he actually was, you ask: \"Where would have been the\nwisdom of delivering to an uninstructed population of a particular age\na codified religion which was to serve for all nations, all ages, all\nstates of civilization?\"\n\nDoes not this question admit that the teachings of Christ will not serve\nfor all nations, all ages and all states of civilization?\n\nBut let me ask: If it was necessary for Christ \"to deliver to an\nuninstructed population of a particular age a certain religion suited\nonly for that particular age,\" why should a civilized and scientific age\neighteen hundred years afterwards be absolutely bound by that religion?\nDo you not see that your position cannot be defended, and that you have\nprovided no way for retreat? If the religion of Christ was for that age,\nis it for this? Are you willing to admit that the Ten Commandments\nare not for all time? If, then, four thousand years before Christ,\ncommandments were given not simply for \"an uninstructed population of\na particular age, but for all time,\" can you give a reason why the\nreligion of Christ should not have been of the same character?\n\nIn the first place you say that God has revealed himself to the\nworld--that he has revealed a religion; and in the next place, that \"he\nhas not revealed a perfect religion, for the reason that no room would\nbe left for the career of human thought.\"\n\nWhy did not God reveal this imperfect religion to all people instead of\nto a small and insignificant tribe, a tribe without commerce and without\ninfluence among the nations of the world? Why did he hide this imperfect\nlight under a bushel? If the light was necessary for one, was it not\nnecessary for all? And why did he drown a world to whom he had not even\ngiven that light? According to your reasoning, would there not have been\nleft greater room for the career of human thought, had no revelation\nbeen made?\n\nYou say that \"you have known a person who after studying the old\nclassical or Olympian religion for a third part of a century, at length\nbegan to hope that he had some partial comprehension of it--some\ninkling of what is meant.\" You say this for the purpose of showing how\nimpossible it is to understand the Bible. If it is so difficult, why do\nyou call it a revelation? And yet, according to your creed, the man\nwho does not understand the revelation and believe it, or who does not\nbelieve it, whether he understands it or not, is to reap the harvest of\neverlasting pain. Ought not the revelation to be revealed?\n\nIn order to escape from the fact that Christ denounced the chosen people\nof God as \"a generation of vipers\" and as \"whited sepulchres,\" you take\nthe ground that the scribes and pharisees were not the chosen people.\nOf what blood were they? It will not do to say that they were not the\npeople. Can you deny that Christ addressed the chosen people when he\nsaid: \"Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are\nsent unto thee\"?\n\nYou have called me to an account for what I said in regard to Ananias\nand Sapphira. _First_, I am charged with having said that the apostles\nconceived the idea of having all things in common, and you denounce this\nas an interpolation; _second_, \"that motives of prudence are stated as\na matter of fact to have influenced the offending couple\"--and this\nis charged as an interpolation; and, _third_, that I stated that the\napostles sent for the wife of Ananias--and this is characterized as a\npure invention.\n\nTo me it seems reasonable to suppose that the idea of having all things\nin common was conceived by those who had nothing, or had the least, and\nnot by those who had plenty. In the last verses of the fourth chapter of\nthe Acts, you will find this:\n\n\"Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were\npossessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the\nthings that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and\ndistribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And\nJoses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being\ninterpreted, the son of consolation), a Levite and of the country of\nCyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the\napostles' feet.\"\n\nNow it occurred to me that the idea was in all probability suggested by\nthe men at whose feet the property was laid. It never entered my mind\nthat the idea originated with those who had land for sale. There may be\na different standard by which human nature is measured in your country,\nthan in mine; but if the thing had happened in the United States, I feel\nabsolutely positive that it would have been at the suggestion of the\napostles.\n\n\"Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession and kept back part\nof the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain\npart and laid it at the apostles' feet.\"\n\nIn my Letter to Dr. Field I stated--not at the time pretending to quote\nfrom the New Testament--that Ananias and Sapphira, after talking the\nmatter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, probably\nconcluded to keep a little--just enough to keep them from starvation if\nthe good and pious bankers should abscond. It never occurred to me that\nany man would imagine that this was a quotation, and I feel like asking\nyour pardon for having led you into this error. We are informed in the\nBible that \"they kept back a part of the price.\" It occurred to me,\n\"judging by the rule of investigation according to common sense,\" that\nthere was a reason for this, and I could think of no reason except that\nthey did not care to trust the apostles with all, and that they kept\nback just a little, thinking it might be useful if the rest should be\nlost.\n\nAccording to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks to Ananias,\n\n\"Ananias fell down and gave up the ghost;.... and the young men arose,\nwound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the\nspace of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done,\ncame in.\"\n\nWhereupon Peter said:\n\n\"'Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?' And she said, 'Yea,\nfor so much.' Then Peter said unto her, 'How is it that ye have agreed\ntogether to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which\nhave buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.' Then\nfell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost; and the\nyoung men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried\nher by her husband.\"\n\nThe only objection found to this is, that I inferred that the apostles\nhad sent for her. Sending for her was not the offence. The failure to\ntell her what had happened to her husband was the offence--keeping his\nfate a secret from her in order that she might be caught in the same net\nthat had been set for her husband by Jehovah. This was the offence.\nThis was the mean and cruel thing to which I objected. Have you answered\nthat?\n\nOf course, I feel sure that the thing never occurred--the probability\nbeing that Ananias and Sapphira never lived and never died. It is\nprobably a story invented by the early church to make the collection of\nsubscriptions somewhat easier.\n\nAnd yet, we find a man in the nineteenth century, foremost of his\nfellow-citizens in the affairs of a great nation, upholding this\nbarbaric view of God.\n\nLet me beg of you to use your reason \"according to the rule suggested\nby common sense.\" Let us do what little we can to rescue the reputation,\neven of a Jewish myth, from the calumnies of Ignorance and Fear.\n\nSo, again, I am charged with having given certain words as a quotation\nfrom the Bible in which two passages are combined--\"They who believe and\nare baptized shall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned.\nAnd these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and\nhis angels.\"\n\nThey were given as two passages. No one for a moment supposed that\nthey would be read together as one, and no one imagined that any one in\nanswering the argument would be led to believe that they were intended\nas one. Neither was there in this the slightest negligence, as I was\nanswering a man who is perfectly familiar with the Bible. The objection\nwas too small to make. It is hardly large enough to answer--and had it\nnot been made by you it would not have been answered.\n\nYou are not satisfied with what I have said upon the subject of\nimmortality. What I said was this: The idea of immortality, that like a\nsea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of\nhope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was\nnot born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born\nof human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the\nmists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips\nof death.\n\nYou answer this by saying that \"the Egyptians were believers in\nimmortality, but were not a people of high intellectual development.\"\n\nHow such a statement tends to answer what I have said, is beyond my\npowers of discernment. Is there the slightest connection between my\nstatement and your objection?\n\nYou make still another answer, and say that \"the ancient Greeks were\na race of perhaps unparalled intellectual capacity, and that\nnotwithstanding that, the most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy,\nthat of Aristotle, had no clear conception of a personal existence in a\nfuture state.\" May I be allowed to ask this simple question: Who has?\n\nAre you urging an objection to the dogma of immortality, when you say\nthat a race of unparalled intellectual capacity had no confidence in\nit? Is that a doctrine believed only by people who lack intellectual\ncapacity? I stated that the idea of immortality was born of love, You\nreply, \"the Egyptians believed it, but they were not intellectual.\" Is\nnot this a _non sequitur?_ The question is: Were they a loving people?\n\nDoes history show that there is a moral governor of the world? What\nwitnesses shall we call? The billions of slaves who were paid with\nblows?--the countless mothers whose babes were sold? Have we time to\nexamine the Waldenses, the Covenanters of Scotland, the Catholics of\nIreland, the victims of St. Bartholomew, of the Spanish Inquisition, all\nthose who have died in flames? Shall we hear the story of Bruno? Shall\nwe ask Servetus? Shall we ask the millions slaughtered by Christian\nswords in America--all the victims of ambition, of perjury, of\nignorance, of superstition and revenge, of storm and earthquake, of\nfamine, flood and fire?\n\nCan all the agonies and crimes, can all the inequalities of the world\nbe answered by reading the \"noble Psalm\" in which are found the words:\n\"Call upon me in the day of trouble, so I will hear thee, and thou shalt\npraise me\"? Do you prove the truth of these fine words, this honey of\nTrebizond, by the victims of religious persecution? Shall we hear the\nsighs and sobs of Siberia?\n\nAnother thing. Why should you, from the page of Greek history, with the\nsponge of your judgment, wipe out all names but one, and tell us that\nthe most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy was that of Aristotle?\nHow did you ascertain this fact? Is it not fair to suppose that you\nmerely intended to say that, according to your view, Aristotle had the\nmost powerful mind among all the philosophers of Greece? I should not\ncall attention to this, except for your criticism on a like remark of\nmine as to the intellectual superiority of Shakespeare. But if you knew\nthe trouble I have had in finding out your meaning, from your words, you\nwould pardon me for calling attention to a single line from Aristotle:\n\"Clearness is the virtue of style.\"\n\nTo me Epicurus seems far greater than Aristotle, He had clearer\nvision. His cheek was closer to the breast of nature, and he planted his\nphilosophy nearer to the bed-rock of fact. He was practical enough to\nknow that virtue is the means and happiness the end; that the highest\nphilosophy is the art of living. He was wise enough to say that nothing\nis of the slightest value to man that does not increase or preserve\nhis wellbeing, and he was great enough to know and courageous enough\nto declare that all the gods and ghosts were monstrous phantoms born of\nignorance and fear.\n\nI still insist that human affection is the foundation of the idea of\nimmortality; that love was the first to speak that word, no matter\nwhether they who spoke it were savage or civilized, Egyptian or Greek.\nBut if we are immortal--if there be another world--why was it not\nclearly set forth in the Old Testament? Certainly, the authors of that\nbook had an opportunity to learn it from the Egyptians. Why was it not\nrevealed by Jehovah? Why did he waste his time in giving orders for the\nconsecration of priests--in saying that they must have sheep's blood\nput on their right ears and on their right thumbs and on their right big\ntoes? Could a God with any sense of humor give such directions, or watch\nwithout huge laughter the performance of such a ceremony? In order to\nsee the beauty, the depth and tenderness of such a consecration, is it\nessential to be in a state of \"reverential calm\"?\n\nIs it not strange that Christ did not tell of another world distinctly,\nclearly, without parable, and without the mist of metaphor?\n\nThe fact is that the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the\nRomans taught the immortality of the soul, not as a glittering guess--a\npossible perhaps--but as a clear and demonstrated truth for many\ncenturies before the birth of Christ.\n\nIf the Old Testament proves anything, it is that death ends all. And the\nNew Testament, by basing immortality on the resurrection of the body,\nbut \"keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it to our hope.\"\n\nIn my Reply to Dr. Field, I said: \"The truth is, that no one can justly\nbe held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks without asking\nour consent; we believe, or disbelieve, without an effort of the will.\nBelief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The\nscales turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of\nbeing honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The conclusion\nis entirely independent of desire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in\nspite of what we wish.\"\n\nDoes the brain think without our consent? Can we control our thought?\nCan we tell what we are going to think tomorrow?\n\nCan we stop thinking?\n\nIs belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a product\nof the will? Can the scales in which reason weighs evidence be turned by\nthe will? Why then should evidence be weighed? If it all depends on the\nwill, what is evidence? Is there any opportunity of being dishonest in\nthe formation of an opinion? Must not the man who forms the opinion know\nwhat it is? He cannot knowingly cheat himself. He cannot be deceived\nwith dice that he loads. He cannot play unfairly at solitaire without\nknowing that he has lost the game. He cannot knowingly weigh with false\nscales and believe in the correctness of the result.\n\nYou have not even attempted to answer my arguments upon these points,\nbut you have unconsciously avoided them. You did not attack the citadel.\nIn military parlance, you proceeded to \"shell the woods.\" The noise is\nprecisely the same as though every shot had been directed against the\nenemy's position, but the result is not. You do not seem willing to\nimplicitly trust the correctness of your aim. You prefer to place the\ntarget after the shot.\n\nThe question is whether the will knowingly can change evidence, and\nwhether there is any opportunity of being dishonest in the formation\nof an opinion. You have changed the issue. You have erased the word\nformation and interpolated the word expression.\n\nLet us suppose that a man has given an opinion, knowing that it is not\nbased on any fact. Can you say that he has given his opinion? The moment\na prejudice is known to be a prejudice, it disappears. Ignorance is the\nsoil in which prejudice must grow. Touched by a ray of light, it dies.\nThe judgment of man may be warped by prejudice and passion, but it\ncannot be consciously warped. It is impossible for any man to be\ninfluenced by a known prejudice, because a known prejudice cannot exist.\n\nI am not contending that all opinions have been honestly expressed. What\nI contend is that when a dishonest opinion has been expressed it is not\nthe opinion that was formed.\n\nThe cases suggested by you are not in point. Fathers are honestly\nswayed, if really swayed, by love; and queens and judges have pretended\nto be swayed by the highest motives, by the clearest evidence, in order\nthat they might kill rivals, reap rewards, and gratify revenge. But what\nhas all this to do with the fact that he who watches the scales in which\nevidence is weighed knows the actual result?\n\nLet us examine your case: If a father is _consciously_ swayed by his\nlove for his son, and for that reason says that his son is innocent,\nthen he has not expressed his opinion. If he is unconsciously swayed\nand says that his son is innocent, then he has expressed his opinion. In\nboth instances his opinion was independent of his will; but in the first\ninstance he did not express his opinion. You will certainly see this\ndistinction between the formation and the expression of an opinion.\n\nThe same argument applies to the man who consciously has a desire to\ncondemn. Such a _conscious_ desire cannot affect the testimony--cannot\naffect the opinion. Queen Elizabeth undoubtedly desired the death\nof Mary Stuart, but this conscious desire could not have been the\nfoundation on which rested Elizabeth's opinion as to the guilt or\ninnocence of her rival. It is barely possible that Elizabeth did not\nexpress her real opinion. Do you believe that the English judges in\nthe matter of the Popish Plot gave judgment in accordance with their\nopinions? Are you satisfied that Napoleon expressed his real opinion\nwhen he justified himself for the assassination of the Duc d'Enghien?\n\nIf you answer these questions in the affirmative, you admit that I am\nright. If you answer in the negative, you admit that you are wrong. The\nmoment you admit that the opinion formed cannot be changed by expressing\na pretended opinion, your argument is turned against yourself.\n\nIt is admitted that prejudice strengthens, weakens and colors evidence;\nbut prejudice is honest. And when one acts knowingly against the\nevidence, that is not by reason of prejudice.\n\nAccording to my views of propriety, it would be unbecoming for me to\nsay that your argument on these questions is \"a piece of plausible\nshallowness.\" Such language might be regarded as lacking \"reverential\ncalm,\" and I therefore refrain from even characterizing it as plausible.\n\nIs it not perfectly apparent that you have changed the issue, and that\ninstead of showing that opinions are creatures of the will, you have\ndiscussed the quality of actions? What have corrupt and cruel judgments\npronounced by corrupt and cruel judges to do with their real opinions?\nWhen a judge forms one opinion and renders another he is called corrupt.\nThe corruption does not consist in forming his opinion, but in rendering\none that he did not form. Does a dishonest creditor, who incorrectly\nadds a number of items making the aggregate too large, necessarily\nchange his opinion as to the relations of numbers? When an error is\nknown, it is not a mistake; but a conclusion reached by a mistake, or by\na prejudice, or by both, is a necessary conclusion. He who pretends to\ncome to a conclusion by a mistake which he knows is not a mistake, knows\nthat he has not expressed his real opinion.\n\nCan any thing be more illogical than the assertion that because a boy\nreaches, through negligence in adding figures, a wrong result, that\nhe is accountable for his opinion of the result? If he knew he was\nnegligent, what must his opinion of the result have been?\n\nSo with the man who boldly announces that he has discovered the\nnumerical expression of the relation sustained by the diameter to the\ncircumference of a circle. If he is honest in the announcement, then the\nannouncement was caused not by his will but by his ignorance. His will\ncannot make the announcement true, and he could not by any possibility\nhave supposed that his will could affect the correctness of his\nannouncement. The will of one who thinks that he has invented or\ndiscovered what is called perpetual motion, is not at fault. The man, if\nhonest, has been misled; if not honest, he endeavors to mislead others.\nThere is prejudice, and prejudice does raise a clamor, and the intellect\nis affected and the judgment is darkened and the opinion is deformed;\nbut the prejudice is real and the clamor is sincere and the judgment is\nupright and the opinion is honest.\n\nThe intellect is not always supreme. It is surrounded by clouds.\nIt sometimes sits in darkness. It is often misled--sometimes, in\nsuperstitious fear, it abdicates. It is not always a white light. The\npassions and prejudices are prismatic--they color thoughts. Desires\nbetray the judgment and cunningly mislead the will.\n\nYou seem to think that the fact of responsibility is in danger unless\nit rests upon the will, and this will you regard as something without\na cause, springing into being in some mysterious way, without father or\nmother, without seed or soil, or rain or light. You must admit that man\nis a conditioned being--that he has wants, objects, ends, and aims, and\nthat these are gratified and attained only by the use of means. Do not\nthese wants and these objects have something to do with the will, and\ndoes not the intellect have something to do with the means? Is not the\nwill a product? Independently of conditions, can it exist? Is it not\nnecessarily produced? Behind every wish and thought, every dream and\nfancy, every fear and hope, are there not countless causes? Man\nfeels shame. What does this prove? He pities himself. What does this\ndemonstrate?\n\nThe dark continent of motive and desire has never been explored. In the\nbrain, that wondrous world with one inhabitant, there are recesses dim\nand dark, treacherous sands and dangerous shores, where seeming sirens\ntempt and fade; streams that rise in unknown lands from hidden springs,\nstrange seas with ebb and flow of tides, resistless billows urged by\nstorms of flame, profound and awful depths hidden by mist of dreams,\nobscure and phantom realms where vague and fearful things are half\nrevealed, jungles where passion's tigers crouch, and skies of cloud and\nblue where fancies fly with painted wings that dazzle and mislead; and\nthe poor sovereign of this pictured world is led by old desires and\nancient hates, and stained by crimes of many vanished years, and pushed\nby hands that long ago were dust, until he feels like some bewildered\nslave that Mockery has throned and crowned.\n\nNo one pretends that the mind of man is perfect--that it is not affected\nby desires, colored by hopes, weakened by fears, deformed by ignorance\nand distorted by superstition. But all this has nothing to do with the\ninnocence of opinion.\n\nIt may be that the Thugs were taught that murder is innocent; but\ndid the teachers believe what they taught? Did the pupils believe the\nteachers? Did not Jehovah teach that the act that we describe as murder\nwas a duty? Were not his teachings practiced by Moses and Joshua and\nJephthah and Samuel and David? Were they honest? But what has all this\nto do with the point at issue?\n\nSociety has the right to protect itself, even from honest murderers\nand conscientious thieves. The belief of the criminal does not disarm\nsociety; it protects itself from him as from a poisonous serpent, or\nfrom a beast that lives on human flesh. We are under no obligation\nto stand still and allow ourselves to be murdered by one who honestly\nthinks that it is his duty to take our lives. And yet according to your\nargument, we have no right to defend ourselves from honest Thugs. Was\nSaul of Tarsus a Thug when he persecuted Christians \"even unto strange\ncities\"? Is the Thug of India more ferocious than Torquemada, the Thug\nof Spain?\n\nIf belief depends upon the will, can all men have correct opinions\nwho will to have them? Acts are good or bad, according to their\nconsequences, and not according to the intentions of the actors. Honest\nopinions may be wrong, and opinions dishonestly expressed may be right.\n\nDo you mean to say that because passion and prejudice, the reckless\n\"pilots 'twixt the dangerous shores of will and judgment,\" sway the\nmind, that the opinions which you have expressed in your Remarks to me\nare not your opinions? Certainly you will admit that in all probability\nyou have prejudices and passions, and if so, can the opinions that\nyou have expressed, according to your argument, be honest? My lack of\nconfidence in your argument gives me perfect confidence in your candor.\nYou may remember the philosopher who retained his reputation for\nveracity, in spite of the fact that he kept saying: \"There is no truth\nin man.\"\n\nAre only those opinions honest that are formed without any interference\nof passion, affection, habit or fancy? What would the opinion of a man\nwithout passions, affections, or fancies be worth? The alchemist gave\nup his search for an universal solvent upon being asked in what kind of\nvessel he expected to keep it when found.\n\nIt may be admitted that Biel \"shows us how the life of Dante co-operated\nwith his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities to make him what\nhe was,\" but does this tend to show that Dante changed his opinions\nby an act of his will, or that he reached honest opinions by knowingly\nusing false weights and measures?\n\nYou must admit that the opinions, habits and religions of men depend, at\nleast in some degree, on race, occupation, training and capacity. Is\nnot every thoughtful man compelled to agree with Edgar Fawcett, in\nwhose brain are united the beauty of the poet and the subtlety of the\nlogician,\n\n     \"Who sees how vice her venom wreaks\n     On the frail babe before it speaks,\n     And how heredity enslaves\n     With ghostly hands that reach from graves\"?\n\nWhy do you hold the intellect criminally responsible for opinions, when\nyou admit that it is controlled by the will? And why do you hold the\nwill responsible, when you insist that it is swayed by the passions\nand affections? But all this has nothing to do with the fact that every\nopinion has been honestly formed, whether honestly expressed or not.\n\nNo one pretends that all governments have been honestly formed and\nhonestly administered. All vices, and some virtues are represented in\nmost nations. In my opinion a republic is far better than a monarchy.\nThe legally expressed will of the people is the only rightful sovereign.\nThis sovereignty, however, does not embrace the realm of thought or\nopinion. In that world, each human being is a sovereign,--throned and\ncrowned: One is a majority. The good citizens of that realm give to\nothers all rights that they claim for themselves, and those who appeal\nto force are the only traitors.\n\nThe existence of theological despotisms, of God-anointed kings, does\nnot tend to prove that a known prejudice can determine the weight of\nevidence. When men were so ignorant as to suppose that God would\ndestroy them unless they burned heretics, they lighted the fagots in\nselfdefence.\n\nFeeling as I do that man is not responsible for his opinions, I\ncharacterized persecution for opinion's sake as infamous. So, it is\nperfectly clear to me, that it would be the infamy of infamies for an\ninfinite being to create vast numbers of men knowing that they would\nsuffer eternal pain. If an infinite God creates a man on purpose to damn\nhim, or creates him knowing that he will be damned, is not the crime the\nsame? We make mistakes and failures because we are finite; but can you\nconceive of any excuse for an infinite being who creates failures? If\nyou had the power to change, by a wish, a statue into a human being,\nand you knew that this being would die without a \"change of heart\" and\nsuffer endless pain, what would you do?\n\nCan you think of any excuse for an earthly father, who, having wealth,\nlearning and leisure, leaves his own children in ignorance and darkness?\nDo you believe that a God of infinite wisdom, justice and love, called\ncountless generations of men into being, knowing that they would be used\nas fuel for the eternal fire?\n\nMany will regret that you did not give your views upon the main\nquestions--the principal issues--involved, instead of calling attention,\nfor the most part, to the unimportant. If men were discussing the causes\nand results of the Franco-Prussian war, it would hardly be worth while\nfor a third person to interrupt the argument for the purpose of calling\nattention to a misspelled word in the terms of surrender.\n\nIf we admit that man is responsible for his opinions and his thoughts,\nand that his will is perfectly free, still these admissions do not even\ntend to prove the inspiration of the Bible, or the \"divine scheme of\nredemption.\"\n\nIn my judgment, the days of the supernatural are numbered. The dogma\nof inspiration must be abandoned. As man advances,--as his intellect\nenlarges,--as his knowledge increases,--as his ideals become nobler,\nthe bibles and creeds will lose their authority--the miraculous will be\nclassed with the impossible, and the idea of special providence will be\ndiscarded. Thousands of religions have perished, innumerable gods have\ndied, and why should the religion of our time be exempt from the common\nfate?\n\nCreeds cannot remain permanent in a world in which knowledge increases.\nScience and superstition cannot peaceably occupy the same brain. This is\nan age of investigation, of discovery and thought. Science destroys the\ndogmas that mislead the mind and waste the energies of man. It points\nout the ends that can be accomplished; takes into consideration the\nlimits of our faculties; fixes our attention on the affairs of this\nworld, and erects beacons of warning on the dangerous shores. It seeks\nto ascertain the conditions of health, to the end that life may be\nenriched and lengthened, and it reads with a smile this passage:\n\n\"And God-wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from\nhis body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the\ndiseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.\"\n\nScience is the enemy of fear and credulity. It invites investigation,\nchallenges the reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the unbeliever.\nIt seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, education and liberty to\nthe human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It has furnished\na foundation for morals, a philosophy for the guidance of man. From all\nbooks it selects the good, and from all theories, the true. It seeks to\ncivilize the human race by the cultivation of the intellect and'\nheart. It refines through art, music and the drama--giving voice and\nexpression to every noble thought. The mysterious does not excite the\nfeeling of worship, but the ambition to understand. It does not pray--it\nworks. It does not answer inquiry with the malicious cry of \"blasphemy.\"\nIts feelings are not hurt by contradiction, neither does it ask to be\nprotected by law from the laughter of heretics. It has taught man that\nhe cannot walk beyond the horizon--that the questions of origin and\ndestiny cannot be answered--that an infinite personality cannot be\ncomprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any system\nof religion based on the supernatural cannot by any possibility be\nestablished--such a religion not being within the domain of evidence.\nAnd, above all, it teaches that all our duties are here--that all\nour obligations are to sentient beings; that intelligence, guided by\nkindness, is the highest possible wisdom; and that \"man believes not\nwhat he would, but what he can.\"\n\nAnd after all, it may be that \"to ride an unbroken horse with the reins\nthrown upon his neck\"--as you charge me with doing--gives a greater\nvariety of sensations, a keener delight, and a better prospect of\nwinning the race than to sit solemnly astride of a dead one, in \"a deep\nreverential calm,\" with the bridle firmly in your hand.\n\nAgain assuring you of my profound respect, I remain, Sincerely yours,\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nROME OR REASON.\n\nCol. Ingersoll and Cardinal Manning.\n\nThe Gladstone-Ingersoll Controversy.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH ITS OWN WITNESS, By Cardinal Manning.\n\nTHE Vatican Council, in its Decree on Faith has these words: \"The\nChurch itself, by its marvelous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its\ninexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, its catholic unity and\ninvincible stability, is a vast and perpetual motive of credibility, and\nan irrefragable witness of its own Divine legation.\"* Its Divine Founder\nsaid: \"I am the light of the world;\" and, to His Apostles, He said also,\n\"Ye are the light of the world,\" and of His Church He added, \"A city\nseated on a hill cannot be hid.\" The Vatican Council says, \"The Church\nis its own witness.\" My purpose is to draw out this assertion more\nfully.\n\n     * \"Const. Dogm. de Fide Catholica, c. iii.\n\nThese words affirm that the Church is self-evident, as light is to the\neye, and through sense, to the intellect. Next to the sun at noonday,\nthere is nothing in the world more manifest than the one visible\nUniversal Church. Both the faith and the infidelity of the world bear\nwitness to it. It is loved and hated, trusted and feared, served and\nassaulted, honored and blasphemed: it is Christ or Antichrist, the\nKingdom of God or the imposture of Satan. It pervades the civilized\nworld. No man and no nation can ignore it, none can be indifferent to\nit. Why is all this? How is its existence to be accounted for?\n\nLet me suppose that I am an unbeliever in Christianity, and that some\nfriend should make me promise to examine the evidence to show that\nChristianity is a Divine revelation; I should then sift and test the\nevidence as strictly as if it were in a court of law, and in a cause of\nlife and death; my will would be in suspense: it would in no way\ncontrol the process of my intellect. If it had any inclination from the\nequilibrium, it would be towards mercy and hope; but this would not\nadd a feather's weight to the evidence, nor sway the intellect a hair's\nbreadth.\n\nAfter the examination has been completed, and my intellect convinced,\nthe evidence being sufficient to prove that Christianity is a divine\nrevelation, nevertheless I am not yet a Christian. All this sifting\nbrings me to the conclusion of a chain of reasoning; but I am not yet\na believer. The last act of reason has brought me to the brink of the\nfirst act of faith. They are generically distinct and separable. The\nacts of reason are intellectual, and jealous of the interference of the\nwill. The act of faith is an imperative act of the will, founded on and\njustified by the process and conviction of the intellect. Hitherto I\nhave been a critic: henceforward, if I will, I become a disciple.\n\nIt may here be objected that no man can so far suspend the inclination\nof the will when the question is, has God indeed spoken to man or no? is\nthe revealed law of purity, generosity, perfection, divine, or only the\npoetry of imagination? Can a man be indifferent between two such sides\nof the problem? Will he not desire the higher and better side to be\ntrue? and if he desire, will he not incline to the side that he desires\nto find true? Can a moral being be absolutely indifferent between two\nsuch issues? and can two such issues be equally attractive to a moral\nagent? Can it be indifferent and all the same to us whether God has\nmade Himself and His will known to us or not? Is there no attraction\nin light, no repulsion in darkness? Does not the intrinsic and eternal\ndistinction of good and evil make itself felt in spite of the will?\nAre we not responsible to \"receive the truth in the love of it?\"\nNevertheless, evidence has its own limits and quantities, and cannot be\nmade more or less by any act of the will. And yet, what is good or bad,\nhigh or mean, lovely or hateful, ennobling or degrading, must attract\nor repel men as they are better or worse in their moral sense; for an\nequilibrium between good and evil, to God or to man, is impossible.\n\nThe last act of my reason, then, is distinct from my first act of\nfaith precisely in this: so long as I was uncertain I suspended the\ninclination of my will, as an act of fidelity to conscience and of\nloyalty to truth; but the process once complete, and the conviction once\nattained, my will imperatively constrains me to believe, and I become a\ndisciple of a Divine revelation.\n\nMy friend next tells me that there are Christian Scriptures, and I go\nthrough precisely the same process of critical examination and final\nconviction, the last act of reasoning preceding, as before, the first\nact of faith.\n\nHe then tells me that there is a Church claiming to be divinely founded,\ndivinely guarded, and divinely guided in its custody of Christianity and\nof the Christian Scriptures.\n\nOnce more I have the same twofold process of reasoning and of believing\nto go through.\n\nThere is, however, this difference in the subject-matter: Christianity\nis an order of supernatural truth appealing intellectually to my reason;\nthe Christian Scriptures are voiceless, and need a witness. They\ncannot prove their own mission, much less their own authenticity or\ninspiration. But the Church is visible to the eye, audible to the ear,\nself-manifesting and self-asserting: I cannot escape from it. If I go to\nthe east, it is there; if I go to the west, it is there also. If I stay\nat home, it is before me, seated on the hill; if I turn away from it, I\nam surrounded by its light. It pursues me and calls to me. I cannot deny\nits existence; I cannot be indifferent to it; I must either listen to\nit or willfully stop my ears; I must heed it or defy it, love it or\nhate it. But my first attitude towards it is to try it with forensic\nstrictness, neither pronouncing it to be Christ nor Antichrist till I\nhave tested its origin, claim, and character. Let us take down the case\nin short-hand.\n\n1. It says that it interpenetrates all the nations of the civilized\nworld. In some it holds the whole nation in its unity, in others it\nholds fewer; but in all it is present, visible, audible, naturalized,\nand known as the one Catholic Church, a name that none can appropriate.\nThough often claimed and controversially assumed, none can retain it; it\nfalls off. The world knows only one Catholic Church, and always restores\nthe name to the right owner.\n\n2. It is not a national body, but extra-national, accused of its foreign\nrelations and foreign dependence. It is international, and independent\nin a supernational unity.\n\n3. In faith, divine worship, sacred ceremonial, discipline, government,\nfrom the highest to the lowest, it is the same in every place.\n\n4. It speaks all languages in the civilized world.\n\n5. It is obedient to one Head, outside of all nations, except one only;\nand in that nation, his headship is not national but world-wide.\n\n6. The world-wide sympathy of the Church in all lands with its Head has\nbeen manifested in our days, and before our eyes, by a series of public\nassemblages in Rome, of which nothing like or second to it can be\nfound. In 1854, 350 Bishops of all nations surrounded their Head when he\ndefined the Immaculate Conception. In 1862, 400 Bishops assembled at the\ncanonization of the Martyrs of Japan. In 1867, 500 Bishops came to keep\nthe eighteenth centenary of St. Peter's martyrdom. In 1870, 700 Bishops\nassembled in the Vatican Council. On the Feast of the Epiphany, 1870,\nthe Bishops of thirty nations during two whole hours made profession of\nfaith in their own languages, kneeling before their head. Add to this,\nthat in 1869, in the sacerdotal jubilee of Pius IX., Rome was filled for\nmonths by pilgrims from all lands in Europe and beyond the sea, from the\nOld World and from the New, bearing all manner of gifts and oblations\nto the Head of the Universal Church. To this, again, must be added the\nworld-wide outcry and protest of all the Catholic unity against the\nseizure and sacrilege of September, 1870, when Rome was taken by the\nItalian Revolution.\n\n7. All this came to pass not only by reason of the great love of\nthe Catholic world for Pius IX., but because they revered him as the\nsuccessor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. For that undying\nreason the same events have been reproduced in the time of Leo XIII. In\nthe early months of this year Rome was once more filled with pilgrims of\nall nations, coming in thousands as representatives of millions in all\nnations, to celebrate the sacerdotal jubilee of the Sovereign Pontiff.\nThe courts of the Vatican could not find room for the multitude of gifts\nand offerings of every kind which were sent from all quarters of the\nworld.\n\n8. These things are here said, not because of any other importance,\nbut because they set forth in the most visible and self-evident way the\nliving unity and the luminous universality of the One Catholic and Roman\nChurch.\n\n9. What has thus far been said is before our eyes at this hour. It is no\nappeal to history, but to a visible and palpable fact. Men may explain\nit as they will; deny it, they cannot. They see the Head of the Church\nyear by year speaking to the nations of the world; treating with\nEmpires, Republics and Governments. There is no other man on earth that\ncan so bear himself. Neither from Canterbury nor from Constantinople can\nsuch a voice go forth to which rulers and people listen.\n\nThis is the century of revolutions. Rome has in our time been besieged\nthree times; three Popes have been driven out of it, two have been shut\nup in the Vatican. The city is now full of the Revolution. The whole\nChurch has been tormented by Falck laws, Mancini laws, and Crispi laws.\nAn unbeliever in Germany said some years ago, \"The net is now drawn so\ntight about the Church, that if it escapes this time I will believe in\nit.\" Whether he believes, or is even alive now to believe, I cannot say.\n\nNothing thus far has been said as proof. The visible, palpable\nfacts, which are at this moment before the eyes of all men, speak for\nthemselves. There is one, and only one, worldwide unity of which\nthese things can be said. It is a fact and a phenomenon for which an\nintelligible account must be rendered. If it be only a human system\nbuilt up by the intellect, will and energy of men, let the adversaries\nprove it. The burden is upon them; and they will have more to do as we\ngo on.\n\nThus far we have rested upon the evidence of sense and fact. We must now\ngo on to history and reason.\n\nEvery religion and every religious body known to history has varied\nfrom itself and broken up. Brahminism has given birth to Buddhism;\nMahometanism is parted into the Arabian and European Khalifates;\nthe Greek schism into the Russian, Constantinopolitan, and Bulgarian\nautocephalous fragment; Protestaritism into its multitudinous\ndiversities. All have departed from their original type, and all\nare continually developing new and irreconcilable, intellectual and\nritualistic, diversities and repulsions. How is it that, with all\ndiversities of language, civilization, race, interest, and conditions,\nsocial and political, including persecution and warfare, the Catholic\nnations are at this day, even when in warfare, in unchanged unity of\nfaith, communion, worship and spiritual sympathy with each other and\nwith their Head? This needs a rational explanation.\n\nIt may be said in answer, endless divisions have come out of the Church,\nfrom Arius to Photius, and from Photius to Luther.\n\nYes, but they all came out. There is the difference. They did not remain\nin the Church, corrupting the faith. They came out, and ceased to belong\nto the Catholic unity, as a branch broken from a tree ceases to belong\nto the tree. But the identity of the tree remains the same. A branch is\nnot a tree, nor a tree a branch. A tree may lose branches, but it rests\nupon its root, and renews its loss. Not so the religions, so to call\nthem, that have broken away from unity. Not one has retained its members\nor its doctrines. Once separated from the sustaining unity of the\nChurch, all separations lose their spiritual cohesion, and then their\nintellectual identity. _Ramus procisus arescit_.\n\nFor the present it is enough to say that no human legislation, authority\nor constraint can ever create internal unity of intellect and will; and\nthat the diversities and contradictions generated by all human systems\nprove the absence of Divine authority. Variations or contradictions are\nproof of the absence of a Divine mission to mankind. All natural causes\nrun to disintegration. Therefore, they can render no account of the\nworld-wide unity of the One Universal Church.\n\nSuch, then, are the facts before our eyes at this day. We will seek out\nthe origin of the body or system called the Catholic Church, and pass at\nonce to its outset eighteen hundred years ago.\n\nI affirm, then, three things: (1) First, that no adequate account can be\ngiven of this undeniable fact from natural causes; (2) that the history\nof the Catholic Church demands causes above nature; and (3) that it has\nalways claimed for itself a Divine origin and Divine authority.\n\nI. And, first, before we examine what it was and what it has done, we\nwill recall to mind what was the world in the midst of which it arose.\n\nThe most comprehensive and complete description of the old world, before\nChristianity came in upon it, is given in the first chapter of the\nEpistle to the Romans. Mankind had once the knowledge of God: that\nknowledge was obscured by the passions of sense; in the darkness of the\nhuman intellect, with the light of nature still before them, the nations\nworshiped the creature--that is, by pantheism, polytheism, idolatry;\nand, having lost the knowledge of God and of His perfections, they lost\nthe knowledge of their own nature and of its laws, even of the natural\nand rational laws, which thenceforward ceased to guide, restrain, or\ngovern them. They became perverted and inverted with every possible\nabuse, defeating the end and destroying the powers of creation. The\nlights of nature were put out, and the world rushed headlong into\nconfusions, of which the beasts that perish were innocent. This is\nanalytically the history of all nations but one. A line of light still\nshone from Adam to Enoch, from Enoch to Abraham, to whom the command was\ngiven, \"Walk before Me and be perfect.\" And it ran on from Abraham\nto Caiaphas, who crucified the founder of Christianity. Through all\nanthropomorphisms of thought and language this line of light still\npassed inviolate and inviolable. But in the world, on either side of\nthat radiant stream, the whole earth was dark. The intellectual and\nmoral state of the Greek world may be measured in its highest excellence\nin Athens; and of the Roman world in Rome. The 'state of Athens--its\nprivate, domestic, and public morality--may be seen in Aristophanes.\n\nThe state of Rome is visible in Juvenal, and in the fourth book of St.\nAugustine's \"City of God.\" There was only one evil wanting-. The world\nwas not Atheist. Its polytheism was the example and the warrant of all\nforms of moral abominations. Imitary quod colis plunged the nations\nin crime. Their theology was their degradation; their text-book of an\nelaborate corruption of intellect and will.\n\nChristianity came in \"the fullness of time.\" What that fullness may\nmean, is one of the mysteries of times and seasons which it is not for\nus to know. But one motive for the long delay of four thousand years\nis not far to seek. It gave time, full and ample, for the utmost\ndevelopment and consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of which the\nintellect and will of man are capable. The four great empires were each\nof them the concentration of a supreme effort of human power. The second\ninherited from the first, the third from both, the fourth from all\nthree. It was, as it was foretold or described, as a beast, \"exceeding\nterrible; his teeth and claws were of iron; he devoured and broke in\npieces; and the rest he stamped upon with his feet.\" * The empire of\nman over man was never so widespread, so absolute, so hardened into one\norganized mass, as in Imperial Rome. The world had never seen a military\npower so disciplined, irresistible, invincible; a legislation so just,\nso equitable, so strong in its execution; a government so universal,\nso local, so minute. It seemed to be imperishable. Rome was called\nthe eternal. The religions of all nations were enshrined in Dea Roma;\nadopted, practiced openly, and taught. They were all _religiones\nlicitae_, known to the law; not tolerated only, but recognized. The\ntheologies of Egypt, Greece, and of the Latin world, met in an empyreum,\nconsecrated and guarded by the Imperial law, and administered by the\nPontifex Maximus. No fanaticism ever surpassed the religious cruelties\nof Rome.. Add to all this the colluvies of false philosophies of every\nland, and of every date. They both blinded and hardened the intellect\nof public opinion and of private men against the invasion of anything\nexcept contempt, and hatred of both the philosophy of sophists and of\nthe religion of the people. Add to all this the sensuality of the most\nrefined and of the grossest luxury the world had ever seen, and a moral\nconfusion and corruption which violated every law of nature.\n\n     * Daniel, vii. 19.\n\nThe god of this world had built his city. From foundation to parapet,\neverything that the skill and power of man could do had been done\nwithout stint of means or limit of will. The Divine hand was stayed, or\nrather, as St. Augustine says, an unsurpassed natural greatness was the\nreward of certain natural virtues, degraded as they were in unnatural\nabominations. Rome was the climax of the power of man without God, the\napotheosis of the human will, the direct and supreme antagonist of God\nin His own world. In this the fullness of time was come. Man built all\nthis for himself. Certainly, man could not also build the City of God.\nThey are not the work of one and the same architect, who capriciously\nchose to build first the city of confusion, suspending for a time his\nskill and power to build some day the City of God. Such a hypothesis is\nfolly. Of two things, one. Disputers must choose one or the other.\nBoth cannot be asserted, and the assertion needs no answer--it refutes\nitself. So much for the first point.\n\nII. In the reign of Augustus, and in a remote and powerless Oriental\nrace, a Child was born in a stable of a poor Mother. For thirty years He\nlived a hidden life; for three years He preached the Kingdom of God, and\ngave laws hitherto unknown to men. He died in ignominy upon the Cross;\non the third day He rose again; and after forty days He was seen no\nmore. This unknown Man created the world-wide unity of intellect and\nwill which is visible to the eye, and audible, in all languages, to the\near. It is in harmony with the reason and moral nature of all nations,\nin all ages, to this day. What proportion is there between the cause\nand the effect? What power was there in this isolated Man? What unseen\nvirtues went out of Him to change the world? For change the world He\ndid; and that not in the line or on the level of nature as men had\ncorrupted it, but in direct contradiction to all that was then supreme\nin the world. He taught the dependence of the intellect against\nits self-trust, the submission of the will against its license,\nthe subjugation of the passions by temperate control or by absolute\nsubjection against their willful indulgence. This was to reverse what\nmen believed to be the laws of nature: to make water climb upward and\nfire to point downward. He taught mortification of the lusts of the\nflesh, contempt of the lusts of the eyes, and hatred of the pride of\nlife. What hope was there that such a teacher should convert imperial\nRome? that such a doctrine should exorcise the fullness of human pride\nand lust? Yet so it has come to pass; and how? Twelve men more obscure\nthan Himself, absolutely without authority or influence of this world,\npreached throughout the empire and beyond it. They asserted two facts:\nthe one, that God had been made man; the other, that He died and\nrose again. What could be more incredible? To the Jews the unity and\nspirituality of God were axioms of reason and faith; to the Gentiles,\nhowever cultured, the resurrection of the flesh was impossible. The\nDivine Person Who had died and risen could not be called in evidence as\nthe chief witness. He could not be produced in court. Could anything be\nmore suspicious if credible, or less credible even if He were there to\nsay so? All that they could do was to say, \"We knew Him for three years,\nboth before His death and after He rose from the dead. If you will\nbelieve us, you will believe what we say. If you will not believe us,\nwe can say no more. He is not here, but in heaven. We cannot call him\ndown.\" It is true, as we read, that Peter cured a lame man at the gate\nof the Temple. The Pharisees could not deny it, but they would not\nbelieve what Peter said; they only told him to hold his tongue. And yet\nthousands in one day in Jerusalem believed in the Incarnation and the\nResurrection; and when the Apostles were scattered by persecution,\nwherever they went men believed their word. The most intense persecution\nwas from the Jews, the people of faith and of Divine traditions. In\nthe name of God and of religion they stoned Stephen, and sent Saul to\npersecute at Damascus. More than this, they stirred up the Romans in\nevery place. As they had forced Pilate to crucify Jesus of Nazareth, so\nthey swore to slay Paul. And yet, in spite of all, the faith spread.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that the Empire of Alexander, the spread of the\nHellenistic Greek, the prevalence of Greek in Rome itself, the Roman\nroads which made the Empire traversable, the Roman peace which sheltered\nthe preachers of the faith in the outset of their work, gave them\nfacilities to travel and to be understood. But these were only external\nfacilities, which in no way rendered more credible or more acceptable\nthe voice of penance and mortification, or the mysteries of the faith,\nwhich was immutably \"to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks\nfoolishness.\" It was in changeless opposition to nature as man had\nmarred it; but it was in absolute harmony with nature as God had made\nit to His own likeness. Its power was its persuasiveness; and its\npersuasiveness was in its conformity to the highest and noblest\naspirations and aims of the soul in man. The master-key so long lost\nwas found at last; and its conformity to the wards of the lock was its\nirrefragable witness to its own mission and message.\n\nBut if it is beyond belief that Christianity in its outset made good\nits foothold by merely human causes and powers, how much more does this\nbecome incredible in every age as we come down from the first century to\nthe nineteenth, and from the Apostolic mission to the world-wide Church,\nCatholic and Roman, at this day.\n\nNot only did the world in the fullness of its power give to the\nChristian faith no help to root or to spread itself, but it wreaked all\nthe fullness of its power upon it to uproot and to destroy it, Of the\nfirst thirty Pontiffs in Rome, twenty-nine were martyred. Ten successive\npersecutions, or rather one universal and continuous persecution of two\nhundred years, with ten more bitter excesses of enmity in every province\nof the Empire, did all that man can do to extinguish the Christian name.\nThe Christian name may be blotted out here and there in blood, but the\nChristian faith can nowhere be slain. It is inscrutable, and beyond the\nreach of man. In nothing is the blood of the martyrs more surely the\nseed of the faith. Every martyrdom was a witness to the faith, and the\nten persecutions were the sealing of the work of the twelve Apostles.\nThe destroyer defeated himself. Christ crucified was visibly set forth\nbefore all the nations, the world was a Calvary, and the blood of the\nmartyrs preached in every tongue the Passion of Jesus Christ. The world\ndid its worst, and ceased only for weariness and conscious defeat.\n\nThen came the peace, and with peace the peril of the Church. The\nworld outside had failed; the world inside began to work. It no longer\ndestroyed life; it perverted the intellect, and, through intellectual\nperversion, assailed the faith at its centre, The Angel of light\npreached heresy. The Baptismal Creed was assailed all along the line;\nGnosticism assailed the Father-and Creator of all things; Arianism,\nthe God-head of the Son; Nestorianism, the unity of His person;\nMonophysites, the two natures; Monothelites, the divine and human wills;\nMacedonians, the person of the Holy Ghost So throughout the centuries,\nfrom Nicaea to the Vatican, every article has been in succession\nperverted by heresy and defined by the Church. But of this we shall\nspeak hereafter. If the human intellect could fasten its perversions\non the Chris tian faith, it would have done so long ago; and if the\nChristian faith had been guarded by no more than human intellect, it\nwould long ago have been disintegrated, as we see in every religion\noutside the unity of the one Catholic Church. There is no example in\nwhich fragmentary Christianities have not departed from their original\ntype. No human system is immutable; no thing human is changeless.\nThe human intellect, therefore, can give no sufficient account of the\nidentity of the Catholic faith in all places and in all ages by any\nof its own natural processes or powers. The force of this argument is\nimmensely increased when we trace the tradition of the faith through the\nnineteen OEcumenical Councils which, with one continuous intelligence,\nhave guarded and unfolded the deposit of faith, defining every truth\nas it has been successively assailed, in absolute harmony and unity of\nprogression.\n\nWhat the Senate is to your great Republic, or the Parliament to our\nEnglish monarchy, such are the nineteen Councils of the Church, with\nthis only difference: the secular Legislatures must meet year by year\nwith short recesses; Councils have met on the average once in a century.\nThe reason of this is that the mutabilities of national life, which are\nas the water-floods, need constant remedies; the stability of the Church\nseldom needs new legislation. The faith needs no definition except in\nrare intervals of periodical intellectual disorder. The discipline\nof the Church reigns by an universal common law which seldom needs a\nchange, and by local laws which are provided on the spot. Nevertheless,\nthe legislation of the Church, the _Corpus Juris_, or _Canon Law_, is\na creation of wisdom and justice, to which no Statutes at large or\nImperial pandects can bear comparison. Human intellect has reached its\nclimax in jurisprudence, but the world-wide and secular legislation\nof the Church has a higher character. How the Christian law corrected,\nelevated, and completed the Imperial law, may be seen in a learned and\nable work by an American author, far from the Catholic faith, but in the\nmain just and accurate in his facts and arguments--the _Gesta Christi_\nof Charles Loring Brace. Water cannot rise above its source, and if the\nChurch by mere human wisdom corrected and perfected the Imperial law,\nits source must be higher than the sources of the world. This makes a\nheavy demand on our credulity.\n\nStarting from St. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some 258\nPontiffs claiming to be, and recognized by the whole Catholic unity as,\nsuccessors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ. To them has been\nrendered in every age not only the external obedience of outward\nsubmission, but the internal obedience of faith. They have borne the\nonset of the nations who destroyed Imperial Rome, and the tyranny of\nheretical Emperors of Byzantium; and, worse than this, the alternate\ndespotism and patronage of the Emperors of the West, and the\nsubstraction of obedience in the great Western schisms, when the unity\nof the Church and the authority of its Head were, as men thought, gone\nfor ever. It was the last assault--the forlorn hope of the gates of\nhell. Every art of destruction had been tried: martyrdom, heresy,\nsecularity, schism; at last, two, and three, and four claimants, or, as\nthe world says, rival Popes, were set up, that men might believe that\nSt. Peter had no longer a successor, and our Lord no Vicar, upon earth;\nfor, though all might be illegitimate, only one could be the lawful and\ntrue Head of the Church. Was it only by the human power of man that the\nunity, external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years had been\nsupreme, was once more restored in the Council of Constance, never to be\nbroken again? The succession of the English monarchy has been, indeed,\noften broken, and always restored, in these thousand years. But here\nis a monarchy of eighteen hundred years, powerless in worldly force or\nsupport, claiming and receiving not only outward allegiance, but inward\nunity of intellect and will. If any man tell us that these two phenomena\nare on the same level of merely human causes, it is too severe a tax\nupon our natural reason to believe it.\n\nBut the inadequacy of human causes to account for the universality,\nunity, and immutability of the Catholic Church, will stand out more\nvisibly if we look at the intellectual and moral revolution which\nChristianity has wrought in the world and upon mankind.\n\nThe first effect of Christianity was to fill the world with the true\nknowledge of the One True God, and to destroy utterly all idols, not\nby fire but by light. Before the Light of the world no false god and no\npolytheism could stand. The unity and spirituality of God swept away all\ntheogonies and theologies of the first four thousand years. The stream\nof light which descended from the beginning expanded into a radiance,\nand the radiance into a flood, which illuminated all nations, as it had\nbeen foretold, \"The earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord,\nas the covering waters of the sea;\" \"And idols shall be utterly\ndestroyed.\"* In this true knowledge of the Divine Nature was revealed to\nmen their own relation to a Creator as of sons to a father. The Greeks\ncalled the chief of the gods _Zeus Pater_, and the Latins _Jupiter_; but\nneither realized the dependence and love of sonship as revealed by the\nFounder of Christianity.\n\n     * Isaias, xi. 9-11, 18.\n\nThe monotheism of the world comes down from a primeval and Divine\nsource. Polytheism is the corruption of men and of nations. Yet in\nthe multiplicity of all polytheisms, ont supreme Deity was always\nrecognized. The Divine unity was imperishable. Polytheism is of human\nimagination: it is of men's manufacture. The deification of nature and\npassions and heroes had filled the world with an elaborate and tenacious\nsuperstition, surrounded by reverence, fear, religion, and awe.\nEvery perversion of what is good in man surrounded it with authority;\neverything that is evil in man guarded it with jealous care. Against\nthis world-wide and imperious demon-ology the science of one God, all\nholy and supreme, advanced with resistless force. Beelzebub is not\ndivided against himself; and if polytheism is not Divine, monotheism\nmust be. The overthrow of idolatry and demonology was the mastery of\nforces that are above nature. This conclusion is enough for our present\npurpose.\n\nA second visible effect of Christianity of which nature cannot offer\nany adequate cause is to be found in the domestic life of the Christian\nworld. In some nations the existence of marriage was not so much as\nrecognized. In others, if recognized, it was dishonored by profuse\nconcubinage. Even in Israel, the most advanced nation, the law of\ndivorce was permitted for the hardness of their hearts. Christianity\nrepublished the primitive law by which marriage unites only one man and\none woman indissolubly in a perpetual contract. It raised their mutual\nand perpetual contract to a sacrament. This at one blow condemned all\nother relations between man and woman, all the legal gradations of\nthe Imperial law, and all forms and pleas of divorce. Beyond this the\nspiritual legislation of the Church framed most elaborate tables of\nconsanguinity and affinity, prohibiting all marriages between persons in\ncertain degrees of kinship or relation. This law has created the purity\nand peace of domestic life. Neither the Greek nor the Roman world\nhad any true conception of a home. The _Eoria_ or Vesta was a sacred\ntradition guarded by vestals like a temple worship. It was not a law\nand a power in the homes of the people. Christianity, by enlarging the\ncircles of prohibition within which men and women were as brothers and\nsisters, has created the home with all its purities and safeguards.\n\nSuch a law of unity and indissolubility, encompassed by a multitude of\nprohibitions, no mere human legislation could impose on the the passions\nand will of mankind. And yet the Imperial laws gradually yielded to its\nresistless pressure, and incorporated it in its world-wide legislation.\nThe passions and practices of four thousand years were against the\nchange; yet it was accomplished, and it reigns inviolate to this day,\nthough the relaxations of schism in the East and the laxities of the\nWest have revived the abuse of divorces, and have partially abolished\nthe wise and salutary prohibitions which guard the homes of the\nfaithful. These relaxations prove that all natural forces have been, and\nare, hostile to the indissoluble law of Christian marriage. Certainly,\nthen, it was not by natural forces that the Sacrament of Matrimony and\nthe legislation springing from it were enacted. If these are restraints\nof human liberty and license, either they do not spring from nature, or\nthey have had a supernatural cause whereby they exist. It was this that\nredeemed woman from the traditional degradation in which the world had\nheld her. The condition of women in Athens and in Rome--which may be\ntaken as the highest points of civilization--is too well known to need\nrecital. Women had no rights, no property, no independence. Plato looked\nupon them as State property; Aristotle as chattels; the Greeks wrote of\nthem as [--Greek--].\n\nThey were the prey, the sport, the slaves of man. Even in Israel, though\nthey were raised incomparably higher than in the Gentile world, they\nwere far below the dignity and authority of Christian women. Libanius,\nthe friend of Julian, the Apostate, said, \"O ye gods of Greece, how\ngreat are the women of the Christians!\" Whence came the elevation of\nwomanhood? Not from the ancient civilization, for it degraded them; not\nfrom Israel, for among the Jews the highest state of womanhood was the\nmarriage state. The daughter of Jepthe went into the mountains to mourn\nnot her death but her virginity. The marriage state in the Christian\nworld, though holy and good, is not the highest state. The state of\nvirginity unto death is the highest condition of man and woman. But this\nis above the law of nature. It belongs to a higher order. And this life\nof virginity, in repression of natural passion and lawful instinct, is\nboth above and against the tendencies of human nature. It begins in a\nmortification, and ends in a mastery, over the movements and ordinary\nlaws of human nature. Who will ascribe this to natural causes? and, if\nso, why did it not appear in the first four thousand years? And when has\nit ever appeared except in a handful of vestal virgins, or in Oriental\nrecluses, with what reality history shows? An exception proves a rule.\nNo one will imagine that a life of chastity is impossible to nature; but\nthe restriction is a repression of nature which individuals may acquire,\nbut the multitude have never attained. A religion which imposes chastity\non the unmarried, and upon its priesthood, and upon the multitudes of\nwomen in every age who devote themselves to the service of One Whom they\nhave never seen, is a mortification of nature in so high a degree as\nto stand out as a fact and a phenomenon, of which mere natural causes\nafford no adequate solution. Its existence, not in a handful out of the\nmillions of the world, but its prevalence and continuity in multitudes\nscattered throughout the Christian world, proves the presence of a cause\nhigher than the laws of nature. So true is this, that jurists teach that\nthe three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience are contrary to \"the\npolicy of the law,\" that is, to the interests of the commonwealth, which\ndesires the multiplication, enrichment, and liberty of its members.\n\nTo what has been said may be added the change wrought by Christianity\nupon the social, political, and international relations of the world.\nThe root of this ethical change, private and public, is the Christian\nhome. The authority of parents, the obedience of children, the love of\nbrotherhood, are the three active powers which have raised the society\nof man above the level of the old world. Israel was head and shoulders\nabove the world around it; but Christendom is high above Israel. The new\nCommandment of brotherly love, and the Sermon on the Mount, have wrought\na revolution, both in private and public life. From this come the laws\nof justice and sympathy which bind together the nations of the Christian\nworld. In the old world, even the most refined races, worshiped by our\nmodern philosophers, held and taught that man could hold property in\nman. In its chief cities there were more slaves than free men. Who has\ntaught the equality of men before the law, and extinguished the impious\nthought that man can hold property in man? It was no philosopher: even\nAristotle taught that a slave was [--Greek--]. It was no lawgiver, for\nall taught the lawfulness of slavery till Christianity denied it. The\nChristian law has taught that man can lawfully sell his labor, but that\nhe cannot lawfully be sold, or sell himself.\n\nThe necessity of being brief, the impossibility of drawing out the\npicture of the old world, its profound immoralities, its unimaginable\ncruelties, compels me to argue with my right hand tied behind me. I can\ndo no more than point again to Mr. Brace's \"Gesta Christi,\" or to Dr.\nDollinger's \"Gentile and Jew,\" as witnesses to the facts which I have\nstated or implied. No one who has not read such books, or mastered their\ncontents by original study, can judge of the force of the assertion that\nChristianity has reformed the world by direct antagonism to the human\nwill, and by a searching and firm repression of human passion. It has\nascended the stream of human license, _contra ictum fluminis_, by a\npower mightier than nature, and by laws of a higher order than the\nrelaxations of this world.\n\nBefore Christianity came on earth, the civilization of man by merely\nnatural force had culminated. It could not rise above its source; all\nthat it could do was done; and the civilization in every race and\nempire had ended in decline and corruption. The old civilization was not\nregenerated. It passed away to give place to a new. But the new had\na higher source, nobler laws and supernatural powers. The highest\nexcellence of men and of nations is the civilization of Christianity.\nThe human race has ascended into what we call Christendom, that is,\ninto the new creation of charity and justice among men. Christendom was\ncreated by the worldwide Church as we see it before our eyes at this\nday. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the work of their own\nhands: they did not make it; but they have for three hundred years\nbeen unmaking it by reformations and revolutions. These are destructive\nforces. They build up nothing. It has been well said by Donoso Cortez\nthat \"the history of civilization is the history of Christianity, the\nhistory of Christianity is the history of the Church, the history of the\nChurch is the history of the Pontiffs, the greatest statesmen and rulers\nthat the world has ever seen.\"\n\nSome years ago, a Professor of great literary reputation in England, who\nwas supposed even then to be, as his subsequent writings have proved, a\nskeptic or non-Christian, published a well-known and very candid book,\nunder the title of \"Ecce Homo.\" The writer placed himself, as it were,\noutside of Christianity. He took, not the Church in the world as in\nthis article, but the Christian Scriptures as a historical record, to be\njudged with forensic severity and absolute impartiality of mind. To the\ncredit of the author, he fulfilled this pledge; and his conclusion shall\nhere be given. After an examination of the life and character of the\nAuthor of Christianity, he proceeded to estimate His teaching and its\neffects under the following heads:\n\n     1. The Christian Legislation.\n     2. The Christian Republic.\n     3. Its Universality.\n     4. The Enthusiasm of Humanity.\n     5. The Lord's Supper.\n     6. Positive Morality.\n     7. Philanthropy.\n     8. Edification.\n     9. Mercy.\n     10. Resentment.\n     11. Forgiveness.\n\nHe then draws his conclusion as follows:\n\n\"The achievement of Christ in founding by his single will and power a\nstructure so durable and so universal is like no other achievement which\nhistory records. The masterpieces of the men of action are coarse and\ncommonplace in comparison with it, and the masterpieces of speculation\nflimsy and unsubstantial. When we speak of it the commonplaces of\nadmiration fail us altogether. Shall we speak of the originality of\nthe design, of the skill displayed in the execution? All such terms are\ninadequate. Originality and contriving skill operate indeed, but, as it\nwere, implicitly. The creative effort which produced that against which\nit is said the gates of hell shall not prevail cannot be analyzed. No\narchitect's designs were furnished for the New Jerusalem; no committee\ndrew up rules for the universal commonwealth. If in the works of\nnature we can trace the indications of calculation, of a struggle with\ndifficulties, of precaution, of ingenuity, then in Christ's work it may\nbe that the same indications occur. But these inferior and secondary\npowers were not consciously exercised; they were implicitly present in\nthe manifold yet single creative act. The inconceivable work was done\nin calmness; before the eyes of mea it was noiselessly accomplished,\nattracting little attention. Who can describe that which unites men? Who\nhas entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol of their\nunion? Who can describe exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who\ncan do these things can explain the origin of the Christian Church.\nFor others it must be enough to say, 'The Holy Ghost fell on those that\nbelieved'. No man saw the building of the New Jerusalem, the workmen\ncrowded together, the unfinished walla and unpaved streets; no man\nheard the clink of trowel and pickaxe: 'it descended out of heaven from\nGod.'\"*\n\n     * \"Ece Homo,\" Conclusion, p. 329, Fifth Edition. Macmillan,\n     1886.\n\nAnd yet the writer is, as he was then, still outside of Christianity.\n\nIII. We come now to our third point, that Christianity has always\nclaimed a Divine origin and a Divine presence as the source of its\nauthority and powers.\n\nTo prove this by texts from the New Testament would be to transcribe the\nvolume; and if the evidence of the whole New Testament were put in, not\nonly might some men deny its weight as evidence, but we should place our\nwhole argument upon a false foundation. Christianity was anterior to\nthe New Testament and is independent of it. The Christian Scriptures\npresuppose both the faith and the Church as already existing, known, and\nbelieved. _Prior liber quam stylus_: as Tertullian argued. The Gospel\nwas preached before it was written. The four books were written to\nthose who already believed, to confirm their faith. They were written\nat intervals: St. Matthew in Hebrew in the year 39, in Greek in 45. St.\nMark in 43, St. Luke in 57, St. John about 90, in different places and\nfor different motives. Four Gospels did not exist for sixty years, or\ntwo generations of men. St. Peter and St. Paul knew of only three of\nour four. In those sixty years the faith had spread from east to west.\nSaints and Martyrs had gone up to their crown who never saw a sacred\nbook. The Apostolic Epistles prove the antecedent existence of the\nChurches to which they were addressed. Rome and Corinth, and Galatia\nand Ephesus, Philippi and Colossae, were Churches with pastors and people\nbefore St. Paul wrote to them. The Church had already attested and\nexecuted its Divine legation before the New Testament existed; and when\nall its books were written they were not as yet collected into a volume.\nThe earliest collection was about the beginning of the second century,\nand in the custody of the Church in Rome. We must, therefore, seek to\nknow what was and is Christianity before and outside of the written\nbooks; and we have the same evidence for the oral tradition of the faith\nas we have for the New Testament itself. Both alike were in the custody\nof the Church; both are delivered to us by the same witness and on the\nsame evidence. To reject either, is logically to reject both. Happily\nmen are not saved by logic, but by faith. The millions of men in\nall ages have believed by inheritance of truth divinely guarded and\ndelivered to them. They have no need of logical analysis. They\nhave believed from their childhood. Neither children nor those who\n_infantibus oquiparantur_ are logicians. It is the penance of the\ndoubter and the unbeliever to regain by toil his lost inheritance. It\nis a hard penance, like the suffering of those who eternally debate on\n\"predestination, freewill, fate.\"\n\nBetween the death of St. John and the mature lifetime of St. Irenaeus\nfifty years elapsed. St. Polycarp was disciple of St. John. St. Irenaeus\nwas disciple of St. Polycarp. The mind of St. John and the mind of St.\nIrenaeus had only one intermediate intelligence, in contact with each. It\nwould be an affectation of minute criticism to treat the doctrine of\nSt. Irenaeus as a departure from the doctrine of St. Polycarp, or the\ndoctrine of St. Polycarp as a departure from the doctrine of St. John.\nMoreover, St. John ruled the Church at Ephesus, and St. Irenaeus was\nborn in Asia Minor about the year A. D. 120--that is, twenty years after\nSt. John's death, when the Church in Asia Minor was still full of the\nlight of his teaching and of the accents of his voice. Let us see how\nSt. Irenaeus describes the faith and the Church. In his work against\nHeresies, in Book iii. chap. i., he says, \"We have known the way of our\nsalvation by those through whom the Gospel came to us; which, indeed,\nthey then preached, but afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us\nin Scriptures, the future foundation and pillar of our faith. It is not\nlawful to say that they preached before they had perfect knowledge,\nas some dare to affirm, boasting themselves to be correctors of the\nApostles. For after our Lord rose from the dead, and when they had been\nclothed with the power of the Holy Ghost, Who came upon them from on\nhigh, they were filled with all truths, and had knowledge which was\nperfect.\" In chapter ii. he adds that, \"When they are refuted out\nof Scripture, they turn and accuse the Scriptures as erroneous,\nunauthoritative, and of various readings, so that the truth cannot be\nfound by those who do not know tradition\"--that is, their own. \"But when\nwe challenge them to come to the tradition of the Apostles, which is in\ncustody of the succession of Presbyters in the Church, they turn against\ntradition, saying that they are not only wiser than the Presbyters, but\neven the Apostles, and have found the truth.\" \"It therefore comes\nto pass that they will not agree either with the Scriptures or with\ntradition.\" (Ibid. c. iii.) \"Therefore, all who desire to know the truth\nought to look to the tradition of the Apostles, which is manifest in all\nthe world and in all the Church. We are able to count up the Bishops who\nwere instituted in the Church by the Apostles, and their successors\nto our day. They never taught nor knew such things as these men\nmadly assert.\" \"But as it would be too long in such a book as this to\nenumerate the successions of all the Churches, we point to the tradition\nof the greatest, most ancient Church, known to all, founded and\nconstituted in Rome by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and to\nthe faith announced to all men, coming down to us by the succession\nof Bishops, thereby confounding all those who, in any way, by\nself-pleasing, or vainglory, or blindness, or an evil mind, teach\nas they ought not. For with this Church, by reason of its greater\nprincipality, it is necessary that all churches should agree; that is,\nthe faithful, wheresoever they be, for in that Church the tradition of\nthe Apostles has been preserved.\" No comment need be made on the\nwords the \"greater principality,\" which have been perverted by every\nanti-Catholic writer from the time they were written to this day. But if\nany one will compare them with the words of St. Paul to the Colossians\n(chap. i. 18), describing the primacy of the Head of the Church in\nheaven, it will appear almost certain that the original Greek of St.\nIrenaeus, which is unfortunately lost, contained either [--Greek--], or\nsome inflection of [--Greek--] which signifies primacy. However this\nmay be, St. Irenaeus goes on: \"The blessed Apostles, having founded\nand instructed the Church, gave in charge the Episcopate, for the\nadministration of the same, to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul, in his\nEpistle to Timothy, makes mention. To him succeeded Anacletus, and\nafter him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement received the\nEpiscopate, he who saw the Apostles themselves and conferred with them,\nwhile as yet he had the preaching of the Apostles in his ears and the\ntradition before his eyes; and not he only, but many who had been taught\nby the Apostles still survived. In the time of this Clement, when no\nlittle dissension had arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church\nin Rome wrote very powerful letters _potentissimas litteras_ to the\nCorinthians, recalling them to peace, restoring their faith, and\ndeclaring the tradition which it had so short a time ago received from\nthe Apostles.\" These letters of St. Clement are well known, but have\nlately become more valuable and complete by the discovery of fragments\npublished in a new edition by Light-foot. In these fragments there is\na tone of authority fully explaining the words of St. Irenaeus. He then\ntraces the succession of the Bishops of Rome to his own day, and adds:\n\"This demonstration is complete to show that it is one and the same\nlife-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the\nApostles until now, and is handed on in truth.\" \"Polycarp was not only\ntaught by the Apostles, and conversed with many of those who had seen\nour Lord, but he also was constituted by the Apostles in Asia to be\nBishop in the Church of Smyrna. We also saw him in our early youth, for\nhe lived long, and when very old departed from this life most gloriously\nand nobly by martyrdom. He ever taught that what he had learned from\nthe Apostles, and what the Church had delivered, those things only are\ntrue.\" In the fourth chapter, St. Irenaeus goes on to say: \"Since, then,\nthere are such proofs (of the faith), the truth is no longer to be\nsought for among others, which it is easy to receive from the Church,\nforasmuch as the Apostles laid up all truth in fullness in a rich\ndepository, that all who will may receive from it the water of life.\"\n\"But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures: ought we not\nto follow the order of tradition, which they gave in charge to them to\nwhom they intrusted the Churches? To which order (of tradition) many\nbarbarous nations yield assent, who believe in Christ without paper\nand ink, having salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts, and\ndiligently holding the ancient tradition.\" In the twenty-sixth chapter\nof the same book he says: \"Therefore, it is our duty to obey the\nPresbyters who are in the Church, who have succession from the Apostles,\nas we have already shown; who also with the succession of the Episcopate\nhave the _charisma veritatis certum_,\" the spiritual and certain gift of\ntruth.\n\nI have quoted these passages at length, not so much as proofs of the\nCatholic Faith as to show the identity of the Church at its outset with\nthe Church before our eyes at this hour, proving that the acorn has\ngrown up into its oak, or, if you will, the identity of the Church at\nthis hour with the Church of the Apostolic mission. These passages show\nthe Episcopate, its central principality, its succession, its custody of\nthe faith, its subsequent reception and guardianship of the Scriptures,\nIts Divine tradition, and the charisma or Divine assistance by which its\nperpetuity is secured in the succession of the Apostles. This is almost\nverbally, after eighteen hundred years, the decree of the Vatican\nCouncil: _Veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma_.*\n\n     * \"Const. Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi,\" cap. iv.\n\nBut St. Irenaeus draws out in full the Church of this day. He shows the\nparallel of the first creation and of the second; of the first Adam and\nthe Second; and of the analogy between the Incarnation or natural body,\nand the Church or mystical body of Christ. He says:\n\nOur faith \"we received from the Church, and guard.... as an excellent\ngift in a noble vessel, always full of youth, and making youthful the\nvessel itself in which it is. For this gift of God is intrusted to the\nChurch, as the breath of life (_was imparted_) to the first man, so this\nend, that all the members partaking of it might be quickened with life.\nAnd thus the communication of Christ is imparted; that is, the Holy\nGhost, the earnest of incorruption, the confirmation of the faith, the\nway of ascent to God. For in the Church (St. Paul says) God placed\nApostles, Prophets, Doctors, and all other operations of the Spirit, of\nwhich none are partakers who do not come to the Church, thereby\ndepriving themselves of life by a perverse mind and worse deeds. For\nwhere the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; and where the\nSpirit of God is, there is the Church, and all grace. But the Spirit is\ntruth. Wherefore, they who do not partake of Him (_the Spirit_), and are\nnot nurtured unto life at the breast of the mother (_the Church_), do\nnot receive of that most pure fountain which proceeds from the Body of\nChrist, but dig out for themselves broken pools from the trenches of the\nearth, and drink water soiled with mire, because they turn aside from\nthe faith of the Church lest they should be convicted, and reject the\nSpirit lest they should be taught.\"* Again he says: \"The Church,\nscattered throughout the world, even unto the ends of the earth,\nreceived from the Apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the\nFather Almighty, that made the heaven and the earth, and the seas, and\nall things that are in them.\" &c.**\n\n     *St. Irenaeus, Cont. Hezret lib. iii. cap. xxiv.\n\n     ** Lib. i. cap. x.\n\nHe then recites the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the\nPassion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His\ncoming again to raise all men, to judge men and angels, and to give\nsentence of condemnation or of life everlasting. How much soever\nthe language may vary from other forms, such is the substance of the\nBaptismal Creed. He then adds:\n\n\"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, as we have\nsaid before, although it be scattered abroad through the whole world,\ncarefully preserves it, dwelling as in one habitation, and believes\nalike in these (doctrines) as though she had one soul and the same\nheart: and in strict accord, as though she had one mouth, proclaims,\nand teaches, and delivers onward these things. And although there may be\nmany diverse languages in the world, yet the power of the tradition is\none and the same. And neither do the Churches planted in Germany believe\notherwise, or otherwise deliver (the faith), nor those in Iberia, nor\namong the Celtae, nor in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor\nthey that are planted in the mainland. But as the sun, which is God's\ncreature, in all the world is one and the same, so also the preaching of\nthe truth shineth everywhere, and lightened all men that are willing to\ncome to the knowledge of the truth. And neither will any ruler of the\nChurch, though he be mighty in the utterance of truth, teach otherwise\nthan thus (for no man is above the master), nor will he that is weak in\nthe same diminish from the tradition; for the faith being one and the\nsame, he that is able to say most of it hath nothing over, and he that\nis able to say least hath no lack.\"*\n\n     * St. Irenaeus, lib. i. c. x.\n\nTo St. Irenaeus, then, the Church was \"the irrefragable witness of its\nown legation.\" When did it cease so to be? It would be easy to multiply\nquotations from Tertullian in A. D. 200, from St. Cyprian a. d. 250,\nfrom St. Augustine and St. Optatus in A. d. 350, from St. Leo in a. d.\n450, all of which are on the same traditional lines of faith in a divine\nmission to the world and of a divine assistance in its discharge. But I\nrefrain from doing so because I should have to write not an article\nbut a folio. Any Catholic theology will give the passages which are now\nbefore me; or one such book as the Loci Theologici of Melchior Canus\nwill suffice to show the continuity and identity of the tradition of\nSt. Irenaeus and the tradition of the Vatican Council, in which the\nuniversal church last declared the immutable faith and its own legation\nto mankind.\n\nThe world-wide testimony of the Catholic Church is a sufficient witness\nto prove the coming of the Incarnate Son to redeem mankind, and to\nreturn to His Father; it is also sufficient to prove the advent of the\nHoly Ghost to abide with us for ever. The work of the Son in this world\nwas accomplished by the Divine acts and facts of His three-and-thirty\nyears of life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension. The office of the\nHoly Ghost is perpetual, not only as the Illuminator and Sanctifier of\nall who believe, but also as the Life and Guide of the Church. I may\nquote now the words of the Founder of the Church: \"It is expedient to\nyou that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but\nif I go, I will send Him to you.\"* \"I will ask the Father, and He shall\ngive you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.\"** \"The\nSpirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not\nnor knoweth Him; but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you\nand shall be in you.\"***\n\n     * St. John, xvi. 7.\n\n     ** Ibid, xiv. 16.\n\n     *** St.John, xiv. 16, 17.\n\nSt. Paul in the Epistles to the Ephesians describes the Church as a body\nof which the Head is in heaven, and the Author of its indefectible life\nabiding in it as His temple. Therefore the words, \"He that heareth you\nheareth Me.\" This could not be if the witness of the Apostles had been\nonly human. A Divine guidance was attached to the office they bore. They\nwere, therefore, also judges of right and wrong, and teachers by Divine\nguidance of the truth. But the presence and guidance of the Spirit of\nTruth is as full at this day as when St. Irenaeus wrote. As the Churches\nthen were witnesses, judges, and teachers, so is the Church at this hour\na world-wide witness, an unerring judge and teacher, divinely guided and\nguarded in the truth. It is therefore not only a human and historical,\nbut a Divine witness. This is the chief Divine truth which the last\nthree hundred years have obscured. Modern Christianity believes in the\none advent of the Redeemer, but rejects the full and personal advent of\nthe Holy Ghost. And yet the same evidence proves both. The Christianity\nof reformers, always returns to Judaism, because they reject the full,\nor do not believe the personal, advent of the Holy Ghost. They deny that\nthere is an infallible teacher, among men; and therefore they return to\nthe types and shadows of the Law before the Incarnation, when the Head\nwas not yet incarnate, and the Body of Christ did not as yet exist.\n\nBut perhaps some one will say, \"I admit your description of the Church\nas it is now and as it was in the days of St. Irenaeus; but the eighteen\nhundred years of which you have said nothing were ages of declension,\ndisorder, superstition, demoralization.\" I will answer by a question:\nwas not this foretold? Was not the Church to be a field of wheat and\ntares growing together till the harvest at the end of the world? There\nwere Cathari of old, and Puritans since, impatient at the patience\nof God in bearing with the perversities and corruptions of the human\nintellect and will. The Church, like its Head in heaven, is both human\nand divine. \"He was crucified in weakness,\" but no power of man could\nwound His divine nature. So with the Church, which is His Body. Its\nhuman element may corrupt and die; its divine life, sanctity, authority,\nand structure cannot die; nor can the errors of human intellect fasten\nupon its faith, nor the immoralities of the human will fasten upon\nits sanctity. Its organization of Head and Body is of divine creation,\ndivinely guarded by the Holy Ghost, who quickens it by His indwelling,\nand guides it by His light. It is in itself incorrupt and incorruptible\nin the midst of corruption, as the light of heaven falls upon all the\ndecay and corruption in the world, unsullied and unalterably pure. We\nare never concerned to deny or to cloak the sins of Christians or of\nCatholics. They may destroy themselves, but they cannot infect the\nChurch from which they fall. The fall of Lucifer left no stain behind\nhim.\n\nWhen men accuse the Church of corruption, they reveal the fact that to\nthem the Church is a human institution, of voluntary aggregation or of\nlegislative enactment. They reveal the fact that to them the Church is\nnot an object of Divine faith, as the Real Presence in the Sacrament of\nthe Altar. They do not perceive or will not believe that the articles of\nthe Baptismal Creed are objects of faith, divinely revealed or divinely\ncreated. \"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the\nCommunion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,\" are all objects of faith\nin a Divine order. They are present in human history, but the human\nelement which envelops them has no power to infect or to fasten upon\nthem. Until this is perceived there can be no true or full belief in the\nadvent and office of the Holy Ghost, or in the nature and sacramental\naction of the Church. It is the visible means and pledge of light and\nof sanctification to all who do not bar their intellect and their will\nagainst its inward and spiritual grace. The Church is not on probation.\nIt is the instrument of probation to the world. As the light of\nthe world, it is changeless as the firmament As the source of\nsanctification, it is inexhaustible as the Rivex of Life. The human and\nexternal history of men calling themselves Christian and Catholic has\nbeen at times as degrading and abominable as any adversary is pleased\nto say. But the sanctity of the Church is no more affected by human sins\nthan was Baptism by the hypocrisy of Simon Magus. The Divine foundation,\nand office, and mission of the Church is a part of Christianity. They\nwho deny it deny an article of faith; they who believe it imperfectly\nare the followers of a fragmentary Christianity of modern date. Who can\nbe a disciple of Jesus Christ who does not believe the words? \"On this\nrock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it;\" \"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you;\"* \"I dispose\nto you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom;\"** \"All power in\nheaven and earth is given unto Me. Go, therefore, and teach all\nnations;\"*** \"He that heareth you heareth Me;\"**** \"I will be with you\nalways, even unto the end of the world;\"(v) \"When the days of Pentecost\nwere accomplished they were all together in one place: and suddenly\nthere came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming, and there\nappeared to them parted tongues, as it were, of fire;\" \"And they were\nall filled with the Holy Ghost;\" (vi) \"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost\nand to us to lay upon you no other burdens.\"(vii) But who denies that\nthe Apostles claimed a Divine mission? and who can deny that the\nCatholic and Roman Church from St. Irenaeus to Leo XIII. has ever and\nopenly claimed the same, invoking in all its supreme acts as witness,\nteacher, and legislator the presence, light, and guidance of the Holy\nGhost? As the preservation of all created things is by the same creative\npower produced in perpetual and universal action, so the indefectibility\nof the Church and of the faith is by the perpetuity of the presence and\noffice of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, St. Augustine\ncalls the day of Pentecost, Natalis Spiritus Sancti.\n\n     *St. John, xx. 21.\n\n     ** St. Luke, xxii. 29.\n\n     *** St. Matthew, xxviii. 18, 19.\n\n     **** St. Luke, x. 10.\n\n     (v) St. Matthew, xxviii. 20.\n\n     (vii)Acts, ii. 1-5.\n\n     (viii) Acts, xv. 28.\n\nIt is more than time that I should make an end; and to do so it will be\nwell to sum up the heads of our argument. The Vatican Council declares\nthat the world-wide Church is the irrefragable witness of its own\nlegation or mission to mankind.\n\nIn proof of this I have affirmed:\n\n1. That the imperishable existence of Christianity, and the vast and\nundeniable revolution that it has wrought in men and in nations, in the\nmoral elevation of manhood and of womanhood, and in the domestic, social\nand political life of the Christian world, cannot be accounted for by\nany natural causes, or by any forces that are, as philosophers say,\n_intra possibilitatem natures_, within the limits of what is possible to\nman.\n\n2. That this world-wide and permanent elevation of the Christian world,\nin comparison with both the old world and the modern world outside of\nChristianity, demands a cause higher than the possibility of nature.\n\n3. That the Church has always claimed a Divine origin and a Divine\noffice and authority in virtue of a perpetual Divine assistance. To this\neven the Christian world, in all its fragments external to the Catholic\nunity, bears witness. It is turned to our reproach. They rebuke us for\nholding the teaching of the Church to be infallible. We take the rebuke\nas a testimony of our changeless faith. It is not enough for men to say\nthat they refuse to believe this account of the visible and palpable\nfact of the imperishable Christianity of the Catholic and Roman Church.\nThey must find a more reasonable, credible, and adequate account for\nit. This no man has yet done. The denials are many and the solutions\nare many; but they do not agree together. Their multiplicity is proof\nof their human origin. The claim of the Catholic Church to a Divine\nauthority and to a Divine assistance is one and the same in every age,\nand is identical in every place. Error is not the principle of unity,\nnor truth of variations.\n\nThe Church has guarded the doctrine of the Apostles, by Divine\nassistance, with unerring fidelity. The articles of the faith are to-day\nthe same in number as in the beginning. The explicit definition of\ntheir implicit meaning has expanded from age to age, as the everchanging\ndenials and perversions of the world have demanded new definitions\nof the ancient truth. The world is against all dogma, because it\nis impatient of definiteness and certainty in faith. It loves open\nquestions and the liberty of error. The Church is dogmatic for fear of\nerror. Every truth defined adds to its treasure. It narrows the field\nof error and enlarges the inheritance of truth. The world and the Church\nare ever moving in opposite directions. As the world becomes more vague\nand uncertain, the Church becomes more definite. It moves against wind\nand tide, against the stress and storm of the world. There was never\na more luminous evidence of this supernatural fact than in the Vatican\nCouncil. For eight months all that the world could say and do, like\nthe four winds of heaven, was directed upon it. Governments, statesmen,\ndiplomatists, philosophers, intriguers, mockers, and traitors did their\nutmost and their worst against it. They were in dread lest the Church\nshould declare that by Divine assistance its Head in faith and morals\ncannot err; for if this be true, man did not found it, man cannot reform\nit, man cannot teach it to interpret its history or its acts. It knows\nits own history, and is the supreme witness of its own legation.\n\nI am well aware that I have been writing truisms, and repeating trite\nand trivial arguments. They are trite because the feet of the faithful\nfor nearly nineteen hundred years have worn them in their daily life;\nthey are trivial because they point to the one path in which the\nwayfarer, though a fool, shall not err.\n\nHenry Edward, (Cardinal Manning), Card. Archbishop of Westminster.\n\n\n\n\nROME OR REASON: A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.\n\n     Superstition \"has ears more deaf than adders to the voice of\n     any true decision.\"\n\nI.\n\nCARDINAL MANNING has stated the claims of the Roman Catholic Church with\ngreat clearness, and apparently without reserve. The age, position and\nlearning of this man give a certain weight to his words, apart from\ntheir worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches. The\nquestions involved are among the most important that can engage the\nhuman mind. No one having the slightest regard for that superb thing\nknown as intellectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek\nin any way to gain a victory over truth.\n\nWithout candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is impossible.\nAll have the same interest, whether they know it or not, in the\nestablishment of facts. All have the same to gain, the same to lose. He\nloads the dice against himself who scores a point against the right.\n\nAbsolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what light is to the\neyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the mind. In each disputant should be\nblended the advocate and judge.\n\nIn this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment of the truth, let\nus examine the arguments, or rather the statements and conclusions, of\nCardinal Manning.\n\nThe proposition is that \"The church itself, by its marvelous\npropagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all\ngood things, its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a vast and\nperpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefragable witness of its own\ndivine legation.\"\n\nThe reasons given as supporting this proposition are:\n\nThat the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations of the\ncivilized world; that it is extranational and independent in a\nsupernational unity; that it is the same in every place; that it speaks\nall languages in the civilized world; that it is obedient to one head;\nthat as many as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope; that\npilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome, and that all these\nthings set forth in the most self-evident way the unity and universality\nof the Roman Church.\n\nIt is also asserted that \"men see the Head of the Church year by year\nspeaking to the nations of the world, treating with Empires, Republics\nand Governments;\" that \"there is no other man on earth that can so bear\nhimself,\" and that \"neither from Canterbury nor from Constantinople can\nsuch a voice go forth to which rulers and people listen.\"\n\nIt is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlightened and purified\nthe world; that it has given us the peace and purity of domestic life;\nthat it has destroyed idolatry and demonology; that it gave us a body of\nlaw from a higher source than man; that it has produced the civilization\nof Christendom; that the popes were the greatest of statesmen and\nrulers; that celibacy is better than marriage, and that the revolutions\nand reformations of the last three hundred years have been destructive\nand calamitous.\n\nWe will examine these assertions as well as some others.\n\nNo one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the best witness of its\nown existence. The same is true of every thing that exists--of every\nchurch, great and small, of every man, and of every insect.\n\nBut it is contended that the marvelous growth or propagation of the\nchurch is evidence of its divine origin. Can it be said that success is\nsupernatural? All success in this world is relative. Majorities are not\nnecessarily right. If anything is known--if anything can be known--we\nare sure that very large bodies of men have frequently been wrong. We\nbelieve in what is called the progress of mankind. Progress, for\nthe most part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old\nerrors--that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in harmony with\nthe facts of nature, seeing with greater clearness the conditions of\nwell-being.\n\nThere is no nation in which a majority leads the way. In the progress of\nmankind, the few have been the nearest right. There have been centuries\nin which the light seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while\nthe rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some great man leads\nthe way--he becomes the morning star, the prophet of a coming day.\nAfterward, many millions accept his views. But there are still heights\nabove and beyond; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in\ncomparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we cannot say that success\ndemonstrates either divine origin or supernatural aid.\n\nWe know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often been trampled\nbeneath the feet of the multitude. We know that the torch of science has\nbeen blown out by the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the whole\nintellectual heaven has been darkened again and again. The truth or\nfalsity of a proposition cannot be determined by ascertaining the number\nof those who assert, or of those who deny.\n\nIf the marvelous propagation of the Catholic Church proves its divine\norigin, what shall we say of the marvelous propagation of Mohammedanism?\n\nNothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose out of the ruins\nof the Roman Empire--that is to say, the ruins of Paganism. And it is\nequally clear that Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of\nCatholicism.\n\nAfter Mohammed came upon the stage, \"Christianity was forever expelled\nfrom its most glorious seats--from Palestine, the scene of its most\nsacred recollections; from Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from\nEgypt, whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and\nfrom Carthage, who imposed her belief on Europe.\" Before that time \"the\necclesiastical chiefs of Rome, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria\nwere engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out their\npurposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the conscience of man.\nBishops were concerned in assassinations, poisonings, adulteries,\nblindings, riots, treasons, civil war. Patriarchs and primates were\nexcommunicating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries\nfor earthly power--bribing eunuchs with gold and courtesans and royal\nfemales with concessions of episcopal love. Among legions of monks who\ncarried terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities\narose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a voice for\nintellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.\n\n\"Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and crimes, Mohammed\narose, and raised his own nation from Fetichism, the adoration of\nthe meteoric stone, and from the basest idol worship, and irrevocably\nwrenched from Christianity more than half--and that by far the\nbest half--of her possessions, since it included the Holy Land, the\nbirth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which had imparted to\nit its Latin form; and now, after a lapse of more than a thousand\nyears that continent, and a very large part of Asia, remain permanently\nattached to the Arabian doctrine.\"\n\nIt may be interesting in this connection to say that the Mohammedan now\nproves the divine mission of his apostle by appealing to the marvelous\npropagation of the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a\nCatholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem? Let us see if it is\nnot better.\n\nAccording to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church triumphed only over\nthe institutions of men--triumphed only over religions that had been\nestablished by men,--by wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed\nnot only over the religions of men, but over the religion of God.\nThis ignorant driver of camels, this poor, unknown, unlettered boy,\nunassisted by God, unenlightened by supernatural means, drove the armies\nof the true cross before him as the winter's storm drives withered\nleaves. At his name, priests, bishops, and cardinals fled with white\nfaces--popes trembled, and the armies of God, fighting for the true\nfaith, were conquered on a thousand fields.\n\nIf the success of a church proves its divinity, and after that another\nchurch arises and defeats the first, what does that prove?\n\nLet us put this question in a milder form: Suppose the second church\nlives and flourishes in spite of the first, what does that prove?\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, no church rises with everything against\nit. Something is favorable to it, or it could not exist. If it succeeds\nand grows, it is absolutely certain that the conditions are favorable.\nIf it spreads rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are\nexceedingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak and\neasily overcome.\n\nHere, in my own country, within a few years, has arisen a new religion.\nIts foundations were laid in an intelligent community, having had\nthe advantages of what is known as modern civilization. Yet this new\nfaith--founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we find in the\nScriptures--in spite of all opposition began to grow, and kept growing.\nIt was subjected to persecution, and the persecution increased its\nstrength. It was driven from State to State by the believers in\nuniversal love, until it left what was called civilization, crossed the\nwide plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great Salt\nLake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he declared, had frequent\nconversations with God, and received directions from that source.\nHundreds of miracles were performed--multitudes upon the desert were\nmiraculously fed--the sick were cured--the dead were raised, and the\nMormon Church continued to grow, until now, less than half a century\nafter the death of its founder, there are several hundred thousand\nbelievers in the new faith.\n\nDo you think that men enough could join this church to prove the truth\nof its creed?\n\nJoseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates that had been\nburied for many generations, and upon these plates, in some unknown\nlanguage, had been engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted\nthat by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was translated.\nIf there should be Mormon bishops in all the countries of the world,\neighteen hundred years from now, do you think a cardinal of that faith\ncould prove the truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the\nfaith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had knelt before the\nhead of that church?\n\nIt seems to me that a \"supernatural\" religion--that is to say, a\nreligion that is claimed to have been divinely founded and to be\nauthenticated by miracles, is much easier to establish among an ignorant\npeople than any other--and the more ignorant the people, the easier\nsuch a religion could be established. The reason for this is plain.\nAll ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the miraculous, in the\nsupernatural. The conception of uniformity, of what may be called the\neternal consistency of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.\nThey are forced to think in accordance with their minds, and as a\nconsequence they account for all phenomena by the acts of superior\nbeings--that is to say, by the supernatural. In other words, that\nreligion having most in common with the savage, having most that was\nsatisfactory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand the best\nchance of success.\n\nIt is probably safe to say that at one time, or during one phase of the\ndevelopment of man, everything was miraculous. After a time, the mind\nslowly developing, certain phenomena, always happening under like\nconditions, were called \"natural,\" and none suspected any special\ninterference. The domain of the miraculous grew less and less--the\ndomain of the natural larger; that is to say, the common became the\nnatural, but the uncommon was still regarded as the miraculous.\nThe rising and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of\nmankind--there was no miracle about that; but an eclipse of the sun was\nmiraculous. Men did not then know that eclipses are periodical, that\nthey happen with the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many\nobservations through many generations to arrive at this conclusion.\nOrdinary rains became \"natural,\" floods remained \"miraculous.\"\n\nBut it can all be summed up in this: The average man regards the common\nas natural, the uncommon as supernatural. The educated man--and by that\nI mean the developed man--is satisfied that all phenomena are natural,\nand that the supernatural does not and can not exist.\n\nAs a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion that he lacks\nintelligence. The same is true of nations and races. The barbarian is\negotistic enough to suppose that an Infinite Being is constantly doing\nsomething, or failing to do something, on his account. But as man rises\nin the scale of civilization, as he becomes really great, he comes to\nthe conclusion that nothing in Nature happens on his account--that he is\nhardly great enough to disturb the motions of the planets.\n\nLet us make an application of this: To me, the success of Mormonism\nis no evidence of its truth, because it has succeeded only with the\nsuperstitious. It has been recruited from communities brutalized by\nother forms of superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not\ntend to show that he was right--for the reason that he triumphed only\nover the ignorant, over the superstitious. The same is true of the\nCatholic Church. Its seeds were planted in darkness. It was accepted by\nthe credulous, by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It\ndid not, it has not, it can not triumph over the intellectual world. To\ncount its many millions does not tend to prove the truth of its creed.\nOn the contrary, a creed that delights the credulous gives evidence\nagainst itself.\n\nQuestions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled simply by numbers.\nThere was a time when the Copernican system of astronomy had but few\nsupporters--the multitude being on the other side. There was a time when\nthe rotation of the earth was not believed by the majority.\n\nLet us press this idea further. There was a time when Christianity was\nnot in the majority, anywhere. Let us suppose that the first Christian\nmissionary had met a prelate of the Pagan faith, and suppose this\nprelate had used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal's\nargument--how could the missionary have answered if the Cardinal's\nargument is good?\n\nBut, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a marvel? If this\nchurch is of divine origin, if it has been under the especial care,\nprotection and guidance of an Infinite Being, is not its failure\nfar more wonderful than its success? For eighteen centuries it has\npersecuted and preached, and the salvation of the world is still remote.\nThis is the result, and it may be asked whether it is worth while to try\nto convert the world to Catholicism.\n\nAre Catholics better than Protestants? Are they nearer honest, nearer\njust, more charitable? Are Catholic nations better than Protestant?\nDo the Catholic nations move in the van of progress? Within their\njurisdiction are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else? Is\nSpain the first nation of the world?\n\nLet me ask another question: Are Catholics or Protestants better than\nFreethinkers? Has the Catholic Church produced a greater man than\nHumboldt? Has the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin? Was not\nEmerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the equal of any true\nbeliever? Was Pius IX., or any other vicar of Christ, superior to\nAbraham Lincoln?\n\nBut it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal, and that its\nuniversality demonstrates its divine origin.\n\nAccording to the Bible, the apostles were ordered to go into all the\nworld and preach the gospel--yet not one of them, nor one of their\nconverts at any time, nor one of the vicars of God, for fifteen hundred\nyears afterward, knew of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During\nall that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was universal? At\nthe close of the fifteenth century, there was one-half of the world in\nwhich the Catholic faith had never been preached, and in the other half\nnot one person in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard\nof it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic Church was not\nthen universal.\n\nIs it universal now? What impression has Catholicism made upon the many\nmillions of China, of Japan, of India, of Africa? Can it truthfully be\nsaid that the Catholic Church is now universal? When any church becomes\nuniversal, it will be the only church. There cannot be two universal\nchurches, neither can there be one universal church and any other.\n\nThe Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic Church is divine,\n\"by its eminent sanctity and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good\nthings.\"\n\nAnd here let me admit that there are many millions of good\nCatholics--that is, of good men and women who are Catholics. It is\nunnecessary to charge universal dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason\nthat this would be only a kind of personality. Many thousands of heroes\nhave died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics have killed\nand been killed for the sake of their religion.\n\nAnd here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom does not even tend\nto prove the truth of a religion. The man who dies in flames, standing\nby what he believes to be true, establishes, not the truth of what he\nbelieves, but his sincerity.\n\nWithout calling in question the intentions of the Catholic Church, we\ncan ascertain whether it has been \"inexhaustibly fruitful in all good\nthings,\" and whether it has been \"eminent for its sanctity.\"\n\nIn the first place, nothing can be better than goodness. Nothing is more\nsacred, or can be more sacred, than the wellbeing of man. All things\nthat tend to increase or preserve the happiness of the human race are\ngood--that is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the\ndestruction of man's well-being, that tend to his unhappiness, are bad,\nno matter by whom they are taught or done.\n\nIt is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has taught, and still\nteaches, that intellectual liberty is dangerous--that it should not\nbe allowed. It was driven to take this position because it had taken\nanother. It taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is\nnecessary to salvation. It has always known that investigation and\ninquiry led, or might lead, to doubt; that doubt leads, or may lead,\nto heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In other words, the Catholic\nChurch has something more important than this world, more important than\nthe well-being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity for\njoining that church, for accepting that creed, and for the saving of\nyour soul.\n\nIf the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is right in its\nconclusion. If it is necessary to believe the Catholic creed in order\nto obtain eternal joy, then, of course, nothing else in this world is,\ncomparatively speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently,\nthe Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of intellectual\nfreedom, of investigation, of inquiry--in other words, the enemy of\nprogress in secular things.\n\nThe result of this was an effort to compel all men to accept the belief\nnecessary to salvation. This effort naturally divided itself into\npersuasion and persecution.\n\nIt will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful, charitable,\nforgiving and just. A church must be judged by the same standard. Has\nthe church been merciful? Has it been \"fruitful in the good things\"\nof justice, charity and forgiveness? Can a good man, believing a good\ndoctrine, persecute for opinion's sake? If the church imprisons a man\nfor the expression of an honest opinion, is it not certain, either that\nthe doctrine of the church is wrong, or that the church is bad? Both\ncannot be good. \"Sanctity\" without goodness is impossible. Thousands of\n\"saints\" have been the most malicious of the human race. If the history\nof the world proves anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for\nmany centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed among\nmen. I cannot believe that the instruments of persecution were made and\nused by the eminently good; neither can I believe that honest people\nwere imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake by a church that was\n\"inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.\"\n\nAnd let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices against\nCatholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices against Protestantism.\nI regard all religions either without prejudice or with the same\nprejudice. They were all, according to my belief, devised by men, and\nall have for a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.\nAll the Gods have been made by men. They are all equally powerful and\nequally useless. I like some of them better than I do others, for the\nsame reason that I admire some characters in fiction more than I do\nothers. I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest idea\nthat either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to Jehovah, although\nperfectly satisfied that both are myths. I believe myself to be in a\nframe of mind to justly and fairly consider the claims of different\nreligions, believing as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do\nthat there is some good in all.\n\nWhen one speaks of the \"inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things\"\nof the Catholic Church, we remember the horrors and atrocities of the\nInquisition--the rewards offered by the Roman Church for the capture and\nmurder of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the members of\nwhich, upheld by the vicar of Christ, pursued the heretics like sleuth\nhounds, through many centuries.\n\nThe church, \"inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good things,\" not only\nimprisoned and branded and burned the living, but violated the dead. It\nrobbed graves, to the end that it might convict corpses of heresy--to\nthe end that it might take from widows their portions and from orphans\ntheir patrimony.\n\nWe remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons--the millions who\nperished by the sword--the vast multitudes destroyed in flames--those\nwho were flayed alive--those who were blinded--those whose tongues were\ncut out--those into whose ears were poured molten lead--those whose eyes\nwere deprived of their lids--those who were tortured and tormented in\nevery way by which pain could be inflicted and human nature overcome.\n\nAnd we remember, too, the exultant cry of the church over the bodies\nof her victims: \"Their bodies were burned here, but their souls are now\ntortured in hell.\"\n\nWe remember that the church, by treachery, bribery, perjury, and the\ncommission of every possible crime, got possession and control of\nChristendom, and we know the use that was made of this power--that it\nwas used to brutalize, degrade, stupefy, and \"sanctify\" the children\nof men. We know also that the vicars of Christ were persecutors for\nopinion's sake--that they sought to destroy the liberty of thought\nthrough fear--that they endeavored to make every brain a bastile in\nwhich the mind should be a convict--that they endeavored to make every\ntongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the Inquisition--and that\nthey threatened punishment here, imprisonment here, burnings here, and,\nin the name of their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings\nhereafter.\n\nWe know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all the years of\nits power, the enemy of every science. It preferred magic to medicine,\nrelics to remedies, priests to physicians. It thought more of\nastrologers than of astronomers. It hated geologists--it persecuted\nthe chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed every discovery\ncalculated to improve the condition of mankind.\n\nIt is impossible to forget the persecutions of the Cathari, the\nAlbigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Huguenots, and of every\nsect that had the courage to think just a little for itself. Think of\na woman--the mother of a family--taken from her children and burned, on\naccount of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think of\nthe Catholic Church,--an institution with a Divine Founder, presided\nover by the agent of God--punishing a woman for giving a cup of cold\nwater to a fellow-being who had been anathematized. Think of this\nchurch, \"fruitful in all good things,\" launching its curse at an honest\nman--not only cursing him from the crown of his head to the soles of\nhis feet with a fiendish particularity, but having at the same time the\nimpudence to call on God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the\nVirgin Mary, to join in the curse; and to curse him not only here, but\nforever hereafter--calling upon all the saints and upon all the redeemed\nto join in a hallelujah of curses, so that earth and heaven should\nreverberate with countless curses launched at a human being simply for\nhaving expressed an honest thought.\n\nThis church, so \"fruitful in all good things,\" invented crimes that\nit might punish. This church tried men for a \"suspicion of\nheresy\"--imprisoned them for the vice of being suspected--stripped them\nof all they had on earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because\nthey were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This was a part\nof the Canon Law.\n\nIt is too late to talk about the \"invincible stability\" of the Catholic\nChurch.\n\nIt was not invincible in the seventh, in the eighth, or in the ninth\ncenturies. It was not invincible in Germany in Luther's day. It was not\ninvincible in the Low Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or\nin England. It was not invincible in France. It is not invincible in\nItaly, It is not supreme in any intellectual centre of the world. It\ndoes not triumph in Paris, or Berlin; it is not dominant in London,\nin England; neither is it triumphant in the United States. It has not\nwithin its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the thinkers, who\nare the leaders of the human race.\n\nIt is claimed that Catholicism \"interpenetrates all the nations of the\ncivilized world,\" and that \"in some it holds the whole nation in its\nunity.\"\n\nI suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful in Spain than in any\nother nation. The history of this nation demonstrates the result of\nCatholic supremacy, the result of an acknowledgment by a people that a\ncertain religion is too sacred to be examined.\n\nWithout attempting in an article of this character to point out the many\ncauses that contributed to the adoption of Catholicism by the Spanish\npeople, it is enough to say that Spain, of all nations, has been and is\nthe most thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly interpenetrated\nand dominated by the spirit of the Church of Rome.\n\nSpain used the sword of the church. In the name of religion it\nendeavored to conquer the Infidel world. It drove from its territory\nthe Moors, not because they were bad, not because they were idle and\ndishonest, but because they were Infidels. It expelled the Jews,\nnot because they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were\nunbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately made outcasts\nof the intelligent, the industrious, the honest and the useful, because\nthey were not Catholics. It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low\nCountries, for the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas\nwith its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man. And\nnot only so--it established the Inquisition within its borders. It\nimprisoned the honest, it burned the noble, and succeeded after many\nyears of devotion to the true faith, in destroying the industry, the\nintelligence, the usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth\nof a nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and excited the\npity of its former victims.\n\nIn this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held \"the whole\nnation in its unity.\"\n\nAt last Spain began to deviate from the path of the church It made a\ntreaty with an Infidel power. In 1782 it became humble enough, and wise\nenough, to be friends with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and\nAlgiers and the Barbary States. It had become too poor to ransom the\nprisoners taken by these powers. It began to appreciate the fact that it\ncould neither conquer nor convert the world by the sword.\n\nSpain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all that tends to\nenrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise proportion that she has lost\nfaith in the Catholic Church. This may be said of every other nation in\nChristendom. Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of the\nInquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated the clouds and\nmists--not much, but a little. Spain is not yet clothed and in her\nright mind. A few years ago the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.\nPhysicians were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host through\nthe streets for the purpose of staying the plague. The streets were not\ncleaned; the sewers were filled. Filth and faith, old partners, reigned\nsupreme. The church, \"eminent for its sanctity,\" stood in the light and\ncast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The church, in its\n\"inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,\" allowed its children\nto perish through ignorance, and used the diseases it had produced as an\ninstrumentality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.\n\nNo one will deny that many of its priests exhibited heroism of the\nhighest order in visiting the sick and administering what are called the\nconsolations of religion to the dying, and in burying the dead. It is\nnecessary neither to deny or disparage the self-denial and goodness of\nthese men. But their religion did more than all other causes to produce\nthe very evils that called for the exhibition of self-denial and\nheroism. One scientist in control of Madrid could have prevented the\nplague. In such cases, cleanliness is far better than \"godliness;\"\nscience is superior to superstition; drainage much better than\ndivinity; therapeutics more excellent than theology. Goodness is not\nenough--intelligence is necessary. Faith is not sufficient, creeds are\nhelpless, and prayers fruitless.\n\nIt is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many nations; that it\nis dominated, at least in a great degree, by the Bishop of Rome--that it\nis international in that sense, and that in that sense it has what may\nbe called a \"supernational unity.\" The same, however, is true of the\nMasonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it is not a\nnational body. It is in the same sense extranational, in the same sense\ninternational, and has in the same sense a supernational unity. So the\nsame may be said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to\nprove that anything supernational is supernatural.\n\nIt is also admitted that in faith, worship, ceremonial, discipline and\ngovernment, the Catholic Church is substantially the same wherever\nit exists. This establishes the unity, but not the divinity, of the\ninstitution.\n\nThe church that does not allow investigation, that teaches that all\ndoubts are wicked, attains unity through tyranny, that is, monotony by\nrepression. Wherever man has had something like freedom, differences\nhave appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have become\npermanent--new sects have been born and the Catholic Church has been\nweakened. The boast of unity is the confession of tyranny.\n\nIt is insisted that the unity of the church substantiates its claim to\ndivine origin. This is asserted over and over again, in many ways; and\nyet in the Cardinal's article is found this strange mingling of boast\nand confession: \"Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,\nexternal and internal, which for fourteen hundred years had been\nsupreme, was once more restored in the Council of Constance, never to be\nbroken again?\"\n\nBy this it is admitted that the internal and external unity of the\nCatholic Church had been broken, and that it required more than human\npower to restore it. Then the boast is made that it will never be broken\nagain. Yet it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the\nCatholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its divine origin.\n\nNow, if this internal and external unity was broken, and remained broken\nfor years, there was an interval during which the church had no internal\nor external unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin\nfailed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine Founder. This is\nadmitted by the use of the word \"again.\" The unbroken unity of the\nchurch is asserted, and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine\norigin; it is then admitted that the unity was broken. The argument is\nthen shifted, and the claim is made that it required more than human\npower to restore the internal and external unity of the church, and that\nthe restoration, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there\nany contradiction beyond this?\n\nLet us state the case in another way. Let us suppose that a man has a\nsword which he claims was made by God, stating that the reason he knows\nthat God made the sword is that it never had been and never could be\nbroken. Now, if it was afterwards ascertained that it had been broken,\nand the owner admitted that it had been, what would be thought of him\nif he then took the ground that it had been welded, and that the welding\nwas the evidence that it was of divine origin?\n\nA prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the internal and\nexternal unity of the church can never be broken again. It is admitted\nthat it was broken--it is asserted that it was divinely restored--and\nthen it is declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason is\ngiven for this prophecy; it must be born of the facts already stated.\nPut in a form to be easily understood, it is this:\n\nWe know that the unity of the church can never be broken, because the\nchurch is of divine origin.\n\nWe know that it was broken; but this does not weaken the argument,\nbecause it was restored by God, and it has not been broken since.\n\nTherefore, it never can be broken again.\n\nIt is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and that its\nimmutability establishes its claim to divine origin. Was it immutable\nwhen its unity, internal and external, was broken? Was it precisely the\nsame after its unity was broken that it was before? Was it precisely the\nsame after its unity was divinely restored that it was while broken?\nWas it universal while it was without unity? Which of the fragments was\nuniversal--which was immutable?\n\nThe fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the pope, establishes,\nnot the supernatural origin of the church, but the mental slavery of its\nmembers. It establishes the fact that it is a successful organization;\nthat it is cunningly devised; that it destroys the mental independence,\nand that whoever absolutely submits to its authority loses the jewel of\nhis soul.\n\nThe fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to the pope,\nestablishes nothing except the thoroughness of the organization.\n\nHow was the Roman empire formed? By what means did that Great Power\nhold in bondage the then known world? How is it that a despotism is\nestablished? How is it that the few enslave the many? How is it that\nthe nobility live on the labor of peasants? The answer is in one word,\nOrganization. The organized few triumph over the unorganized many.\nThe few hold the sword and the purse. The unorganized are overcome in\ndetail--terrorized, brutalized, robbed, conquered.\n\nWe must remember that when Christianity was established the world\nwas ignorant, credulous and cruel. The gospel with its idea of\nforgiveness--with its heaven and hell--was suited to the barbarians\namong whom it was preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that\nChrist had but little to do with Christianity. The people became\nconvinced--being ignorant, stupid and credulous--that the church held\nthe keys of heaven and hell. The foundation for the most terrible mental\ntyranny that has existed among men was in this way laid. The Catholic\nChurch enslaved to the extent of its power. It resorted to every\npossible form of fraud; it perverted every good instinct of the human\nheart; it rewarded every vice; it resorted to every artifice that\ningenuity could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It tortured\nthe accused to make them confess; it tortured witnesses to compel the\ncommission of perjury; it tortured children for the purpose of making\nthem convict their parents; it compelled men to establish their own\ninnocence; it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience to\nwait; it left the accused without trial, and left them in dungeons until\nreleased by death. There is no crime that the Catholic Church did not\ncommit,--no cruelty that it did not practice,--no form of treachery that\nit did not reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was\nthe greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights. It did all that\norganization, cunning, piety, self-denial, heroism, treachery, zeal and\nbrute force could do to enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of\nintelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of progress. It\nloaded the noble with chains and the infamous with honors. In one hand\nit carried the alms dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the\nsword, persuaded with poison, and convinced with the fagot.\n\nIt is impossible to see how the divine origin of a church can be\nestablished by showing that hundreds of bishops have visited the pope.\n\nDoes the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca establish the\ntruth of the Koran? Is it a scene for congratulation when the bishops\nof thirty nations kneel before a man? Is it not humiliating to know that\nman is willing to kneel at the feet of man? Could a noble man demand, or\njoyfully receive, the humiliation of his fellows?\n\nAs a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He who in power compels\nhis fellow-man to kneel, will himself kneel when weak. The tyrant is a\ncringer in power; a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand\nface to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who kneels in the\npresence of the pope, wants the bishop to kneel in his presence; and the\nbishop who kneels demands that the priest shall kneel to him; and the\npriest who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall kneel; and\nall, from pope to the lowest--that is to say, from pope to exorcist,\nfrom pope to the one in charge of the bones of saints--all demand that\nthe people, the laymen, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.\n\nThe man of free and noble spirit will not kneel. Courage has no knees.\n\nFear kneels, or falls upon its ashen face.\n\nThe Cardinal insists that the pope is the vicar of Christ, and that\nall popes have been. What is a vicar of Christ? He is a substitute in\noffice. He stands in the place, or occupies the position in relation\nto the church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would occupy\nwere he the pope at Rome. In other words, he takes Christ's place; so\nthat, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ\nhimself is present in the person of the pope.\n\nWe all know that a good man may employ a bad agent. A good king might\nleave his realm and put in his place a tyrant and a wretch. The good\nman and the good king cannot certainly know what manner of man the\nagent is--what kind of person the vicar is--consequently the bad may be\nchosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar, knowing him to be bad,\nknowing that he would oppress the people, knowing that he would imprison\nand burn the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for such a\nking?\n\nNow, if the church is of divine origin, and if each pope is the vicar of\nJesus Christ, he must have been chosen by Jesus Christ; and when he was\nchosen, Christ must have known exactly what his vicar would do. Can we\nbelieve that an infinitely wise and good Being would choose immoral,\ndishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless, fiendish, and inhuman vicars?\n\nThe Cardinal admits that \"the history of Christianity is the history\nof the church, and that the history of the church is the history of the\nPontiffs,\" and he then declares that \"the greatest statesmen and rulers\nthat the world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.\"\n\nLet me call attention to a few passages in Draper's \"History of the\nIntellectual Development of Europe.\"\n\n\"Constantine was one of the vicars of Christ. Afterwards, Stephen IV.\nwas chosen. The eyes of Constantine were then put out by Stephen, acting\nin Christ's place. The tongue of the Bishop Theodorus was amputated\nby the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop was left in a\ndungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III. was seized in the street and\nforced into a church, where the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to\nput out his eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V., was\ndriven ignominiously from Rome. His successor, Paschal I., was accused\nof blinding and murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace.\nJohn VIII., unable to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them\ntribute.\n\n\"At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret alliance with the\nMohammedans, and they divided with this Catholic bishop the plunder they\ncollected from other Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the\npope; afterwards he gave him absolution because he betrayed the chief\nMohammedans, and assassinated others. There was an ecclesiastical\nconspiracy to murder the pope, and some of the treasures of the church\nwere seized, and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys\nto admit the Saracens. Formosus, who had been engaged in these\ntransactions, who had been excommunicated as a conspirator for the\nmurder of Pope John, was himself elected pope in 891. Boniface VI.\nwas his successor. He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the\npriesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII. was the next\npope, and he had the dead body of Formosus taken from the grave, clothed\nin papal habiliments, propped up in a chair and tried before a Council.\nThe corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off and the body\ncast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen VII., this Vicar of Christ, was\nthrown into prison and strangled.\n\n\"From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V., in less than two\nmonths after he became pope, was cast into prison by Christopher, one of\nhis chaplains. This Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while\nwas expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope in 905. This\npope lived in criminal intercourse with the celebrated Theodora, who\nwith her daughters Marozia and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an\nextraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora was also shared by\nJohn X. She gave him the Archbishopric of Revenna, and made him pope in\n915. The daughter of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him in\nthe Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed; the pope was thrown\ninto prison, where he was afterward murdered. Afterward, this Marozia,\ndaughter of Theodora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed that\nPope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined to attribute him to\nher husband Alberic, whose brother Guido she afterward married. Another\nof her sons, Alberic, jealous of his brother John, the pope, cast him\nand their mother into prison. Alberic's son was then elected pope as\nJohn XII.\n\n\"John was nineteen years old when he became the vicar of Christ. His\nreign was characterized by the most shocking immoralities, so that the\nEmperor Otho I. was compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was\ntried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the consecration\nof bishops; that he had ordained one who was only ten years old; that\nhe was charged with incest, and with so many adulteries that the Lateran\nPalace had become a brothel. He put out the eyes of one ecclesiastic;\nhe maimed another--both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was\ngiven to drunkenness and to gambling. He was deposed at last, and Leo\nVII. elected in his stead. Subsequently he got the upper hand. He seized\nhis antagonists; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger, and\nthe tongue of others. His life was eventually brought to an end by the\nvengeance of a man whose wife he had seduced.\"\n\nAnd yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the most heartless and\nfiendish bishops, friars, and priests were models of mercy, charity,\nand justice when compared with the orthodox God--with the God they\nworshiped. These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute\nonly for a few years--they could burn only for a few moments--but their\nGod threatened to imprison and burn forever; and their God is as much\nworse than they were, as hell is worse than the Inquisition.\n\n\"John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII. imprisoned Benedict\nVII., and starved him to death. John XIV. was secretly put to death in\nthe dungeons of the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was\ndragged by the populace through the streets.\"\n\nIt must be remembered that the popes were assassinated by\nCatholics--murdered by the faithful--that one vicar of Christ strangled\nanother vicar of Christ, and that these men were \"the greatest rulers\nand the greatest statesmen of the earth.\"\n\n\"Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose cut off, his\ntongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent through the streets mounted\non an ass, with his face to the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than\ntwelve years of age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his\nsuccessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was so\nshameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to describe it. He\nruled like a captain of banditti. The people, unable to bear longer his\nadulteries, his homicides and his abominations, rose against him, and\nin despair of maintaining his position, he put up the papacy to auction,\nand it was bought by a presbyter named John, who became Gregory VI., in\nthe year of grace 1045. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of\nGod upon earth--these, who had truly reached that goal beyond which the\nlast effort of human wickedness cannot pass?\"\n\nIt may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that man can commit\nthat has not been committed by the vicars of Christ. They have inflicted\nevery possible torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters\nthe human race has not produced.\n\nAmong the \"some two hundred and fifty-eight\" Vicars of Christ there were\nprobably some good men. This would have happened even if the intention\nhad been to get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfection\nneither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected by Christ\nhimself, if they were selected by a church with a divine origin and\nunder divine guidance, then there is no way to account for the selection\nof a bad one. If one hypocrite was duly elected pope--one murderer,\none strangler, one starver--this demonstrates that all the popes were\nselected by men, and by men only, and that the claim of divine guidance\nis born of zeal and uttered without knowledge.\n\nBut who were the vicars of Christ? How many have there been? Cardinal\nManning himself does not know. He is not sure. He says: \"Starting from\nSt. Peter to Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty-eight\nPontiffs claiming to be recognized by the whole Catholic unity as\nsuccessors of St. Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ.\" Why did he use the\nword \"some\"? Why \"claiming\"? Does he not positively know? Is it possible\nthat the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as to the number of his\npredecessors? Is he infallible in faith and fallible in fact?\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\nII.\n\n     \"If we live thus tamely,--\n     To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,--\n     Farewell nobility.\"\n\nNO ONE will deny that \"the pope speaks to many people in many nations;\nthat he treats with empires and governments,\" and that \"neither from\nCanterbury nor from Constantinople such a voice goes forth.\"\n\nHow does the pope speak? What does he say?\n\nHe speaks against the liberty of man--against the progress of the human\nrace. He speaks to calumniate thinkers, and to warn the faithful\nagainst the discoveries of science. He speaks for the destruction of\ncivilization.\n\nWho listens? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists put the hand to\nthe ear fearing that an accent may be lost? Does France listen? Does\nItaly hear? Is not the church weakest at its centre? Do those who\nhave raised Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the great\nnations, pay attention? Does Great Britain care for this voice--this\nmoan, this groan--of the Middle Ages? Do the words of Leo XIII. impress\nthe intelligence of the Great Republic? Can anything be more absurd\nthan for the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science with a\npassage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of the \"Fathers\"?\n\nCompare the popes with the kings and queens of England. Infinite wisdom\nhad but little to do with the selection of these monarchs, and yet they\nwere far better than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is\nfaint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that chance\nsucceeded in getting better rulers for England than \"Infinite Wisdom\"\ndid for the Church of Rome. Compare the popes with the presidents of the\nRepublic elected by the people. If Adams had murdered Washington, and\nJefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if Madison had cut out Jefferson's\ntongue, and Monroe had assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had\npoisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams and his Cabinet, we\nmight say that presidents had been as virtuous as popes. But if this\nhad happened, the verdict of the world would be that the people are not\ncapable of selecting their presidents.\n\nBut this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by day; so feeble that\nthe Cardinal admits that the vicar of God, and the supernatural church,\n\"are being tormented by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.\"\nIn other words, this representative of God, this substitute of Christ,\nthis church of divine origin, this supernatural institution--pervaded\nby the Holy Ghost--are being \"tormented\" by three politicians. Is it\npossible that this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other?\n\nIt is claimed that if the Catholic Church \"be only a human system, built\nup by the intellect, will and energy of men, the adversaries must prove\nit--that the burden is upon them.\"\n\nAs a general thing, institutions are natural. If this church is\nsupernatural, it is the one exception. The affirmative is with those who\nclaim that it is of divine origin. So far as we know, all governments\nand all creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome was a\nsupernatural production, and yet its beginnings were as small as those\nof the Catholic Church. Commencing in weakness, Rome grew, and\nfought, and conquered, until it was believed that the sky bent above a\nsubjugated world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there was an\nefficient cause.\n\nThe Catholic asserts that all other religions have been produced by\nman--that Brahminism and Buddhism, the religion of Isis and Osiris, the\nmarvelous mythologies of Greece and Rome, were the work of the human\nmind. From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long before\nCatholicism was born, it was believed that women had borne children\nwhose fathers were gods. The Trinity was promulgated in Egypt centuries\nbefore the birth of Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes\nand Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by mendicant monks, and\nby the piously insane of many countries long before the apostles lived.\nThe Chinese tell us that \"when there were but one man and one woman upon\nthe earth, the woman refused to sacrifice her virginity even to people\nthe globe; and the gods, honoring her purity, granted that she should\nconceive beneath the gaze of her lover's eyes, and a virgin mother\nbecame the parent of humanity.\"\n\nThe founders of many religions have insisted that it was the duty of man\nto renounce the pleasures of sense, and millions before our era took the\nvows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon\nthe labor of others.\n\nThe sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far older than the Church\nof Rome. The Eucharist is pagan. Long before popes began to murder each\nother, pagans ate cakes--the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine--the blood\nof Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile, priests interceded\nfor the people, and anointed the dying.\n\nIt will not do to say that every successful religion that has taught\nunnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must of necessity have been\nof divine origin. In most religions there has been a strange mingling\nof the good and bad, of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and\nmalicious. Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man, insisted on\nthe development of the mind, and this religion was propagated not by\nthe sword, but by preaching, by persuasion, and by kindness--yet in\nmany things it was contrary to the human will, contrary to the human\npassions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded. Can we, for\nthis reason, say that it is a supernatural religion? Is the unnatural\nthe supernatural?\n\nIt is insisted that, while other churches have changed, the Catholic\nChurch alone has remained the same, and that this fact demonstrates its\ndivine origin.\n\nHas the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand years? Is\nintellectual stagnation a demonstration of divine origin? When anything\nrefuses to grow, are we certain that the seed was planted by God? If the\nCatholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for many centuries,\nthis proves that there has been no intellectual development. If men do\nnot differ upon religious subjects, it is because they do not think.\n\nDifferentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every church must\ngain or lose: it cannot remain the same; it must decay or grow. The fact\nthat the Catholic Church has not grown--that it has been petrified from\nthe first--does not establish divine origin; it simply establishes\nthe fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in nature\nchanges--every atom is in motion--every star moves. Nations,\ninstitutions and individuals have youth, manhood, old age, death. This\nis and will be true of the Catholic Church. It was once weak--it grew\nstronger--it reached its climax of power--it began to decay--it never\ncan rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of Science. In the presence\nof the nineteenth century it cowers.\n\nIt is not true that \"All natural causes run to disintegration.\"\n\nNatural causes run to integration as well as to disintegration.\nAll growth is integration, and all growth is natural. All decay is\ndisintegration, and all decay is natural. Nature builds and nature\ndestroys. When the acorn grows--when the sunlight and rain fall upon it\nand the oak rises--so far as the oak is concerned \"all natural causes\"\ndo not \"run to disintegration.\" But there comes a time when the oak\nhas reached its limit, and then the forces of nature run towards\ndisintegration, and finally the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is\nright--if \"all natural causes run to disintegration,\" then every success\nmust have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural but destruction.\nThis is Catholic science: \"All natural causes run to disintegration.\"\nWhat do these causes find to disintegrate? Nothing that is natural. The\nfact that the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of\nsupernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only business\nof nature is to disintegrate the supernatural. To prevent this, the\nsupernatural needs the protection of the Infinite. According to this\ndoctrine, if anything lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature.\nGrowth, then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to nature.\nEvery plant is supernatural--it defeats the disintegrating influences of\nrain and light. The generalization of the Cardinal is half the truth. It\nwould be equally true to say: All natural causes run to integration. But\nthe whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.\n\nThe Cardinal asserts that \"Christendom was created by the world-wide\nchurch as we see it before our eyes at this day.\"\n\nPhilosophers and statesmen believe it to be the work of their own\nhands; they did not make it, but they have for three hundred years been\nunmaking it by reformations and revolutions.\n\nThe meaning of this is that Christendom was far better three hundred\nyears ago than now; that during these three centuries Christendom has\nbeen going toward barbarism. It means that the supernatural church of\nGod has been a failure for three hundred years; that it has been unable\nto withstand the attacks of philosophers and statesmen, and that it has\nbeen helpless in the midst of \"reformations and revolutions.\"\n\nWhat was the condition of the world three hundred years ago, the period,\naccording to the Cardinal, in which the church reached the height of its\ninfluence, and since which it has been unable to withstand the rising\ntide of reformation and the whirlwind of revolution?\n\nIn that blessed time, Philip II. was king of Spain--he with the cramped\nhead and the monstrous jaw. Heretics were hunted like wild and poisonous\nbeasts; the Inquisition was firmly established, and priests were busy\nwith rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of man and the love\nof God, the church, with every instrument of torture, touched every\nnerve in the human body.\n\nIn those happy days, the Duke of Alva was devastating the homes of\nHolland; heretics were buried alive--their tongues were torn from their\nmouths, their lids from their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the\ndestruction of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes--a million and\na half of industrious people--were being driven by sword and flame\nfrom their homes. The Jews had been expelled from Spain. This Catholic\ncountry had succeeded in driving intelligence and industry from its\nterritory; and this had been done with a cruelty, with a ferocity,\nunequaled, in the annals of crime.\n\nNothing was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the\nInquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly sins. And yet a\nCardinal of the nineteenth century, living in the land of Shakespeare,\nregrets the change that has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by\nthe discoveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred years.\n\nThree hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son of Catherine de\nMedici, in the year of grace 1572--after nearly sixteen centuries of\nCatholic Christianity--after hundreds of vicars of Christ had sat in St.\nPeter's chair--after the natural passions of man had been \"softened\" by\nthe creed of Rome--came the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the result of a\nconspiracy between the Vicar of Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his\nfiendish mother. Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre\nonce more, and, after reading it, imagine that he sees the gashed and\nmutilated bodies of thousands of men and women, and then let him say\nthat he regrets the revolutions and reformations of three hundred years.\n\nAbout three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of Christ, acting in\nGod's place, substitute of the Infinite, persecuted Giordano Bruno even\nunto death. This great, this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had\nventured to assert the rotary motion of the earth; he had hazarded the\nconjecture that there were in the fields of infinite space worlds larger\nand more glorious than ours. For these low and groveling thoughts, for\nthis contradiction of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned\nfor many years. But his noble spirit was not broken, and finally, in the\nyear 1600, by the orders of the infamous vicar, he was chained to\nthe stake. Priests believing in the doctrine of universal\nforgiveness--priests who when smitten upon one cheek turned the\nother--carried with a kind of ferocious joy fagots to the feet of this\nincomparable man. These disciples of \"Our Lord\" were made joyous as\nthe flames, like serpents, climbed around the body of Bruno. In a few\nmoments the brave thinker was dead, and the priests who had burned him\nfell upon their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the blessed\nwork forever in hell.\n\nThere are two things that cannot exist in the same universe--an infinite\nGod and a martyr.\n\nDoes the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are not now engaged in\nthe extermination of Protestants? Does he regret that dungeons of the\nInquisition are no longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he\nlong for the fires of the _auto da fe_.?\n\nIn coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the Catholic Church--in\ndetermining the truth of the claim of infallibility--we are not\nrestricted to the physical achievements of that church, or to the\nhistory of its propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.\n\nThis church has a creed; and if this church is of divine origin--if\nits head is the vicar of Christ, and, as such, infallible in matters\nof faith and morals, this creed must be true. Let us start with the\nsupposition that God exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful\nand good--and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is foolish,\nabsurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin. We find in this creed\nthe following:\n\n\"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold\nthe Catholic faith.\"\n\nIt is not necessary, before all things, that he be good, honest,\nmerciful, charitable and just. Creed is more important than conduct. The\nmost important of all things is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There\nwere thousands of years during which it was not necessary to hold that\nfaith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during that time the\nvirtues were just as important as now, just as important as they ever\ncan be.\n\nMillions of the noblest of the human race never heard of this creed.\nMillions of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and\nrejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed it, and because\nof their belief, or notwithstanding their belief, have murdered millions\nof their fellows. We know that men can be, have been, and are just\nas wicked with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary to\nbelieve it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self-denying. We admit\nthat millions who have believed it have also been self-denying and\nheroic, and that millions, by such belief, were not prevented from\ntorturing and destroying the helpless.\n\nNow, if all who believed it were good, and all who rejected it were\nbad, then there might be some propriety in saying that \"whoever will\nbe saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic\nfaith.\" But as the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration\nbecomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.\n\nThere is still another clause:\n\n\"Which faith, except every one do keep entire and inviolate, without\ndoubt, he shall everlastingly perish.\"\n\nWe now have both sides of this wonderful truth: The believer will be\nsaved, the unbeliever will be lost. We know that faith is not the child\nor servant of the will. We know that belief is a conclusion based upon\nwhat the mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act of the\nwill. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a man because he is not\nintelligent enough to accept the truth, and nothing can be more infamous\nthan to damn a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.\nIt resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the creed is\ntrue, then a man rejects it because he lacks intelligence. Is this\na crime for which a man should everlastingly perish? If the creed is\nfalse, then a man accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both\ncases the crime is exactly the same.\n\nIf a man is to be damned for rejecting the truth, certainly he should\nnot be saved for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates\nthat a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not write it. It also\ndemonstrates that it was the work of men who had neither wisdom nor a\nsense of justice.\n\nWhat is this Catholic faith that must be held? It is this:\n\n\"That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither\nconfounding the persons nor dividing the substance.\" Why should an\nInfinite Being demand worship? Why should one God wish to be worshiped\nas three? Why should three Gods wished to be worshiped as one? Why\nshould we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to three Gods\nand think of one? Can this increase the happiness of the one or of the\nthree? Is it possible to think of one as three, or of three as one? If\nyou think of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none as\none? When you think of three as one, what do you do with the other two?\nYou must not \"confound the persons\"--they must be kept separate. When\nyou think of one as three, how do you get the other two? You must not\n\"divide the substance.\" Is it possible to write greater contradictions\nthan these?\n\nThis creed demonstrates the human origin of the Catholic Church. Nothing\ncould be more unjust than to punish man for unbelief--for the expression\nof honest thought--for having been guided by his reason--for having\nacted in accordance with his best judgment.\n\nAnother claim is made, to the effect \"that the Catholic Church has\nfilled the world with the true knowledge of the one true God, and that\nit has destroyed all idols by light instead of by fire.\"\n\nThe Catholic Church described the true God as a being who would inflict\neternal pain on his weak and erring children; described him as a fickle,\nquick-tempered, unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom\nflattery governed; one who loved to see fear upon its knees, ignorance\nwith closed eyes and open mouth; one who delighted in useless\nself-denial, who loved to hear the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns,\nas they lay prostrate on dungeon floors; one who was delighted when\nthe husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave in the far\nwilderness, tormented by dreams and driven to insanity by prayer and\npenance, by fasting and faith.\n\nAccording to the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed the agonies of\nheretics. He loved the smell of their burning flesh; he applauded with\nwide palms when philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the _auto da\nfe_ was a divine comedy. The shrieks of wives, the cries of babes when\nfathers were being burned, gave contrast, heightened the effect and\nfilled his cup with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the\nearth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the stars. \"The\nstream of light which descended from the beginning\" was propagated by\nfagot to fagot, until Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of\nfaith.\n\nIt may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the world with the\ntrue knowledge of the one true Devil. It filled the air with malicious\nphantoms, crowded innocent sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world\nto the domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks, goblins\nand ghosts, and butchered and burned thousands for the commission of\nimpossible crimes.\n\nIt is contended that: \"In this true knowledge of the Divine Nature was\nrevealed to man their own relation to a Creator as sons to a Father.\"\n\nThis tender relation was revealed by the Catholics to the Pagans, the\nArians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the heretics, the\nJews, the Moriscoes, the Protestants--to the natives of the West Indies,\nof Mexico, of Peru--to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these\nvictims were taught to regard the true God as a loving father, and this\nlesson was taught with every instrument of torture--with brandings and\nburnings, with flayings and flames. The world was filled with cruelty\nand credulity, ignorance and intolerance, and the soil in which all\nthese horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God, and the\ntrue knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet, we are compelled to say,\nthat the one true Devil described by the Catholic Church was not as\nmalevolent as the one true God.\n\nIs it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry? What is\nidolatry? What shall we say of the worship of popes--of the doctrine of\nthe Real Presence, of divine honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments,\nof holy water, of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of\namulets and charms?\n\nThe Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of idolatry. It\nabandoned the idea of continuity in nature, it denied the integrity of\ncause and effect. The government of the world was the composite\nresult of the caprice of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of\nthe faithful--softened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the\nCardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that \"Demonology was\noverthrown by the church, with the assistance of forces that were\nabove nature;\" and in the same breath gives birth to this enlightened\nstatement: \"Beelzebub is not divided against himself.\" Is a belief in\nBeelzebub a belief in demonology? Has the Cardinal forgotten the Council\nof Nice, held in the year of grace 787, that declared the worship of\nimages to be lawful? Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of\nthe Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry?\n\nThe Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacrament, and\ntherefore indissoluble, and he also insists that celibacy is far better\nthan marriage,--holier than a sacrament,--that marriage is not the\nhighest state, but that \"the state of virginity unto death is the\nhighest condition of man and woman.\"\n\nThe highest ideal of a family is where all are equal--where love has\nsuperseded authority--where each seeks the good of all, and where none\nobey--where no religion can sunder hearts, and with which no church can\ninterfere.\n\nThe real marriage is based on mutual affection--the ceremony is but the\noutward evidence of the inward flame. To this contract there are but two\nparties. The church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public to\nthe end that the real contract may be known, so that the world can see\nthat the parties have been actuated by the highest and holiest motives\nthat find expression in the acts of human beings. The man and woman\nare not joined together by God, or by the church, or by the state.\nThe church and state may prescribe certain ceremonies, certain\nformalities--but all these are only evidence of the existence of a\nsacred fact in the hearts of the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage\nis a dogma that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.\nIt has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality. Fear has\nborne children begotten by brutality. Countless women have endured the\ninsults, indignities and cruelties of fiendish husbands, because they\nthought that it was the will of God. The contract of marriage is the\nmost important that human beings can make; but no contract can be\nso important as to release one of the parties from the obligation of\nperformance; and no contract, whether made between man and woman, or\nbetween them and God, after a failure of consideration caused by the\nwillful act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent and\nhonest.\n\nDo the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their wives better than\nothers? A little while ago, a woman said to a man who had raised his\nhand to strike her: \"Do not touch me; you have no right to beat me; I am\nnot your wife.\"\n\nAbout a year ago a husband, whom God in his infinite wisdom had joined\nto a loving and patient woman in the indissoluble sacrament of marriage,\nbecoming enraged, seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.\nShe forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately repeated this frightful\ncrime, leaving his victim totally blind. Would it not have been better\nif man, before the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom God\nhad joined together? Thousands of husbands, who insist that marriage is\nindissoluble, are the beaters of wives.\n\nThe law of the church has created neither the purity nor the peace of\ndomestic life. Back of all churches is human affection. Back of all\ntheologies is the love of the human heart. Back of all your priests and\ncreeds is the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of the one\nman by the one woman. Back of your faith is the fireside; back of your\nfolly is the family; and back of all your holy mistakes and your sacred\nabsurdities is the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.\n\nIt is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman world had any true\nconception of a home. The splendid story of Ulysses and Penelope, the\nparting of Hector and Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of\nhome existed among the Greeks. Before the establishment of Christianity,\nthe Roman matron commanded the admiration of the then known world. She\nwas free and noble. The church degraded woman--made her the property\nof the husband, and trampled her beneath its brutal feet. The \"fathers\"\ndenounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The\nchurch worshiped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had pronounced his\ncurse on woman, and had declared that she should be the serf of the\nhusband. This church followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the\nuncleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were conceived\nin sin. This church pretended to have been founded by one who offered a\nreward in this world, and eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would\nforsake their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend to the\nelevation of woman? Did this detestable doctrine \"create the purity and\npeace of domestic life\"? Is it true that a monk is purer than a good and\nnoble father?--that a nun is holier than a loving mother?\n\nIs there anything deeper and stronger than a mother's love? Is there\nanything purer, holier than a mother holding her dimpled babe against\nher billowed breast?\n\nThe good man is useful, the best man is the most useful. Those who fill\nthe nights with barren prayers and holy hunger, torture themselves\nfor their own good and not for the benefit of others. They are\nearning eternal glory for themselves--they do not fast for their\nfellow-men--their selfishness is only equalled by their foolishness.\nCompare the monk in his selfish cell, counting beads and saying prayers\nfor the purpose of saving his barren soul, with a husband and father\nsitting by his fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with the\nmother and her babe.\n\nCelibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a stain upon\nmotherhood, upon marriage, upon love--that is to say, upon all that\nis holiest in the human heart. Take love from the world, and there is\nnothing left worth living for. The church has treated this great, this\nsublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it polluted the heart.\nThey have placed the love of God above the love of woman, above the love\nof man. Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,\nbecause man does not love God for God's sake, but for his own.\n\nYet the Cardinal asserts \"that the change wrought by Christianity in the\nsocial, political and international relations of the world\"--\"that the\nroot of this ethical change, private and public, is the Christian home.\"\nA moment afterward, this prelate insists that celibacy is far better\nthan marriage. If the world could be induced to live in accordance with\nthe \"highest state,\" this generation would be the last. Why were men and\nwomen created? Why did not the Catholic God commence' with the sinless\nand sexless? The Cardinal ought to take the ground that to talk well is\ngood, but that to be dumb is the highest condition; that hearing is a\npleasure, but that deafness is ecstasy; and that to think, to reason, is\nvery well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.\n\nWhy should we desire the destruction of human passions? Take passions\nfrom human beings and what is left? The great object should be not to\ndestroy passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To indulge\npassion to the utmost is one form of intemperance--to destroy passion is\nanother. The reasonable gratification of passion under the domination of\nthe intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.\n\nThe goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun, of the monk, all\ncome from the mother-instinct, the father-instinct--all were produced by\nhuman affection, by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love is\na transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies. In true marriage\ntwo hearts burst into flower. Two lives unite. They melt in music. Every\nmoment is a melody. Love is a revelation, a creation. From love\nthe world borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,\nself-denial, charity and pity are the children of love. Lover, wife,\nmother, husband, father, child, home--these words shed light--they are\nthe gems of human speech. Without love all glory fades, the noble falls\nfrom life, art dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of the\nair, and virtue ceases to exist.\n\nIt is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and against the\ntendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal then asks: \"Who will\nascribe this to natural causes, and, if so, why did it not appear in the\nfirst four thousand years?\"\n\nIf there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma, or a practice\nagainst the tendencies of human nature--if this religion succeeds,\nthen it is claimed by the Cardinal that such religion must be of divine\norigin. Is it \"against the tendencies of human nature\" for a mother to\nthrow her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet a religion\nthat insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and has, to-day, more\nbelievers than the Catholic Church can boast.\n\nReligions, like nations and individuals, have always gone along the line\nof least resistance. Nothing has \"ascended the stream of human license\nby a power mightier than nature.\" There is no such power. There never\nwas, there never can be, a miracle. We know that man is a conditioned\nbeing. We know that he is affected by a change of conditions. If he\nis ignorant he is superstitious; this is natural. If his brain is\ndeveloped--if he perceives clearly that all things are naturally\nproduced, he ceases to be superstitious, and becomes scientific. He is\nnot a saint, but a savant--not a priest, but a philosopher. He does\nnot worship, he works; he investigates; he thinks; he takes advantage,\nthrough intelligence, of the forces of nature. He is no longer the\nvictim of appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the persecutor\nof his fellow-men.\n\nHe then knows that it is far better to love his wife and children than\nto love God. He then knows that the love of man for woman, of woman for\nman, of parent for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier\nthan the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance and fear.\n\nIt is illogical to take the ground that the world was cruel and ignorant\nand idolatrous when the Catholic Church was established, and that\nbecause the world is better now than then, the church is of divine\norigin.\n\nWhat was the world when science came? What was it in the days of\nGalileo, Copernicus and Kepler? What-was it when printing was invented?\nWhat was it when the Western World was found? Would it not be much\neasier to prove that science is of divine origin?\n\nScience does not persecute. It does not shed blood--it fills the world\nwith light. It cares nothing for heresy; it develops the mind, and\nenables man to answer his own prayers.\n\nCardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah practically abandoned\nthe children of men for four thousand years, and gave them over to every\nabomination. He claims that Christianity came \"in the fullness of time,\"\nand it is then admitted that \"what the fullness of time may mean is one\nof the mysteries of times and seasons, that it is not for us to know.\"\nHaving declared that it is a mystery, and one that we are not to\nknow, the Cardinal explains it: \"One motive for the long delay of four\nthousand years is not far to seek--it gave time, full and ample, for the\nutmost development and consolidation of all the falsehood and evil of\nwhich the intellect and will of man are capable.\"\n\nIs it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and wise being \"gave\ntime full and ample for the utmost development and consolidation of\nfalsehood and evil\"? Why should an infinitely wise God desire this\ndevelopment and consolidation? What would be thought of a father who\nshould refuse to teach his son and deliberately allow him to go into\nevery possible excess, to the end that he might \"develop all the\nfalsehood and evil of which his intellect and will were capable\"? If a\nsupernatural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men simply\ndevelop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why was not a supernatural\nreligion given to the first man? The Catholic Church, if this be true,\nshould have been founded in the Garden of Eden.\n\nWas it not cruel to drown a world just for the want of a supernatural\nreligion--a religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish? Was\nthere \"husbandry in heaven\"?\n\nBut the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only admitting, but\ndeclaring, that the world had never seen a legislation so just, so\nequitable, as that of Rome.\n\nIs it possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had reached\ntheir highest development was, after all, so wise, so just and so\nequitable?\n\nWas not the civil law far better than the Mosaic--more philosophical,\nnearer just?\n\nThe civil law was produced without the assistance of God.\n\nAccording to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in whom all the\nfalsehood and evil of which they were capable had been developed and\nconsolidated, while the cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the\nlips of infinite wisdom and compassion.\n\nIt is declared that the history of Rome shows what man can do without\nGod, and I assert that the history of the Inquisition shows what man\ncan do when assisted by a church of divine origin, presided over, by the\ninfallible vicars of God.\n\nThe fact that the early Christians not only believed incredible things,\nbut persuaded others of their truth, is regarded by the Cardinal as a\nmiracle. This is only another phase of the old argument that success is\nthe test of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been founded\nin precisely the same way. The credulity of eighteen hundred years ago\nbelieved everything except the truth.\n\nA religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in some degree to\nthe people among whom it grows. It is shaped and molded by the general\nignorance, the superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.\nThe key is fashioned by the lock.\n\nEvery religion that has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of\nits votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonized with their hopes,\ntheir fears, their vices, and their virtues.\n\nIf, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in absolute harmony\nwith nature, how can it be supernatural? The Cardinal also declares that\n\"the religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature\nin all nations and all ages to this day.\"\n\nWhat becomes of the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin\nbecause \"it has ascended the stream of human license, _contra ictum\nfluminis_, by a power mightier than nature\"?\n\nIf \"it is in harmony with the reason and moral nature of all nations and\nall ages to this day,\" it has gone with the stream, and not against\nit. If \"the religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral\nnature of all nations,\" then the men who have rejected it are unnatural,\nand these men have gone against the stream. How then can it be said\nthat Christianity has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has\nmarred it? To what extent has man marred it?\n\nIn spite of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and moral\nnature of all nations in all ages to this day is in harmony with the\nreligion of Jesus Christ.\n\nAre we justified in saying that the Catholic Church is of divine origin\nbecause the Pagans failed to destroy it by persecution?\n\nWe will put the Cardinal's statement in form:\n\nPaganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution, therefore\nCatholicism is of divine origin.\n\nLet us make an application of this logic:\n\nPaganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution; therefore,\nCatholicism is of divine origin.\n\nCatholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecution; therefore,\nProtestantism is of divine origin.\n\nCatholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity;\ntherefore, Infidelity is of divine origin.\n\nLet us make another application:\n\nPaganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism; therefore, Paganism\nwas a false religion.\n\nCatholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestantism; therefore,\nCatholicism is a false religion.\n\nCatholicism and Protestantism combined failed to destroy Infidelity;\ntherefore, both Catholicism and Protestantism are false religions.\n\nThe Cardinal has another reason for believing the Catholic Church of\ndivine origin. He declares that the \"Canon Law is a creation of wisdom\nand justice to which no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear\ncomparison;\" \"that the world-wide and secular legislation of the church\nwas of a higher character, and that as water cannot rise above its\nsource, the church could not, by mere human wisdom, have corrected and\nperfected the imperial law, and therefore its source must have been\nhigher than the sources of the world.\"\n\nWhen Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law was supreme.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the good in the Canon Law was borrowed--the bad\nwas, for the most part, original. In my judgment, the legislation of the\nRepublic of the United States is in many respects superior to that of\nRome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the Civil Law. Our legislation\nis superior in many particulars to that of England, and yet we are\ngreatly indebted to the Common Law; but it never occurred to me that our\nStatutes at Large are divinely inspired.\n\nIf the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite wisdom, then\nit should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon Law made it a crime next to\nrobbery and theft to take interest for money. Without the right to take\ninterest the business of the whole world, would to a large extent, cease\nand the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways enough in the\nUnited States to make six tracks around the globe, and every mile was\nbuilt with borrowed money on which interest was paid or promised. In no\nother way could the savings of many thousands have been brought together\nand a capital great enough formed to construct works of such vast and\ncontinental importance.\n\nIt was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law that a heretic could\nnot be a witness against a Catholic. The Catholic was at liberty to\nrob and wrong his fellow-man, provided the fellow-man was not a fellow\nCatholic, and in a court established by the vicar of Christ, the man\nwho had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth. A Catholic could\nenter the house of an unbeliever, of a Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and\nbefore the eyes of the husband and father murder his wife and children,\nand the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge the name of\nthe murderer.\n\nThe world is wiser now, and the Canon Law, given to us by infinite\nwisdom, has been repealed by the common sense of man.\n\nIn this divine code it was provided that to convict a cardinal bishop,\nseventy-two witnesses were required; a cardinal presbyter, forty-four;\na cardinal deacon, twenty-four; a subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader,\nostiarius, seven; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses\nwere invariably required; of a presbyter, seven; of a deacon, three.\nThese laws, in my judgment, were made, not by God, but by the clergy.\n\nSo too in this cruel code it was provided that those who gave aid,\nfavor, or counsel, to excommunicated persons, should be anathema, and\nthat those who talked with, consulted, or sat at the same table with or\ngave anything in charity to the excommunicated should be anathema.\n\nIs it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made hospitality a crime?\nDid he say: \"Whoso giveth a cup of cold water to the excommunicated\nshall wear forever a garment of fire\"? Were not the laws of the Romans\nmuch better? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the dead could be\ntried for heresy, and their estates confiscated--that is to say, their\nwidows and orphans robbed.\n\nThe most brutal part of the common law of England is that in relation\nto the rights of women--all of which was taken from the _Corpus Juris\nCanonici_, \"the law that came from a higher source than man.\"\n\nThe only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the pious canonists\nwas _propter infidelitatem_, which was when one of the parties became\nCatholic, and would not live with the other who continued still an\nunbeliever. Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of\nhis wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided she remained\nfaithful to the religion of her fathers. Under this divine law, a man\nmarrying a widow was declared to be a bigamist.\n\nIt would require volumes to point out the cruelties, absurdities and\ninconsistencies of the Canon Law. It has been thrown away by the world.\nEvery civilized nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is\nof interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the enemy of\ntheological government.\n\nUnder the Canon Law, people were convicted of being witches and wizards,\nof holding intercourse with devils. Thousands perished at the stake,\nhaving been convicted of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law,\nthere was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or woman could\nbe arrested, charged with being suspected, and under this Canon Law,\nflowing from the intellect of infinite wisdom, the presumption was in\nfavor of guilt. The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all\ncivilized courts, the presumption of innocence is the shield of the\nindicted, but the Canon Law took away this shield, and put in the hand\nof the priest the sword of presumptive guilt.\n\nIf the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd of the sheep,\nthis fact should be known not only to the vicar, but to the sheep. A\ndivinely founded and guarded church ought to know its own shepherd, and\nyet the Catholic sheep have not always been certain who the shepherd\nwas.\n\nThe Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes--rivals--Gregory\nand Benedict--that is to say, deposed the actual vicar of Christ and the\npretended. This action was taken because a council, enlightened by the\nHoly Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit. The council\nthen elected another vicar, whose authority was afterwards denied.\nAlexander V. died, and John XXIII. took his place; Gregory XII. insisted\nthat he was the lawful pope; John resigned, then he was deposed, and\nafterward imprisoned; then Gregory XII. resigned, and Martin V. was\nelected. The whole thing reads like the annals of a South American\nrevolution.\n\nThe Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal declares, the unity\nof the church, and brought back the consolation of the Holy Ghost.\nBefore this great council John Huss appeared and maintained his own\ntenets. The council declared that the church was not bound to keep its\npromise with a heretic. Huss was condemned and executed on the 6th\nof July, 1415. His disciple, Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having\nrelapsed, was put to death, May 30, 1416. This cursed council shed the\nblood of Huss and Jerome.\n\nThe Cardinal appeals to the author of \"Ecce Homo\" for the purpose of\nshowing that Christianity is above nature, and the following passages,\namong others, are quoted:\n\n\"Who can describe that which unites men? Who has entered into the\nformation of speech, which is the symbol of their union? Who can\ndescribe exhaustively the origin of civil society? He who can do these\nthings can explain the origin of the Christian Church.\"\n\nThese passages should not have been quoted by the Cardinal. The author\nof these passages simply says that the origin of the Christian Church\nis no harder to find and describe than that which unites men--than that\nwhich has entered into the formation of speech, the symbol of their\nunion--no harder to describe than the origin of civil society--because\nhe says that one who can describe these can describe the other.\n\nCertainly none of these things are above nature. We do not need the\nassistance of the Holy Ghost in these matters. We know that men are\nunited by common interests, common purposes, common dangers--by race,\nclimate and education. It is no more wonderful that people live in\nfamilies, tribes, communities and nations, than that birds, ants and\nbees live in flocks and swarms.\n\nIf we know anything, we know that language is natural--that it is a\nphysical science. But if we take the ground occupied by the Cardinal,\nthen we insist that everything that cannot be accounted for by man,\nis supernatural. Let me ask, by what man? What man must we take as the\nstandard?\n\nCosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or Darwin? If everything that we\ncannot account for is above nature, then ignorance is the test of the\nsupernatural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where his knowledge\nstops. At that point he says that he does not know. Such a man is a\nphilosopher. Then the theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty\nof the philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is beyond the\nhorizon of the human intellect.\n\nCould a savage account for the telegraph, or the telephone, by natural\ncauses? How would he account for these wonders? He would account for\nthem precisely as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.\n\nBelonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest interest in the\nprimacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be regretted that this primacy\nrests upon such a narrow and insecure foundation.\n\nThe Cardinal says that \"it will appear almost certain that the original\nGreek of St. Irenaeus, _which is unfortunately lost_, contained either\n[--Greek--], or some inflection of [--Greek--], which signifies\nprimacy.\"\n\nFrom this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome rests on\nsome \"inflection\" of a Greek word--and that this supposed inflection\nwas in a letter supposed to have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has\ncertainly been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal power\nhas this, and only this, for its foundation? To this \"inflection\" has it\ncome at last?\n\nThe Cardinal's case depends upon the intelligence and veracity of his\nwitnesses. The Fathers of the church were utterly incapable of examining\na question of fact. They were all believers in the miraculous. The same\nis true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the Apocalypse,\nhe was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp said the things attributed to him\nby Catholic writers, he was certainly in the condition of his master.\nWhat is the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the following?\n\"Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bathhouse. St. John and another\nChristian were about to enter. St. John cried out: 'Let us run away,\nlest the house fall upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.'\" Is\nit possible that St. John thought that God would kill two eminent\nChristians for the purpose of getting even with one heretic?\n\nLet us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been a prototype of the\nCatholic Church, as will be seen from the following statement concerning\nthis Father: \"When any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence\nhe would stop his ears.\" After this, there can be no question of his\northodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a martyr--that a spear was\nrun through his body, and that from the wound his soul, in the shape\nof a bird, flew away. The history of his death is just as true as the\nhistory of his life.\n\nIrenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there was to be a\nmillennium--a thousand years of enjoyment in which celibacy would not be\nthe highest form of virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose\nof establishing the divine origin of the church, and if one of his\n\"inflections\" is the basis of papal supremacy, is the Cardinal also\nwilling to take his testimony as to the nature of the millennium?\n\nAll the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one of them believed,\nnot only in the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ, by the\napostles, and by other Christians, but every one of them believed in\nthe Pagan miracles. All of these Fathers were familiar with wonders and\nimpossibilities. Nothing was so common with them as to work miracles,\nand on many occasions they not only cured diseases, not only reversed\nthe order of nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.\n\nIt is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said, or what the\nFathers of the church wrote. There were many centuries filled with\nforgeries--many generations in which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics\nerased, obliterated or interpolated the records of the past--during\nwhich they invented books, invented authors, and quoted from works that\nnever existed.\n\nThe testimony of the \"Fathers\" is without the slightest value.\nThey believed everything--they examined nothing. They received as a\nwaste-basket receives. Whoever accepts their testimony will exclaim with\nthe Cardinal: \"Happily, men are not saved by logic.\"\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nIS DIVORCE WRONG?\n\nBy Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter, and Colonel Robert G.\nIngersoll.\n\nTHE attention of the public has been particularly directed of late\nto the abuses of divorce, and to the facilities afforded by\nthe complexities of American law, and by the looseness of its\nadministration, for the disruption of family ties. Therefore the _North\nAmerican Review_ has opened its pages for the thorough discussion of\nthe subject in its moral, social, and religious aspects, and some of the\nmost eminent leaders of modern thought have contributed their opinions.\nThe Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D., who is a specialist on the subject of\ndivorce, has prepared some statistics touching the matter, and, with\nthe assistance of Bishop Potter, the four following questions have been\nformulated as a basis for the discussion:\n\n1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances?\n\n2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any circumstances?\n\n3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family?\n\n4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists contribute\nto the moral purity of society?\n\nEditor North American Review,\n\nIntroduction by the Rev. S. W. Dike, LL.D.\n\nI AM to introduce this discussion with some facts and make a few\nsuggestions upon them. In the dozen years of my work at this problem I\nhave steadily insisted upon a broad basis of fact as the only foundation\nof sound opinion. We now have a great statistical advance in the report\nof the Department of labor. A few of these statistics will serve the\npresent purpose.\n\nThere were in the United States 9,937 divorces reported for the year\n1867 and 25,535 for 1886, or a total 328,716 in the twenty years. This\nincrease is more than twice as great as the population, and has been\nremarkably uniform throughout the period. With the exception of New\nYork, perhaps Delaware, and the three or four States where special\nlegislative reforms have been secured, the increase covers the\ncountry and has been more than twice the gain in population. The South\napparently felt the movement later than the North and West, but its\ngreater rapidity there will apparently soon obliterate most existing\ndifferences. The movement is well-nigh as universal in Europe as here.\nThirteen European countries, including Canada, had 6,540 divorces in\n1876 and 10,909 in 1886--an increase of 67 per cent. In the same period\nthe increase with us was 72.5 per cent. But the ratios of divorce\nto population are here generally three or four times greater than in\nEurope. The ratios to marriage in the United States are sometimes as\nhigh as 1 to 10, 1 to 9, or even a little more for single years. In\nheathen Japan for three years they were more than 1 to 3. But divorce\nthere is almost wholly left to the regulation of the family, and\npractically optional with the parties. It is a re-transference of the\nwife by a simple writing to her own family.\n\n1. The increase of divorce is one of several evils affecting the family.\nAmong these are hasty or ill-considered marriages, the decline of\nmarriage and the decrease of children,--too generally among classes\npecuniarily best able to maintain domestic life,--the probable increase\nin some directions of marital infidelity and sexual vice, and last, but\nnot least, a tendency to reduce the family to a minimum of force in the\nlife of society. All these evils should be studied and treated in their\nrelations to each other. Carefully-conducted investigations alone can\nestablish these latter statements beyond dispute, although there can be\nlittle doubt of their general correctness as here carefully made. And\nthe conclusion is forced upon us that the toleration of the increase\nof divorce, touching as it does the vital bond of the family, is so far\nforth a confession of our western civilization that it despairs of\nall remedies for ills of the family, and is becoming willing, in great\ndegree, to look away from all true remedies to a dissolution of the\nfamily by the courts in all serious cases. If this were our settled\npurpose, it would look like giving up the idea of producing and\nprotecting a family increasingly capable of enduring to the end of its\nnatural existence. If the drift of things on this subject during the\npresent century may be taken as prophetic, our civilization moves in an\nopposite direction in its treatment of the family from its course with\nthe individual.\n\n2. Divorce, including these other evils related to the family, is\npreeminently a social problem. It should therefore be reached by all\nthe forces of our great social institutions--religious, educational,\nindustrial, and political. Each of these should be brought to bear on it\nproportionately and in cooperation with the others. But I can here take\nup only one or two lines for further suggestion.\n\n3. The causes of divorces, like those of most social evils, are\noften many and intricate. The statistics for this country, when the\nforty-three various statutory causes are reduced to a few classes, show\nthat 20 per cent, of the divorces were based on adultery, 16 on cruelty,\n38 were granted for desertion, 4 for drunkenness, less than 3 for\nneglect to provide, and so on. But these tell very little, except that\nit is easier or more congenial to use one or another of the statutory\ncauses, just as the old \"omnibus clause,\" which gave general discretion\nto the courts in Connecticut, and still more in some other States, was\nmade to cover many cases. A special study of forty-five counties in\ntwelve States, however, shows that drunkenness was a direct or indirect\ncause in 20.1 per cent, of 29,665 cases. That is, it could be found\neither alone or in conjunction with others, directly or indirectly, in\none-fifth of the cases.\n\n4. Laws and their administration affect divorce. New York grants\nabsolute divorce for only one cause, and New Jersey for two. Yet New\nYork has many more divorces in proportion to population, due largely to\na looser system of administration. In seventy counties of twelve States\n68 per cent, of the applications are granted. The enactment of a more\nstringent law is immediately followed by a decrease of divorces, from\nwhich there is a tendency to recover. Personally, I think stricter\nmethods of administration, restrictions upon remarriage, proper delays\nin hearing suits, and some penal inflictions for cruelty, desertion,\nneglect of support, as well as for adultery, would greatly reduce\ndivorces, even without removing a single statutory cause. There would\nbe fewer unhappy families, not more. For people would then look to real\nremedies instead of confessing the hopelessness of remedy by appeals to\nthe courts. A multitude of petty ills and many utterly wicked frauds\nand other abuses would disappear. \"Your present methods,\" said a\nNova Scotian to a man from Maine a few years ago, \"are simply ways of\nmultiplying and magnifying domestic ills.\" There is much force in this.\nBut let us put reform of marriage laws along with these measures.\n\n5. The evils of conflicting and diverse marriage and divorce laws are\ndoing immense harm. The mischief through which innocent parties are\ndefrauded, children rendered illegitimate, inheritance made uncertain,\nand actual imprisonments for bigamy grow out of divorce and remarriage,\nare well known to most. Uniformity through a national law or by\nconventions of the States has been strongly urged for many years.\nUniformity is needed. But for one, I have long discouraged too early\naction, because the problem is too difficult, the consequences too\nserious, and the elements of it still too far out of our reach for any\nreally wise action at present. The government report grew immediately\nout of this conviction. It will, I think, abundantly justify the\ncaution. For it shows that uniformity could affect at the utmost only a\nsmall percentage of the total divorces in the United States. _Only 19.9\npercent of all the divorced who were married in this country obtained\ntheir divorces in a different State from the one in which their marriage\nhad taken place, in all these twenty years, 80.1 per cent, having been\ndivorced in the State where married_. Now, marriage on the average lasts\n9.17 years before divorce occurs, which probably is nearly two-fifths\nthe length of a married life before its dissolution by death. From this\n19.9 per cent, there must, therefore, be subtracted the large migration\nof married couples for legitimate purposes, in order to get any fair\nfigure to express the migration for divorce. But the movement of the\nnative population away from the State of birth is 22 or 23 per cent.\nThis, however, includes all ages. For all who believe that divorce\nitself is generally a great evil, the conclusion is apparently\ninevitable that the question of uniformity, serious as it is, is a very\nsmall part of the great legal problem demanding solution at our hands.\nThis general problem, aside from its graver features in the more\nimmediate sphere of sociology and religion, must evidently tax our\npublicists and statesmen severely. The old temptation to meet special\nevils by general legislation besets us on this subject. I think\ncomparative and historical study of the law of the family, (the\n_Familienrecht_ of the Germans), especially if the movement of European\nlaw be seen, points toward the need of a pretty comprehensive and\nthorough examination of our specific legal problem of divorce\nand marriage law in this fuller light, before much legislation is\nundertaken.\n\nSamuel W. Dike.\n\n\nHowever much men may differ in their views of the nature and attributes\nof the matrimonial contract, and in their concept of the rights and\nobligations of the marriage state, no one will deny that these are grave\nquestions; since upon marriage rests the family, and upon the family\nrest society, civilization, and the highest interests of religion and\nthe state. Yet, strange to say, divorce, the deadly enemy of marriage,\nstalks abroad to-day bold and unblushing, a monster licensed by the laws\nof Christian states to break hearts, wreck homes and ruin souls. And\npassing strange is it, too, that so many, wise and far-seeing in less\nweighty concerns, do not appear to see in the evergrowing power of\ndivorce a menace not only to the sacredness of the marriage institution,\nbut even to the fair social fabric reared upon matrimony as its\ncorner-stone.\n\nGod instituted in Paradise the marriage state and sanctified it. He\nestablished its law of unity and declared its indissolubility. By divine\nauthority Adam spoke when of his wife he said: \"This now is bone of my\nbones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she\nwas taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and\nshall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.\"*\n\n     * Gen., ii., 23-24.\n\nBut like other things on earth, marriage suffered in the fall; and\nlittle by little polygamy and divorce began to assert themselves against\nthe law of matrimonial unity and indissolubility. Yet the ideal of the\nmarriage institution never faded away. It survived, not only among the\nchosen people, but even among the nations of heathendom, disfigured\nmuch, 'tis true, but with its ancient beauty never wholly destroyed.\n\nWhen, in the fullness of time, Christ came to restore the things\nthat were perishing, he reasserted in clear and unequivocal terms the\nsanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage. Nay, more. He gave to\nthis state added holiness and a dignity higher far than it had \"from the\nbeginning.\" He made marriage a sacrament, made it the type of his own\nnever-ending union with his one spotless spouse, the church. St. Paul,\nwriting to the Ephesians, says: \"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ\nalso loved the church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might\nsanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life,\nthat he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot\nor wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without\nblemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies....\nFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave\nto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.\"*\n\n     * Ephes., v., 25-31.\n\nIn defence of Christian marriage, the church was compelled from the\nearliest days of her existence to do frequent and stern battle. But\ncultured pagan, and rough barbarian, and haughty Christian lord were\nmet and conquered. Men were taught to master passion, and Christian\nmarriage, with all its rights secured and reverenced, became a ruling\npower in the world.\n\nThe Council of Trent, called, in the throes of the mighty moral upheaval\nof the sixteenth century, to deal with the new state of things, again\nproclaimed to a believing and an unbelieving world the Catholic doctrine\nof the holiness, unity, and indissolubility of marriage, and the\nunlawfulness of divorce. The council declared no new dogmas: it simply\nreaffirmed the common teaching of the church for centuries. But some\nof the most hallowed attributes of marriage seemed to be objects of\npeculiar detestation to the new teachers, and their abolition was\nsoon demanded. \"The leaders in the changes of matrimonial law,\" writes\nProfessor Woolsey, \"were the Protestant reformers themselves, and that\nalmost from the beginning of the movement.... The reformers, when they\ndiscarded the sacramental view of marriage and the celibacy of the\nclergy, had to make out a new doctrine of marriage and of divorce.\"*\nThe \"new doctrine of marriage and of divorce,\" pleasing as it was to the\nsensual man, was speedily learned and as speedily put in practice. The\nsacredness with which Christian marriage had been hedged around began to\nbe more and more openly trespassed upon, and restive shoulders wearied\nmore and more quickly of the marriage yoke when divorce promised freedom\nfor newer joys.\n\nTo our own time the logical consequences of the \"new doctrine\" have\ncome. To-day \"abyss calls upon abyss,\" change calls for change, laxity\ncalls for license. Divorce is now a recognized presence in high life and\nlow; and polygamy, the first-born of divorce, sits shameless in palace\nand in hovel. Yet the teacher that feared not to speak the words of\ntruth in bygone ages is not silent now. In no uncertain tones, the\nchurch proclaims to the world to-day the unchangeable law of the strict\nunity and absolute indissolubility of valid and consummated Christian\nmarriage.\n\nTo the question then, \"Can divorce from the bond of marriage ever be\nallowed?\" the Catholic can only answer no.\n\n     * \"Divorce and Divorce Legislation,\" by Theodore D. Woolsey,\n     2d Ed., p. 126.\n\nAnd for this no, his first and last and best reason can be but this:\n\"_Thus saith the Lord_.\"\n\nAs time goes on the wisdom of the church in absolutely forbidding\ndivorce from the marriage bond grows more and more plain even to the\nmany who deny to this prohibition a divine and authoritative sanction.\nAnd nowhere is this more true than in our own country. Yet our\nexperience of the evils of divorce is but the experience of every people\nthat has cherished this monster.\n\nLet us take but a hasty view of the consequences of divorce in ancient\ntimes. Turn only to pagan Greece and Rome, two peoples that practised\ndivorce most extensively. In both we find divorce weakening their\nprimitive virtue and making their latter corruption more corrupt. Among\nthe Greeks morality declined as material civilization advanced. Divorce\ngrew easy and common, and purity and peace were banished from the family\ncircle. Among the Romans divorce was not common until the latter days of\nthe Republic. Then the flood-gates of immorality were opened, and, with\ndivorce made easy, came rushing in corruption of morals among both sexes\nand in every walk of life. \"Passion, interest, or caprice,\" Gibbon, the\nhistorian, tells us, \"suggested daily motives for the dissolution\nof marriage; a word, a sign, a message, a letter, the mandate of a\nfreedman, declared the separation; the most tender of human connections\nwas degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure.\"* Each\nsucceeding generation witnessed moral corruption more general, moral\ndegradation more profound; men and women were no longer ashamed of\nlicentiousness; until at length the nation that became mighty because\nbuilt on a pure family fell when its corner-stone crumbled away in\nrottenness.\n\n     * \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" Milman's Ed., Vol.\n     III., p. 236.\n\nHeedless of the lessons taught by history, modern nations, too, have\nmade trial of divorce. In Europe, wherever the new gospel of marriage\nand divorce has had! notable influence, divorce has been legalized; and\nin due proportion to the extent of that influence causes for divorce\nhave been multiplied, the bond of marriage more and more recklessly\nbroken, and the obligations of that sacred state more and more\nshamelessly disregarded. In our own country the divorce evil has grown\nmore rapidly than our growth and strengthened more rapidly than our\nstrength. Mr. Carroll D. Wright, in a special report on the statistics\nof marriage and divorce made to Congress in February, 1889, places the\nnumber of divorces in the United States in 1867 at 9,937, and the number\nin 1886 at 25,535. These figures show an increase of the divorce evil\nmuch out of proportion to our increase in population. The knowledge that\ndivorces can easily be procured encourages hasty marriages and\nequally hasty preparations. Legislators and judges in some States\nare encouraging inventive genius in the art of finding new causes for\ndivorce. Frequently the most trivial and even ridiculous pretexts are\nrecognized as sufficient for the rupture of the marriage bond; and\nin some States divorce can be obtained \"without publicity,\" and even\nwithout the knowledge of the defendant--in such cases generally an\ninnocent wife. Crime has sometimes been committed for the very purpose\nof bringing about a divorce, and cases are not rare in which plots have\nbeen laid to blacken the reputation of a virtuous spouse in order\nto obtain legal freedom for new nuptials. Sometimes, too, there is a\ncollusion between the married parties to obtain divorce. One of them\ntrumps up charges; the other does not oppose the suit; and judgment is\nentered for the plaintiff. Every daily newspaper tells us of divorces\napplied for or granted, and the public sense of decency is constantly\nbeing shocked by the disgusting recital of of divorce-court scandals.\n\nWe are filled with righteous indignation at Mormonism; we brand it as\na national disgrace, and justly demand its suppression. Why? Because,\nforsooth, the Mormons are polygamists. Do we forget that there are\ntwo species of polygamy--simultaneous and successive? Mormons practise\nwithout legal recognition the first species; while among us the second\nspecies is indulged in, and with the sanction of law, by thousands in\nwhose nostrils Mormonism is a stench and an abomination. The Christian\npress and pulpit of the land denounce the Mormons as \"an adulterous\ngeneration,\" but too often deal very tenderly with Christian\npolygamists. Why? Is Christian polygamy less odious in the eyes of God\nthan Mormon polygamy? Among us, *tis true, the one is looked upon as\nmore respectable than the other. Yet we know that the Mormons as a\nclass, care for their wives and children; while Christian polygamists\nbut too often leave wretched wives to starve, slave, or sin, and\nleave miserable children a public charge. \"O divorced and much-married\nChristian,\" says the polygamous dweller by Salt Lake, \"pluck first the\nbeam from thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to pluck the mote from\nthe eye of thy much-married, but undivorced, Mormon brother.\" It follows\nlogically from the Catholic doctrine of the unity and indissolubility\nof marriage, and the consequent prohibition of divorce from the marital\nbond, that no one, even though divorced _a vinculo_ by the civil power,\ncan be allowed by the church to take another consort during the lifetime\nof the true wife or husband, and such connection the church can but hold\nas sinful. It is written: \"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry\nanother committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away\nher husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.\"*\n\n     * Mark, x., ii, 12.\n\nOf course, I am well aware that upon the words of our Saviour as found\nin St. Matthew, Chap. xix., 9, many base the right of divorce from the\nmarriage bond for adultery, with permission to remarry. But, as is\nwell known, the Catholic Church, upon the concurrent testimony of the\nEvangelists Mark* and Luke,** and upon the teaching of St. Paul,***\ninterprets our Lord's words quoted by St. Matthew as simply permitting,\non account of adultery, divorce from bed and board, with no right to\neither party to marry another.\n\nBut even if divorce _a vinculo_ were not forbidden by divine law, how\ninadequate a remedy would it be for the evils for which so many deem it\na panacea. \"Divorce _a vinculo_,\" as Dr. Brownson truly says, \"logically\ninvolves divorce _ad libitum.\"_*** Now, what reason is there to suppose\nthat parties divorced and remated will be happier in the new connection\nthan in the old? As a matter of fact, many persons have been divorced\na number of times. Sometimes, too, it happens that, after a period of\nseparation, divorced parties repent of their folly, reunite, and are\nagain divorced. Indeed, experience clearly proves that unhappiness\namong married people frequently does not arise so much from \"mutual\nincompatibility\" as from causes inherent in one or both of the\nparties--causes that would be likely to make a new union as wretched\nas the old one. There is wisdom in the pithy saying of-a recent writer:\n\"Much ill comes, not because men and women are married, but because they\nare fools.\"***\n\n     * Mark, x., n, 12. Luke, xvi., 18. J I. Cor.,vii., 10, 11.\n\n     ** Essay on \"The Family--Christian and Pagan.\"\n\n     *** Prof. David Swing in Chicago Journal.\n\nThere are some who think that the absolute prohibition of divorce does\nnot contribute to the purity of society, and are therefore of opinion\nthat divorce with liberty to remarry does good in this regard. He who\nbelieves the matrimonial bond indissoluble, divorce a vinculo evil, and\nthe connection resulting from it criminal, can only say: \"Evil should\nnot be done that good may come.\" But, after all, would even passing good\ncome from this greater freedom? In a few exceptional cases--Yes: in\nthe vast majority of cases--No. The trying of divorce as a safeguard of\npurity is an old experiment, and an unsuccessful one. In Rome adulteries\nincreased as divorces were multiplied. After speaking of the facility\nand frequency of divorce among the Romans, Gibbon adds:\n\n\"A specious theory is confuted by this free and perfect experiment,\nwhich demonstrates that the liberty of divorce does not contribute\nto happiness and virtue. The facility of separation would destroy\nall mutual confidence, and inflame every trifling dispute. The minute\ndifference between a husband and a stranger, which might so easily be\nremoved, might still more easily be forgotten.\"*\n\nHow _apropos_ in this connection are the words of Professor Woolsey:\n\n\"Nothing is more startling than to pass from the first part of the\neighteenth to this latter part of the nineteenth century, and to observe\nhow law has changed and opinion has altered in regard to marriage, the\ngreat foundation of society, and to divorce; and how, almost pari passu,\nvarious offences against chastity, such as concubinage, prostitution,\nillegitimate births, abortion, disinclination to family life, have\nincreased also--not, indeed, at the same pace everywhere, or all of them\nequally in all countries, yet have decidedly increased on the whole.\"!\n\nSurely in few parts of the wide world is the truth of these strong words\nmore evident than in those parts of our own country where loose divorce\nlaws have long prevailed.\n\nIt should be noted that, while never allowing the dissolution of the\nmarriage bond, the Catholic Church has always permitted, for grave\ncauses and under certain conditions, a temporary or permanent\n\"separation from bed and board.\"\n\n     * \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" Milman's Ed., Vol.\n     III., p. 236.\n\n     ** \"Divorce and Divorce Legislation,\" 2d Ed., p. 274.\n\nThe causes which, _positis ponendis_, justify such separation may be\nbriefly given thus: mutual consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or\nbody.\n\nIt may be said that there are persons so unhappily mated and so\nconstituted that for them no relief can come save from divorce _a\nvinculo_, with permission to remarry. I shall not linger here to point\nout to such the need of seeking from a higher than earthly power the\ngrace to suffer and be strong. But for those whose reasoning on this\nsubject is of the earth, earthy, I shall add some words of practical\nworldly wisdom from eminent jurists. In a note to his edition of\nBlackstone's \"Commentaries,\" Mr. John Taylor Coleridge says:\n\n\"It is no less truly than beautifully said by Sir W. Scott, in the case\nof Evans v. Evans, that 'though in particular cases the repugnance\nof the law to dissolve the obligation of matrimonial cohabitation may\noperate with great severity upon individuals, yet it must be carefully\nremembered that the general happiness of the married life is secured\nby its indissolubility.' When people understand that they must live\ntogether, except for a few reasons known to the law, they learn to\nsoften by mutual accommodation that yoke which they know they cannot\nshake off: they become good husbands and good wives from the necessity\nof remaining husbands and wives: for necessity is a powerful master in\nteaching the duties which it imposes. If it were once understood that\nupon mutual disgust married persons might be legally separated, many\ncouples who now pass through the world with mutual comfort, with\nattention to their common offspring, and to the moral order of civil\nsociety, might have been at this moment living in a state of mutual\nunkindness, in a state of estrangement from their common offspring, and\nin a state of the most licentious and unrestrained immorality. In this\ncase, as in many other cases, the happiness of some individuals must be\nsacrificed to the greater and more general good.\"\n\nThe facility and frequency of divorce, and its lamentable consequences,\nare nowadays calling much attention to measures of \"divorce reform.\"\n\"How can divorce reform be best secured?\" it may be asked. Believing,\nas I do, that divorce is evil, I also believe that its \"reformation\"\nand its death must be simultaneous. It should cease to be. Divorce as we\nknow it began when marriage was removed from the domain of the church:\ndivorce shall cease when the old order shall be restored. Will this ever\ncome to pass? Perhaps so--after many days. Meanwhile, something might\nbe done, something should be done, to lessen the evils of divorce. Our\npresent divorce legislation must be presumed to be such as the majority\nof the people wish it. A first step, therefore, in the way of \"divorce\nreform\" should be the creation of a more healthy public sentiment on\nthis question. Then will follow measures that will do good in proportion\nto their stringency. A few practical suggestions as to the salient\nfeatures of remedial divorce legislation may not be out of place.\nPersons seeking at the hands of the civil law relief in matrimonial\ntroubles should have the right to ask for divorce _a vinculo_, or\nsimple separation _a mensa et thoro_, as they may elect. The number\nof legally-recognized grounds for divorce should be lessened, and\n\"noiseless\" divorces forbidden. \"Rapid-transit\" facilities for passing\nthrough divorce courts should be cut off, and divorce \"agencies\" should\nbe suppressed. The plaintiff in a divorce case should be a _bona fide_\nresident of the judicial district in which his petition is filed, and in\nevery divorce case the legal representatives of the State should appear\nfor the defendant, and, by all means, the right of remarriage after\ndivorce should be restricted. If divorce cannot be legislated out of\nexistence, let, at least, its power for evil be diminished.\n\nJames Cardinal Gibbons.\n\n\nI am asked certain questions with regard to the attitude of the\nEpiscopal Church towards the matter of divorce. In undertaking to answer\nthem, it is to be remembered that there is a considerable variety of\nopinion which is held in more or less precise conformity with doctrinal\nor canonical declarations of the church. With these variations this\npaper, except in so far as it may briefly indicate them, is not\nconcerned. Nor is it an expression of individual opinion. That is not\nwhat has been asked for or attempted.\n\nThe doctrine and law of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the subject\nof divorce is contained in canon 13, title II., of the \"Digest of the\nCanons,\" 1887. That, canon has been to a certain extent interpreted by\nEpiscopal judgments under section IV. The \"public opinion\" of the\nclergy or laity can only be ascertained in the usual way; especially\nby examining their published treatises, letters, etc., and perhaps most\nsatisfactorily by the reports of discussion in the diocesan and general\nconventions on the subject of divorce. Among members of the Protestant\nEpiscopal Church divorce is excessively rare, cases of uncertainty in\nthe application of the canon, are much more rare, and the practice of\nthe clergy is almost perfectly uniform. There is, however, by no means\nthe same uniformity in their opinions either as to divorce or marriage.\n\nAs divorce is necessarily a mere accident of marriage, and as divorce is\nimpossible without a precedent marriage, much practical difficulty might\narise, and much difference of opinion does arise, from the fact that the\nProtestant Episcopal Church has nowhere defined marriage. Negatively,\nit is explicitly affirmed (Article XXV.) that \"matrimony is not to\nbe counted for a sacrament of the Gospel.\" This might seem to reduce\nmatrimony to a civil contract. And accordingly the first rubric in\nthe _Form of Solemnization of Matrimony_ directs, on the ground of\ndifferences of laws in the various States, that \"the minister is left\nto the direction of those laws in everything that regards the civil\ncontract between the parties.\" Laws determining what persons shall be\ncapable of contracting would seem to be included in \"everything that\nregards the civil contract;\" and unquestionably the laws of most of\nthe States render all persons legally divorced capable of at once\ncontracting a new marriage. Both the first section of canon 13 and the\n_Form of Solemnization_, affirm that, \"if any persons be joined together\notherwise than as God's word doth allow, their marriage is not\nlawful.\" But it is nowhere excepting as to divorce, declared _what the\nimpediments are_. The Protestant Episcopal Church has never, by canon\nor express legislation, published, for instance, a table of prohibited\ndegrees.\n\nOn the matter of divorce, however, canon 13, title II., supersedes, for\nthe members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, both a part of the civil\nlaw relating to the persons capable of contracting marriage, and also\nall private judgment as to the teaching of \"the Word of God\" on that\nsubject. No minister is allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the marriage of\nany man or woman who has a divorced husband or wife still living. But\nif the person seeking to be married is the innocent party in the divorce\nfor adultery, that person, whether man or woman, may be married by\na minister of the church. With the above exception, the clergy are\nforbidden to administer the sacraments to any divorced and remarried\nperson without the express permission of the bishop, unless that person\nbe \"penitent\" and \"in imminent danger of death.\" Any doubts \"as to the\nfacts of any case under section II. of this canon\" must be referred to\nthe bishop. Of course, where there is no reasonable doubt the minister\nmay proceed. It may be added that the sacraments are to be refused also\nto persons who may be reasonably supposed to have contracted marriage\n\"otherwise,\" in any respect, \"than as the Word of God and the discipline\nof this Church doth allow.\" These impediments are nowhere defined; and\naccordingly it has happened that a man who had married a deceased wife's\nsister and the woman he had married were, by the private judgment of\na priest, refused the holy communion. The civil courts do not seem\ninclined to protect the clergy from consequences of interference with\nthe civil law. In Southbridge, Mass., a few weeks ago, a man who\nhad been denounced from the altar for marrying again after a divorce\nobtained a judgment for $1,720 damages. The law of the church would\nseem to be that, even though a legal divorce may have been obtained,\nremarriage is absolutely forbidden, excepting to the innocent party,\nwhether man or woman, in a divorce for adultery. The penalty for breach\nof this law might involve, for the officiating clergyman, deposition\nfrom the ministry; for the offending man or woman, exclusion from the\nsacraments, which, in the judgment of a very large number of the clergy,\ninvolves everlasting damnation.\n\nIt is obvious, then, that the Protestant Episcopal Church allows the\ncomplete validity of a divorce _a vinculo_ in the case of adultery, and\nthe right of remarriage to the innocent party. But that church has\nnot determined in what manner either the grounds of the divorce or the\n\"innocence\" of either party is to be ascertained. The canon does not\nrequire a clergyman to demand, nor can the church enable him to secure,\nthe production of a copy of the record or decree of the court of law\nby which a divorce is granted, nor would such decree indicate the\n\"innocence\" of one party, though it might prove the guilt of the other.\n\nThe effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family is too obvious to\nrequire stating. As the father and mother are the heads of the family,\ntheir separation must inevitably destroy the common family life. On the\nother hand, it is often contended that the destruction has been already\ncompleted, and that a divorce is only the legal recognition of what has\nalready taken place; \"the integrity of the family\" can scarcely remain\nwhen either a father or mother, or both, are living in violation of the\nlaw on which that integrity rests. The question may be asked whether the\nabsolute prohibition of divorce would contribute to the moral purity of\nsociety. It is difficult to answer such a question, because anything\non the subject must be comparatively worthless until verified by\nexperience. It is quite certain that the prohibition of divorce never\nprevents illicit sexual connections, as was abundantly proved when\ndivorce in England was put within the reach of persons who were not able\nto afford the expense of a special act of Parliament. It is, indeed,\nso palpable a fact that any amount of evidence or argument is wholly\nsuperfluous.\n\nThe law of the Protestant Episcopal Church is by no means identical with\nthe opinion of either the clergy or the laity. In the judgment of many,\nthe existing law is far too lax, or, at least, the whole doctrine\nof marriage is far too inadequately dealt with in the authoritative\nteaching of the church. The opinion of this school finds, perhaps,\nits most adequate expression in the report of a committee of the last\nGeneral Convention forming Appendix XIII. of the \"Journal\" of that\nconvention. It is, substantially, that the Mosaic law of marriage is\nstill binding upon the church, unless directly abrogated by Christ\nhimself; that it was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was\nforbidden by him, excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman\nmight not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a\ndivorced person until the death of the other party is wholly forbidden;\nthat marriage is not merely a civil contract, but a spiritual and\nsupernatural union, requiring for its mutual obligation a supernatural,\ndivine grace; that such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of\nmatrimony, which is a true sacrament and does actually confer grace;\nthat marriage is wholly within the jurisdiction of the church, though\nthe State may determine such rules and guarantees as may secure\npublicity and sufficient evidence of a marriage, etc.; that severe\npenalties should be inflicted by the State, on the demand of the church,\nfor the suppression of all offences against the seventh commandment and\nsundry other parts of the Mosaic legislation, especially in relation to\n\"prohibited degrees.\"\n\nThere is another school, equally earnest and sincere in its zeal for\nthe integrity of the family and sexual purity, which would nevertheless\nrepudiate much the greater part of the above assumption. This school, if\none may so venture to combine scattered opinions, argues substantially\nas follows: The type of all Mosaic legislation was circumcision; that\nrite was of universal obligation and divine authority. St. Paul so\nregarded it. The abrogation of the law requiring circumcision was,\ntherefore, the abrogation of the whole of the Mosaic legislation. The\n\"burden of proof,\" therefore, rests upon those who affirm the present\nobligation of what formed a part of the Mosaic law; and they must show\nthat it has been reenacted by Christ and his Apostles or forms some part\nof some other and independent system of law or morals still in force.\nChrist's words about divorce are not to be construed as a positive law,\nbut as expressing the ideal of marriage, and corresponding to his words\nabout eunuchs, which not everybody \"can receive.\" So far as Christ's\nwords seem to indicate an inequality as to divorce between man and\nwoman, they are explained by the authoritative and inspired assertion of\nSt. Paul: \"In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.\" A divine\nlaw is equally authoritative by whomsoever declared--whether by the Son\nIncarnate or by the Holy Ghost speaking through inspired Apostles. If,\nthen, a divine law was ever capable of suspension or modification, it\nmay still be capable of such suspension or modification in corresponding\ncircumstances. The circumstances which justified a modification of the\noriginal divine law of marriage do still exist in many conditions of\nsociety and even of individual life. The Protestant Episcopal Church\ncannot, alone, speak with such authority on disputed passages of\nScripture as to justify her ministers in direct disobedience to the\ncivil authority, which is also \"ordained of God.\" The exegesis of the\nearly church was closely connected with theories about matter, and\nabout the inferiority of women and of married life, which are no longer\nbelieved.\n\nOf course this is a very brief statement. As a matter of fact the actual\neffect of the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church\non marriage and divorce is that divorce among her members is excessively\nrare; that it is regarded with extreme aversion; and that the public\nopinion of the church maintains the law as it now is, but could not be\ntrusted to execute laws more stringent. A member of the committee of the\nGeneral Convention whose report has been already referred to closes that\nreport with the following protest:\n\n\"The undersigned finds himself unable to concur in so much of the\n[proposed] canon as forbids the holy communion to a truly pious and\ngodly woman who has been compelled by long years of suffering from\na drunken and brutal husband to obtain a divorce, and has regularly\nmarried some suitable person according to the established laws of the\nland. And also from so much of the [proposed] canon as may seem to\nforbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister.\"\n\nThe final action on these points, which has already been stated,\nindicates that the proposed report thus referred to was, in one\nparticular at least, in advance of the sentiment of the church as\nexpressed in her General Convention.\n\nHenry C. Potter.\n\n\n_Question (1.) Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any\ncircumstances?_\n\nThe world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the living are\ntyrannized over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the conditions under\nwhich they were produced have passed away, often persist in surviving.\nMany are disposed to worship the ancient--to follow the old paths,\nwithout inquiring where they lead, and without knowing exactly where\nthey wish to go themselves.\n\nOpinions on the subject of divorce have been, for the most part,\ninherited from the early Christians. They have come to us through\ntheological and priestly channels. The early Christians believed that\nthe world was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified by\nfire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the good were to\nbe caught up in the air to meet their Lord--to remain there, in all\nprobability, until the earth was prepared as a habitation for the\nblessed. With this thought or belief in their minds, the things of this\nworld were of comparatively no importance. The man who built larger\nbarns in which to store his grain was regarded as a foolish farmer, who\nhad forgotten, in his greed for gain, the value of his own soul.\nThey regarded prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the\nunfortunate, the wretched and diseased, as the favorites of God. They\ndiscouraged all worldly pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There\nwas no time to marry or to be given in marriage; no time to build homes\nand have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the heaven\nthey expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into\ndisrepute.\n\nNothing is said in the Testament about the families of the apostles;\nnothing of family life, of the sacredness of home; nothing about the\nnecessity of education, the improvement and development of the mind.\nThese things were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the\npresence of the expected event, was considered of any importance, except\nto be ready when the Son of Man should come. Such was the feeling, that\nrewards were offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their\nwives and children. Human love was spoken of with contempt. \"Let the\ndead bury their dead. What is that to thee? Follow thou me.\" They not\nonly believed these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a\nconsequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and their\nobligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was regarded as\nonly one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only\nin consideration of human weakness. It was thought far better not to\nmarry--that it was something grander for a man to love God than to\nlove woman. The exceedingly godly, the really spiritual, believed in\ncelibacy, and held the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And\nyet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theologians, marriage\nwas held to be a sacrament. The priest said to the man who married:\n\"Remember that you are caught for life. This door opens but once. Before\nthis den of matrimony the tracks are all one way.\" This was in the\nnature of a punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the\ncontract of marriage, if not contrary to God's command, was at least\ncontrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer in some\nway, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be no divorce,\nthat a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as a warning. At\nevery wedding feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards\nbride and groom.\n\nNearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the world is\nabout to come to an end. They do not now believe that prosperity is a\ncertain sign of wickedness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure\ncertificates of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should have\nbeen sent to hell simply for being rich, or that Lazarus was entitled\nto eternal joy on account of his poverty. We now know that prosperous\npeople may be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We have\nreached the conclusion that the practice of virtue tends in the\ndirection of prosperity, and that a violation of the conditions of\nwell-being brings, with absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune.\n\nThere was a time when it was believed that the sin of an individual\nwas visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation to which he\nbelonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman had made a vow\nto God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire\ncommunity; therefore it was the business of the community to see to it\nthat the vow was kept. That idea has been abandoned. As we progress, the\nrights of the individual are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly\nto discern that there are no rights higher than the rights of the\nindividual. There was a time when nearly all believed in the reforming\npower of punishment--in the beneficence of brute force. But the world is\nchanging. It was at one time thought that the Inquisition was the savior\nof society; that the persecution of the philosopher was requisite to the\npreservation of the state, and that, no matter what happened, the state\nshould be preserved. We have now more light. And standing upon this\nluminous point that we call the present, let me answer your questions.\n\nMarriage is the most important, the most sacred, contract that\nhuman beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract, or a\nsacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter whether\nthis contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest,\nit is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord and\nagreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not even imagined;\nit is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist; all other\nconsiderations are lost; the present seems to be eternal. In this\nsupreme moment there is no shadow--or the shadow is as luminous as\nlight. And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true\nmarriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the altar, or\nminister, or magistrate, or in the presence of witnesses, is only the\noutward evidence of that which has already happened within; it simply\ntestifies to a union that has already taken place--to the uniting of two\nmornings of hope to reach the night together. Each has found the ideal;\nthe man has found the one woman of all the world--the impersonation of\naffection, purity, passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has\nfound the one man of all the world, her ideal, and all that she knows of\nromance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realized in him. The\nidea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation are instantly changed into\ndesire and joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one.\nNothing can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obligation\nand duty of each to each. There is nothing in the ceremony except the\ndesire on the part of the man and woman that the whole world should know\nthat they are really married and that their souls have been united.\n\nEvery marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public, should be\nrecorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end that the purity of\nthe union should appear. These ceremonies are not only for the good and\nfor the protection of the married, but also for the protection of their\nchildren, and of society as well. But, after all, the marriage remains\na contract of the highest possible character--a contract in which each\ngives and receives a heart.\n\nThe question then arises, Should this marriage, under any circumstances,\nbe dissolved? It is easy to understand the position taken by the various\nchurches; but back of theological opinions is the question of contract.\n\nIn this contract of marriage, the man agrees to protect and cherish his\nwife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he abuses, assaults, and\ntramples upon the woman he wed. What is her redress? Is she under\nany obligation to him? He has violated the contract. He has failed to\nprotect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild beast. Is\nshe under any obligation to him? Is she bound by the contract he has\nbroken? If so, what is the consideration for this obligation? Must she\nlive with him for his sake? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life,\nmust she remain his wife for his sake? No intelligent man will answer\nthese questions in the affirmative.\n\nIf, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the husband's sake,\nis she bound to remain his wife because the marriage was a sacrament? Is\nthere any obligation on the part of the wife to remain with the brutal\nhusband for the sake of God? Can her conduct affect in any way the\nhappiness of an infinite being? Is it possible for a human being to\nincrease or diminish the well-being of the Infinite?\n\nThe next question is as to the right of society in this matter. It must\nbe admitted that the peace of society will be promoted by the separation\nof such people. Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining\nwith a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh. Even married women\nhave a right to personal security. They do not lose, either by contract\nor sacrament, the right of self-preservation; this they share in common,\nto say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures.\n\nThis will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of divorce; but\nthey will insist that while the wife has the right to flee from\nher husband's roof and seek protection of kindred or friends, the\nmarriage--the sacrament--must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest of\nsociety that those who despise each other should live together? Ought\nthe world to be peopled by the children of hatred or disgust, the\nchildren of lust and loathing, or by the welcome babes of mutual love?\nIs it possible that an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists\nthat a helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch? Can\nthis add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune? Can\nanything be more infamous than for a government to compel a woman to\nremain the wife of a man she hates--of one whom she justly holds in\nabhorrence? Does any decent man wish the assistance of a constable,\na sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his house? Is it\npossible to conceive of a more contemptible human being than a man who\nwould appeal to force in such a case? It may be said that the woman is\nfree to go, and that the courts will protect her from the brutality of\nthe man who promised to be her protector; but where shall the woman go?\nShe may have no friends; or they may be poor; her kindred may be\ndead. Has she no right to build another home? Must this woman, full of\nkindness, affection, health, be tied and chained to this living corpse?\nIs there no future for her? Must she be an outcast forever--deceived and\nbetrayed for her whole life? Can she never sit by her own hearth, with\nthe arms of her children about her neck, and with a husband who loves\nand protects her? Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the\nbenefit of society?--or is it for the sake of the wretch who destroyed\nher life?\n\nThe ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if marriage\ncould be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in order to\nretain your moral character--in order to be pure and womanly? Must a\nwoman, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a serf, with a\nbeast for a master, or with society for a master, or with a phantom for\na master?\n\nIf an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is it not\nthe duty of this being to see to it that the contract is carried out?\nWhat consideration does the infinite being give? What consideration does\nhe receive? If a wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband\nhas violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life, is it\npossible for her to feel toward him any real thrill of affection? If she\ndoes not, what is there left of marriage? What part of this contract or\nsacrament remains in living force? She can not sustain the relation of\nwife, because she abhors him; she cannot remain under the same roof, for\nfear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations\nof hunter and hunted--of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this\nrelation should last through life, and that it should be rendered sacred\nby the ceremony of a church?\n\nAgain I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under such\ncircumstances? Are we in need of children born of such parents? Can the\nvirtue of others be preserved only by this destruction of happiness, by\nthis perpetual imprisonment?\n\nA marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for wealth or\nposition is low enough; but what shall we say of a marriage where the\nparties actually abhor each other? Is there any morality in this?\nany virtue in this? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or\nhusband, without the real and true relation? Will any good man say, will\nany good woman declare, that a true, loving woman should be compelled\nto be the mother of children whose father she detests? Is there a good\nwoman in the world who would not shrink from this herself; and is there\na woman so heartless and so immoral that she would force another to bear\nthat from which she would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink?\n\nMarriages are made by men and women; not by society; not by the state;\nnot by the church; not by supernatural beings. By this time we should\nknow that nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being of\nsentient beings; that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not\ngood. We know now, if we know anything, that all the reasons for doing\nright, and all the reasons against doing wrong, are here in this world.\nWe should have imagination enough to put ourselves in the place of\nanother. Let a man suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal\nhusband--would he advocate divorces then?\n\nFew people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women and\nchildren, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the\nfootsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who hide\nwhen they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the number of\nblows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know\nthe nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their breasts.\nCompared with these, all the hardships of poverty borne by those who\nlove each other are as nothing. Men and women truly married bear the\nsufferings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console each\nother. In the darkest night they see the radiance of a star, and their\naffection gives to the heart of each perpetual sunshine.\n\nThe good home is the unit of the good government. The hearthstone is\nthe corner-stone of civilization. Society is not interested in the\npreservation of hateful homes, of homes where husbands and wives are\nselfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good\nwomen should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that they\nshould become mothers by husbands whom they hate. Homes should be filled\nwith kind and generous fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when\nthey are so filled, the world will be civilized. Intelligence will rock\nthe cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the legislative\nhalls; and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the\nspirit of liberty.\n\nAlthough marriage is the most important and the most sacred contract\nthat human beings can make, still when that contract has been violated,\ncourts should have the power to declare it null and void upon such\nconditions as may be just.\n\nAs a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth, her beauty, her\nlove--with all she has; and from this contract certainly the husband\nshould never be released, unless the wife has broken the conditions of\nthat contract. Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the\nmarriage should be solemnized. Every marriage should be known, and\nthere should be witnesses, to the end that the character of the contract\nentered into should be understood; the record should be open and public.\nAnd the same is true of divorces. The conditions should be determined,\nthe property should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of\nthe children given under regulations prescribed.\n\nMen and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself create\nvirtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law should protect\nvirtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has kept her contract,\nand the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the\nend of marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns and will\nforever burn the sacred flame. There has been no time in the world's\nhistory when that torch was extinguished. In all ages, in all climes,\namong all people, there has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long\nbefore a ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed, there\nwere true and perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural\nmodesty, the affections of the heart; and in spite of all law, there is\nand forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure;\nand everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to\nthat which has happened within the temple of the human heart.\n\n\n_Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any\ncircumstances?_\n\nThis depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it is not a crime, why\nshould any penalty be attached? Can any one conceive of any reason why\na woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her part, should be\ncompelled as a punishment to remain forever single? Why should she be\npunished for the dishonesty or brutality of another? Why should a man\nwho faithfully kept his contract of marriage, and who was deserted by an\nunfaithful wife, be punished for the benefit of society? Why should he\nbe doomed to live without a home?\n\nThere is still another view. We must remember that human passions are\nthe same after as before divorce. To prevent remarriage is to give\nexcuse for vice.\n\n\n_Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity of the\nfamily?_\n\nThe real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real divorce is\nback of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and wife abhor each\nother, they are divorced. The decree records in a judicial way what has\nreally taken place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract\nalready made.\n\nThe true family is the result of the true marriage, and the institution\nof the family should above all things be preserved. What becomes of the\nsacredness of the home, if the law compels those who abhor each other to\nsit at the same hearth? This lowers the standard, and changes the happy\nhaven of home into the prison-cell. If we wish to preserve the integrity\nof the family, we must preserve the democracy of the fireside, the\nrepublicanism of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband\nand wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no spectre of fear. The\nmother must not remain through an order of court, or the command of a\npriest, or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute\nfreedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own soul and of\nher own body. Real homes can never be preserved through force, through\nslavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no\naltar purer than the hearth.\n\n_Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce where it exists\ncontribute to the moral purity of society?_\n\nWe must define our terms. What is moral purity? The intelligent of\nthis world seek the well-being of themselves and others. They know that\nhappiness is the only good; and this they strive to attain. To live in\naccordance with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest\nsense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the highest ends is\nour highest conception of the moral. In other words, morality is the\nmelody of the perfection of conduct. A man is not moral because he\nis obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm\nof perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance with\nperceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality is not the child of\nslavery. Ignorance is not the corner-stone of virtue.\n\nThe first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to it that\nhe does not become a burden upon others. To be self-respecting, he must\nendeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his industry and intelligence he\naccumulates a margin, then he is under obligation to do with that margin\nall the good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he can. In\ntrue marriage men and women give not only their bodies, but their souls.\nThis is the ideal marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies,\nbut not their souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this\nis immoral.\n\nIf this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to sustain the\nrelation of wife after love is dead? Is there some other consideration\nthat can take the place of genuine affection? Can she be bribed with\nmoney, or a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain a\nvirtuous woman? Is it for the good of society that virtue should be thus\ncrucified between church and state? Can it be said that this contributes\nto the moral purity of the human race?\n\nIs there a higher standard of virtue in countries where divorce is\nprohibited than in those where it is granted? Where husbands and wives\nwho have ceased to love cannot be divorced, there are mistresses and\nlovers.\n\nThe sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The world looks\nat the wife who has been abused, who has been driven from the home of\nher husband, and the world pities; and when this wife is loved by some\nother man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot live in\npeace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused.\n\nIs it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for a husband\nto insist on living with a wife who has no love for him? Is not this a\nperpetual crime? Is the wife to lose her personality? Has she no right\nof choice? Is her modesty the property of another? Is the man she hates\nthe lord of her desire? Has she no right to guard the jewels of her\nsoul? Is there a depth below this? And is this the foundation of\nmorality? this the corner-stone of society? this the arch that supports\nthe dome of civilization? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand,\nthis sacrilege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven?\n\nTo me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic fact within\nour knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word cluster the joys\nand sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother\nwalks in the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon\nthe altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the world is\ncivilized, no wife will become a mother against her will. Man will then\nknow that to enslave another is to imprison himself.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nDIVORCE.\n\nA LITTLE while ago the North American Review propounded the following\nquestions:\n\n1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances?\n\n2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry, under any\ncircumstances?\n\n3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family?\n\n4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, contribute\nto the moral purity of society?\n\nThese questions were answered in the November number of the Review,\n1889, by Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter and myself. In\nthe December number, the same questions were again answered by W. E.\nGladstone, Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph. In the following month\nMary A. Livermore, Amelia E. Barr, Rose Terry Cooke, Elizabeth Stuart\nPhelps and Jennie June gave their opinions upon the subject of divorce;\nand in the February number of this year, Margaret Lee and the Rev.\nPhillip S. Moxom contributed articles upon this subject.\n\nI propose to review these articles, and, first, let me say a few words\nin answer to Cardinal Gibbons.\n\n\nREPLY TO CARDINAL GIBBONS.\n\nThe indissolubility of marriage was a reaction from polygamy. Man\nnaturally rushes from one extreme to the other. The Cardinal informs us\nthat \"God instituted in Paradise the marriage state, and sanctified it;\"\nthat \"he established its law of unity and declared its indissolubility.\"\nThe Cardinal, however, accounts for polygamy and divorce by saying that,\n\"marriage suffered in the fall.\"\n\nIf it be true that God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, and\ndeclared its unity and indissolubility, how do you account for the fact\nthat this same God afterwards upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot\nto say anything on the subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to\nMoses? How does it happen that in these commandments he puts women on an\nequality with other property--\"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,\nor thy neighbor's ox, or anything that is thy neighbor's\"? How did it\nhappen that Jacob, who was in direct communication with God, married,\nnot his deceased wife's sister, but both sisters, while both were\nliving? Is there any way of accounting for the fact that God upheld\nconcubinage?\n\nNeither is it true that \"Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal\nterms, the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage.\" Neither is\nit true that \"Christ gave to this state an added holiness and a dignity\nhigher far than it had 'from the beginning.'\" If God declared the\nunity and indissolubility of marriage in the Garden of Eden, how was it\npossible for Christ to have \"added a holiness and dignity to marriage\nhigher far than it had from the beginning\"? How did Christ make marriage\na sacrament? There is nothing on that subject in the new Testament;\nbesides, Christ did apparently allow divorce, for one cause at least.\nHe is reported to have said: \"Whosoever putteth away his wife, save for\nfornication, causeth her to commit adultery.\"\n\nThe Cardinal answers the question, \"Can divorce from the bonds of\nmarriage ever be allowed?\" with an emphatic theological \"NO,\" and as a\nreason for this \"no,\" says, \"Thus saith the Lord.\"\n\nIt is true that we regard Mormonism as a national disgrace, and that\nwe so regard it because the Mormons are polygamists. At the same time,\nintelligent people admit that polygamy is no worse in Utah, than it was\nin Palestine--no worse under Joseph Smith, than under Jehovah--that\nit has been and must be forever the same, in all countries and in all\ntimes. The Cardinal takes the ground that \"there are two species of\npolygamy--simultaneous and successive,\" and yet he seems to regard\nboth species with equal horror. If a wife dies and the husband marries\nanother woman, is not that successive polygamy?\n\nThe Cardinal takes the ground that while no dissolution of the marriage\nbond should be allowed, yet for grave causes a temporary or permanent\nseparation from bed and board may be obtained, and these causes he\nenumerates as \"mutual consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or\nbody.\" To those, however, not satisfied with this doctrine, and who are\n\"so unhappily mated and so constituted that for them no relief can come\nsave from absolute divorce,\" the Cardinal says, in a very sympathetic\nway, that he \"Will not linger here to point out to such the need of\nseeking from a higher than earthly power, the grace to suffer and be\nstrong.\"\n\nAt the foundation and upon the very threshold of this inquiry, one thing\nought to be settled, and that is this: Are we to answer these questions\nin the light of human experience; are we to answer them from the\nstandpoint of what is better here, in this world, for men and\nwomen--what is better for society here and now--or are we to ask: What\nis the will of God? And in order to find out what is this will of God,\nare we to ask the church, or are we to read what are called \"the sacred\nwritings\" for ourselves? In other words, are these questions to be\nsettled by theological and ecclesiastical authority, or by the common\nsense of mankind? No one, in my judgment, should marry for the sake of\nGod, and no one should be divorced for the sake of God, and no man and\nwoman should live together as husband and wife, for the sake of God.\nGod being an infinite being, cannot be rendered unhappy by any action of\nman, neither can his well-being be increased; consequently, the will of\nGod has nothing whatever to do with this matter. The real question then\nmust be: What is best for man?\n\nOnly the other day, a husband sought out his wife and with his own hand\ncovered her face with sulphuric acid, and in a moment afterward she was\nblind. A Cardinal of the Catholic Church tells this woman, sitting in\ndarkness, that it is her duty to \"suffer and be strong\"; that she must\nstill remain the wife of this wretch; that to break the bond that binds\nthem together, would be an act of sacrilege. So, too, two years ago, a\nhusband deserted his wife in Germany. He came to this country. She was\npoor. She had two children--one a babe. Holding one in her arm, and\nleading the other by the hand, she walked hundreds of miles to the shore\nof the sea. Overcome by fatigue, she was taken sick, and for months\nremained in a hospital. Having recovered, she went to work, and finally\ngot enough money to pay her passage to New York. She came to this city,\nbringing her children with her. Upon her arrival, she commenced a\nsearch for her husband. One day overcome by exertion, she fainted in the\nstreet. Persons took pity upon her and carried her upstairs into a room.\nBy a strange coincidence, a few moments afterward her husband entered.\nShe recognized him. He fell upon her like a wild beast, and threw\nher down the stairs. She was taken up from the pavement bleeding, and\ncarried to a hospital.\n\nThe Cardinal says to this woman: Remain the wife of this man; it will be\nvery pleasing to God; \"suffer and be strong.\" But I say to this woman:\nApply to some Court; get a decree of absolute divorce; cling to your\nchildren, and if at any time hereafter some good and honest man offers\nyou his hand and heart, and you can love him, accept him and build\nanother home, to the end that you may sit by your own fireside, in your\nold age, with your children about you.\n\nIt is not true that the indissolubility of marriage preserves the virtue\nof mankind. The fact is exactly the opposite. If the Cardinal wishes to\nknow why there are more divorces now than there were fifty or a hundred\nyears ago, let me tell him: Women are far more intelligent--some of\nthem are no longer the slaves either of husbands, or priests. They are\nbeginning to think for themselves. They can see no good reason why\nthey should sacrifice their lives to please Popes or Gods. They are\nno longer deceived by theological prophecies. They are not willing to\nsuffer here, with the hope of being happy beyond the clouds--they want\ntheir happiness now.\n\n\nREPLY TO BISHOP POTTER.\n\nBishop Potter does not agree with the Cardinal, yet they both study\nsubstantially the same bible--both have been set apart for the purpose\nof revealing the revelation. They are the persons whose duty it is to\nenlighten the common people. Cardinal Gibbons knows that he represents\nthe only true church, and Bishop Potter is just as sure that he occupies\nthat position. What is the ordinary man to do?\n\nThe Cardinal states, without the slightest hesitation, that \"Christ made\nmarriage a sacrament--made it the type of his own never-ending union\nwith his one sinless spouse, the church.\" The Bishop does not agree\nwith the Cardinal. He says: \"Christ's words about divorce are not to be\nconstrued as a positive law, but as expressing the ideal of marriage,\nand corresponding to his words about eunuchs, which not everybody can\nreceive.\" Ought not the augurs to agree among themselves? What is a man\nwho has only been born once, to do?\n\nThe Cardinal says explicitly that marriage is a sacrament, and the\nBishop cites Article xxv., that \"matrimony is not to be accounted for\na sacrament of the gospel,\" and then admits that \"this might seem to\nreduce matrimony to a civil contract.\" For the purpose of bolstering up\nthat view, he says, \"The first rubric in the Form of Solemnization of\nMatrimony declares that the minister is left to the direction of those\nlaws in every thing that regards a civil contract between the parties.'\"\nHe admits that \"no minister is allowed, _as a rule_, to solemnize the\nmarriage of any man or woman who has a divorced husband or wife still\nliving.\" As a matter of fact, we know that hundreds of Episcopalians do\nmarry where a wife or a husband is still living, and they are not turned\nout of the Episcopal Church for this offence. The Bishop admits that the\nchurch can do very little on the subject, but seems to gather a little\nconsolation from the fact, that \"the penalty for breach of this law\nmight involve, for the officiating clergyman, deposition from the\nministry--for the offending man or woman exclusion from the sacraments,\nwhich, in the judgment of a very large number of the clergy, involves\neverlasting damnation.\"\n\nThe Cardinal is perfectly satisfied that the prohibition of divorce is\nthe foundation of morality, and the Bishop is equally certain that \"the\nprohibition of divorce never prevents illicit sexual connections.\"\n\nThe Bishop also gives us the report of a committee of the last General\nConvention, forming Appendix xiii of the Journal. This report, according\nto the Bishop, is to the effect \"that the Mosaic law of marriage is\nstill binding upon the church unless directly abrogated by Christ\nhimself, that it-was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was\nforbidden by him excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman\nmight not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a\ndivorced person until the death of the other party, is wholly forbidden;\nthat marriage is not merely a civil contract but a spiritual and\nsupernatural union, requiring for its mutual obligations a supernatural\ndivine grace, and that such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of\nmatrimony.\"\n\nThe most beautiful thing about this report is, that a woman might not\nclaim divorce for any reason whatever. I must admit that the report is\nin exact accordance with the words of Jesus Christ. On the other hand,\nthe Bishop, not to leave us entirely without hope, says that \"there is\nin his church another school, equally earnest and sincere in its zeal\nfor the integrity of the family, which would nevertheless repudiate the\ngreater part of the above report.\"\n\nThere is one thing, however, that I was exceedingly glad to see, and\nthat is, that according to the Bishop the ideas of the early church are\nclosely connected with theories about matter, and about the inferiority\nof woman, and about married life, which are no longer believed. The\nBishop has, with great clearness, stated several sides of this question;\nbut I must say, that after reading the Cardinal and the Bishop, the\nearnest theological seeker after truth would find himself, to say the\nleast of it, in some doubt.\n\nAs a matter of fact, who cares what the Old Testament says upon this\nsubject? Are we to be bound forever by the ancient barbarians?\n\nMr. Gladstone takes the ground, first, \"that marriage is essentially a\ncontract for life, and only expires when life itself expires\"; second,\n\"that Christian marriage involves a vow before God\"; third, \"that no\nauthority has been given to the Christian Church to cancel such a vow\";\nfourth, \"that it lies beyond the province of tie civil legislature,\nwhich, from the necessity of things, has a veto within the limits of\nreason, upon the making of it, but has no competency to annul it when\nonce made\"; fifth, \"that according to the laws of just interpretation,\nremarriage is forbidden by the text of Holy Scripture\"; and sixth, \"that\nwhile divorce of any kind impairs the integrity of the family, divorce\nwith remarriage destroys it root and branch; that the parental and the\nconjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the Almighty\nno less than the persons united by the marriage tie, to one another.\"\n_First_. Undoubtedly, a real marriage was never entered into unless the\nparties expected to live together as long as they lived. It does not\nenter into the imagination of the real lover that the time is coming\nwhen he is to desert the being he adores, neither does it enter into the\nimagination of his wife, or of the girl about to become a wife. But how\nand in what way, does a Christian marriage involve a vow before God?\nIs God a party to the contract? If yes, he ought to see to it that the\ncontract is carried out. If there are three parties--the man, the woman,\nand God--each one should be bound to do something, and what is God\nbound to do? Is he to hold the man to his contract, when the woman has\nviolated hers? Is it his business to hold the woman to the contract,\nwhen the man has violated his? And what right has he to have anything\nto say on the subject, unless he has agreed to do something by reason of\nthis vow? Otherwise, it would be simply a _nudum pactum_--a vow without\nconsideration.\n\nMr. Gladstone informs us that no authority has been given to the\nChristian Church to cancel such a vow. If he means by that, that God has\nnot given any such authority to the Christian Church, I most cheerfully\nadmit it.*\n\n     * Note.--This abrupt termination, together with the\n     unfinished replies to Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph,\n     which follow, shows that the author must have been\n     interrupted in his work, and on next taking it up concluded\n     that the colloquial and concrete form would better serve his\n     turn than the more formal and didactic style above employed.\n     He thereupon dictated his reply to the Gibbon and Gladstone\n     arguments in the following form which will be regarded as a\n     most interesting instance of the author's wonderful\n     versatility of style.\n\n     This unfinished matter was found among Col. Ingersoll's\n     manuscripts, and is given as transcribed from the\n     stenographic notes of Mr. I. N. Baker, his secretary,\n     without revision by the author.\n\n\nJUSTICE BRADLEY.\n\nCardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, and Mr. Gladstone represent the\ntheological side--that is to say, the impracticable, the supernatural,\nthe unnatural. After reading their opinions, it is refreshing to read\nthose of Justice Bradley. It is like coming out of the tomb into the\nfresh air.\n\nSpeaking of the law, whether regarded as divine or human or both,\nJustice Bradley says: \"I know no other law on the subject but the moral\nlaw, which does not consist of arbitrary enactments and decrees, but\nis adapted to our condition as human beings. This is so, whether it\nis conceived of as the will of an all-wise creator, or as the voice of\nhumanity speaking from its experience, its necessities and its higher\ninstincts. And that law surely does not demand that the injured party\nto the marriage bond should be forever tied to one who disregards\nand violates every obligation that it imposes--to one with whom it is\nimpossible to cohabit--to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does\nit demand that such injured party, if legally free, should be forever\ndebarred from forming other ties through which the lost hopes of\nhappiness for life may be restored. It is not reason, and it can not\nbe law--divine, or moral--that unfaithfulness, or willful and obstinate\ndesertion, or persistent cruelty of the stronger party, should afford no\nground for relief.......If no redress be legalized, the law itself will\nbe set at defiance, and greater injury to soul and body will result from\nclandestine methods of relief.\"\n\nSurely, this is good, wholesome, practical common sense.\n\n\nSENATOR DOLPH.\n\nSenator Dolph strikes a strong blow, and takes the foundation from under\nthe idiotic idea of legal separation without divorce. He says: \"As there\nshould be no partial divorce, which leaves the parties in the condition\naptly described by an eminent jurist as 'a wife without a husband and\na husband without a wife,' so, as a matter of public expediency, and\nin the interest of public morals, whenever and however the marriage\nis dissolved, both parties should be left free to remarry.\" Again:\n\"Prohibition of remarriage is likely to injure society more than the\nremarriage of the guilty party;\" and the Senator says, with great force:\n\"Divorce for proper causes, free from fraud and collusion, conserves the\nmoral integrity of the family.\"\n\nIn answering the question as to whether absolute prohibition of divorce\ntends to morality or immorality, the Senator cites the case of South\nCarolina. In that State, divorces were prohibited, and in consequence\nof this prohibition, the proportion of his property which a married man\nmight give to his concubine was regulated by law.\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, IN COLLOQUIAL FORM.\n\nThose who have written on the subject of divorce seem to be divided into\ntwo classes--the supernaturalists and the naturalists. The first class\nrely on tradition, inspired books, the opinions of theologians as\nexpressed in creeds, and the decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals. The\nsecond class take into account the nature of human beings, their own\nexperience, and the facts of life, as they know them. The first class\nlive for another world; the second, for this--the one in which we live.\n\nThe theological theorists regard men and women as depraved, in\nconsequence of what they are pleased to call \"the fall of man,\" while\nthe men and women of common sense know that the race has slowly and\npainfully progressed through countless years of suffering and toil. The\npriests insist that marriage is a sacrament; the philosopher, that it is\na contract.\n\nThe question as to the propriety of granting divorces cannot now be\nsettled by quoting passages of Scripture, or by appealing to creeds,\nor by citing the acts of legislatures or the decisions of courts. With\nintelligent millions, the Scriptures are no longer considered as of the\nslightest authority. They pay no more regard to the Bible than to the\nKoran, the Zend-Avestas, or the Popol Vuh--neither do they care for the\nvarious creeds that were formulated by barbarian ancestors, nor for the\nlaws and decisions based upon the savagery of the past.\n\nIn the olden times when religions were manufactured--when priest-craft\nand lunacy governed the world--the women were not consulted. They were\nregarded and treated as serfs and menials--looked upon as a species of\nproperty to be bought and sold like the other domestic animals. This\nview or estimation of woman was undoubtedly in the mind of the author of\nthe Ten Commandments when he said: \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's\nwife,--nor his ox.\"\n\nSuch, however, has been the advance of woman in all departments of\nknowledge--such advance having been made in spite of the efforts of the\nchurch to keep her the slave of faith--that the obligations, rights\nand remedies growing out of the contract of marriage and its violation,\ncannot be finally determined without her consent and approbation.\nLegislators and priests must consult with wives and mothers. They must\nbecome acquainted with their wants and desires--with their profound\naversions* their pure hatreds, their loving self-denials, and, above\nall, with the religion of the body that moulds and dominates their\nlives.\n\nWe have learned to suspect the truth of the old, because it is old, and\nfor that reason was born in the days of slavery and darkness--because\nthe probability is that the parents of the old were ignorance\nand superstition. We are beginning to be wise enough to take into\nconsideration the circumstances of our own time--the theories and\naspirations of the present--the changed conditions of the world--the\ndiscoveries and inventions that have modified or completely changed\nthe standards of the greatest of the human race. We are on the eve of\ndiscovering that nothing should be done for the sake of gods, but all\nfor the good of man--nothing for another world--everything for this.\n\nAll the theories must be tested by experience, by facts. The moment a\nsupernatural theory comes in contact with a natural fact, it falls to\nchaos. Let us test all these theories about marriage and divorce--all\nthis sacramental, indissoluble imbecility, with a real case--with a fact\nin life.\n\nA few years ago a man and woman fell in love and were married in a\nGerman village. The woman had a little money and this was squandered by\nthe husband. When the money was gone, the husband deserted his wife and\ntwo little children, leaving them to live as best they might. She had\nhonestly given her hand and heart, and believed that if she could only\nsee him once more--if he could again look into her eyes--he would\ncome back to her. The husband had fled to America. The wife lived four\nhundred miles from the sea. Taking her two little children with her, she\ntraveled on foot the entire distance. For eight weeks she journeyed, and\nwhen she reached the sea--tired, hungry, worn out, she fell unconscious\nin the street. She was taken to the hospital, and for many weeks fought\nfor life upon the shore of death. At last she recovered, and sailed for\nNew York. She was enabled to get just enough money to buy a steerage\nticket.\n\nA few days ago, while wandering in the streets of New York in search of\nher husband, she sank unconscious to the sidewalk. She was taken into\nthe home of another. In a little while her husband entered. He caught\nsight of his wife. She ran toward him, threw her arms about his neck,\nand cried: \"At last I have found you!\" \"With an oath, he threw her to\nthe floor; he bruised her flesh with his feet and fists; he dragged her\ninto the hall, and threw her into the street.\"\n\nLet us suppose that this poor wife sought out Cardinal Gibbons and the\nRight Honorable William E. Gladstone, for the purpose of asking their\nadvice. Let us imagine the conversation:\n\n_The Wife_. My dear Cardinal, I was married four years ago. I loved\nmy husband and I was sure that he loved me. Two babes were born. He\ndeserted me without cause. He left me in poverty and want. Feeling that\nhe had been overcome by some delusion--tempted by something more than\nhe could bear, and dreaming that if I could look upon his face again he\nwould return, I followed-him on foot. I walked, with my children in my\narms, four hundred miles. I crossed the sea. I found him at last--and\ninstead of giving me again his love, he fell upon me like a wild beast.\nHe bruised and blackened my flesh. He threw me from him, and for my\nproffered love I received curses and blows. Another man, touched by\nthe evidence of my devotion, made my acquaintance--came to my\nrelief--supplied my wants--gave me and my children comfort, and then\noffered me his hand and heart, in marriage. My dear Cardinal, I told\nhim that I was a married woman, and he told me that I should obtain a\ndivorce, and so I have come to ask your counsel.\n\n_The Cardinal_. My dear woman, God instituted in Paradise the marriage\nstate and sanctified it, and he established its law of unity and\ndeclared its indissolubility.\n\n_The Wife_. But, Mr. Cardinal, if it be true that \"God instituted\nmarriage in the Garden of Eden, and declared its unity and\nindissolubility,\" how do you account for the fact that this same God\nafterward upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot to say anything on\nthe subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses?\n\n_The Cardinal_. You must remember that the institution of marriage\nsuffered in the fall of man.\n\n_The Wife_. How does that throw any light upon my case? That was long\nago. Surely, I was not represented at that time, and is it right that I\nshould be punished for what was done by others in the very beginning of\nthe world?\n\n_The Cardinal._ Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal terms, the\nsanctity, unity and indissolubility of marriage, and Christ gave to this\nstate an added holiness, and a dignity higher far than it had from the\nbeginning.\n\n_The Wife_. How did it happen that Jacob, while in direct communication\nwith God, married, not his deceased wife's sister, but both sisters\nwhile both were living? And how, my dear Cardinal, do you account for\nthe fact that God upheld concubinage?\n\n_The Cardinal._ Marriage is a sacrament. You seem to ask me whether\ndivorce from the bond of marriage can ever be allowed? I answer with an\nemphatic theological No; and as a reason for this No, I say, Thus saith\nthe Lord. To allow a divorce and to permit the divorced parties, or\neither of them, to remarry, is one species of polygamy. There are two\nkinds--the simultaneous and the successive.\n\n_The Wife_. But why did God allow simultaneous polygamy in Palestine?\nWas it any better in Palestine then than it is in Utah now? If a wife\ndies, and the husband marries another wife, is not that successive\npolygamy?\n\n_The Cardinal_. Curiosity leads to the commission of deadly sins.\nWe should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Lord, and you should be\nsatisfied with a Thus saith the Cardinal. If you have the right to\ninquire--to ask questions--then you take upon yourself the right of\ndeciding after the questions have been answered. This is the end of\nauthority. This undermines the cathedral. You must remember the words of\nour Lord: \"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.\"\n\n_The Wife_. Do you really think that God joined us together? Did he at\nthe time know what kind of man he was joining to me? Did he then know\nthat he was a wretch, an ingrate, a kind of wild beast? Did he then know\nthat this husband would desert me--leave me with two babes in my arms,\nwithout raiment and without food? Did God put his seal upon this bond\nof marriage, upon this sacrament, and it was well-pleasing in his sight\nthat my life should be sacrificed, and does he leave me now to crawl\ntoward death, in poverty and tears?\n\n_The Cardinal_. My dear woman, I will not linger here to point out to\nyou the need of seeking from a higher than an earthly power the grace to\nsuffer and be strong.\n\n_The Wife_. Mr. Cardinal, am I under any obligation to God? Will it\nincrease the happiness of the infinite for me to remain homeless\nand husbandless? Another offers to make me his wife and to give me a\nhome,--to take care of my children and to fill my heart with joy. If I\naccept, will the act lessen the felicity or ecstasy of heaven? Will it\nadd to the grief of God? Will it in any way affect his well-being?\n\n_The Cardinal._ Nothing that we can do can effect the well-being of God.\nHe is infinitely above his children.\n\n_The Wife_. Then why should he insist upon the sacrifice of my life? Mr.\nCardinal, you do not seem to sympathize with me. You do not understand\nthe pangs I feel. You are too far away from my heart, and your words\nof consolation do not heal the bruise; they leave me as I now leave\nyou--without hope. I will ask the advice of the Right Honorable William\nE. Gladstone.\n\n_The Wife_. Mr. Gladstone, you know my story, and so I ask that you will\ngive me the benefit of your knowledge, of your advice.\n\n_Mr. Gladstone_. My dear woman, marriage is essentially a contract for\nlife, and only expires when life itself expires. I say this because\nChristian marriage involves a vow before God, and no authority has been\ngiven to the Christian Church to cancel such a vow.\n\n_The Wife_. Do you consider that God was one of the contracting parties\nin my marriage? Must all vows made to God be kept? Suppose the vow was\nmade in ignorance, in excitement--must it be absolutely fulfilled? Will\nit make any difference to God whether it is kept or not? Does not an\ninfinite God know the circumstances under which every vow is made? Will\nhe not take into consideration the imperfections, the ignorance, the\ntemptations and the passions of his children? Will God hold a poor girl\nto the bitter dregs of a mistaken bargain? Have I not suffered enough?\nIs it necessary that my heart should break? Did not God know at the time\nthe vow was made that it ought not to have been made? If he feels toward\nme as a father should, why did he give no warning? Why did he accept\nthe vow? Why did he allow a contract to be made giving only to death the\nannulling power? Is death more merciful than God?\n\n_Mr. Gladstone_. All vows that are made to God must be kept. Do you not\nremember that Jephthah agreed to sacrifice the first one who came out of\nhis house to meet him, and that he fulfilled the vow, although in doing\nso, he murdered his own daughter. God makes no allowance for ignorance,\nfor temptation, for passion--nothing. Besides, my dear woman, to\ncancel the contract of marriage lies beyond the province of the civil\nlegislature; it has no competency to annul the contract of marriage when\nonce made.\n\n_The Wife_. The man who has rescued me from the tyranny of my\nhusband--the man who wishes to build me a home and to make my life worth\nliving, wishes to make with me a contract of marriage. This will give my\nbabes a home.\n\n_Mr. Gladstone_. My dear madam, while divorce of any kind impairs the\nintegrity of the family, divorce with remarriage destroys it root and\nbranch.\n\n_The Wife_. The integrity of my family is already destroyed. My husband\ndeserted his home--left us in the very depths of want. I have in my\narms two helpless babes. I love my children, and I love the man who has\noffered to give them and myself another fireside. Can you say that this\nis only destruction? The destruction has already occurred. A remarriage\ngives a home to me and mine.\n\n_Mr. Gladstone._ But, my dear mistaken woman, the parental and the\nconjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the Almighty.\n\n_The Wife._ Do you believe that the Almighty was cruel enough, in my\ncase, to join the parental and the conjugal relations, to the end that\nthey should endure as long as I can bear the sorrow? If there were three\nparties to my marriage, my husband, myself, and God, should each be\nbound by the contract to do something? What did God bind himself to\ndo? If nothing, why should he interfere? If nothing, my vow to him\nwas without consideration. You are as cruel and unsympathetic, Mr.\nGladstone, as the Cardinal. You have not the imagination to put yourself\nin my place.\n\n_Mr. Gladstone._ My dear madam, we must be governed by the law of\nChrist, and there must be no remarriage. The husband and wife must\nremain husband and wife until a separation is caused by death.\n\n_The Wife._ If Christ was such a believer in the sacredness of the\nmarriage relation, why did he offer rewards not only in this world, but\nin the next, to husbands who would desert their wives and follow him?\n\n_Mr. Gladstone._ It is not for us to inquire. God's ways are not our\nways.\n\n_The Wife._ Nature is better than you. A mother's love is higher and\ndeeper than your philosophy. I will follow the instincts of my heart. I\nwill provide a home for my babes, and for myself. I will be freed from\nthe infamous man who betrayed me. I will become the wife of another--of\none who loves me--and after having filled his life with joy, I hope to\ndie in his arms, surrounded by my children.\n\n\nA few months ago, a priest made a confession--he could carry his secret\nno longer. He admitted that he was married--that he was the father of\ntwo children--that he had violated his priestly vows. He was unfrocked\nand cast out. After a time he came back and asked to be restored into\nthe bosom of the church, giving as his reason that he had abandoned his\nwife and babes. This throws a flood of light on the theological view of\nmarriage.\n\nI know of nothing equal to this, except the story of the Sandwich Island\nchief who was converted by the missionaries, and wished to join the\nchurch. On cross-examination, it turned out that he had twelve wives,\nand he was informed that a polygamist could not be a Christian. The next\nyear he presented himself again for the purpose of joining the church,\nand stated that he was not a polygamist--that he had only one wife. When\nthe missionaries asked him what he had done with the other eleven he\nreplied: \"I ate them.\"\n\nThe indissoluble marriage was a reaction from polygamy. The church has\nalways pretended that it was governed by the will of God, and that for\nall its dogmas it had a \"thus saith the Lord.\" Reason and experience\nwere branded as false guides. The priests insisted that they were in\ndirect communication with the Infinite--that they spoke by the authority\nof God, and that the duty of the people was to obey without question and\nto submit with at least the appearance of gladness.\n\nWe now know that no such communication exists--that priests spoke\nwithout authority, and that the duty of the people was and is to examine\nfor themselves. We now know that no one knows what the will of God\nis, or whether or not such a being exists. We now know that nature has\nfurnished all the light there is, and that the inspired books are like\nall books, and that their value depends on the truth, the beauty, and\nthe wisdom they contain. We also know that it is now impossible to\nsubstantiate the supernatural. Judging from experience--reasoning from\nknown facts--we can safely say that society has no right to demand the\nsacrifice of an innocent individual.\n\nSociety has no right, under the plea of self-preservation, to compel\nwomen to remain the wives of men who have violated the contract of\nmarriage, and who have become objects of contempt and loathing to\ntheir wives. It is not to the best interest of society to maintain such\nfiresides--such homes.\n\nThe time has not arrived, in my judgment, for the Congress of the United\nStates, under an amendment to the Constitution, to pass a general\nlaw applicable to all the States, fixing the terms and conditions of\ndivorce. The States of the Union are not equally enlightened. Some are\nfar more conservative than others. Let us wait until a majority of the\nStates have abandoned the theological theories upon this subject.\n\nUpon this question light comes from the West, where men have recently\nlaid the foundations of States, and where the people are not manacled\nand burdened with old constitutions and statutes and decisions, and\nwhere with a large majority the tendency is to correct the mistakes of\ntheir ancestors.\n\nLet the States in their own way solve this question, and the time will\ncome when the people will be ready to enact sensible and reasonable\nlaws touching this important subject, and then the Constitution can be\namended and the whole subject controlled by Federal law.\n\nThe law, as it now exists in many of the States, is to the last degree\nabsurd and cruel. In some States the husband can obtain a divorce on the\nground that the wife has been guilty of adultery, but the wife cannot\nsecure a divorce from the husband simply for the reason that he has been\nguilty of the same offence. So, in most of the States where divorce\nis granted on account of desertion for a certain number of years, the\nhusband can return on the last day of the time fixed, and the poor wife\nwho has been left in want is obliged to receive the wretch with open\narms. In some States nothing is considered cruelty that does not\nendanger life or limb or health. The whole question is in great\nconfusion, but after all there are some States where the law is\nreasonable, and the consequence is, that hundreds and thousands of\nsuffering wives are released from a bondage worse than death.\n\nThe idea that marriage is something more than a contract is at the\nbottom of all the legal and judicial absurdities that surround this\nsubject. The moment that it is regarded from a purely secular standpoint\nthe infamous laws will disappear. We shall then take into consideration\nthe real rights and obligations of the parties to the contract of\nmarriage. We shall have some respect for the sacred feelings of\nmothers--for the purity of woman--the freedom of the fireside--the real\ndemocracy of the hearthstone and, above all, for love, the purest, the\nprofoundest and the holiest of all passions.\n\nWe shall no longer listen to priests who regard celibacy as a higher\nstate than marriage, nor to those statesmen who look upon a barbarous\ncode as the foundation of all law.\n\nAs long as men imagine that they have property in wives; that women can\nbe owned, body and mind; that it is the duty of wives to obey; that the\nhusband is the master, the source of authority--that his will is law,\nand that he can call on legislators and courts to protect his\nsuperior rights, that to enforce obedience the power of the State is\npledged--just so long will millions of husbands be arrogant, tyrannical\nand cruel.\n\nNo gentleman will be content to have a slave for the mother of his\nchildren. Force has no place in the world of love. It is impossible to\ncontrol likes and dislikes by law. No one ever did and no one ever can\nlove on compulsion. Courts can not obtain jurisdiction of the heart.\n\nThe tides and currents of the soul care nothing for the creeds.\nPeople who make rules for the conduct of others generally break them\nthemselves. It is so easy to bear with fortitude the misfortunes of\nothers.\n\nEvery child should be well-born--well fathered and mothered. Society has\nas great an interest in children as in parents. The innocent should not\nbe compelled by law to suffer for the crimes of the guilty. Wretched and\nweeping wives are not essential to the welfare of States and Nations.\n\nThe church cries now \"whom God hath joined together let not man put\nasunder\"; but when the people are really civilized the State will say:\n\"whom Nature hath put asunder let not man bind and manacle together.\"\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\nANSWER TO LYMAN ABBOTT.\n\n     * This unfinished article was written as a reply to the Rev.\n     Lyman Abbott's article entitled, \"Flaws in Ingersollism,\"\n     which was printed in the April number of the North American\n     Review for 1890.\n\nIN your Open Letter to me, published in this Review, you attack what\nyou supposed to be my position, and ask several questions to which\nyou demand answers; but in the same letter, you state that you wish no\ncontroversy with me. Is it possible that you wrote the letter to prevent\na controversy? Do you attack only those with whom you wish to live in\npeace, and do you ask questions, coupled with a request that they remain\nunanswered?\n\nIn addition to this, you have taken pains to publish in your own paper,\nthat it was no part of your design in the article in the _North American\nReview_, to point out errors in my statements, and that this design\nwas distinctly disavowed in the opening paragraph of your article. You\nfurther say, that your simple object was to answer the question \"What is\nChristianity?\" May I be permitted to ask why you addressed the letter to\nme, and why do you now pretend that, although you did address a letter\nto me, I was not in your mind, and that you had no intention of pointing\nout any flaws in my doctrines or theories? Can you afford to occupy this\nposition?\n\nYou also stated in your own paper, _The Christian Union_, that the title\nof your article had been changed by the editor of the _Review_, without\nyour knowledge or consent; leaving it to be inferred that the title\ngiven to the article by you was perfectly consistent with your\nstatement, that it was no part of your design in the article in the\n_North American Review_, to point out errors in my (Ingersoll's)\nstatements; and that your simple object was to answer the question, What\nis Christianity? And yet, the title which you gave your own article was\nas follows: \"To Robert G. Ingersoll: A Reply.\"\n\nFirst. We are told that only twelve crimes were punished by\ndeath: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, fraudulent prophesying,\nSabbath-breaking, rebellion against parents, resistance to judicial\nofficers, murder, homicide by negligence, adultery, incestuous\nmarriages, and kidnapping. We are then told that as late as the year\n1600 there were 263 crimes capital in England.\n\nDoes not the world know that all the crimes or offences punishable\nby death in England could be divided in the same way? For instance,\ntreason. This covered a multitude of offences, all punishable by death.\nLarceny covered another multitude. Perjury--trespass, covered many\nothers. There might still be made a smaller division, and one who had\nmade up his mind to define the Criminal Code of England might have said\nthat there was only one offence punishable by death--wrong-doing.\n\nThe facts with regard to the Criminal Code of England are, that up to\nthe reign of George I. there were 167 offences punishable by death.\nBetween the accession of George I. and termination of the reign of\nGeorge III., there were added 56 new crimes to which capital punishment\nwas attached. So that when George IV. became king, there were 223\noffences capital in England.\n\nJohn Bright, commenting upon this subject, says:\n\n\"During all these years, so far as this question goes, our Government\nwas becoming more cruel and more barbarous, and we do not find, and\nhave not found, that in the great Church of England, with its fifteen\nor twenty thousand ministers, and with its more than score of Bishops\nin the House of Lords, there ever was a voice raised, or an organization\nformed, in favor of a more merciful code, or in condemnation of the\nenormous cruelties which our law was continually inflicting. Was not\nVoltaire justified in saying that the English were the only people who\nmurdered by law?\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, taking into consideration the situation of the\npeople, the number of subjects covered by law, there were far more\noffences capital in the days of Moses, than in the reign of George IV.\nIs it possible that a minister, a theologian of the nineteenth century,\nimagines that he has substantiated the divine origin of the Old\nTestament by endeavoring to show that the government of God was not\nquite as bad as that of England?\n\nMr. Abbott also informs us that the reason Moses killed so many was,\nthat banishment from the camp during the wandering in the Wilderness was\na punishment worse than death. If so, the poor wretches should at least\nhave been given their choice. Few, in my judgment, would have chosen\ndeath, because the history shows that a large majority were continually\nclamoring to be led back to Egypt. It required all the cunning and power\nof God to keep the fugitives from returning in a body. Many were killed\nby Jehovah, simply because they wished to leave the camp--because\nthey longed passionately for banishment, and thought with joy of the\nflesh-pots of Egypt, preferring the slavery of Pharaoh to the liberty\nof Jehovah. The memory of leeks and onions was enough to set their faces\ntoward the Nile.\n\nSecond. I am charged with saying that the Christian missionaries say to\nthe heathen: \"You must examine your religion--and not only so, but you\nmust reject it; and unless you do reject it, and in addition to such\nrejection, adopt ours, you will be eternally damned.\" Mr. Abbott denies\nthe truth of this statement.\n\nLet me ask him, If the religion of Jesus Christ is preached clearly and\ndistinctly to a heathen, and the heathen understands it, and rejects it\ndeliberately, unequivocally, and finally, can he be saved?\n\nThis question is capable of a direct answer. The reverend gentleman now\nadmits that an acceptance of Christianity is not essential to salvation.\nIf the acceptance of Christianity is not essential to the salvation of\nthe heathen who has heard Christianity preached--knows what its claims\nare, and the evidences that support those claims, is the acceptance of\nChristianity essential to the salvation of an adult intelligent citizen\nof the United States? Will the reverend gentleman tell us, and without\ncircumlocution, whether the acceptance of Christianity is necessary to\nthe salvation of anybody? If he says that it is, then he admits that I\nwas right in my statement concerning what is said to the heathen. If he\nsays that it is not, then I ask him, What do you do with the following\npassages of Scripture: \"There is none other name given under heaven or\namong men whereby we must be saved.\"\n\n\"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, and\nwhosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; and whosoever\nbelieveth not shall be damned\"?\n\nI am delighted to know that millions of Pagans will be found to have\nentered into eternal life without any knowledge of Christ or his\nreligion.\n\nAnother question naturally arises: If a heathen can hear and reject\nthe Gospel, and yet be saved, what will become of the heathen who never\nheard of the Gospel? Are they all to be saved? If all who never heard\nare to be saved, is it not dangerous to hear?--Is it not cruel to\npreach? Why not stop preaching and let the entire world become heathen,\nso that after this, no soul may be lost?\n\nThird. You say that I desire to deprive mankind of their faith in\nGod, in Christ and in the Bible. I do not, and have not, endeavored to\ndestroy the faith of any man in a good, in a just, in a merciful God, or\nin a reasonable, natural, human Christ, or in any truth that the Bible\nmay contain. I have endeavored--and with some degree of success--to\ndestroy the faith of man in the Jehovah of the Jews, and in the idea\nthat Christ was in fact the God of this universe. I have also endeavored\nto show that there are many things in the Bible ignorant and cruel--that\nthe book was produced by barbarians and by savages, and that its\ninfluence on the world has been bad.\n\nAnd I do believe that life and property will be safer, that liberty will\nbe surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be more joyous, and\ndeath less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah can be destroyed from\nthe human mind.\n\nIt seems to me that the heart of the Christian ought to burst into an\nefflorescence of joy when he becomes satisfied that the Bible is only\nthe work of man; that there is no such place as perdition--that there\nare no eternal flames--that men's souls are not to suffer everlasting\npain--that it is all insanity and ignorance and fear and horror. I\nshould think that every good and tender soul would be delighted to know\nthat there is no Christ who can say to any human being--to any father,\nmother, or child--\"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for\nthe devil and his angels.\" I do believe that he will be far happier when\nthe Psalms of David are sung no more, and that he will be far better\nwhen no one could sing the 109th Psalm without shuddering and horror.\nThese Psalms for the most part breathe the spirit of hatred, of revenge,\nand of everything fiendish in the human heart. There are some good\nlines, some lofty aspirations--these should be preserved; and to the\nextent that they do give voice to the higher and holier emotions, they\nshould be preserved.\n\nSo I believe the world will be happier when the life of Christ, as it is\nwritten now in the New Testament, is no longer believed.\n\nSome of the Ten Commandments will fall into oblivion, and the world will\nbe far happier when they do. Most of these commandments are universal.\nThey were not discovered by Jehovah--they were not original with him.\n\n\"Thou shalt not kill,\" is as old as life. And for this reason a large\nmajority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.\n\"Thou shalt not steal,\" is as old as industry. There never has been a\nhuman being who was willing to work through the sun and rain and heat of\nsummer, simply for the purpose that some one who had lived in idleness\nmight steal the result of his labor. Consequently, in all countries\nwhere it has been necessary to work, larceny has been a crime. \"Thou\nshalt not lie,\" is as old as speech. Men have desired, as a rule, to\nknow the truth; and truth goes with courage and candor. \"Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery,\" is as old as love. \"Honor thy father and thy mother,\"\nis as old as the family relation.\n\nAll these commandments were known among all peoples thousands and\nthousands of years before Moses was born. The new one, \"Thou shalt\nworship no other Gods but me,\" is a bad commandment--because that God\nwas not worthy of worship. \"Thou shalt make no graven image,\"--a bad\ncommandment. It was the death of art. \"Thou shalt do no work on the\nSabbath-day,\"--a bad commandment; the object of that being, that\none-seventh of the time should be given to the worship of a monster,\nmaking a priesthood necessary, and consequently burdening industry with\nthe idle and useless.\n\nIf Professor Clifford felt lonely at the loss of such a companion as\nJehovah, it is impossible for me to sympathize with his feelings. No one\nwishes to destroy the hope of another life--no one wishes to blot out\nany good that is, or that is hoped for, or the hope of which gives\nconsolation to the world. Neither do I agree with this gentleman when\nhe says, \"Let us have the truth, cost what it may.\" I say: Let us have\nhappiness--well-being. The truth upon these matters is of but little\nimportance compared with the happiness of mankind. Whether there is, or\nis not, a God, is absolutely unimportant, compared with the well-being\nof the race. Whether the Bible is, or is not, inspired, is not of as\nmuch consequence as human happiness.\n\nOf course, if the Old and New Testaments are true, then human happiness\nbecomes impossible, either in this world, or in the world to come--that\nis, impossible to all people who really believe that these books are\ntrue. It is often necessary to know the truth, in order to prepare\nourselves to bear consequences; but in the metaphysical world, truth is\nof no possible importance except as it affects human happiness.\n\nIf there be a God, he certainly will hold us to no stricter\nresponsibility about metaphysical truth than about scientific truth.\nIt ought to be just as dangerous to make a mistake in Geology as in\nTheology--in Astronomy as in the question of the Atonement.\n\nI am not endeavoring to overthrow any faith in God, but the faith in a\nbad God. And in order to accomplish this, I have endeavored to show that\nthe question of whether an Infinite God exists, or not, is beyond the\npower of the human mind. Anything is better than to believe in the God\nof the Bible.\n\nFourth. Mr. Abbott, like the rest, appeals to names instead of to\narguments. He appeals to Socrates, and yet he does not agree with\nSocrates. He appeals to Goethe, and yet Goethe was far from a Christian.\nHe appeals to Isaac Newton and to Mr. Gladstone--and after mentioning\nthese names, says, that on his side is this faith of the wisest, the\nbest, the noblest of mankind.\n\nWas Socrates after all greater than Epicurus--had he a subtler mind--was\nhe any nobler in his life? Was Isaac Newton so much greater than\nHumboldt--than Charles Darwin, who has revolutionized the thought of\nthe civilized world? Did he do the one-hundredth part of the good for\nmankind that was done by Voltaire--was he as great a metaphysician as\nSpinoza?\n\nBut why should we appeal to names?\n\nIn a contest between Protestantism and Catholicism are you willing\nto abide by the tests of names? In a contest between Christianity and\nPaganism, in the first century, would you have considered the question\nsettled by names? Had Christianity then produced the equals of the great\nGreeks and Romans? The new can always be overwhelmed with names that\nwere in favor of the old. Sir Isaac Newton, in his day, could have been\noverwhelmed by the names of the great who had preceded him. Christ was\noverwhelmed by this same method--Moses and the Prophets were appealed\nto as against this Peasant of Palestine. This is the argument of\nthe cemetery--this is leaving the open field, and crawling behind\ngravestones.\n\nNewton was understood to be, all his life, a believer in the Trinity;\nbut he dared not say what his real thought was. After his death there\nwas found among his papers an argument that he published against the\ndivinity of Christ. This had been published in Holland, because he was\nafraid to have it published in England. How do we really know what the\ngreat men of whom you speak believed, or believe?\n\nI do not agree with you when you say that Gladstone is the greatest\nstatesman. He will not, in my judgment, for one moment compare with\nThomas Jefferson--with Alexander Hamilton--or, to come down to later\ntimes, with Gambetta; and he is immeasurably below such a man as Abraham\nLincoln. Lincoln was not a believer. Gambetta was an atheist.\n\nAnd yet, these names prove nothing. Instead of citing a name, and saying\nthat this great man--Sir Isaac Newton, for instance--believed in our\ndoctrine, it is far better to give the reasons that Sir Isaac Newton had\nfor his belief.\n\nNearly all organizations are filled with snobbishness. Each church has\na list of great names, and the members feel in duty bound to stand by\ntheir great men.\n\nWhy is idolatry the worst of sins? Is it not far better to worship a God\nof stone than a God who threatens to punish in eternal flames the most\nof his children? If you simply mean by idolatry a false conception of\nGod, you must admit that no finite mind can have a true conception\nof God--and you must admit that no two men can have the same false\nconception of God, and that, as a consequence, no two men can worship\nidentically the same Deity. Consequently they are all idolaters.\n\nI do not think idolatry the worst of sins. Cruelty is the worst of\nsins. It is far better to worship a false God, than to injure your\nneighbor--far better to bow before a monstrosity of stone, than to\nenslave your fellow-men.\n\nFifth. I am glad that you admit that a bad God is worse than no God.\nIf so, the atheist is far better than the believer in Jehovah, and far\nbetter than the believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ--because I am\nperfectly satisfied that none but a bad God would threaten to say to any\nhuman soul, \"Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the\ndevil and his angels.\" So that, before any Christian can be better than\nan atheist, he must reform his God.\n\nThe agnostic does not simply say, \"I do not know.\" He goes another step,\nand he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that\nyou are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others.\nHe is not satisfied with saying that you do not know,--he demonstrates\nthat you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact--he\ndrives you from the realm of reason--he drives you from the light, into\nthe darkness of conjecture--into the world of dreams and shadows, and he\ncompels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.\n\nYou say that religion tells us that \"life is a battle with\ntemptation--the result is eternal life to the victors.\"\n\nBut what of the victims? Did your God create these victims, knowing\nthat they would be victims? Did he deliberately change the clay into\nthe man--into a being with wants, surrounded by difficulties and\ntemptations--and did he deliberately surround this being with\ntemptations that he knew he could not withstand, with obstacles that he\nknew he could not overcome, and whom he knew at last would fall a victim\nupon the field of death? Is there no hope for this victim? No remedy for\nthis mistake of your God? Is he to remain a victim forever? Is it not\nbetter to have no God than such a God? Could the condition of this\nvictim be rendered worse by the death of God?\n\nSixth. Of course I agree with you when you say that character is worth\nmore than condition--that life is worth more than place. But I do not\nagree with you when you say that being--that simple existence--is better\nthan happiness. If a man is not happy, it is far better not to be. I\nutterly dissent from your philosophy of life. From my standpoint, I\ndo not understand you when you talk about self-denial. I can imagine a\nbeing of such character, that certain things he would do for the one\nhe loved, would by others be regarded as acts of self-denial, but they\ncould not be so regarded by him. In these acts of so-called selfdenial,\nhe would find his highest joy.\n\nThis pretence that to do right is to carry a cross, has done an immense\namount of injury to the world. Only those who do wrong carry a cross. To\ndo wrong is the only possible self-denial.\n\nThe pulpit has always been saying that, although the virtuous and good,\nthe kind, the tender, and the loving, may have a very bad time here,\nyet they will have their reward in heaven--having denied themselves the\npleasures of sin, the ecstasies of crime, they will be made happy in\na world hereafter; but that the wicked, who have enjoyed larceny, and\nrascality in all its forms, will be punished hereafter.\n\nAll this rests upon the idea that man should sacrifice himself, not\nfor his fellow-men, but for God--that he should do something for\nthe Almighty--that he should go hungry to increase the happiness of\nheaven--that he should make a journey to Our Lady of Loretto, with dried\npeas in his shoes; that he should refuse to eat meat on Friday; that he\nshould say so many prayers before retiring to rest; that he should\ndo something that he hated to do, in order that he might win the\napprobation of the heavenly powers. For my part, I think it much better\nto feed the hungry, than to starve yourself.\n\nYou ask me, What is Christianity? You then proceed to partially answer\nyour own question, and you pick out what you consider the best, and call\nthat Christianity. But you have given only one side, and that side not\nall of it good. Why did you not give the other side of Christianity--the\nside that talks of eternal flames, of the worm that dieth not--the side\nthat denounces the investigator and the thinker--the side that promises\nan eternal reward for credulity--the side that tells men to take no\nthought for the morrow but to trust absolutely in a Divine Providence?\n\n\"Within thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, faith in his\nresurrection had become the inspiration of the church.\" I ask you, Was\nthere a resurrection?\n\nWhat advance has been made in what you are pleased to call the doctrine\nof the brotherhood of man, through the instrumentality of the church?\nWas there as much dread of God among the Pagans as there has been among\nChristians?\n\nI do not believe that the church is a conservator of civilization. It\nsells crime on credit. I do not believe it is an educator of good will.\nIt has caused more war than all other causes. Neither is it a school of\na nobler reverence and faith. The church has not turned the minds of\nmen toward principles of justice, mercy and truth--it has destroyed the\nfoundation of justice. It does not minister comfort at the coffin--it\nfills the mourners with fear. It has never preached a gospel of \"Peace\non Earth\"--it has never preached \"Good Will toward men.\"\n\nFor my part, I do not agree with you when you say that: \"The most\nstalwart anti-Romanists can hardly question that with the Roman Catholic\nChurch abolished by instantaneous decree, its priests banished and its\nchurches closed, the disaster to American communities would be simply\nawful in its proportions, if not irretrievable in its results.\"\n\nI may agree with you in this, that the most stalwart anti-Romanists\nwould not wish to have the Roman Catholic Church abolished by tyranny,\nand its priests banished, and its churches closed. But if the abolition\nof that church could be produced by the development of the human mind;\nand if its priests, instead of being banished, should become good and\nuseful citizens, and were in favor of absolute liberty of mind, then\nI say that there would be no disaster, but a very wide and great and\nsplendid blessing. The church has been the Centaur--not Theseus; the\nchurch has not been Hercules, but the serpent.\n\nSo I believe that there is something far nobler than loyalty to any\nparticular man. Loyalty to the truth as we perceive it--loyalty to our\nduty as we know it--loyalty to the ideals of our brain and heart--is,\nto my mind, far greater and far nobler than loyalty to the life of\nany particular man or God. There is a kind of slavery--a kind of\nabdication--for any man to take any other man as his absolute pattern\nand to hold him up as the perfection of all life, and to feel that it\nis his duty to grovel in the dust in his presence. It is better to feel\nthat the springs of action are within yourself--that you are poised upon\nyour own feet--and that you look at the world with your own eyes, and\nfollow the path that reason shows.\n\nI do not believe that the world could be re-organized upon the simple\nbut radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount. Neither do I believe\nthat this sermon was ever delivered by one man. It has in it many\nfragments that I imagine were dropped from many mouths. It lacks\ncoherence--it lacks form. Some of the sayings are beautiful, sublime and\ntender; and others seem to be weak, contradictory and childish.\n\nSeventh. I do not say that I do not know whether this faith is true, or\nnot. I say distinctly and clearly, that I know it is not true. I admit\nthat I do not know whether there is any infinite personality or\nnot, because I do not know that my mind is an absolute standard. But\naccording to my mind, there is no such personality; and according to\nmy mind, it is an infinite absurdity to suppose that there is such an\ninfinite personality. But I do know something of human nature; I do know\na little of the history of mankind; and I know enough to know that what\nis known as the Christian faith, is not true. I am perfectly satisfied,\nbeyond all doubt and beyond all per-adventure, that all miracles are\nfalsehoods. I know as well as I know that I live--that others live--that\nwhat you call your faith, is not true.\n\nI am glad, however, that you admit that the miracles of the Old\nTestament, or the inspiration of the Old Testament, are not essentials.\nI draw my conclusion from what you say: \"I have not in this paper\ndiscussed the miracles, or the inspiration of the Old Testament; partly\nbecause those topics, in my opinion, occupy a subordinate position in\nChristian faith, and I wish to consider only essentials.\" At the same\ntime, you tell us that, \"On historical evidence, and after a careful\nstudy of the arguments on both sides, I regard as historical the events\nnarrated in the four Gospels, ordinarily regarded as miracles.\" At the\nsame time, you say that you fully agree with me that the order of nature\nhas never been violated or interrupted. In other words, you must believe\nthat all these so-called miracles were actually in accordance with the\nlaws, or facts rather, in nature.\n\nEighth. You wonder that I could write the following: \"To me there is\nnothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. There is not, so\nfar as I know, a line in the Book of Genesis calculated to make a human\nbeing better.\" You then call my attention to \"The magnificent Psalm of\nPraise to the Creator with which Genesis opens; to the beautiful legend\nof the first sin and its fateful consequences; the inspiring story of\nAbraham--the first selfexile for conscience sake; the romantic story\nof Joseph the Peasant boy becoming a Prince,\" which you say \"would have\nattraction for any one if he could have found a charm in, for example,\nthe Legends of the Round Table.\"\n\nThe \"magnificent Psalm of Praise to the Creator with which Genesis\nopens\" is filled with magnificent mistakes, and is utterly absurd.\n\"The beautiful legend of the first sin and its fateful consequences\"\nis probably the most contemptible story that was ever written, and the\ntreatment of the first pair by Jehovah is unparalleled in the cruelty of\ndespotic governments. According to this infamous account, God cursed the\nmothers of the world, and added to the agonies of maternity. Not only\nso, but he made woman a slave, and man something, if possible, meaner--a\nmaster.\n\nI must confess that I have very little admiration for Abraham. (Give\nreasons.)\n\nSo far as Joseph is concerned, let me give you the history of\nJoseph,--how he conspired with Pharaoh to enslave the people of Egypt.\n\nYou seem to be astonished that I am not in love with the character of\nJoseph, as pictured in the Bible. Let me tell you who Joseph was.\n\nIt seems, from the account, that Pharaoh had a dream. None of his wise\nmen could give its meaning. He applied to Joseph, and Joseph, having\nbeen enlightened by Jehovah, gave the meaning of the dream to Pharaoh.\nHe told the king that there would be in Egypt seven years of great\nplenty, and after these seven years of great plenty, there would be\nseven years of famine, and that the famine would consume the land.\nThereupon Joseph gave to Pharaoh some advice. First, he was to take up a\nfifth part of the land of Egypt, in the seven plenteous years--he was to\ngather all the food of those good years, and lay up corn, and he was to\nkeep this food in the cities. This food was to be a store to the land\nagainst the seven years of famine. And thereupon Pharaoh said unto\nJoseph, \"Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none\nso discreet and wise as thou art: thou shalt be over my house, and\naccording unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne\nwill I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See I have\nset thee over all the land of Egypt.\"\n\nWe are further informed by the holy writer, that in the seven plenteous\nyears the earth brought forth by handfuls, and that Joseph gathered up\nall the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and\nlaid up the food in the cities, and that he gathered corn as the sand of\nthe sea. This was done through the seven plenteous years. Then commenced\nthe years of dearth. Then the people of Egypt became hungry, and they\ncried to Pharaoh for bread, and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go\nunto Joseph. The famine was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph\nopened the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians, and the famine\nwaxed sore in the land of Egypt. There was no bread in the land, and\nEgypt fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the\nmoney that was found in the land of Egypt, by the sale of corn, and\nbrought the money to Pharaoh's house. After a time the money failed in\nthe land of Egypt, and the Egyptians came unto Joseph and said, \"Give\nus bread; why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.\" And\nJoseph said, \"Give your cattle, and I will give you for your cattle.\"\nAnd they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and he gave them bread in\nexchange for horses and flocks and herds, and he fed them with bread for\nall their cattle for that year. When the year was ended, they came unto\nhim the second year, and said, \"Our money is spent, our cattle are gone,\nnaught is left but our bodies and our lands.\" And they said to Joseph,\n\"Buy us, and our land, for bread, and we and our land will be servants\nunto Pharaoh; and give us seed that we may live and not die, that the\nland be not desolate.\" And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for\nPharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine\nprevailed over them. So the land became Pharaoh's. Then Joseph said to\nthe people, \"I have bought you this day, and your land; lo, here is\nseed for you, and ye shall sow the land.\" And thereupon the people said,\n\"Thou hast saved our lives; we will be Pharaoh's servants.\" \"And Joseph\nmade it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should\nhave the fifth part, _except the land of the priests only, which became\nnot Pharaoh's_.\"\n\nYet I am asked, by a minister of the nineteenth century, whether it is\npossible that I do not admire the character of Joseph. This man received\ninformation from God--and gave that information to Pharaoh, to the end\nthat he might impoverish and enslave a nation. This man, by means of\nintelligence received from Jehovah, took from the people what they had,\nand compelled them at last to sell themselves, their wives and their\nchildren, and to become in fact bondmen forever. Yet I am asked by the\nsuccessor of Henry Ward Beecher, if I do not admire the infamous wretch\nwho was guilty of the greatest crime recorded in the literature of the\nworld.\n\nSo, it is difficult for me to understand why you speak of Abraham as \"a\nself-exile for conscience sake.\" If the king of England had told one of\nhis favorites that if he would go to North America he would give him\na territory hundreds of miles square, and would defend him in its\npossession, and that he there might build up an empire, and the favorite\nbelieved the king, and went, would you call him \"a self-exile for\nconscience sake\"?\n\nAccording to the story in the Bible, the Lord promised Abraham that if\nhe would leave his country and kindred, he would make of him a great\nnation, would bless him, and make his name great, that he would bless\nthem that blessed Abraham, and that he would curse him whom Abraham\ncursed; and further, that in him all the families of the earth should\nbe blest. If this is true, would you call Abraham \"a self-exile for\nconscience sake\"? If Abraham had only known that the Lord was not to\nkeep his promise, he probably would have remained where he was--the fact\nbeing, that every promise made by the Lord to Abraham, was broken.\n\nDo you think that Abraham was \"a self-exile for conscience sake\" when he\ntold Sarah, his wife, to say that she was his sister--in consequence of\nwhich she was taken into Pharaoh's house, and by reason of which Pharaoh\nmade presents of sheep and oxen and man servants and maid servants to\nAbraham? What would you call such a proceeding now? What would you think\nof a man who was willing that his wife should become the mistress of the\nking, provided the king would make him presents?\n\nWas it for conscience sake that the same subterfuge was adopted again,\nwhen Abraham said to Abimelech, the King of Gerar, She is my sister--in\nconsequence of which Abimelech sent for Sarah and took her?\n\nMr. Ingersoll having been called to Montana, as counsel in a long and\nimportant law suit, never finished this article.\n\n\nANSWER TO ARCHDEACON FARRAR.\n\n     * This fragment (found among Col. Ingersoll's papers) is a\n     mere outline of a contemplated answer to Archdeacon Farrar's\n     article in the North American Review, May, 1810, entitled:\n     \"A Few Words on Col. Ingersoll.\"\n\nARCHDEACON FARRAR, in the opening of his article, in a burst of\nconfidence, takes occasion to let the world know how perfectly angelic\nhe intends to be. He publicly proclaims that he can criticise the\narguments of one with whom he disagrees, without resorting to invective,\nor becoming discourteous. Does he call attention to this because most\ntheologians are hateful and ungentlemanly? Is it a rare thing for the\npious to be candid? Why should an Archdeacon be cruel, or even ill-bred?\nYet, in the very beginning, the Archdeacon in effect says: Behold, I\nshow you a mystery--a Christian who can write about an infidel, without\ninvective and without brutality. Is it then so difficult for those who\nlove their enemies to keep within the bounds of decency when speaking of\nunbelievers who have never injured them?\n\nAs a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised when I read the\nproclamation to the effect that the writer was not to use invective,\nand was to be guilty of no discourtesy; but on reading the article, and\nfinding that he had failed to keep his promise, I was not surprised.\n\nIt is an old habit with theologians to beat the living with the bones of\nthe dead. The arguments that cannot be answered provoke epithet.\n\n\nARCHDEACON FARRAR criticises several of my statements: _The same rules\nor laws of probability must govern in religious questions as in others_.\n\nThis apparently self-evident statement seems to excite almost the ire of\nthis Archdeacon, and for the purpose of showing that it is not true,\nhe states, first, that \"the first postulate of revelation is that it\nappeals to man's spirit;\" second, that \"the spirit is a sphere of being\nwhich transcends the spheres of the senses and the understanding;\"\nthird, that \"if a man denies the existence of a spiritual intuition,\nhe is like a blind man criticising colors, or a deaf man criticising\nharmonies;\" fourth, that \"revelation must be judged by its own\ncriteria;\" and fifth, that \"St. Paul draws a marked distinction between\nthe spirit of the world and the spirit which is of God,\" and that the\nsame Saint said that \"the natural man receiveth not the things of the\nspirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know\nthem, because they are spiritually discerned.\" Let us answer these\nobjections in their order.\n\n1. \"The first postulate of revelation is that it appeals to man's\nspirit.\" What does the Archdeacon mean by \"spirit\"? A man says that he\nhas received a revelation from God, and he wishes to convince another\nman that he has received a revelation--how does he proceed? Does he\nappeal to the man's reason? Will he tell him the circumstances under\nwhich he received the revelation? Will he tell him why he is convinced\nthat it was from God? Will the Archdeacon be kind enough to tell how the\nspirit can be approached passing by the reason, the understanding,\nthe judgment and the intellect? If the Archdeacon replies that the\nrevelation itself will bear the evidence within itself, what then, I\nask, does he mean by the word \"evidence\"? Evidence about what? Is it\nsuch evidence as satisfies the intelligence, convinces the reason, and\nis it in conformity with the known facts of the mind?\n\nIt may be said by the Archdeacon that anything that satisfies what he\nis pleased to call the spirit, that furnishes what it seems by nature to\nrequire, is of supernatural origin. We hear music, and this music seems\nto satisfy the desire for harmony--still, no one argues, from that\nfact, that music is of supernatural origin. It may satisfy a want in the\nbrain--a want unknown until the music was heard--and yet we all agree\nin saying that music has been naturally produced, and no one claims that\nBeethoven, or Wagner, was inspired.\n\nThe same may be said of things that satisfy the palate--of statues, of\npaintings, that reveal to him who looks, the existence of that of\nwhich before that time he had not even dreamed. Why is it that we love\ncolor--that we are pleased with harmonies, or with a succession of\nsounds rising and falling at measured intervals? No one would answer\nthis question by saying that sculptors and painters and musicians were\ninspired; neither would they say that the first postulate of art is that\nit appeals to man's spirit, and for that reason the rules or laws of\nprobability have nothing to do with the question of art.\n\n2. That \"the spirit is a sphere of being which transcends the spheres of\nthe senses and the understanding.\" Let us imagine a man without senses.\nHe cannot feel, see, hear, taste, or smell. What is he? Would it be\npossible for him to have an idea? Would such a man have a spirit to\nwhich revelation could appeal, or would there be locked in the dungeon\nof his brain a spirit, that is to say, a \"sphere of being which\ntranscends the spheres of the senses and the understanding\"? Admit that\nin the person supposed, the machinery of life goes on--what is he more\nthan an inanimate machine?\n\n3. That \"if a man denies the very existence of a spiritual intuition,\nhe is like a blind man criticising colors, or a deaf man criticising\nharmonies.\" What do you mean by \"spiritual intuition\"? When did this\n\"spiritual intuition\" become the property of man--before, or after,\nbirth? Is it of supernatural, or miraculous, origin, and is it possible\nthat this \"spiritual intuition\" is independent of the man? Is it based\nupon experience? Was it in any way born of the senses, or of the effect\nof nature upon the brain--that is to say, of things seen, or heard, or\ntouched? Is a \"spiritual intuition\" an entity? If man can exist without\nthe \"spiritual intuition,\" do you insist that the \"spiritual intuition\"\ncan exist without the man?\n\nYou may remember that Mr. Locke frequently remarked: \"Define your\nterms.\" It is to be regretted that in the hurry of writing your article,\nyou forgot to give an explanation of \"spiritual intuition.\"\n\nI will also take the liberty of asking you how a blind man could\ncriticise colors, and how a deaf man could criticise harmonies. Possibly\nyou may imagine that \"spiritual intuition\" can take cognizance of\ncolors, as well as of harmonies. Let me ask: Why cannot a blind man\ncriticise colors? Let me answer: For the same reason that Archdeacon\nFarrar can tell us nothing about an infinite personality.\n\n4. That \"revelation must be judged by its own criteria.\" Suppose the\nBible had taught that selfishness, larceny and murder were virtues;\nwould you deny its inspiration? Would not your denial be based upon\na conclusion that had been reached by your reason that no intelligent\nbeing could have been its author--that no good being could, by any\npossibility, uphold the commission of such crimes? In that case would\nyou be guided by \"spiritual intuition,\" or by your reason?\n\nWhen we examine the claims of a history--as, for instance, a history\nof England, or of America, are we to decide according to \"spiritual\nintuition,\" or in accordance with the laws or rules of probability?\nIs there a different standard for a history written in Hebrew, several\nthousand years ago, and one written in English in the nineteenth\ncentury? If a history should now be written in England, in which the\nmost miraculous and impossible things should be related as facts, and\nif I should deny these alleged facts, would you consider that the author\nhad overcome my denial by saying, \"history must be judged by its own\ncriteria\"?\n\n5. That \"the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God,\nfor they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they\nare spiritually discerned.\" The Archdeacon admits that the natural man\ncannot know the things of the spirit, because they are not naturally,\nbut spiritually, discerned. On the next page we are told, that \"the\ntruths which Agnostics repudiate have been, and are, acknowledged by\nall except a fraction of the human race.\" It goes without saying that\na large majority of the human race are natural; consequently, the\nstatement of the Archdeacon contradicts the statement of St. Paul.\nThe Archdeacon insists that all except a fraction of the human race\nacknowledge the truths which Agnostics repudiate, and they must\nacknowledge them because they are by them spiritually discerned; and\nyet, St. Paul says that this is impossible, and insists that \"the\nnatural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God, because they\nare spiritually discerned.\"\n\nThere is only one way to harmonize the statement of the Archdeacon and\nthe Saint, and that is, by saying that nearly all of the human race\nare unnatural, and that only a small fraction are natural, and that the\nsmall fraction of men who are natural, are Agnostics, and only those who\naccept what the Archdeacon calls \"truths\" are unnatural to such a degree\nthat they can discern spiritual things.\n\nUpon this subject, the last things to which the Archdeacon appeals, are\nthe very things that he, at first, utterly repudiated. He asks, \"Are we\ncontemptuously to reject the witness of innumerable multitudes of the\ngood and wise, that--with a spiritual reality more convincing to them\nthan the material evidences which converted the apostles,\"--they have\nseen, and heard, and their hands have handled the \"Word of Life\"? Thus\nat last the Archdeacon appeals to the evidences of the senses.\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE Archdeacon then proceeds to attack the following statement: _There\nis no subject, and can be none, concerning which any human being is\nunder any obligation to believe without evidence_.\n\nOne would suppose that it would be impossible to formulate an objection\nto this statement. What is or is not evidence, depends upon the mind\nto which it is presented. There is no possible \"insinuation\" in this\nstatement, one way or the other. There is nothing sinister in it, any\nmore than there would be in the statement that twice five are ten. How\ndid it happen to occur to the Archdeacon that when I spoke of believing\nwithout evidence, I referred to all people who believe in the existence\nof a God, and that I intended to say \"that one-third of the world's\ninhabitants had embraced the faith of Christians without evidence\"?\n\nCertain things may convince one mind and utterly fail to convince\nothers. Undoubtedly the persons who have believed in the dogmas of\nChristianity have had what was sufficient evidence for them. All I said\nwas, that \"there is no subject, and can be none, concerning which any\nhuman being is under any obligation to believe without evidence.\" Does\nthe Archdeacon insist that there is an obligation resting on any human\nmind to believe without evidence? Is he willing to go a step further and\nsay that there is an obligation resting upon the minds of men to believe\ncontrary to evidence? If one is under obligation to believe without\nevidence, it is just as reasonable to say that he is under obligation to\nbelieve in spite of evidence. What does the word \"evidence\" mean? A man\nin whose honesty I have great confidence, tells me that he saw a dead\nman raised to life. I do not believe him. Why? His statement is not\nevidence to my mind. Why? Because it contradicts all of my experience,\nand, as I believe, the experience of the intelligent world.\n\nNo one pretends that \"one-third of the world's inhabitants have\nembraced the faith of Christians without evidence\"--that is, that all\nChristians have embraced the faith without evidence. In the olden time,\nwhen hundreds of thousands of men were given their choice between being\nmurdered and baptized, they generally accepted baptism--probably they\naccepted Christianity without critically examining the evidence.\n\nIs it historically absurd that millions of people have believed in\nsystems of religion without evidence? Thousands of millions have\nbelieved that Mohammed was a prophet of God. And not only so, but have\nbelieved in his miraculous power. Did they believe without evidence? Is\nit historically absurd to say that Mohammedanism is based upon mistake?\nWhat shall we say of the followers of Buddha, who far outnumber the\nfollowers of Christ? Have they believed without evidence? And is it\nhistorically absurd to say that our ancestors of a few hundred years ago\nwere as credulous as the disciples of Buddha? Is it not true that the\nsame gentlemen who believed thoroughly in all the miracles of the\nNew Testament also believed the world to be flat, and were perfectly\nsatisfied that the sun made its daily journey around the earth? Did they\nhave any evidence? Is it historically absurd to say that they believed\nwithout evidence?\n\n\nIII.\n\n_Neither is there any intelligent being who can by any possibility be\nflattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity._\n\nTHE Archdeacon asks what I \"gain by stigmatizing as ignorant credulity\nthat inspired, inspiring, invincible conviction--the formative principle\nof noble efforts and self-sacrificing lives, which at this moment, as\nduring all the long millenniums of the past, has been held not only\nby the ignorant and the credulous, but by those whom all the ages have\nregarded as the ablest, the wisest, the most learned and the most gifted\nof mankind?\"\n\nDoes the Archdeacon deny that credulity is ignorant? In this connection,\nwhat does the word \"credulity\" mean? It means that condition or state of\nthe mind in which the impossible, or the absurd, is accepted as true.\nIs not such credulity ignorant? Do we speak of wise credulity--of\nintelligent credulity? We may say theological credulity, or Christian\ncredulity, but certainly not intelligent credulity. Is the flattery of\nthe ignorant and credulous--the flattery being based upon that which\nignorance and credulity have accepted--acceptable to any intelligent\nbeing? Is it possible that we can flatter God by pretending to believe,\nor by believing, that which is repugnant to reason, that which upon\nexamination is seen to be absurd? The Archdeacon admits that God cannot\npossibly be so flattered. If, then, he agrees with my statement, why\nendeavor to controvert it?\n\n\nIV.\n\nThe man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and New\nTestaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian.\n\nTHE Archdeacon says that he cannot pretend to imagine what my definition\nof an orthodox Christian is. I will use his own language to express my\ndefinition. \"By an orthodox Christian I mean one who believes what is\ncommonly called the Apostles' Creed. I also believe that the essential\ndoctrines of the church must be judged by her universal formulae, not by\nthe opinions of this or that theologian, however eminent, or even of\nany number of theologians, unless the church has stamped them with the\nsanction of her formal and distinct acceptance.\"\n\nThis is the language of the Archdeacon himself, and I accept it as a\ndefinition of orthodoxy. With this definition in mind, I say that\nthe man who without prejudice reads and understands the Old and New\nTestaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. By \"prejudice,\"\nI mean the tendencies and trends given to his mind by heredity, by\neducation, by the facts and circumstances entering into the life of man.\nWe know how children are poisoned in the cradle, how they are deformed\nin the Sunday School, how they are misled by the pulpit. And we know how\nnumberless interests unite and conspire to prevent the individual soul\nfrom examining for itself. We know that nearly all rewards are in the\nhands of Superstition--that she holds the sweet wreath, and that her\nhands lead the applause of what is called the civilized world. We know\nhow many men give up their mental independence for the sake of pelf\nand power. We know the influence of mothers and fathers--of Church and\nState--of Faith and Fashion. All these influences produce in honest\nminds what may be known as prejudice,--in other minds, what may be known\nas hypocrisy.\n\nIt is hardly worth my while to speak of the merits of students of Holy\nWrit \"who,\" the Archdeacon was polite enough to say, \"know ten thousand\ntimes more of the Scriptures\" than I do. This, to say the least of\nit, is a gratuitous assertion, and one that does not tend to throw the\nslightest ray of light on any matter in controversy. Neither is it true\nthat it was my \"point\" to say that all people are prejudiced, merely\nbecause they believe in God; it was my point to say that no man can read\nthe miracles of the Old Testament, without prejudice, and believe\nthem; it was my point to say that no man can read many of the cruel\nand barbarous laws said to have been given by God himself, and yet\nbelieve,--unless he was prejudiced,--that these laws were divinely\ngiven.\n\nNeither do I believe that there is now beneath the cope of heaven an\nintelligent man, without prejudice, who believes in the inspiration of\nthe Bible.\n\n\nV.\n\nThe intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country,\nwithout fear and without prejudice, will not and cannot be a believer.\n\nIN answering this statement the Archdeacon says: \"_Argal_, every\nbeliever in any religion is either an incompetent idiot, or coward--with\na dash of prejudice.\"\n\nI hardly know what the gentleman means by an \"incompetent idiot,\" as I\nknow of no competent ones. It was not my intention to say that believers\nin religion are idiots or cowards. I did not mean, by using the word\n\"fear,\" to say that persons actuated by fear are cowards. That was not\nin my mind. By \"fear,\" I intended to convey that fear commonly called\nawe, or superstition,--that is to say, fear of the supernatural,--fear\nof the gods--fear of punishment in another world--fear of some Supreme\nBeing; not fear of some other man--not the fear that is branded with\ncowardice. And, of course, the Archdeacon perfectly understood my\nmeaning; but it was necessary to give another meaning in order to make\nthe appearance of an answer possible.\n\nBy \"prejudice,\" I mean that state of mind that accepts the false for the\ntrue. All prejudice is honest. And the probability is, that all men are\nmore or less prejudiced on some subject. But on that account I do not\ncall them \"incompetent idiots, or cowards, with a dash of prejudice.\" I\nhave no doubt that the Archdeacon himself believes that all Mahommedans\nare prejudiced, and that they are actuated more or less by fear,\ninculcated by their parents and by society at large. Neither have I any\ndoubt that he regards all Catholics as prejudiced, and believes that\nthey are governed more or less by fear. It is no answer to what I have\nsaid for the Archdeacon to say that \"others have studied every form\nof religion with infinitely greater power than I have done.\" This is a\npersonality that has nothing to do with the subject in hand. It is\nno argument to repeat a list of names. It is an old trick of the\ntheologians to use names instead of arguments--to appeal to persons\ninstead of principles--to rest their case upon the views of kings and\nnobles and others who pretend eminence in some department of human\nlearning or ignorance, rather than on human knowledge.\n\nThis is the argument of the old against the new, and on this appeal the\nold must of necessity have the advantage. When some man announces the\ndiscovery of a new truth, or of some great fact contrary to the opinions\nof the learned, it is easy to overwhelm him with names. There is but one\nname on his side--that is to say, his own. All others who are living,\nand the dead, are on the other side. And if this argument is good, it\nought to have ended all progress many thousands of years ago. If this\nargument is conclusive, the first man would have had freedom of opinion;\nthe second man would have stood an equal chance; but if the third man\ndiffered from the other two, he would have been gone. Yet this is the\nargument of the church. They say to every man who advances something\nnew: Are you greater than the dead? The man who is right is generally\nmodest. Men in the wrong, as a rule, are arrogant; and arrogance is\ngenerally in the majority.\n\nThe Archdeacon appeals to certain names to show that I am wrong. In\norder for this argument to be good--that is to say, to be honest--he\nshould agree with all the opinions of the men whose names he gives. He\nshows, or endeavors to show, that I am wrong, because I do not agree\nwith St. Augustine. Does the Archdeacon agree with St. Augustine? Does\nhe now believe that the bones of a saint were taken to Hippo--that being\nin the diocese of St. Augustine--and that five corpses, having been\ntouched with these bones, were raised to life? Does he believe that a\ndemoniac, on being touched with one of these bones, was relieved of a\nmultitude of devils, and that these devils then and there testified to\nthe genuineness of the bones, not only, but told the hearers that the\ndoctrine of the Trinity was true? Does the Archdeacon agree with St.\nAugustine that over seventy miracles were performed with these bones,\nand that in a neighboring town many hundreds of miracles were performed?\nDoes he agree with St. Augustine in his estimate of women--placing them\non a par with beasts?\n\nI admit that St. Augustine had great influence with the people of his\nday--but what people? I admit also that he was the founder of the first\nbegging brotherhood--that he organized mendicancy--and that he most\ncheerfully lived on the labor of others.\n\nIf St. Augustine lived now he would be the inmate of an asylum. This\nsame St. Augustine believed that the fire of hell was material--that the\nbody itself having influenced the soul to sin, would be burned forever,\nand that God by a perpetual miracle would save the body from being\nannihilated and devoured in those eternal flames.\n\nLet me ask the Archdeacon a question: Do you agree with St. Augustine?\nIf you do not, do you claim to be a greater man? Is \"your mole-hill\nhigher than his Dhawalagiri\"? Are you looking down upon him from the\naltitude of your own inferiority?\n\nPrecisely the same could be said of St. Jerome. The Archdeacon appeals\nto Charlemagne, one of the great generals of the world--a man who in his\ntime shed rivers of blood, and who on one occasion massacred over four\nthousand helpless prisoners--a Christian gentleman who had, I think,\nabout nine wives, and was the supposed father of some twenty children.\n'This same Charlemagne had laws against polygamy, and yet practiced\nit himself. Are we under the same obligation to share his vices as\nhis views? It is wonderful how the church has always appealed to the\nso-called great--how it has endeavored to get certificates from kings\nand queens, from successful soldiers and statesmen, to the truth of the\nBible and the moral character of Christ! How the saints have crawled in\nthe dust before the slayers of mankind! Think of proving the religion of\nlove and forgiveness by Charlemagne and Napoleon!\n\nAn appeal is also made to Roger Bacon. Yet this man attained all his\neminence by going contrary to the opinions and teachings of the church.\nIn his time, it was matter of congratulation that you knew nothing of\nsecular things. He was a student of Nature, an investigator, and by the\nvery construction of his mind was opposed to the methods of Catholicism.\n\nCopernicus was an astronomer, but he certainly did not get his astronomy\nfrom the church, nor from General Joshua, nor from the story of the\nJewish king for whose benefit the sun was turned back in heaven ten\ndegrees.\n\nNeither did Kepler find his three laws in the Sermon on the Mount, nor\nwere they the utterances of Jehovah on Mount Sinai. He did not make his\ndiscoveries because he was a Christian; but in spite of that fact.\n\nAs to Lord Bacon, let me ask, are you willing to accept his ideas? If\nnot, why do you quote his name? Am I bound by the opinions of Bacon in\nmatters of religion, and not in matters of science? Bacon denied the\nCoperni-can system, and died a believer in the Ptolemaic--died believing\nthat the earth is stationary and that the sun and stars move around it\nas a center. Do you agree with Bacon? If not, do you pretend that your\nmind is greater? Would it be fair for a believer in Bacon to denounce\nyou as an egotist and charge you with \"obstreperousness\" because you\nmerely suggested that Mr. Bacon was a little off in his astronomical\nopinions? Do you not see that you have furnished the cord for me to tie\nyour hands behind you?\n\nI do not know how you ascertained that Shakespeare was what you call a\nbeliever. Substantially all that we know of Shakespeare is found in what\nwe know as his \"works\" All else can be read in one minute. May I ask,\nhow you know that Shakespeare was a believer? Do you prove it by the\nwords he put in the mouths of his characters? If so, you can prove that\nhe was anything, nothing, and everything. Have you literary bread to eat\nthat I know not of? Whether Dante was, or was not, a Christian, I am\nnot prepared to say. I have always admired him for one thing: he had the\ncourage to see a pope in hell.\n\nProbably you are not prepared to agree with Milton--especially in his\nopinion that marriage had better be by contract, for a limited time. And\nif you disagree with Milton on this point, do you thereby pretend to say\nthat you could have written a better poem than Paradise Lost?\n\nSo Newton is supposed to have been a Trinitarian. And yet it is said\nthat, after his death, there was found an article, which had been\npublished by him in Holland, against the dogma of the Trinity.\n\nAfter all, it is quite difficult to find out what the great men have\nbelieved. They have been actuated by so many unknown motives; they\nhave wished for place; they have desired to be Archdeacons, Bishops,\nCardinals, Popes; their material interests have sometimes interfered\nwith the expression of their thoughts. Most of the men to whom you have\nalluded lived at a time when the world was controlled by what may be\ncalled a Christian mob--when the expression of an honest thought would\nhave cost the life of the one who expressed it--when the followers of\nChrist were ready with sword and fagot to exterminate philosophy and\nliberty from the world.\n\nIs it possible that we are under any obligation to believe the Mosaic\naccount of the Garden of Eden, or of the talking serpent, because\n\"Whewell had an encyclopaedic range of knowledge\"? Must we believe that\nJoshua stopped the sun, because Faraday was \"the most eminent man of\nscience of his day\"? Shall we believe the story of the fiery furnace,\nbecause \"Mr. Spottiswoode was president of the Royal Society\"--had\n\"rare mathematical genius\"--so rare that he was actually \"buried in\nWestminster Abbey\"? Shall we believe that Jonah spent three days and\nnights in the inside of a whale because \"Professor Clark Maxwell's death\nwas mourned by all\"?\n\nAre we under any obligation to believe that an infinite God sent two she\nbears to tear forty children in pieces because they laughed at a prophet\nwithout hair? Must we believe this because \"Sir Gabriel Stokes is the\nliving president of the Royal Society, and a Churchman\" besides? Are we\nbound to believe that Daniel spent one of the happiest evenings of his\nlife in the lion's den, because \"Sir William Dawson of Canada, two years\nago, presided over the British Association\"? And must we believe in the\nten plagues of Egypt, including the lice, because \"Professor Max\nMueller made an eloquent plea in Westminster Abbey in favor of Christian\nmissions\"? Possibly he wanted missionaries to visit heathen lands so\nthat they could see the difference for themselves between theory and\npractice, in what is known as the Christian religion.\n\nMust we believe the miracles of the New Testament--the casting out of\ndevils--because \"Lord Tennyson and Mr. Browning stand far above all\nother poets of this generation in England,\" or because \"Longfellow,\nHolmes, and Lowell and Whittier\" occupy the same position in America?\nMust we admit that devils entered into swine because \"Bancroft and\nParkman are the leading prose writers of America\"--which I take this\noccasion to deny?\n\nIt is to be hoped that some time the Archdeacon will read that portion\nof Mr. Bancroft's history in which he gives the account of how\nthe soldiers, commonly called Hessians, were raised by the British\nGovernment during the American Revolution.\n\nThese poor wretches were sold at so much apiece. For every one that was\nkilled, so much was paid, and for every one that was wounded a certain\namount was given. Mr. Bancroft tells us that God was not satisfied with\nthis business, and although he did not interfere in any way to save the\npoor soldiers, he did visit the petty tyrants who made the bargains with\nhis wrath. I remember that as a punishment to one of these, his wife was\ninduced to leave him; another one died a good many years afterwards; and\nseveral of them had exceedingly bad luck.\n\nAfter reading this philosophic dissertation on the dealings of\nProvidence, I doubt if the Archdeacon will still remain of the opinion\nthat Mr. Bancroft is one of the leading prose writers of America. If the\nArchdeacon will read a few of the sermons of Theodore Parker, and essays\nof Ralph Waldo Emerson, if he will read the life of Voltaire by James\nParton, he may change his opinion as to the great prose writers of\nAmerica.\n\nMy argument against miracles is answered by reference to \"Dr. Lightfoot,\na man of such immense learning that he became the equal of his successor\nDr. Westcott.\" And when I say that there are errors and imperfections\nin the Bible, I am told that Dr. Westcott \"investigated the Christian\nreligion and its earliest documents _au fond_, and was an orthodox\nbeliever.\" Of course the Archdeacon knows that no one now knows who\nwrote one of the books of the Bible. He knows that no one now lives who\never saw one of the original manuscripts, and that no one now lives\nwho ever saw anybody who had seen anybody who had seen an original\nmanuscript.\n\n\nVI.\n\nIs it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite\npersonality?\n\nTHE Archdeacon says that it is, and yet in the same article he quotes\nthe following from Job: \"Canst thou by searching find out God?\" \"It is\nas high as Heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than Hell; what canst thou\nknow?\" And immediately after making these quotations, the Archdeacon\ntakes the ground of the agnostic, and says, \"with the wise ancient\nRabbis, we learn to say, _I do not know_.\"\n\nIt is impossible for me to say what any other human being cannot\nconceive; but I am absolutely certain that my mind cannot conceive of an\ninfinite personality--of an infinite Ego.\n\nMan is conscious of his individuality. Man has wants. A multitude\nof things in nature seems to work against him; and others seem to be\nfavorable to him. There is conflict between him and nature.\n\nIf man had no wants--if there were no conflict between him and any other\nbeing, or any other thing, he could not say \"I\"--that is to say, he\ncould not be conscious of personality.\n\nNow, it seems to me that an infinite personality is a contradiction in\nterms, says \"I.\"\n\n\nVII.\n\nTHE same line of argument applies to the next statement that\nis criticised by the Archdeacon: _Can the human mind conceive a\nbeginningless being?_\n\nWe know that there is such a thing as matter, but we do not know that\nthere is a beginningless being. We say, or some say, that matter is\neternal, because the human mind cannot conceive of its commencing. Now,\nif we knew of the existence of an Infinite Being, we could not conceive\nof his commencing. But we know of no such being. We do know of the\nexistence of matter; and my mind is so, that I cannot conceive of that\nmatter having been created by a beginningless being. I do not say that\nthere is not a beginningless being, but I do not believe there is, and\nit is beyond my power to conceive of such a being.\n\nThe Archdeacon also says that \"space is quite as impossible to conceive\nas God.\" But nobody pretends to love space--no one gives intention and\nwill to space--no one, so far as I know, builds altars or temples to\nspace. Now, if God is as inconceivable as space, why should we pray to\nGod?\n\nThe Archdeacon, however, after quoting Sir William Hamilton as to the\ninconceivability of space as absolute or infinite, takes occasion to say\nthat \"space is an entity.\" May I be permitted to ask how he knows that\nspace is an entity? As a matter of fact, the conception of infinite\nspace is a necessity of the mind, the same as eternity is a necessity of\nthe mind.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE next sentence or statement to which the Archdeacon objects is as\nfollows:\n\n_He who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of\nJehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness or\nwisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for\npestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, and for\nthe triumph of the strong over the weak._\n\nOne objection that he urges to this statement is that St. Paul had made\na stronger one in the same direction. The Archdeacon however insists\nthat \"a world without a contingency, or an agony, could have had no hero\nand no saint,\" and that \"science enables us to demonstrate that much of\nthe apparent misery and anguish is transitory and even phantasmal;\nthat many of the seeming forces of destruction are overruled to ends of\nbeneficence; that most of man's disease and anguish is due to his own\nsin and folly and wilfulness.\"\n\nI will not say that these things have been said before, but I will say\nthat they have been answered before. The idea that the world is a school\nin which character is formed and in which men are educated is very old.\nIf, however, the world is a school, and there is trouble and misfortune,\nand the object is to create character--that is to say, to produce heroes\nand saints--then the question arises, what becomes of those who die\nin infancy? They are left without the means of education. Are they\nto remain forever without character? Or is there some other world of\nsuffering and sorrow?\n\nIs it possible to form character in heaven? How did the angels become\ngood? How do you account for the justice of God? Did he attain character\nthrough struggle and suffering?\n\nWhat would you say of a school teacher who should kill one-third of\nthe children on the morning of the first day? And what can you say of\nGod,--if this world is a school,--who allows a large per cent, of his\nchildren to die in infancy--consequently without education--therefore,\nwithout character?\n\nIf the world is the result of infinite wisdom and goodness, why is the\nChristian Church engaged in endeavoring to make it better; or, rather,\nin an effort to change it? Why not leave it as an infinite God made it?\n\nIs it true that most of man's diseases are due to his own sin and folly\nand wilfulness? Is it not true that no matter how good men are they must\ndie, and will they not die of diseases? Is it true that the wickedness\nof man has created the microbe? Is it possible that the sinfulness of\nman created the countless enemies of human life that lurk in air and\nwater and food? Certainly the wickedness of man has had very little\ninfluence on tornadoes, earthquakes and floods. Is it true that \"the\nsignature of beauty with which God has stamped the visible world--alike\nin the sky and on the earth--alike in the majestic phenomena of\nan intelligent creation and in its humblest and most microscopic\nproduction--is a perpetual proof that God is a God of love\"?\n\nLet us see. The scientists tell us that there is a little microscopic\nanimal, one who is very particular about his food--so particular,\nthat he prefers to all other things the optic nerve, and after he has\nsucceeded in destroying that nerve and covering the eye with the mask of\nblindness, he has intelligence enough to bore his way through the bones\nof the nose in search of the other optic nerve. Is it not somewhat\ndifficult to discover \"the signature of beauty with which God has\nstamped\" this animal? For my part, I see but little beauty in poisonous\nserpents, in man-eating sharks, in crocodiles, in alligators. It would\nbe impossible for me to gaze with admiration upon a cancer. Think, for a\nmoment, of a God ingenious enough and good enough to feed a cancer with\nthe quivering flesh of a human being, and to give for the sustenance of\nthat cancer the life of a mother.\n\nIt is well enough to speak of \"the myriad voices of nature in their\nmirth and sweetness,\" and it is also well enough to think of the other\nside. The singing birds have a few notes of love--the rest are all of\nwarning and of fear. Nature, apparently with infinite care, produces\na living thing, and at the same time is just as diligently at work\ncreating another living thing to devour the first, and at the same time\na third to devour the second, and so on around the great circle of life\nand death, of agony and joy--tooth and claw, fang and tusk, hunger and\nrapine, massacre and murder, violence and vengeance and vice everywhere\nand through all time. [Here the manuscript ends, with the following\nnotes.]\n\n\nSAYINGS FROM THE INDIAN.\n\n\"The rain seems hardest when the wigwam leaks.\"\n\n\"When the tracks get too large and too numerous, the wise Indian says\nthat he is hunting something else.\"\n\n\"A little crook in the arrow makes a great miss.\"\n\n\"A great chief counts scalps, not hairs.\"\n\n\"You cannot strengthen the bow by poisoning the arrows.\"\n\n\"No one saves water in a flood.\"\n\n\nORIGEN.\n\nOrigen considered that the punishment of the wicked consisted in\nseparation from God. There was too much pity in his heart to believe in\nthe flames of hell. But he was condemned as heretical by the Council of\nCarthage, A. D., 398, and afterwards by other councils.\n\n\nST. AUGUSTINE.\n\nSt. Augustine censures Origen for his merciful view, and says: \"The\nchurch, not without reason, condemned him for this error.\" He also held\nthat hell was in the centre of the earth, and that God supplied the\ncentre with perpetual fire by a miracle.\n\n\nDANTE.\n\nDante is a wonderful mixture of melancholy and malice, of religion and\nrevenge, and he represents himself as so pitiless that when he found his\npolitical opponents in hell, he struck their faces and pulled the hair\nof the tormented.\n\n\nAQUINAS.\n\nAquinas believed the same. He was the loving gentleman who believed in\nthe undying worm.\n\n\n\n\nIS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEGRADING?\n\n     * This unfinished and unrevised article was found among Col.\n     Ingersoll's papers, and is here reproduced without change.--\n     It is a reply to the Dean of St Paul's Contribution to the\n     North American Review for Dec., 1891, entitled: \"Is Corporal\n     Punishment Degrading?\"\n\nTHE Dean of St. Paul protests against the kindness of parents, guardians\nand teachers toward children, wards and pupils. He believes in the\ngospel of ferule and whips, and has perfect faith in the efficacy of\nflogging in homes and schools. He longs for the return of the good old\ndays when fathers were severe, and children affectionate and obedient.\n\nIn America, for many years, even wife-beating has been somewhat\nunpopular, and the flogging of children has been considered cruel\nand unmanly. Wives with bruised and swollen faces, and children with\nlacerated backs, have excited pity for themselves rather than admiration\nfor savage husbands and brutal fathers. It is also true that the church\nhas far less power here than in England, and it may be that those who\nwander from the orthodox fold grow merciful and respect the rights even\nof the weakest.\n\nBut whatever the cause may be, the fact is that we, citizens of the\nRepublic, feel that certain domestic brutalities are the children of\nmonarchies and despotisms; that they were produced by superstition,\nignorance, and savagery; and that they are not in accord with the free\nand superb spirit that founded and preserves the Great Republic.\n\nOf late years, confidence in the power of kindness has greatly\nincreased, and there is a wide-spread suspicion that cruelty and\nviolence are not the instrumentalities of civilization.\n\nPhysicians no longer regard corporal punishment as a sure cure even for\ninsanity--and it is generally admitted that the lash irritates rather\nthan soothes the victim of melancholia.\n\nCivilized men now insist that criminals cannot always be reformed even\nby the most ingenious instruments of torture. It is known that some\nconvicts repay the smallest acts of kindness with the sincerest\ngratitude. Some of the best people go so far as to say that kindness\nis the sunshine in which the virtues grow. We know that for many ages\ngovernments tried to make men virtuous with dungeon and fagot and\nscaffold; that they tried to cure even disease of the mind with\nbrandings and maimings and lashes on the naked flesh of men and\nwomen--and that kings endeavored to sow the seeds of patriotism--to\nplant and nurture them in the hearts of their subjects--with whip and\nchain.\n\nIn England, only a few years ago, there were hundreds of brave\nsoldiers and daring sailors whose breasts were covered with honorable\nscars--witnesses of wounds received at Trafalgar and Balaklava--while on\nthe backs of these same soldiers and sailors were the marks of\nEnglish whips. These shameless cruelties were committed in the name of\ndiscipline, and were upheld by officers, statesmen and clergymen. The\nsame is true of nearly all civilized nations. These crimes have been\nexcused for the reason that our ancestors were, at that time, in fact,\nbarbarians--that they had no idea of justice, no comprehension of\nliberty, no conception of the rights of men, women, and children.\n\nAt that time the church was, in most countries, equal to, or superior\nto, the state, and was a firm believer in the civilizing influences of\ncruelty and torture.\n\nAccording to the creeds of that day, God intended to torture the wicked\nforever, and the church, according to its power, did all that it could\nin the same direction. Learning their rights and duties from priests,\nfathers not only beat their children, but their wives. In those days\nmost homes were penitentiaries, in which wives and children were\nthe convicts and of which husbands and fathers were the wardens and\nturnkeys. The king imitated his supposed God, and imprisoned, flogged,\nbranded, beheaded and burned his enemies, and the husbands and fathers\nimitated the king, and guardians and teachers imitated them.\n\nYet in spite of all the beatings and burnings, the whippings and\nhangings, the world was not reformed. Crimes increased, the cheeks\nof wives were furrowed with tears, the faces of children white with\nfear--fear of their own fathers; pity was almost driven from the heart\nof man and found refuge, for the most part, in the breasts of women,\nchildren, and dogs.\n\nIn those days, misfortunes were punished as crimes. Honest debtors were\nlocked in loathsome dungeons, and trivial offences were punished with\ndeath. Worse than all that, thousands of men and women were destroyed,\nnot because they were vicious, but because they were virtuous, honest\nand noble. Extremes beget obstructions. The victims at last became too\nnumerous, and the result did not seem to justify the means. The good,\nthe few, protested against the savagery of kings and fathers.\n\nNothing seems clearer to me than that the world has been gradually\ngrowing better for many years. Men have a clearer conception of rights\nand obligations--a higher philosophy--a far nobler ideal. Even kings\nadmit that they should have some regard for the well-being of their\nsubjects. Nations and individuals are slowly outgrowing the savagery of\nrevenge, the desire to kill, and it is generally admitted that criminals\nshould neither be imprisoned nor tortured for the gratification of the\npublic. At last we are beginning to know that revenge is a mistake--that\ncruelty not only hardens the victim, but makes a criminal of him who\ninflicts it, and that mercy guided by intelligence is the highest form\nof justice.\n\nThe tendency of the world is toward kindness. The religious creeds\nare being changed or questioned, because they shock the heart of the\npresent. All civilized churches, all humane Christians, have given up\nthe dogma of eternal pain. This infamous doctrine has for many centuries\npolluted the imagination and hardened the heart. This coiled viper no\nlonger inhabits the breast of a civilized man.\n\nIn all civilized countries slavery has been abolished, the honest debtor\nreleased, and all are allowed the liberty of speech.\n\nLong ago flogging was abolished in our army and navy and all cruel and\nunusual punishments prohibited by law. In many parts of the Republic the\nwhip has been banished from the public schools, the flogger of children\nis held in abhorrence, and the wife-beater is regarded as a cowardly\ncriminal. The gospel of kindness is not only preached, but practiced.\nSuch has been the result of this advance of civilization--of this growth\nof kindness--of this bursting into blossom of the flower called pity, in\nthe heart--that we treat our horses (thanks to Henry Bergh) better than\nour ancestors did their slaves, their servants or their tenants. The\ngentlemen of to-day show more affection for their dogs than most of the\nkings of England exhibited toward their wives. The great tide is toward\nmercy; the savage creeds are being changed; heartless laws have been\nrepealed; shackles have been broken; torture abolished, and the keepers\nof prisons are no longer allowed to bruise and scar the flesh of\nconvicts. The insane are treated with kindness--asylums are in the\nmidst of beautiful grounds, the rooms are filled with flowers, and the\nwandering mind is called back by the golden voice of music.\n\nIn the midst of these tendencies--of these accomplishments--in the\ngeneral harmony between the minds of men, acting together, to the end\nthat the world may be governed by kindness through education and the\nblessed agencies of reformation and prevention, the Dean of St. Paul\nraises his voice in favor of the methods and brutalities of the past.\n\nThe reverend gentleman takes the ground that the effect of flogging on\nthe flogged is not degrading; that the effect of corporal punishment is\nennobling; that it tends to make boys manly by ennobling and teaching\nthem to bear bodily pain with fortitude. To be flogged develops\ncharacter, self-reliance, courage, contempt of pain and the highest\nheroism. The Dean therefore takes the ground that parents should flog\ntheir children, guardians their wards, and teachers their pupils.\n\nIf the Dean is wrong he goes too far, and if he is right he does not go\nfar enough. He does not advocate the flogging of children who obey their\nparents, or of pupils who violate no rule. It follows then that such\nchildren are in great danger of growing up unmanly, without the courage\nand fortitude to bear bodily pain. If flogging is really a blessing it\nshould not be withheld from the good and lavished on the unworthy. The\nDean should have the courage of his convictions. The teacher should not\nmake a pretext of the misconduct of the pupil to do him a great service.\nHe should not be guilty of calling a benefit a punishment He should not\ndeceive the children under his care and develop their better natures\nunder false pretences. But what is to become of the boys and girls who\n\"behave themselves,\" who attend to their studies, and comply with the\nrules? They lose the benefits conferred on those who defy their parents\nand teachers, reach maturity without character, and so remain withered\nand worthless.\n\nThe Dean not only defends his position by an appeal to the Bible, the\nhistory of nations, but to his personal experience. In order to show the\ngood effects of brutality and the bad consequences of kindness, he gives\ntwo instances that came under his observation. The first is that of\nan intelligent father who treated his sons with great kindness and\nyet these sons neglected their affectionate father in his old age. The\nsecond instance is that of a mother who beat her daughter. The wretched\nchild, it seems, was sent out to gather sticks from the hedges, and\nwhen she brought home a large stick, the mother suspected that she had\nobtained it wrongfully and thereupon proceeded to beat the child. And\nyet the Dean tells us that this abused daughter treated the hyena mother\nwith the greatest kindness, and loved her as no other daughter ever\nloved a mother. In order to make this case strong and convincing the\nDean states that this mother was a most excellent Christian.\n\nFrom these two instances the Dean infers, and by these two instances\nproves, that kindness breeds bad sons, and that flogging makes\naffectionate daughters. The Dean says to the Christian mother: \"If\nyou wish to be loved by your daughter, you must beat her.\" And to the\nChristian father he says: \"If you want to be neglected in your old age\nby your sons, you will treat them with kindness.\" The Dean does not\nfollow his logic to the end. Let me give him two instances that support\nhis theory.\n\nA good man married a handsome woman. He was old, rich, kind and\nindulgent. He allowed his wife to have her own way. He never uttered a\ncross or cruel word. He never thought of beating her. And yet, as the\nDean would say, in consequence of his kindness, she poisoned him, got\nhis money and married another man.\n\nIn this city, not long ago, a man, a foreigner, beat his wife according\nto his habit. On this particular occasion the punishment was excessive.\nHe beat her until she became unconscious; she was taken to a hospital\nand the physician said that she could not live. The husband was brought\nto the hospital and preparations were made to take her dying statement.\nAfter being told that she was dying, she was asked if her husband had\nbeaten her. Her face was so bruised and swollen that the lids of her\neyes had to be lifted in order that she might see the wretch who had\nkilled her. She beckoned him to her side--threw her arms about his\nneck--drew his face to hers--kissed him, and said: \"He is not the man.\nHe did not do it\"--then--died.\n\nAccording to the philosophy of the Dean, these instances show that\nkindness causes crime, and that wife-beating cultivates in the highest\ndegree the affectional nature of woman.\n\nThe Dean, if consistent, is a believer in slavery, because the lash\njudiciously applied brings out the finer feelings of the heart.\nSlaves have been known to die for their masters, while under similar\ncircumstances hired men have sought safety in flight.\n\nWe all know of many instances where the abused, the maligned, and the\ntortured have returned good for evil--and many instances where\nthe loved, the honored, and the trusted have turned against their\nbenefactors, and yet we know that cruelty and torture are not superior\nto love and kindness. Yet, the Dean tries to show that severity is the\nreal mother of affection, and that kindness breeds monsters. If kindness\nand affection on the part of parents demoralize children, will not\nkindness and affection on the part of children demoralize the parents?\n\nWhen the children are young and weak, the parents who are strong beat\nthe children in order that they may be affectionate. Now, when the\nchildren get strong and the parents are old and weak, ought not the\nchildren to beat them, so that they too may become kind and loving?\n\nIf you want an affectionate son, beat him. If you desire a loving wife,\nbeat her.\n\nThis is really the advice of the Dean of St Paul. To me it is one of the\nmost pathetic facts in nature that wives and children love husbands and\nfathers who are utterly unworthy. It is enough to sadden a life to\nthink of the affection that has been lavished upon the brutal, of the\ncountless pearls that Love has thrown to swine.\n\nThe Dean, quoting from Hooker, insists that \"the voice of man is as\nthe sentence of God himself,\"--in other words, that the general voice,\npractice and opinion of the human race are true.\n\nAnd yet, cannibalism, slavery, polygamy, the worship of snakes and\nstones, the sacrifice of babes, have during vast periods of time been\npracticed and upheld by an overwhelming majority of mankind. Whether the\n\"general voice\" can be depended on depends much on the time, the epoch,\nduring which the \"general voice\" was uttered. There was a time when the\n\"general voice\" was in accord with the appetite of man; when all nations\nwere cannibals and lived on each other, and yet it can hardly be said\nthat this voice and appetite were in exact accord with divine goodness.\nIt is hardly safe to depend on the \"general voice\" of savages, no matter\nhow numerous they may have been. Like most people who defend the cruel\nand absurd, the Dean appeals to the Bible as the supreme authority in\nthe moral world,--and yet if the English Parliament should re-enact the\nMosaic Code every member voting in the affirmative would be subjected\nto personal violence, and an effort to enforce that code would produce a\nrevolution that could end only in the destruction of the government.\n\nThe morality of the Old Testament is not always of the purest; when\nJehovah tried to induce Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, he never took the\nground that slavery was wrong. He did not seek to convince by argument,\nto soften by pity, or to persuade by kindness. He depended on miracles\nand plagues. He killed helpless babes and the innocent beasts of the\nfields. No wonder the Dean appeals to the Bible to justify the beating\nof children. So, too, we are told that \"all sensible persons, Christian\nand otherwise, will admit that there are in every child born into the\nworld tendencies to evil that need rooting out.\"\n\nThe Dean undoubtedly believes in the creed of the established church,\nand yet he does not hesitate to say that a God of infinite goodness and\nintelligence never created a child--never allowed one to be born into\nthe world without planting in its little heart \"tendencies to evil that\nneed rooting out.\"\n\nSo, Solomon is quoted to the effect \"that he that spareth his rod hateth\nhis son.\" To me it has always been a matter of amazement why civilized\npeople, living in the century of Darwin and Humboldt, should quote as\nauthority the words of Solomon, a murderer, an ingrate, an idolater, and\na polygamist--a man so steeped and sodden in ignorance that he really\nbelieved he could be happy with seven hundred wives and three hundred\nconcubines. The Dean seems to regret that flogging is no longer\npracticed in the British navy, and quotes with great cheerfulness a\npassage from Deuteronomy to prove that forty lashes on the naked back\nwill meet with the approval of God. He insists that St. Paul endured\ncorporal punishment without the feeling of degradation not only, but\nthat he remembered his sufferings with a sense of satisfaction. Does the\nDean think that the satisfaction of St. Paul justified the wretches who\nbeat and stoned him? Leaving the Hebrews, the Dean calls the Greeks as\nwitnesses to establish the beneficence of flogging. They resorted to\ncorporal punishment in their schools, says the Dean and then naively\nremarks \"that Plutarch was opposed to this.\"\n\nThe Dean admits that in Rome it was found necessary to limit by law the\npunishment that a father might inflict upon his children, and yet he\nseems to regret that the legislature interfered. The Dean observes that\n\"Quintillian severely censured corporal punishment\" and then accounts\nfor the weakness and folly of the censure, by saying that \"Quintillian\nwrote in the days when the glories of Rome were departed.\" And then adds\nthese curiously savage words: \"It is worthy of remark that no children\ntreated their parents with greater tenderness and reverence than did\nthose of Rome in the days when the father possessed the unlimited power\nof punishment.\"\n\nNot quite satisfied with the strength of his case although sustained by\nMoses and Solomon, St. Paul and several schoolmasters, he proceeds\nto show that God is thoroughly on his side, not only in theory, but in\npractice; \"whom the Lord loveth lie chasteneth, and scourgeth every sou\nwhom he receiveth.\".\n\nThe Dean asks this question: \"Which custom, kindness or severity, does\nexperience show to be the less dangerous?\" And he answers from a new\nheart: \"I fear that I must unhesitatingly give the palm to severity.\"\n\n\"I have found that there have been more reverence and affection,\nmore willingness to make sacrifices for parents, more pleasure in\ncontributing to their pleasure or happiness in that life where the\ntendency has been to a severe method of treatment.\"\n\nIs it possible that any good mail exists who is willing to gain the\naffection of his children in that way? How could such a man beat and\nbruise the flesh of his babes, knowing that they would give him in\nreturn obedience and love; that they would fill the evening of his\ndays--the leafless winter of his life--with perfect peace?\n\nThink of being fed and clothed by children you had whipped--whose\nflesh you had scarred! Think of feeling in the hour of death upon your\nwithered lips, your withered cheeks, the kisses and the tears of one\nwhom, you had beaten--upon whose flesh were still the marks of your\nlash!\n\nThe whip degrades; a severe father teaches his children to dissemble;\ntheir love is pretence, and their obedience a species of self-defence.\nFear is the father of lies.","title":"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 06 (of 12): Dresden Edition\u2014Discussions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":164546}