{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38807/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38807","id":"gutenberg_38807","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38807","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL\n\nBy Robert G. Ingersoll\n\n\"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS THE SEEDS OF THOUGHT, AND THE\nCROP DEPENDS UPON THE SOIL.\"\n\nIn Twelve Volumes, Volume VII.\n\nDISCUSSIONS\n\nDresden Edition\n\n\n1900\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.\n\n\nMY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.\n\n(1877.)\n\nAnswer to San Francisco Clergymen--Definition of Liberty, Physical\nand Mental--The Right to Compel Belief--Woman the Equal of Man--The\nGhosts--Immortality--Slavery--Witchcraft--Aristocracy of the\nAir--Unfairness of Clerical Critics--Force and Matter--Doctrine of\nNegation--Confident Deaths of Murderers--Childhood Scenes returned to\nby the Dying--Death-bed of Voltaire--Thomas Paine--The First\nSectarians Were Heretics--Reply to Rev. Mr. Guard--Slaughter of\nthe Canaanites--Reply to Rev. Samuel Robinson--Protestant\nPersecutions--Toleration--Infidelity and Progress--The\nOccident--Calvinism--Religious Editors--Reply to the Rev. Mr.\nIjams--Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers?--Reply to\nCalifornia _Christian Advocate_--Self-Government of French People at\nand Since the Revolution--On the Site of the Bastile--French\nPeasant's Cheers for Jesus Christ--Was the World created in Six\nDays--Geology--What is the Astronomy of the Bible?--The Earth the Centre\nof the Universe--Joshua's Miracle--Change of Motion into Heat--Geography\nand Astronomy of Cosmas--Does the Bible teach the Existence of\nthat Impossible Crime called Witchcraft?--Saul and the Woman of\nEndor--Familiar Spirits--Demonology of the New Testament--Temptation of\nJesus--Possession by Devils--Gadarene Swine Story--Test of Belief--Bible\nIdea of the Rights of Children--Punishment of the Rebellious\nSon--Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice--Persecution of Job--The Gallantry\nof God--Bible Idea of the Rights of Women--Paul's Instructions to\nWives--Permission given to Steal Wives--Does the Bible Sanction\nPolygamy and Concubinage?--Does the Bible Uphold and Justify Political\nTyranny?--Powers that be Ordained of God--Religious Liberty of\nGod--Sun-Worship punishable with Death--Unbelievers to be damned--Does\nthe Bible describe a God of Mercy?--Massacre Commanded--Eternal\nPunishment Taught in the New Testament--The Plan of Salvation--Fall\nand Atonement Moral Bankruptcy--Other Religions--Parsee\nSect--Brahmins--Confucians--Heretics and Orthodox.\n\n\nMY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.\n\n(1879.)\n\nRev. Robert Collyer--Inspiration of the Scriptures--Rev. Dr.\nThomas--Formation of the Old Testament--Rev. Dr. Kohler--Rev. Mr.\nHerford--Prof. Swing--Rev. Dr. Ryder.\n\n\nTO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.\n\n(1882.)\n\nRev. David Walk--Character of Jesus--Two or Three Christs Described\nin the Gospels--Christ's Change of Opinions--Gospels Later than the\nEpistles--Divine Parentage of Christ a Late Belief--The Man Christ\nprobably a Historical Character--Jesus Belittled by his Worshipers--He\nnever Claimed to be Divine--Christ's Omissions--Difference between\nChristian and other Modern Civilizations--Civilization not Promoted\nby Religion--Inventors--French and American Civilization: How\nProduced--Intemperance and Slavery in Christian Nations--Advance due to\nInventions and Discoveries--Missionaries--Christian Nations Preserved by\nBayonet and Ball--Dr. T. B. Taylor--Origin of Life on this Planet--Sir\nWilliam Thomson--Origin of Things Undiscoverable--Existence after\nDeath--Spiritualists--If the Dead Return--Our Calendar--Christ and\nChristmas-The Existence of Pain--Plato's Theory of Evil--Will God do\nBetter in Another World than he does in this?--Consolation--Life Not a\nProbationary Stage--Rev. D.O'Donaghue--The Case of Archibald Armstrong\nand Jonathan Newgate--Inequalities of Life--Can Criminals live a\nContented Life?--Justice of the Orthodox God Illustrated.\n\n\nTHE BROOKLYN DIVINES.\n\n(1883.)\n\nAre the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively\nRead?--Increase in the Number of Infidels--Spread of Scientific\nLiterature--Rev. Dr. Eddy--Rev. Dr. Hawkins--Rev. Dr. Haynes--Rev.\nMr. Pullman--Rev. Mr. Foote--Rev. Mr. Wells--Rev. Dr. Van Dyke--Rev.\nCarpenter--Rev. Mr. Reed--Rev. Dr. McClelland--Ministers Opposed to\nDiscussion--Whipping Children--Worldliness as a Foe of the Church--The\nDrama--Human Love--Fires, Cyclones, and Other Afflictions as Promoters\nof Spirituality--Class Distinctions--Rich and Poor--Aristocracies--The\nRight to Choose One's Associates--Churches Social Affairs--Progress\nof the Roman Catholic Church--Substitutes for the Churches--Henry\nWard Beecher--How far Education is Favored by the Sects--Rivals of the\nPulpit--Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago--French Revolution\nproduced by the Priests--Why the Revolution was a Failure--Infidelity\nof One Hundred Years Ago--Ministers not more Intellectual than a Century\nAgo--Great Preachers of the Past--New Readings of Old Texts--Clerical\nAnswerers of Infidelity--Rev. Dr. Baker--Father Fransiola--Faith and\nReason--Democracy of Kindness--Moral Instruction--Morality Born of Human\nNeeds--The Conditions of Happiness--The Chief End of Man.\n\n\nTHE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.\n\n(1888.)\n\nDiscussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. Coudert,\nand ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth Century Club of\nNew York--Propositions--Toleration not a Disclaimer but a Waiver of the\nRight to Persecute--Remarks of Courtlandt Palmer--No Responsibility for\nThought--Intellectual Hospitality--Right of Free Speech--Origin of the\nterm \"Toleration\"--Slander and False Witness--Nobody can Control his own\nMind: Anecdote--Remarks of Mr. Coudert--Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, and\nIngersoll--General Woodford's Speech--Reply by Colonel Ingersoll--A\nCatholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment to Voltaire--Responsibility for\nThoughts--The Mexican Unbeliever and his Reception in the Other Country.\n\n\nA CHRISTMAS SERMON.\n\n(1891.)\n\nChristianity's Message of Grief--Christmas a Pagan Festival--Reply\nto Dr. Buckley--Charges by the Editor of the Christian Advocate--The\nTidings of Christianity--In what the Message of Grief Consists--Fear\nand Flame--An Everlasting Siberia--Dr. Buckley's Proposal to Boycott the\nTelegram--Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. Cana Day\nbe Blasphemed?--Hurting Christian feelings--For Revenue only What is\nBlasphemy?--Balaam's Ass wiser than the Prophet--The Universalists--Can\nGod do Nothing for this World?--The Universe a Blunder if Christianity\nis true--The Duty of a Newspaper--Facts Not Sectarian--The Rev.\nMr. Peters--What Infidelity Has Done--Public School System not\nChristian--Orthodox Universities--Bruno on Oxford--As to Public\nMorals--No Rewards or Punishments in the Universe--The Atonement\nImmoral--As to Sciences and Art--Bruno, Humboldt, Darwin--Scientific\nWriters Opposed by the Church--As to the Liberation of Slaves--As to\nthe Reclamation of Inebriates--Rum and Religion--The Humanity\nof Infidelity--What Infidelity says to the Dying--The Battle\nContinued--Morality not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity--The\nInquisition and Religious Persecution--Human Nature Derided by\nChristianity--Dr. DaCosta--\"Human Brotherhood\" as exemplified by\nthe History of the Church--The Church and Science, Art and\nLearning----Astronomy's Revenge--Galileo and Kepler--Mrs. Browning:\nScience Thrust into the Brain of Europe--Our Numerals--Christianity and\nLiterature--Institution's of Learning--Stephen Girard--James Lick--Our\nChronology--Historians--Natural Philosophy--Philology--Metaphysical\nResearch--Intelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian--Inventions--John\nEricsson--Emancipators--Rev. Mr. Ballou--The Right of Goa to\nPunish--Rev. Dr. Hillier--Rev. Mr. Haldeman--George A. Locey--The \"Great\nPhysician\"--Rev. Mr. Talmage--Rev. J. Benson Hamilton--How Voltaire\nDied--The Death-bed of Thomas Paine--Rev. Mr. Holloway--Original\nSin--Rev. Dr. Tyler--The Good Samaritan a Heathen--Hospitals and\nAsylums--Christian Treatment of the Insane--Rev. Dr. Buckley--The\nNorth American Review Discussion--Judge Black, Dr. Field,\nMr. Gladstone--Circulation of Obscene Literature--Eulogy of\nWhiskey--Eulogy of Tobacco--Human Stupidity that Defies the Gods--Rev.\nCharles Deems--Jesus a Believer in a Personal Devil--The Man Christ.\n\n\nSUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.\n\n(1892.)\n\nReply to the _Western Watchman_--Henry D'Arcy--Peter's\nPrevarication-Some Excellent Pagans-Heartlessness of a\nCatholic--Wishes do not Affect the Judgment--Devout Robbers--Penitent\nMurderers--Reverential Drunkards--Luther's Distich--Judge\nNormile--Self-destruction.\n\n\nIS SUICIDE A SIN?\n\n(1894.)\n\nCol. Ingersoll's First Letter in _The New York World_--Under what\nCircumstances a Man has the Right to take his Own Life--Medicine and the\nDecrees of God--Case of the Betrayed Girl--Suicides not Cowards--Suicide\nunder Roman Law--Many Suicides Insane--Insanity Caused by Religion--The\nLaw against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic--Natural and Sufficient Cause for\nSelf-destruction--Christ's Death a Suicide--Col. Ingersoll's Reply to his\nCritics--Is Suffering the Work of God?--It is not Man's Duty to\nEndure Hopeless Suffering--When Suicide is Justifiable--The\nInquisition--Alleged Cowardice of Suicides--Propositions\nDemonstrated--Suicide the Foundation of the Christian\nReligion--Redemption and Atonement--The Clergy on Infidelity\nand Suicide--Morality and Unbelief--Better injure yourself than\nAnother--Misquotation by Opponents--Cheerful View the Best--The\nWonder is that Men endure--Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New\nYork Journal)--Causes of Suicide--Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise\nSuicide--Suicides with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets--Suicide a Sin\n(Interview in The New York Herald)--Comments on Rev. Alerle St. Croix\nWright's Sermon--Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The York World)--As to\nthe Cowardice of Suicide--Germany and the Prevalence of Suicide--Killing\nof Idiots and Defective Infants--Virtue, Morality, and Religion.\n\n\nIS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?\n\n(1891.)\n\nReply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, \"Brutality and Avarice\nTriumphant\"--Croakers and Prophets of Evil--Medical Treatment\nfor Believers in Universal Evil--Alleged Fraud in Army\nContracts--Congressional Extravagance--Railroad \"Wreckers\"--How\nStockholders in Some Roads Lost Their Money--The Star-Route\nTrials--Timber and Public Lands--Watering Stock--The Formation\nof Trusts--Unsafe Hotels: European Game and Singing Birds--Seal\nFisheries--Cruelty to Animals--Our Indians--Sensible and Manly\nPatriotism--Days of Brutality--Defence of Slavery by the Websters,\nBentons, and Clays--Thirty Years' Accomplishment--Ennobling Influence of\nWar for the Right--The Lady ana the Brakeman--American Esteem of Honesty\nin Business--Republics do not Tend to Official Corruption--This the Best\nCountry in the World.\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.\n\n(1878.)\n\nDefence of the Lecture on Moses--How Biblical Miracles are sought to\nbe Proved--Some _Non Sequiturs_--A Grammatical Criticism--Christianity\nDestructive of Manners--Cuvier and Agassiz on Mosaic Cosmogony--Clerical\nAdvance agents--Christian Threats and Warnings--Catholicism the Upas\nTree--Hebrew Scholarship as a Qualification for Deciding Probababilities\n--Contradictions and Mistranslations of the Bible--Number of Errors in\nthe Scriptures--The Sunday Question.\n\n\nAN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.\n\n(1881.)\n\nCharged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware--Can a Conditionless\nDeity be Injured?--Injustice the only Blasphemy--The Lecture\nin Delaware--Laws of that State--All Sects in turn Charged with\nBlasphemy--Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought\nto Be--A Fatal Biblical Passage--Judge Comegys--Wilmington\nPreachers--States with Laws against Blasphemy--No Danger of Infidel\nMobs--No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated--Comegys a\nResurrection--Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict--Advice about the Cutting\nout of Heretics' Tongues--Objections to the Whipping-post--Mr. Bergh's\nBill--One Remedy for Wife-beating.\n\n\nA REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.\n\n(8882.)\n\nSolemnity--Charged with Being Insincere--Irreverence--Old Testament\nBetter than the New--\"Why Hurt our Feelings?\"--Involuntary Action of\nthe Brain--Source of our Conceptions of Space--Good and Bad--Right and\nWrong--The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's Prayer--Men Responsible\nfor their Actions--The \"Gradual\" Theory Not Applicable to\nthe Omniscient--Prayer Powerless to Alter Results--Religious\nPersecution--Orthodox Ministers Made Ashamed of their\nCreed--Purgatory--Infidelity and Baptism Contrasted--Modern Conception\nof the Universe--The Golden Bridge of Life--\"The Only Salutation\"--The\nTest for Admission to Heaven--\"Scurrility.\"\n\n\nA REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.\n\n(1892.)\n\nDr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving\nWorkers--Cloakmakers' Strike--Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension\nSociety--The Uncharitableness of Organized Charity--Defence of the\nCloakmakers--Life of the Underpaid--On the Assertion that Assistance\nencourages Idleness and Crime--The Man without Pity an Intellectual\nBeast--Tendency of Prosperity to Breed Selfishness--Thousands Idle\nwithout Fault--Egotism of Riches--Van Norden's Idea of Happiness--The\nWorthy Poor.\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.\n\n(1898.)\n\nInterview in a Boston Paper--Why should a Minister call this a \"Poor\"\nWorld?--Would an Infinite God make People who Need a Redeemer?--Gospel\nGossip--Christ's Sayings Repetitions--The Philosophy of Confucius--Rev.\nMr. Mills--The Charge of \"Robbery\"--The Divine Plan.\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.\n\n(1898.)\n\nInterview in the New York Journal--Rev. Roberts. MacArthur--A\nPersonal Devil--Devils who held Conversations with Christ not simply\npersonifications of Evil--The Temptation--The \"Man of Straw\"--Christ's\nMission authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils--Spain--God\nResponsible for the Actions of Man--Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks--Rev. Dr. E.\nF. Moldehnke--Patience amidst the Misfortunes of Others--Yellow Fever\nas a Divine Agent--The Doctrine that All is for the Best--Rev. Mr.\nHamlin--Why Did God Create a Successful Rival?--A Compliment by the\nRev. Mr. Belcher--Rev. W. C. Buchanan--No Argument Old until it is\nAnswered--Why should God Create sentient Beings to be Damned?--Rev. J.\nW. Campbell--Rev. Henry Frank--Rev. E. C.J. Kraeling on Christ and the\nDevil--Would he make a World like This?\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.\n\n     * This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San\n     Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various\n     clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon\n     him after the delivery of his lectures, \"The Liberty of Man,\n     Woman and Child,\" and \"The Ghosts.\"\n\n\nI.\n\nAGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the religious press, I offer\nin evidence this magnificent audience. Although I represent but a small\npart of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that part shall not\nbe defiled or smirched by a single personality. Whatever I say, I shall\nsay because I believe it will tend to make this world grander, man\nnearer just, the father kinder, the mother more loving, the children\nmore affectionate, and because I believe it will make an additional\nflower bloom in the pathway of every one who hears me.\n\nIn the first place, what have I said? What has been my offence? What\nhave I done? I am spoken of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that\nin the absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his innocent\nflock. What have I said?\n\nI delivered a lecture entitled, \"The Liberty of Man, Woman and\nChild.\" In that lecture I said that man was entitled to physical and\nintellectual liberty. I defined physical liberty to be the right to do\nright; the right to do anything that did not interfere with the real\nhappiness of others. I defined intellectual liberty to be the right to\nthink right, and the right to think wrong--provided you did your best to\nthink right.\n\nThis must be so, because thought is only an instrumentality by which we\nseek to ascertain the truth. Every man has the right to think, whether\nhis thought is in reality right or wrong; and he cannot be accountable\nto any being for thinking wrong. There is upon man, so far as thought\nis concerned, the obligation to think the best he can, and to honestly\nexpress his best thought. Whenever he finds what is right, or what he\nhonestly believes to be the right, he is less than a man if he fears to\nexpress his conviction before an assembled world.\n\nThe right to do right is my definition of physical liberty. \"The right\nof one human being ceases where the right of another commences.\" My\ndefinition of intellectual liberty is, the right to think, whether you\nthink right or wrong, provided you do your best to think right.\n\nI believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality--the Blessed Trinity of\nHumanity.\n\nI believe in Observation, Reason and Experience--the Blessed Trinity of\nScience.\n\nI believe in Man, Woman and Child--the Blessed Trinity of Life and Joy.\n\nI have said, and still say, that you have no right to endeavor by force\nto compel another to think your way--that man has no right to compel his\nfellow-man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism. I have\nsaid, and still say, that even an infinite God has and can have no right\nto compel by force or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept\na dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such a power is\nincapable of being exercised. You may compel a man to say that he has\nchanged his mind. You may force him to say that he agrees with you. In\nthis way, however, you make hypocrites, not converts. Is it possible\nthat a god wishes the worship of a slave? Does a god desire the homage\nof a coward? Does he really long for the adoration of a hypocrite? Is\nit possible that he requires the worship of one who dare not think? If I\nwere a god it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and love of\none grand, brave man, with plenty of heart and plenty of brain, than\nthe blind worship, the ignorant adoration, the trembling homage of a\nuniverse of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned by the orthodox\nguardians of this great city not to think. I am told that I am in danger\nof hell; that for me to express my honest convictions is to excite the\nwrath of God. They inform me that unless I believe in a certain way,\nmeaning their way, I am in danger of everlasting fire.\n\nThere was a time when these threats whitened the faces of men with fear.\nThat time has substantially passed away. For a hundred years hell has\nbeen gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly dying out, the\nbrimstone is nearly exhausted, the fires have been burning lower and\nlower, and the climate gradually changing. To such an extent has the\nchange already been effected that if I were going there to-night I would\ntake an overcoat and a box of matches.\n\nThey say that the eternal future of man depends upon his belief. I deny\nit. A conclusion honestly arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be\na crime; and the man who says it is, does not think so. The god who\npunishes it as a crime is simply an infamous tyrant. As for me, I would\na thousand times rather go to perdition and suffer its torments with\nthe brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go to heaven and keep the\ncompany of a god who would damn his children for an honest belief.\n\nThe next thing I have said is, that woman is the equal of man; that she\nhas every right that man has, and one more--the right to be protected,\nbecause she is the weaker. I have said that marriage should be an\nabsolutely perfect partnership of body and soul; that a man should treat\nhis wife like a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life with\nperfume and with joy. I have said that a husband had no right to be\nmorose; that he had no right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the\njoy of life.\n\nI have said that when he went home he should go like a ray of light, and\nfill his house so full of joy that it would burst out of the doors and\nwindows and illumine even the darkness of night. I said that marriage\nwas the holiest, highest, the most sacred institution among men; that\nit took millions of years for woman to advance from the condition of\nabsolute servitude, from the absolute slavery where the Bible found her\nand left her, up to the position she occupies at present. I have pleaded\nfor the rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what is more, for\nthe rights of little children. I have said that they could be governed\nby affection, by love, and that my heart went out to all the children\nof poverty and of crime; to the children that live in the narrow streets\nand in the sub-cellars; to the children that run and hide when they hear\nthe footsteps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale when\nthey hear their names pronounced even by a mother; to all the little\nchildren, the flotsam and jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have\nsaid that my heart goes out to them one and all; I have asked fathers\nand mothers to cease beating their own flesh and blood. I have said to\nthem, When your child does wrong, put your arms around him; let him feel\nyour heart beat against his. It is easier to control your child with a\nkiss than with a club.\n\nFor expressing these sentiments, I have been denounced by the religious\npress and by ministers in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of\norder, as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however, I make no\ncomplaint. A few years ago they would have burned me at the stake and I\nshould have been compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces through\nflame and smoke. They cannot do it now or they would. One hundred years\nago I would have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights of men.\nFifty years ago I would have been imprisoned. Fifty years ago my wife\nand my children would have been torn from my arms in the name of the\nmost merciful God. Twenty-five years ago I could not have made a living\nin the United States at the practice of law; but I can now. I would not\nthen have been allowed to express my thought; but I can now, and I will.\nAnd when I think about the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is\nilluminated with glory and the air is filled with wings.\n\nI then delivered another lecture entitled \"Ghosts,\" in which I sought to\nshow that man had been controlled by phantoms of his own imagination;\nin which I sought to show these imps of darkness, these devils, had all\nbeen produced by superstition; in which I endeavored to prove that man\nhad groveled in the dust before monsters of his own creation; in which I\nendeavored to demonstrate that the many had delved in the soil that the\nfew might live in idleness, that the many had lived in caves and dens\nthat the few might dwell in palaces of gold; in which I endeavored to\nshow that man had received nothing from these ghosts except hatred,\nexcept ignorance, except unhappiness, and that in the name of phantoms\nman had covered the face of the world with tears. And for this, I have\nbeen assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal forgiveness. So far\nas any argument I have produced is concerned, it cannot in any way make\nthe slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad man. It cannot in\nany way make the slightest difference whether my personal character is\ngood or bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I am concerned,\nI am willing to stake the whole question upon that issue. That is not,\nhowever, the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be decided. The\nquestion is, whether what I said is true.\n\nI did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain things--among other\nthings a book known as the Bible. From the ghosts we received that\nbook; and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that book rests the\ndoctrine of the immortality of the human soul. This I deny.\n\nWhether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in nature and cannot be\nchanged by any book whatever. If I am immortal, I am. If am not, no book\ncan render me so. It is no mure wonderful that I should live again than\nthat I do live.\n\nThe doctrine of immortality is not based upon any book. The foundation\nof that idea is not a creed. The idea of immortality, which, like a\nsea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, beating with its countless\nwaves of hope and fear against the shores and rocks of fate and time,\nwas not born of any book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child\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. It is the eternal bow--Hope shining\nupon the tears of Grief.\n\nI did say that these ghosts taught that human slavery was right. If\nthere is a crime beneath the shining stars it is the crime of enslaving\na human being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the master as\nwell. When you put a chain upon the limbs of another, you put a fetter\nalso upon your own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slaveholder.\nThe slave can at least be just--the slaveholder cannot. I had rather be\nrobbed than be a robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a\nthief. I have said, and I do say, that the Bible upheld, sustained and\nsanctioned the institution of human slavery; and before I get through I\nwill prove it.\n\nI said that to the same book we are indebted, to a great degree, for the\ndoctrine of witchcraft. Relying upon its supposed sacred texts, people\nwere hanged and their bodies burned for getting up storms at sea with\nthe intent of drowning royal vermin. Every possible offence was punished\nunder the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high treason.\n\nI also said, and I still say, that the book we obtained from the ghosts,\nfor the guidance of man, upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy;\nand I will also prove that. And the same book teaches, not political\nliberty, but political tyranny.\n\nI also said that the author of the book given us by the ghosts knew\nnothing about astronomy, still less about geology, still less, if\npossible, about medicine, and still less about legislation.\n\nThis is what I have said concerning the aristocracy of the air. I am\nwell aware that having said it I ought to be able to prove the truth\nof my words. I have said these things. No one ever said them in better\nnature than I have. I have not the slightest malice--a victor never\nfelt malice. As soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen felt\ncalled upon to answer me. I want to say that if there is anything I like\nin the world it is fairness. And one reason I like it so well is that\nI have had so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean\nand hateful things. I have read a great many religious papers and\ndiscussions and think that I now know all the infamous words in our\nlanguage. I know how to account for every noble action by a mean and\nwretched motive, and that, in my judgment, embraces nearly the entire\nscience of modern theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon \"The\nLiberty of Man, Woman and Child,\" I was charged with having said that\nthere is nothing back of nature, and that nature with its infinite arms\nembraces everything; and thereupon I was informed that I believed in\nnothing but matter and force, that I believed only in earth, that I did\nnot believe in spirit. If by spirit you mean that which thinks, then I\nam a believer in spirit. If you mean by spirit the something that says\n\"I,\" the something that reasons, hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a\nbeliever in spirit. Whatever spirit there is in the universe must be a\nnatural thing, and not superimposed upon nature. All that I can say\nis, that whatever is, is natural. And there is as much goodness, in my\njudgment, as much spirit in this world as in any other; and you are just\nas near the heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere. One of\nyour clergymen says in answer, as he supposes, to me, that there is\nmatter and force and spirit. Well, can matter exist without force? What\nwould keep it together? What would keep the finest possible conceivable\natom together unless there was force? Can you imagine such a thing as\nmatter without force? Can you conceive of force without matter? Can you\nconceive of force floating about attached to nothing? Can you possibly\nconceive of this? No human being can conceive of force without matter.\n\"You cannot conceive of force being harnessed or hitched to matter as\nyou would hitch horses to a carriage.\" You cannot. Now, what is spirit?\nThey say spirit is the first thing that was. It seems to me, however, as\nthough spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the commencement.\nThey say it was first. Very well. Spirit without force, a spirit without\nany matter--what would that spirit do? No force, no matter!--a spirit\nliving in an infinite vacuum. What would such a spirit turn its\nparticular attention to? This spirit, according to these theologians,\ncreated the world, the universe; and if it did, there must have been a\ntime when it commenced to create; and back of that there must have\nbeen an eternity spent in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that\na spirit existed during an eternity without any force and without any\nmatter? Is it possible that force could exist without matter or spirit?\nIs it possible that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean\nsomething without force? The only answer I can give to all these\nquestions is, I do not know. For my part, I do not know what spirit is,\nif there is any. I do not know what matter is, neither am I acquainted\nwith the elements of force. If you mean by matter that which I can\ntouch, that which occupies space, then I believe in matter. If you mean\nby force anything that can overcome weight, that can overcome what\nwe call gravity or inertia; if you mean by force that which moves the\nmolecules of matter, or the movement itself, then I believe in force.\nIf you mean by spirit that which thinks and loves, then I believe in\nspirit. There is, however, no propriety in wasting any time about the\nscience of metaphysics. I will give you my definition of metaphysics:\nTwo fools get together; each admits what neither can prove, and\nthereupon both of them say, \"hence we infer.\" That is all there is of\nmetaphysics.\n\nThese gentlemen, however, say to me that all my doctrine about the\ntreatment of wives and children, all my ideas of the rights of man, all\nthese are wrong, because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01\nspirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an eternity before\nthere was any force or any matter. Exactly how spirit could act without\nforce we do not understand. That we must take upon credit. How spirit\ncould create matter without force is a serious question, and we are\ntoo reverent to press such an inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied,\nhowever, that spirit is entirely independent of force and matter, and\nany man who denies this must be \"a malevolent and infamous wretch.\"\n\nAnother reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce all I have said as the\ndoctrine of negation. And we are informed by him--speaking I presume\nfrom experience--that negation is a poor thing to die by. He tells us\nthat the last hours are the grand testing hours. They are the hours when\natheists disown their principles and infidels bewail their folly--\"that\nVoltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against Christianity, but their\ndeath-bed scenes are too harrowing for recital\"--He also states that\n\"another French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify Voltaire,\nbut that a stronger man than Voltaire had taken possession of him,\nand he cried 'Retire! it is you that have brought me to my present\nstate--Begone! what a rich glory you have brought me.'\" This, my\nfriends, is the same old, old falsehood that has been repeated again and\nagain by the lips of hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these\nstories a solitary word of truth; and every intelligent man knows all\nthese death-bed accounts to be entirely and utterly false. They\nare taken, however, by the mass of the church as evidence that all\nopposition to Christianity, so-called, fills the bed of the dying\ninfidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So far as my experience\ngoes, the bad die in many instances as placidly as the good. I have\nsometimes thought that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is engraved\nthe record of nearly every possible crime, dies without a shudder,\nwithout a tremor, while some grand, good man, remembering during his\nlast moments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it may be in the\nheat of anger, dies with remorseful words upon his lips. Nearly every\nmurderer who is hanged, dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never\nthought it proved that he had lived a good and useful life. Neither have\nI imagined that it sanctified the crime for which he suffered death.\nThe fact is, that when man approaches natural death, his powers, his\nintellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a child. He has\nless and less sense. And just in proportion as he loses his reasoning\npowers, he goes back to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes\nof youth cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his mother.\nOf this very fact, there is not a more beautiful description than that\ngiven by Shakespeare when he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack\nFalstaff, in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: \"A' made a finer end, and\nwent away, an it had been my christom child; a' parted ev'n just between\ntwelve and one, ev'n at the turning o' the tide; for after I saw him\nfumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his\nfingers' end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp\nas a pen, and a' babbled of green fields.\" As the genius of Shakespeare\nmakes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes, decked with daisies, so\ndeath takes the dying back to the scenes of their childhood, and they\nare clasped once more to the breasts of mothers. They go back, for the\nreason that nearly every superstition in the world has been sanctified\nby some sweet and placid mother. Remember, the superstition has never\nsanctified the mother, but the mother has sanctified the superstition.\nThe young Mohammedan, who now lies dying upon some field of battle,\nthinks sweet and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will, as the\nblood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy verse from the blessed\nKoran. Every superstition in the world that is now held sacred has been\nmade so by mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home. I know\nwhat it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender, to throw away every\nsuperstition, although sanctified by the memory of those they loved.\nWhoever has thrown away these superstitions has been pursued by his\nfellow-men, From the day of the death of Voltaire the church has pursued\nhim as though he had been the vilest criminal. A little over one hundred\nyears ago, Catholicism, the inventor of instruments of torture, red with\nthe innocent blood of millions, felt in its heartless breast the dagger\nof Voltaire. From that blow the Catholic Church never can recover. Livid\nwith hatred she launched at her assassin the curse of Rome, and ignorant\nProtestants have echoed that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire, and\nwhenever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume floating above\nsome grand knight--a knight who rides to a walled city and demands\nan unconditional surrender. I like him. He was once imprisoned in the\nBastile, and while in that frightful fortress--and I like to tell it--he\nchanged his name. His name was Francois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell\nhe changed this name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years afterward\nthe Bastile was torn down to the very dust, \"Voltaire\" was the battle\ncry of the destroyers who did it. I like him because he did more for\nreligious toleration than any other man who ever lived or died. I admire\nhim because he did more to do away with torture in civil proceedings\nthan any other man. I like him because he was always upon the side of\njustice, upon the side of progress. I like him in spite of his faults,\nbecause he had many and splendid virtues. I like him because his\ndoctrines have never brought unhappiness to any country. I like him\nbecause he hated tyranny; and when he died he died as serenely as ever\nmortal died; he spoke to his servant recognizing him as a man. He said\nto him, calling him by name: \"My friend, farewell.\" These were the last\nwords of Voltaire. And this was the only frightful scene enacted at his\nbed of death. I like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the\nintellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because from his throne at\nthe foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite\nin Christendom.\n\nI will give to any clergyman in the city of San Francisco a thousand\ndollars in gold to substantiate the story that the death of Voltaire was\nnot as peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same absurd story is told\nof Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a patriot--he was the first man in\nthe world to write these words: \"The Free and Independent States of\nAmerica.\" He was the first man to convince the American people that they\nought to separate themselves from Great Britain. \"His pen did as\nmuch, to say the least, for the liberty of America, as the sword of\nWashington.\" The men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic services\nrepay them with slander and calumny. If there is in this world a crime,\ningratitude is a crime. And as for myself, I am not willing to receive\nanything from any man without making at least an acknowledgment of my\nobligation. Y et these clergymen, whose very right to stand in their\npulpits and preach, was secured to them by such men as Thomas Paine,\ndelight in slandering the reputation of that great man. They tell their\nhearers that he died in fear,--that he died in agony, hearing devils\nrattle chains, and that the infinite God condescended to frighten a\ndying man. I will give one thousand dollars in gold to any clergyman\nin San Francisco who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories\nconcerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is not one word of truth in\nthese accounts; not one word.\n\nLet me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you please, in what is\ncalled a reverent spirit. Suppose that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and\nVolney and Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying \"My God, My God, why\nhast thou forsaken me?\" what would the clergymen of this city then have\nsaid?\n\nTo resort to these foolish calumnies about the great men who have\nopposed the superstitions of the world, is in my judgment, unbecoming\nany intelligent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to die? The\nquestion is, who is right? The great question is not, who died right,\nbut who lived right? There is infinitely more responsibility in living\nthan in dying. The moment of death is the most unimportant moment of\nlife. Nothing can be done then. You cannot even do a favor for a friend,\nexcept to remember him in your will. It is a moment when life ceases to\nbe of value. While living, while you have health and strength, you\ncan augment the happiness of your fellow-men; and the man who has made\nothers happy need not be afraid to die. Yet these believers, as they\ncall themselves, these believers who hope for immortality--thousands\nof them, will rob their neighbors, thousands of them will do numberless\nacts of injustice, when, according to their belief, the witnesses of\ntheir infamy will live forever; and the men whom they have injured and\noutraged, will meet them in every glittering star through all the ages\nyet to be.\n\nAs for me, I would rather do a generous action, and read the record in\nthe grateful faces of my fellow-men.\n\nThese gentlemen who attack me are orthodox now, but the men who started\ntheir churches were heretics.\n\nThe first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first Baptist was a heretic.\nThe first Congregationalist was a heretic. The first Christian was\ndenounced as a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment they get\nnumerous enough to be in the majority in some locality, begin to call\nthemselves orthodox. Can there be any impudence beyond this?\n\nThe first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic; and he was the best\nBaptist that I have ever heard anything about. I always liked him. He\nwas a good man--Roger Williams. He was the first man, so far as I know,\nin this country, who publicly said that the soul of man should be free.\nAnd it was a wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to say\nthat, could think that any particular form of baptism was necessary to\nsalvation. It does strike me that a man of great brain and thought could\nnot possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being, the question\nwhether he should dwell with angels, or be tossed upon eternal waves\nof fire, should be settled by the manner in which he had been baptized.\nThat seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought and heart, that it is\na matter of amazement to me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance\nof baptism as of any importance whatever. If we were at the judgment\nseat to-night, and the Supreme Being, in our hearing, should ask a man:\n\n\"Have you been a good man?\" and the man replied:\n\n\"Tolerably good.\"\n\n\"Did you love your wife and children?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Did you try and make them happy?\"\n\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Did you try and make your neighbors happy?\" \"Yes, I paid my debts: I\ngave heaping measure, and I never cared whether I was thanked for it or\nnot.\"\n\nSuppose the Supreme Being then should say:\n\n\"Were you ever baptized?\" and the man should reply:\n\n\"I am sorry to say I never was.\"\n\nCould a solitary person of sense hear that question asked, by the\nSupreme Being, without laughing, even if he knew that his own case was\nto be called next?\n\nI happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders--how I\never got into such bad company, I don't know,--and one of them asked\nwhat I thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much about it; did\nnot know much about it; didn't want to say anything, but they insisted\nupon it. I said, \"Well, I'll give you my opinion--with soap, baptism is\na good thing.\"\n\nThe Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I am informed, upon several\noccasions. I have read the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them\ndown. He said some things about me not entirely pleasant, which I do not\nwish to repeat. In his reply he takes the ground:\n\n_First_. That the Bible is not an immoral book, because he swore upon it\nor by it when he joined the Masons.\n\n_Second_. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes upon the supposition\nthat he had softening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the\nheart.\n\n_Third._ That the Hebrews had the right to slay all the inhabitants of\nCanaan, according to the doctrine of the \"survival of the fittest.\" He\ntakes the ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the ripping\nopen of women with child by the sword of war, was an act of sublime\nmercy. He justifies a war of extermination; he applauds every act of\ncruelty and murder. He says that the Canaanites ought to have been\nturned from their homes; that men guilty of no crime except fighting for\ntheir country, old men with gray hairs, old mothers and little, dimpled,\nprattling children, ought to have been sacrificed upon the altar of war;\nthat it was an act of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious\npersecution into the bodies of all, old and young. This is what the\nreverend gentleman is pleased to call mercy. If this is mercy let us\nhave injustice. If there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry that\nman exists. All this, however, is justified upon the ground that God\nhas the right to do as he pleases with the being he has created. This I\ndeny. Such a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose I could take a stone\nand in one moment change it into a sentient, hoping, loving human being,\nwould I have the right to torture it? Would I have the right to give it\npain? No one but a fiend would either exercise or justify such a right.\nEven if there is a God who created us all he has no such right. Above\nany God that can exist, in the infinite serenity forever sits the figure\nof justice; and this God, no matter how great and infinite he may be, is\nbound to do justice.\n\n_Fourth._ That God chose the Jews and governed them personally for\nthousands of years, and drove out the Canaanites in order that his\npeculiar people might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters; that\nhe wished to make of the Hebrews a great nation, and that, consequently,\nhe was justified in destroying the original inhabitants of that country.\nIt seems to me that the end hardly justified the means. According to the\naccount, God governed the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded\nin civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified him the first\nopportunity they had. Such an administration can hardly be called a\nsuccess.\n\n_Fifth._ The reverend gentleman seems to think that the practice of\npolygamy after all is not a bad thing when compared with the crime\nof exhibiting a picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the corrupting\ninfluence of such pictures he descants at great length, and attacks with\nall the bitterness of the narrow theologian the masterpieces of art.\nAllow me to say one word about art. That is one of the most beautiful\nwords in our language--Art. And it never seemed to me necessary for\nart to go in partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of Angelo, of\nRaffaelle. I like the productions of those splendid souls that put their\nideas of beauty upon the canvas uncovered.\n\n     \"There are brave souls in every land\n     Who worship nature, grand and nude,\n     And who with swift indignant hand\n     Tear off the fig leaves of the prude.\"\n\n_Sixth_. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions slavery, but that\nit is not an immoral book even if it does.\n\nI can account for these statements, for these arguments, only as\nthe reverend gentleman has accounted for the sins of Solomon--\"by a\nsoftening of the brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart.\"\n\nIt does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and really thought my\nfellow-man was going down to the bottomless pit; that he was going to\nmisery and agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try and save\nhim. It does seem to me, that instead of having my mouth filled with\nepithets and invectives; instead of drawing the lips of malice back from\nthe teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would be filled with\ntears. It seems to me that I would do what little I could to reclaim\nhim. I would talk to him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms\nof affection about him. I would not speak of him as though he were a\nwild beast. I would not speak to him as though he were a brute. I would\nthink of him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture among the\ndamned, and my heart would be filled with sympathy, not hatred--my eyes\nwith tears, not scorn.\n\nIf there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so narrowed and\nwithered by the blight and breath of superstition, as cheerfully to\ndefend the most frightful crimes of which we have a record--a man so\nhardened and petrified by creed and dogma that he hesitates not to\ndefend even the institution of human slavery--so lost to all sense of\npity that he applauds murder and rapine as though they were acts of the\nloftiest self-denial.\n\nThe next gentleman who has endeavored to answer what I have said, is the\nRev. Samuel Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled \"Ghosts\nagainst God or Ingersoll against Honesty.\" I presume he imagines himself\nto be the defendant in both cases.\n\nThis gentleman apologized for attending an infidel lecture, upon the\nground that he had to contribute to the support of a \"materialistic\ndemon.\" To say the least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied.\nI am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so much better than\ndid the infidels in the olden time that I am more than satisfied. It is\na little thing that I bear.\n\nThe brave men of the past endured the instruments of torture. They were\nstretched upon racks; their feet were crushed in iron boots; they stood\nupon the shores of exile and gazed with tearful eyes toward home and\nnative land. They were taken from their firesides, from their wives,\nfrom their children; they were taken to the public square; they were\nchained to stakes, and their ashes were scattered by the countless hands\nof hatred. I am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.\n\nThis gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the support of a\n\"materialistic demon.\" When I saw that statement I will tell you what I\ndid. I knew the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom to think\nthat he had contributed a dollar toward my support, toward the support\nof a \"materialistic demon.\" I wrote him a letter and I said:\n\n\"My Dear Sir: In order to relieve your conscience of the crime of having\ncontributed to the support of an unbeliever in ghosts, I hereby enclose\nthe amount you paid to attend my lecture.\" I then gave him a little\ngood advice. I advised him to be charitable, to be kind, and regretted\nexceedingly that any man could listen to one of my talks for an hour\nand a half and not go away satisfied that all men had the same right to\nthink.\n\nThis man denied having received the money, but it was traced to him\nthrough a blot on the envelope.\n\nThis gentleman avers that everything that I said about persecution\nis applicable to the Catholic Church only. That is what he says. The\nCatholics have probably persecuted more than any other church, simply\nbecause that church has had more power, simply because it has been more\nof a church. It has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the\nCatholics come nearer believing what they say about their church than\nother Christians do. Was it a Catholic persecution that drove the\nPuritan fathers from England? Was it not the storm of Episcopal\npersecution that filled the sails of the Mayflower? Was it not a\nProtestant persecution that drove the Ark and Dove to America? Let us be\nhonest. Who went to Scotland and persecuted the Presbyterians? Who was\nit that chained to the stake that splendid girl by the sands of the\nsea for not saying \"God save the king\"? She was worthy to have been the\nmother of Caesar. She would not say \"God save the king,\" but she would\nsay \"God save the king, if it be God's will.\" Protestants ordered her to\nsay \"God save the king,\" and no more. She said, \"I will not,\" and they\nchained her to a stake in the sand and allowed her to be drowned by\nthe rising of the inexorable tide. Who did this? Protestants. Who drove\nRoger Williams from Massachusetts? Protestants. Who sold white Quaker\nchildren into slavery? Protestants. Who cut out the tongues of Quakers?\nWho burned and destroyed men and women and children charged with\nimpossible crimes? Protestants. The Protestants have persecuted exactly\nto the extent of their power. The Catholics have done the same.\n\nI want, however, to be just. The first people to pass an act of\nreligious toleration in the New World were the Catholics of Maryland.\nThe next were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger Williams.\nThe Catholics passed the act of religious toleration, and after the\nProtestants got into power again in England, and also in the colony of\nMaryland, they repealed the law of toleration and passed another law\ndeclaring the Catholics from under the protection of all law.\nAfterward, the Catholics again got into power and had the generosity and\nmagnanimity to re-enact the old law. And, so far as I know, it is the\nonly good record upon the subject of religious toleration the Catholics\nhave in this world, and I am always willing to give them credit for it.\n\nThis gentleman also says that infidelity has done nothing for the world\nin the development of the arts and sciences. Does he not know that\nnearly every man who took a forward step was denounced by the church as\na heretic and infidel? Does he not know that the church has in all ages\npersecuted the astronomers, the geologists, the logicians? Does he not\nknow that even to-day the church slanders and maligns the foremost men?\nHas he ever heard of Tyndall, of Huxley? Is he acquainted with John\nW. Draper, one of the leading minds of the world? Did he ever hear of\nAuguste Comte, the great Frenchman? Did he ever hear of Descartes, of\nLaplace, of Spinoza? In short, has he ever heard of a man who took a\nstep in advance of his time?\n\nOrthodoxy never advances. When it advances, it ceases to be orthodoxy\nand becomes heresy. Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual\ncloaca; it cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity is simply\nfree thought. Every man who really owns his own brain is, in the\nestimation of the church, an infidel.\n\nThere is a paper published in this city called _The Occident_. The\nEditor has seen fit to speak of me, and of the people who have assembled\nto hear me, in the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible.\nI cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He alleges that the people\nwho assemble to hear me are the low, the debauched and the infamous.\nThe man who reads that paper ought to read it with tongs. It is a\nPresbyterian sheet; and would gladly treat me as John Calvin treated\nCastalio. Castalio was the first minister in the history of Christendom\nwho acknowledged the innocence of honest error, and John Calvin followed\nhim like a sleuth-hound of perdition. He called him a \"dog of Satan;\"\nsaid that he had crucified Christ afresh; and pursued him to the very\ngrave. The editor of this paper is still warming his hands at the fire\nthat burned Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce hatred of\neverything that is free. But what right have we to expect anything good\nof a man who believes in the eternal damnation of infants?\n\nThere may have been sometime in the history of the world a worse\nreligion than Old School Presbyterianism, but if there ever was, from\ncannibalism to civilization, I have never heard of it.\n\nI make a distinction between the members and the creed of that church. I\nknow many who are a thousand times better than the creed--good, warm and\nsplendid friends of mine. I would do anything in the world for them. And\nI have said to them a hundred times, \"You are a thousand times better\nthan your creed.\" But when you come down to the doctrine of the\ndamnation of infants, it is the deformity of deformities. The editor\nof this paper is engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines of\nfore-ordination and damnation--those twin comforts of the Presbyterian\ncreed, and warning them against the frightful effects of reasoning in\nany manner for themselves. He regards the intellectually free as the\nlowest, the vilest and the meanest, as men who wish to sin, as men\nwho are longing to commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off all\nrestraint.\n\nMy friends, every chain thrown from the body puts an additional\nobligation upon the soul. Every man who is free, puts a responsibility\nupon his brain and upon his heart. You, who never want responsibility,\ngive your souls to some church. You, who never want the feeling that you\nare under obligation to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are\nwilling to feel and meet responsibility; if you feel that you must give\nan account not only to yourselves but to every human being whom you\ninjure, then you must be free. Where there is no freedom, there can be\nno responsibility.\n\nIt is a mystery to me why the editors of religious papers are so\nmalicious, why they endeavor to answer argument with calumny. Is it\nbecause they feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands? Is it\nthe result of impotent rage? Is it because there is being written upon\nevery orthodox brain a certificate of intellectual inferiority?\n\nThis same editor assures his readers that what I say is not worth\nanswering, and yet he devotes column after column of his journal to that\nvery purpose. He states that I am no speaker, no orator; and upon the\nsame page admits that he did not hear me, giving as a reason that he\ndoes not think it right to pay money for such a purpose. Recollect, that\nin a religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criticises a statue\nor a painting, condemns it, and at the end of the criticism says that he\nnever saw it. He criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at\nthe end says, \"I never heard him, and I never saw him.\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, I have never heard of any of these gentlemen who\nthought it necessary to hear what any man said in order to answer him.\n\nThe next gentleman who answered me is the Rev. Mr. Ijams. And I must\nsay, so far as I can see, in his argument, or in his mode of treatment,\nhe is a kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several mistakes as\nto what I really said, but the fault I suppose must have been in the\nreport. I am made to say in the report of his sermon, \"There is no\nsacred place in all the universe.\" What I did say was, \"There is no\nsacred place in all the universe of thought. There is nothing too holy\nto be investigated, nothing too divine to be understood. The fields of\nthought are fenceless, and without a wall.\" I say this to-night.\n\nMr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man had not only the right\nto do right, but also the right to do wrong. What I really said was, man\nhas the right to do right, and the right to think right, and the right\nto think wrong. Thought is a means of ascertaining truth, a mode by\nwhich we arrive at conclusions. And if no one has a right to think,\nunless he thinks right, he would only have the right to think upon\nself-evident propositions. In all respects, with the exception of these\nmisstatements to which I have called your attention, so far as I can\nsee, Mr. Ijams was perfectly fair, and treated me as though I had the\nordinary rights of a human being. I take this occasion to thank him.\n\nA great many papers, a great many people, a good many ministers and a\nmultitude of men, have had their say, and have expressed themselves\nwith the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I can only reply to\nthose who have made a parade of answering me. Many have said it is not\nworth answering, and then proceeded to answer. They have said, he has\nproduced no argument, and then have endeavored to refute it. They have\nsaid it is simply the old straw that has been thrashed over and over\nagain for years and years. If all I have said is nothing, if it is\nall idle and foolish, why do they take up the time of their fellow-men\nreplying to me? Why do they fill their religious papers with criticisms,\nif all I have said and done reminds them, according to the Rev. Mr.\nGuard, of \"some little dog barking at a railway train\"? Why stop the\ntrain, why send for the directors, why hold a consultation and finally\nsay, we must settle with that dog or stop running these cars?\n\nProbably the best way to answer them all, is to prove beyond cavil the\ntruth of what I have said.\n\n\nDOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE HIS BROTHER?\n\n\nII.\n\nIF this \"sacred\" book teaches man to enslave his brother, it is not\ninspired. A god who would establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as\nany devil could be.\n\n\"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,\nof them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which\nthey begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.\n\n\"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,\nto inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever.\n\n\"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, _shall be_\nof the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids.\"--Leviticus xxv.\n\nThis is white slavery. This allows one white man to buy another, to buy\na woman, to separate families and rob a mother of her child. This makes\nthe whip upon the naked backs of men and women a legal tender for labor\nperformed. This is the kind of slavery established by the most merciful\nGod. The reason given for all this, is, that the persons whom they\nenslaved were heathen. You may enslave them because they are not\northodox. If you can find anybody who does not believe in me, the God\nof the Jews, you may steal his wife from his arms, and her babe from\nthe cradle. If you can find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew\nJehovah, you may steal her prattling child from her breast. Can any one\nconceive of anything more infamous? Can any one find in the literature\nof this world more frightful words ascribed even to a demon? And all\nthis is found in that most beautiful and poetic chapter known as the\n25th of Leviticus--from the Bible--from this sacred gift of God--this\n\"Magna Charta of human freedom.\"\n\n2. \"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the\nseventh he shall go out free for nothing.\n\n3. \"If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were\nmarried, then his wife shall go out with him.\n\n4. \"If his master have given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or\ndaughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall\ngo out by himself.\n\n5. \"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and\nchildren; I w ill not go out free:\n\n6. \"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring\nhim to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his\near through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.\"--_Exodus,\nxxi._\n\nThe slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will give up his wife and\nchildren. He must remain in slavery for the sake of wife and child. This\nis another of the laws of the most merciful God. This God changes even\nlove into a chain. Children are used by him as manacles and fetters,\nand wives become the keepers of prisons. Any man who believes that such\nhideous laws were made by an infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in\nmy judgment, insane or totally depraved.\n\nThese are the doctrines of the Old Testament. What is the doctrine\nof the New? What message had he who came from heaven's throne for the\noppressed of earth? What words of sympathy, what words of cheer, for\nthose who labored and toiled without reward? Let us see:\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters, according to\nthe flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto\nChrist.\"--_Ephesians, vi._\n\nThis is the salutation of the most merciful God to a slave, to a woman\nwho has been robbed of her child--to a man tracked by hounds through\nlonely swamps--to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding--to a mother\nweeping above an empty cradle.\n\n\"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle, but also to the fro ward.\"--_I Peter ii., 18_.\n\n\"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure\ngrief, suffering wrongfully.\"--_I Peter ii., 19_.\n\nIt certainly must be an immense pleasure to God to see a man work\npatiently for nothing. It must please the Most High to see a slave with\nhis wife and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave escapes\nfrom slavery and is pursued, how musical the baying of the bloodhound\nmust be to the ears of this most merciful God. All this is simply\ninfamous. On the throne of this universe there sits no such monster.\n\n\"Servants, obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh; not\nwith eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing\nGod.\"--_Col. iii., 22_.\n\nThe apostle here seems afraid that the slave would not work every moment\nthat his strength permitted. He really seems to have feared that\nhe might not at all times do the very best he could to promote the\ninterests of the thief who claimed to own him. And speaking to all\nslaves, in the name of the Father of All, this apostle says: \"Obey in\nall things your masters, not with eye-service, but with singleness of\nheart, fearing God.\" He says to them in substance, There is no way you\ncan so well please God as to work honestly for a thief.\n\n1. \"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters\nworthy of all honor, that the name of God and _his_ doctrine be not\nblasphemed.\"\n\nThink of serving God by honoring a robber! Think of bringing the name\nand doctrine of God into universal contempt by claiming to own yourself!\n\n2. \"And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them,\nbecause they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are\nfaithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and\nexhort.\"\n\nThat is to say, do not despise Christians who steal the labor of others.\nDo not hold in contempt the \"faithful and beloved, partakers of the\nbenefit,\" who turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.\n\n3. \"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words\n_even_ to words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is\naccording to godliness.\n\n4. \"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes\nof words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,\n\n5. \"Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the\ntruth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.\"\n\nThis seems to be the opinion the apostles entertained of the early\nabolitionists. Seeking to give human beings their rights, seeking to\ngive labor its just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that divine\ngarment of the soul, Liberty,--all this was denounced by the apostle as\na simple strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings\nand perverse disputing, destitute of truth.\n\n6. \"But godliness with contentment is great gain.\n\n7. \"For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can\ncarry nothing out.\n\n8. \"And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.\"--_I Tim.,\nvi._\n\nThis was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear the clanking of his\nchains. This is the reason he should never try to better his condition.\nHe should be contented simply with the right to work for nothing. If\nhe only had food and raiment, and a thief to work for, he should be\ncontented. He should solace himself with the apostolic reflection, that\nas he brought nothing into the world, he could carry nothing out, and\nthat when dead he would be as happily situated as his master.\n\nIn order to show you what the inspired writer meant by the word\n_servant_, I will read from the 21st chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and\n21:\n\n\"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die\nunder his hand; he shall be surely punished.\n\n\"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished:\nfor he _is_ his money.\"\n\nYet, notwithstanding these passages the _Christian Advocate_ says, \"the\nBible is the Magna Charta of our liberty.\"\n\nAfter reading that, I was not surprised by the following in the same\npaper:\n\n\"We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low plane of infidelity and\natheism, not less offensive to good morals than have been the teachings\nof infidelity during the last century. France has been cursed with such\nteachings for a hundred years, and because of it, to-day her citizens\nare incapable of self-government.\"\n\nWhat was the condition of France a century ago? Were they capable of\nself-government then? For fourteen hundred years the common people of\nFrance had suffered. For fourteen hundred years they had been robbed\nby the altar and by the throne. They had been the prey of priests and\nnobles. All were exempt from taxation, except the common people. The\ncup of their suffering was full, and the French people arose in fury and\nfrenzy, and tore the drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air\nwith the dust of thrones.\n\nSurely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not been produced by the\nteachings of Voltaire. I stood only a little while ago at the place\nwhere once stood the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison\nstanding as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked by the populace.\nI could see their stormy faces and hear their cries. And I saw that\nancient fortification of tyranny go down forever. And now where once\nstood the Bastile stands the Column of July. Upon its summit is a\nmagnificent statue of Liberty, holding in one hand a banner, in the\nother a broken chain, and upon its shining forehead is the star of\nprogress. There it stands where once stood the Bastile. And France is\nas much superior to what it was when Voltaire was born, as that statue,\nsurmounting the Column of July, is more beautiful than the Bastile that\nstood there once with its cells of darkness, and its dungeons of horror.\n\nAnd yet we are now told that the French people have rendered themselves\nincapable of government, simply because they have listened to the voice\nof progress. There are magnificent men in France. From that country have\ncome to the human race some of the grandest and holiest messages the ear\nof man has ever heard. The French people have given to history some\nof the most touching acts of self-sacrifice ever performed beneath the\namazed stars.\n\nFor my part, I admire the French people. I cannot forget the Rue San\nAntoine, nor the red cap of liberty. I can never cease to remember that\nthe tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in chains, and\nwhile liberty, with a bleeding breast, was in the Inquisition of Spain.\nAnd yet we are now told by a religious paper, that France is not capable\nof self-government. I suppose it was capable of self-government under\nthe old regime, at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I\nsuppose it was capable of self-government when women were seen yoked\nwith cattle pulling plows. I suppose it was capable of self-government\nwhen all who labored were in a condition of slavery.\n\nIn the old times, even among the priests, there were some good, some\nsincere and most excellent men. I have read somewhere of a sermon\npreached by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. This old\npriest, among other things, said that the soul of a beggar was as dear\nto God as the soul of the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ\ndied as much for a beggar as for a prince. One French peasant, rough\nwith labor, cried out: \"I propose three cheers for Jesus Christ.\" I like\nsuch things. I like to hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris has\nbeen a kind of volcano, and has made the heavens lurid with its lava\nof hatred, but it has also contributed more than any other city to the\nintellectual development of man. France has produced some infamous\nmen, among others John Calvin, but for one Calvin, she has produced a\nthousand benefactors of the human race.\n\nThe moment the French people rise above the superstitions of the church,\nthey will be in the highest sense capable of self-government. The moment\nFrance succeeds in releasing herself from the coils of Catholicism--from\nthe shadows of superstition--from the foolish forms and mummeries of the\nchurch--from the intellectual tyranny of a thousand years--she will not\nonly be capable of self-government, but will govern herself. Let the\npriests be usefully employed. We want no overseers of the mind; no\nslave-drivers for the soul. We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for\ndepriving us of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to\nfrighten our children, and paralyze the intellect of women.\n\n\nWAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?\n\nIII.\n\nFOR hundreds of years it was contended by all Christians that the earth\nwas made in six days, literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that\non the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor. Geologists have\ndriven the church from this position, and it is now claimed that the\ndays mentioned in the Bible are periods of time. This is a simple\nevasion, not in any way supported by the Scriptures. The Bible\ndistinctly and clearly says that the world was created in six days.\nThere is not within its lids a clearer statement. It does not say six\nperiods. It was made according to that book in six days:\n\n31. \"And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very\ngood. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.\"--_Genesis i_.\n\n1. \"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of\nthem.\n\n2. \"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he\nrested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.\n\n3. \"And God blessed the seventh day (not seventh period), and sanctified\nit; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created\nand made.\"--_Genesis ii_.\n\nFrom the following passages it seems clear what was meant by the word\ndays:\n\n15. \"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of\nrest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he\nshall surely be put to death.\"--Served him right!\n\n16. \"Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to\nobserve the Sabbath, throughout their generations, for a perpetual\ncovenant.\n\n17. \"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for\nin six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he\nrested and was refreshed.\n\n18. \"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with\nhim upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written\nwith the finger of God.\"--_Exodus xxxi_.\n\n12. \"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up\nthe Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of\nIsrael, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley\nof Ajalon.\n\n13. \"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had\navenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book\nof Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven; and hasted not\nto go down about a whole day.\n\n14. \"And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the\nLord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for\nIsrael.\"--_Josh. x_.\n\nThese passages must certainly convey the idea that this world was made\nin six days, not six periods. And the reason why they were to keep the\nSabbath was because the Creator rested on the seventh day--not period.\nIf you say six periods, instead of six days, what becomes of your\nSabbath? The only reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath\nis that God observed it--that he rested from his work that day and was\nrefreshed. Take this reason away and the sacredness of that day has no\nfoundation in the Scriptures.\n\n\nWHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?\n\nIV.\n\nWHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences the Bible was understood\nby those who read it the same as by those who wrote it. From time to\ntime discoveries were made that seemed inconsistent with the\nScriptures. At first, theologians denounced the discoverers of all facts\ninconsistent with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.\n\nThe Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of the universe; that\nthe sun and moon and stars revolve around this speck called the earth.\nThe men who discovered that all this was a mistake were denounced by\nthe ignorant clergy of that day, precisely as the ignorant clergy of our\ntime denounce the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine of the\nearth's place in the solar system was demonstrated; when persecution\ncould no longer conceal the mighty truth, then it was that the church\nmade an effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the discoveries of\nscience. When the utter absurdity of the Mosaic account of creation\nbecame apparent to all thoughtful men, the church changed the reading of\nthe Bible. Then it was pretended that the \"days\" of creation were vast\nperiods of time. When it was shown to be utterly impossible that the sun\nrevolved around the earth, then the account given by Joshua of the sun\nstanding still for the space of a whole day, was changed into a figure\nof speech. It was said that Joshua merely conformed to the mode of\nspeech common in his day; and that when he said the sun stood still, he\nmerely intended to convey the idea that the earth ceased turning upon\nits axis. They admitted that stopping the sun could not lengthen the\nday, and for that reason it must have been the earth that stopped.\nBut you will remember that the moon stood still in the valley of\nAjalon--that the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves\nupon their enemies.\n\nOne would naturally suppose that the sun would have given sufficient\nlight to enable the Jews to avenge themselves upon their enemies without\nany assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon had not stopped,\nthe relations between the earth and moon would have been changed.\n\nIs there a sensible man in the world who believes this wretched piece of\nignorance? Is it possible that the religion of this nineteenth century\nhas for its basis such childish absurdities? According to this account,\nwhat was the sun, or rather the earth, stopped for? It was stopped in\norder that the Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amorites. For\nthe accomplishment of such a purpose the earth was made to pause. Why\nshould an almost infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of\ndestroying a handful of men? Why this waste of force? Let me explain.\nI strike my hands together. They feel a sudden Heat. Where did the heat\ncome from? Motion has been changed into heat. You will remember that\nthere can be no destruction of force. It disappears in one form only\nto reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the rate of one thousand\nmiles an hour, was stopped. The motion of this vast globe would have\ninstantly been changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of the\ngreatest scientists of the present day that to stop the earth would\ngenerate as much heat as could be produced by burning a world as large\nas this of solid coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the\npaltry purpose of defeating a few poor barbarians. The employment of so\nmuch force for the accomplishment of so insignificant an object would\nbe as useless as bringing all the intellect of a great man to bear in\nanswering the arguments of the clergymen of San Francisco.\n\nThe waste of that immense force in stopping the planets in their grand\ncourses, for the purpose claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to\ndestroy an insect to which a single drop of water is \"an unbounded\nworld.\" How is it possible for men of ordinary intellect, not only to\nendorse such ignorant falsehoods, but to malign those who do not? Can\nanything be more debasing to the intellect of man than a belief in the\nastronomy of the Bible? According to the Scriptures, the world was\nmade out of nothing, and the sun, moon, and stars, of the nothing that\nhappened to be left. To the writers of the Bible the firmament was\nsolid, and in it were grooves along which the stars were pushed by\nangels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed his geography and astronomy.\nHis book was passed upon by the church, and was declared to be the truth\nconcerning the subjects upon which he treated.\n\nThis eminent geologist and astronomer, taking the Bible as his guide,\nfound and taught: First, that the earth was flat; second, that it was a\nvast parallelogram; third, that in the middle there was a vast body\nof land, then a strip of water all around it, then a strip of land.\nHe thought that on the outer strip of land people lived before the\nflood--that at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark crossed the strip\nof water and landed on the shore of the country, in the middle of the\nworld, where we now are. This great biblical scholar informed the true\nbelievers of his day that in the outer strip of land were mountains,\naround which the sun and moon revolved; that when the sun was on the\nside of the mountain next the land occupied by man, it was day, and when\non the other side, it was night.\n\nMr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded Joshua as the most eminent\nastronomer of his day. He also taught that the firmament was solid, and\nthat the angels pushed and drew the stars. He tells us that these angels\nattended strictly to their business, that each one watched the motions\nof all the others so that proper distances might always be maintained,\nand all confusion avoided. All this was believed by the gentlemen who\nmade most of our religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to show\nthat the earth must be flat, was the fact that the Bible stated that\nwhen Christ should come the second time, in glory, the whole world\nshould see him. \"Now,\" said Cosmas, \"if the world is round, how could\nthe people on the other side see the Lord when he comes?\" This settled\nthe question.\n\nThese were the ideas of the fathers of the church. These men have been\nfor centuries regarded as almost divinely inspired. Long after they had\nbecome dust they governed the world. The superstitions they planted,\ntheir descendants watered with the best and bravest blood. To maintain\ntheir ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed for a\nthousand years, and the infamous work is still being prosecuted.\n\nThe Bible was regarded as not only true, but as the best of all truth.\nAny new theory advanced, was immediately examined in the light, or\nrather in the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that test it\nwas false, it was denounced, and the person bringing it forward forced\nto recant. It would have been a far better course to have discovered\nevery theory found to be in harmony with the Scriptures.\n\nAnd yet we are told by the clergy and religious press of this city, that\nthe Bible is the foundation of all science.\n\n\nDOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED\nWITCHCRAFT?\n\nV.\n\nIT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up witchcraft was to give\nup the Bible itself. This idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent\ntheologians of a hundred years ago. In my judgment, they were right.\nTo give up witchcraft is to give up, in a great degree at least, the\nsupernatural. To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the mind\nof man to give up the great ones. The founders of nearly all creeds, and\nof all religions properly so called, have taught the existence of good\nand evil spirits. They have peopled the dark with devils and the light\nwith angels. They have crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs.\nThe moment these good and evil spirits, these angels and fiends,\ndisappear from the imaginations of men, and phenomena are accounted\nfor by natural rather than by supernatural means, a great step has been\ntaken in the direction of what is now known as materialism. While the\nchurch believes in witchcraft, it is in a greatly modified form. The\nevil spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and more phenomena\nare accounted for by natural means. Just to the extent that belief has\nbeen lost in spirits, just to that extent the church has lost its power\nand authority. When men ceased to account for the happening of any event\nby ascribing it to the direct action of good or evil spirits, and began\nto reason from known premises, the chains of superstition began to\ngrow weak. Into such disrepute has witchcraft at last fallen that many\nChristians not only deny the existence of these evil spirits, but take\nthe ground that no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. Let us see:\n\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"--_Exodus xxii., 18_.\n\n7. \"Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a\nfamiliar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his\nservants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at\nEndor.\n\n8. \"And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went,\nand two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said,\nI pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up,\nwhom I shall name unto thee.\n\n9. \"And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath\ndone, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the\nwizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my\nlife, to cause me to die?\n\n10. \"And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth,\nthere shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.\n\n11. \"Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,\nBring me up Samuel.\n\n12. \"And when the woman saw Samuel she cried with a loud voice: and the\nwoman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art\nSaul.\n\n13. \"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?\nAnd the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.\n\n14. \"And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man\ncometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that\nit was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed\nhimself.\n\n15. \"And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me\nup?\"--2 Samuels xxviii.\n\nThis reads very much like an account of a modern spiritual seance. Is\nit not one of the wonderful things of the world that men and women who\nbelieve this account of the witch of Endor, who believe all the miracles\nand all the ghost stories of the Bible, deny with all their force the\ntruth of modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I would rather\nbelieve some one who has heard what he relates, who has seen what he\ntells, or at least thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather\nbelieve somebody I know, whose reputation for truth is good among those\nwho know him. I would rather believe these people than to take the words\nof those who have been in their graves for four thousand years, and\nabout whom I know nothing.\n\n31 \"Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after\nwizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord, your God.\"--_Leviticus\nxix_.\n\n6 \"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and\nafter wizards, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut\nhim off from among his people.\"--_Leviticus xx._\n\n10. \"There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination,\nor an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,\n\n11. \"Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or\na necromancer.\n\n12. \"For all that do these things are an abomination unto the\nLord.\"--_Deut. xviii_.\n\nI have given you a few of the passages found in the Old Testament upon\nthis subject, showing conclusively that the Bible teaches the existence\nof witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits. In the New\nTestament there are passages equally strong, showing that the Savior\nhimself was a believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the\nexistence of a personal devil. Nothing can be plainer than the teaching\nof the following:\n\n1. \"Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be\ntempted of the devil.\n\n2. \"And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward\nan hungered.\n\n3. \"And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of\nGod, command that these stones be made bread.\n\n4. \"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread\nalone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.\n\n5. \"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on\na pinnacle of the temple.\n\n6. \"And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:\nfor it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and\nin their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy\nfoot against a stone.\n\n7. \"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the\nLord, thy God.\n\n8. \"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and\nsheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.\n\n9. \"And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt\nfall down and worship me.\n\n10. \"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is\nwritten, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou\nserve.\n\n11. \"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered\nunto him.\"--_Matt. iv._\n\nIf this does not teach the existence of a personal devil, there is\nnothing within the lids of the Scriptures teaching the existence of\na personal God. If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits,\nthere is nothing in the Bible going to show that good spirits exist\neither in this world or the next.\n\n16. \"When the even was come they brought unto him many that were\npossessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and\nhealed all that were sick.\"--_Matt. vii._\n\n1. \"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country\nof the Gadarenes.\n\n2. \"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out\nof the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,\n\n3. \"Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,\nnot with chains:\n\n4. \"Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and\nthe chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in\npieces: neither could any man tame him.\n\n5. \"And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the\ntombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.\n\n6. \"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,\n\n7. \"And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee,\nJesus, thou son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou\ntorment me not.\n\n8. \"For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.\n\n9. \"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name\nis Legion, for we are many.\n\n11. \"Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine\nfeeding.\n\n12. \"And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine,\nthat we may enter into them.\n\n13. \"And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went\nout, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep\nplace into the sea, and they were about two thousand; and were choked in\nthe sea.\"--_Mark v_.\n\nThe doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here. The power of casting out\ndevils was bequeathed by the Savior to his apostles and followers, and\nto all who might believe in him throughout all the coming time:\n\n17. \"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall\nthey cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues.\n\n18. \"And they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly\nthing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they\nshall recover.\"--_Mark xvi._\n\nI would like to see the clergy who have been answering me, tested in\nthis way: Let them drink poison, let them take up serpents, let them\ncure the sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then believe that\nthey believe.\n\nI deny the witchcraft stories of the world. Witches are born in the\nignorant, frightened minds of men. Reason will exorcise them. \"They are\ntales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.\"\nThese devils have covered the world with blood and tears. They have\nfilled the earth with fear. They have filled the lives of children with\ndarkness and horror. They have peopled the sweet world of imagination\nwith monsters. They have made religion a strange mingling of fear and\nferocity. I am doing what I can to reave the heavens of these monsters.\nFor my part, I laugh at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient\nand modern, great and small.\n\n\nTHE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.\n\nVI.\n\nALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of God and the slavery of\nman.\n\n18. \"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey\nthe voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they\nhave chastened him, will not hearken unto them.\n\n19. \"Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him\nout unto the elders of his city, and unto, the gate of his place.\n\n20. \"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is\nstubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and\na drunkard.\n\n21. \"And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he\ndie; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall\nhear, and fear.\"--_Deut. xxi._\n\nAbraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He\nproceeded to obey. And the boy, being then about thirty years of age,\nwas not consulted. At the command of a phantom of the air, a man was\nwilling to offer upon the altar his only son. And such was the slavery\nof children, that the only son had not the spirit to resist.\n\nHave you ever read the story of Jephthah?\n\n30 \"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt\nwithout fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,\n\n31. \"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my\nhouse 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 for a burnt offering.\n\n32. \"So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against\nthem; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.\n\n33. \"And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even\ntwenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great\nslaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children\nof Israel.\n\n34.\"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter\ncame out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only\nchild; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.\n\n35. \"And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and\nsaid, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one\nof them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I\ncannot go back....\n\n39. \"And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned\nunto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had\nvowed.\"--_Judges xi._\n\nIs there in the history of the world a sadder thing than this? What can\nwe think of a father who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God?\nAnd what can we think of a God who would accept such a sacrifice? Can\nsuch a God be worthy of the worship of man? I plead for the rights of\nchildren. I plead for the government of kindness and love. I plead\nfor the republic of home, the democracy of the fireside. I plead for\naffection. And for this I am pursued by invective. For this I am called\na fiend, a devil, a monster, by Christian editors and clergymen,\nby those who pretend to love their enemies and pray for those that\ndespitefully use them.\n\nAllow me to give you another instance of affection related in the\nScriptures. There was, it seems, a most excellent man by the name of\nJob. The Lord was walking up and down, and happening to meet Satan, said\nto him: \"Are you acquainted with my servant Job? Have you noticed what\nan excellent man he is?\" And Satan replied to him and said: \"Why should\nhe not be an excellent man--you have given him everything he wants? Take\nfrom him what he has and he will curse you.\" And thereupon the Lord gave\nSatan the power to destroy the property and children of Job. In a little\nwhile these high contracting parties met again; and the Lord seemed\nsomewhat elated with his success, and called again the attention of\nSatan to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to touch his body\nand he would curse him. And thereupon power was given to Satan over the\nbody of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in all this, Job\ndid not sin with his lips.\n\nThis book seems to have been written to show the excellence of patience,\nand to prove that at last God will reward all who will bear the\nafflictions of heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The sons and\ndaughters of Job had been slain, and then the Lord, in order to reward\nJob, gave him other children, other sons and other daughters--not the\nsame ones he had lost; but others. And this, according to the writer,\nmade ample amends. Is that the idea we now have of love? If I have a\nchild, no matter how deformed that child may be, and if it dies, nobody\ncan make the loss to me good by bringing a more beautiful child. I want\nthe one I loved and the one I lost.\n\n\nTHE GALLANTRY OF GOD.\n\nVII.\n\nI HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book; that it has no respect\nfor the rights of woman. Now I propose to prove it. It takes something\nbesides epithets and invectives to prove or disprove anything. Let us\nsee what the sacred volume says concerning the mothers and daughters of\nthe human race.\n\nA man who does not in his heart of hearts respect woman, who has not\nthere an altar at which he worships the memory of mother, is less than a\nman.\n\n11. \"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.\n\n12. \"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the\nman, but to be in silence.\"\n\nThe reason given for this, and the only reason that occurred to the\nsacred writer, was:\n\n13. \"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.\n\n14. \"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the\ntransgression.\n\n15. \"Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they\ncontinue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.\"--_1 Tim. ii._\n\n3. \"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and\nthe head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.\"\n\nThat is to say, the woman sustains the same relation to the man that man\ndoes to Christ, and man sustains the same relation to Christ that Christ\ndoes to God.\n\nThis places the woman infinitely below the man. And yet this barbarous\nidiocy is regarded as divinely inspired. How can any woman look other\nthan with contempt upon such passages? How can any woman believe that\nthis is the will of a most merciful God?\n\n7. \"For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is\nthe image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.\"\n\nAnd this is justified from the remarkable fact set forth in the next\nverse:\n\n8. \"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.\"\n\nThis same chivalric gentleman also says:\n\n9. \"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the\nman.\"--_1 Cor. xi._\n\n22. \"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the\nLord.\"\n\nIs it possible for abject obedience to go beyond this?\n\n23. \"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head\nof the Church, and he is the saviour of the body.\n\n24. \"Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives\nbe to their own husbands in everything.\"--_Eph. v._\n\nEven the Savior did not put man and woman upon an equality. A man could\ndivorce his wife, but the wife could not divorce her husband.\n\nEvery noble woman should hold such apostles and such ideas in contempt.\nAccording to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be\npurified from the crime of having born sons and daughters. To make love\nand maternity crimes is infamous.\n\n10. \"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord\nthy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them\ncaptive,\n\n11. \"And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire\nunto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife,\n\n12. \"Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave\nher head, and pare her nails.\"--_Deut. xxi_.\n\nThis is barbarism, no matter whether it came from heaven or from hell,\nfrom a God or from a devil, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem\nor from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism complete and utter.\n\n\nDOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE?\n\nVIII.\n\nREAD the infamous order of Moses in the 31st chapter of Numbers--an\norder unfit to be reproduced in print--an order which I am unwilling\nto repeat. Read the 31 st chapter of Exodus. Read the 21 st chapter of\nDeuteronomy. Read the-life of Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of\nJacob, and then tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy and\nconcubinage. All the languages of the world are insufficient to express\nthe filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast--woman a slave. It destroys\nthe fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes home a lair of wild\nbeasts. It is the infamy of infamies. Yet this is the doctrine of the\nBible--a doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon. It is by the\nBible that Brigham Young justifies the practice of this beastly horror.\nIt takes from language those sweetest words, husband, wife, father\nmother, child and lover. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals,\nand leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents\nof loathsome lust. Yet the book justifying this infamy is the book upon\nwhich rests the civilization of the nineteenth century. And because I\ndenounce this frightful thing, the clergy denounce me as a demon, and\nthe infamous _Christian Advocate_ says that the moral sentiment of\nthis State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline for his blasphemous\nutterances and for his base and debasing scurrility.\n\n\nDOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY POLITICAL TYRANNY?\n\nIX.\n\nFOR my part, I insist that man has not only the capacity, but the right\nto govern himself. All political authority is vested in the people\nthemselves, They have the right to select their officers and agents,\nand these officers and agents are responsible to the people. Political\nauthority does not come from the clouds. Man should not be governed by\nthe aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Republican or Democratic\nbook. Exactly the opposite doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn\nthat the people have no power whatever; that all power and political\nauthority comes from on high, and that all the kings, all the potentates\nand powers, have been ordained of God; that all the ignorant and cruel\nkings have been placed upon the world's thrones by the direct act of\nDeity. The Scriptures teach us that the common people have but one\nduty--the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some of the political\nideas in the great \"Magna Charta\" of human liberty.\n\n1. \"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no\npower but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.\n\n2. \"Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance\nof God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.\"\n\nAccording to this, George III. was ordained of God. He was King of Great\nBritian by divine right, and by divine right was the lawful King of the\nAmerican Colonies. The leaders in the Revolutionary struggle resisted\nthe power, and according to these passages, resisted the ordinances of\nGod; and for that resistance they are promised the eternal recompense of\ndamnation.\n\n3. \"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt\nthou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou\nshalt have praise of the same....\n\n5. \"Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also\nfor conscience sake.\n\n6. \"For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's\nministers, attending continually upon this very thing.\"--_Romans, xiii._\n\n13. \"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;\nwhether it be to the king as supreme.\n\n14. \"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the\npunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.\n\n15. \"For so is the will of God.\"--_1 Pet. ii._\n\nHad these ideas been carried out, political progress in the world would\nhave been impossible. Upon the necks of the people still would have been\nthe feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this infamous doctrine.\nWhether higher powers are ordained of God or not, if those higher powers\nendeavor to destroy the rights of man, I for one shall resist. Whenever\nand wherever the sword of rebellion is drawn in support of a human\nright, I am a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to titled\nwrong and robed injustice finds no lodgment in the brain of a man.\nThe real rulers are the people, and the rulers so-called are but the\nservants of the people. They are not ordained of any God. All political\npower comes from and belongs to man. Upon these texts of Scripture rest\nthe thrones of Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses have been\nrepeated by brainless kings and heardess priests. For fifteen hundred\nyears each one of these texts has been a bastile in which has been\nimprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of these texts has been\nan obstruction on the highway of humanity. Each one has been a\nfortification behind which have crouched the sainted hypocrites and the\ntitled robbers. According to these texts, a robber gets his right to rob\nfrom God. And it is the duty of the robbed to submit. The thief gets his\nright to steal from God. The king gets his right to trample upon human\nliberty from God. I say, fight the king--fight the priest.\n\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.\n\nX.\n\nTHE Bible denounces religious liberty. After covering the world with\nblood, after having made it almost hollow with graves, Christians\nare beginning to say that men have a right to differ upon religious\nquestions provided the questions about which they differ are not\nconsidered of great importance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance\nis: \"In non-essentials, Liberty; in essentials, Unity.\"\n\nThe Christian world have condescended to say that upon all non-essential\npoints we shall have the right to think for ourselves; but upon matters\nof the least importance, they will think and speak for us. In this they\nare consistent. They but follow the teachings of the God they worship.\nThey but adhere to the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures.\nWithin that volume there is no such thing as religious toleration.\nWithin that volume there is not one particle of mercy for an\nunbeliever. For all who think for themselves, for all who are the owners\nof their own souls, there are threatenings, curses and anathemas. Any\nChristian who to-day exercises the least toleration is to that extent\nfalse to his religion. Let us see what the \"Magna Charta\" of liberty\nsays upon this subject:\n\n6. \"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,\nor the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,\nentice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou\nhast not known, thou, nor thy fathers.\n\n7. \"Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh\nunto thee, or afar off from thee, from the one end of the earth even\nunto the other end of the earth.\n\n8. \"Thou shalt not consent unto him; nor hearken unto him; neither shall\nthine eye pity him; neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal\nhim.\n\n9. \"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him\nto put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.\n\n10. \"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath\nsought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out\nof the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.\"--_Deut. xiii._\n\nThat is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the wife of your bosom\nhad said, \"I like the religion of India better than the religion of\nPalestine,\" it was then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most\nHigh--understand me, I do not believe in any merciful Most High--said:\n\n\"Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill; thy hand shall be\nthe first upon her to put her to death.\"\n\nThis I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is necessary to believe\nin such a God, if it is necessary to adore such a Deity in order to be\nsaved, I will take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you a few\nmore extracts from the \"Magna Charta\" of human liberty.\n\n2. \"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord\nthy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the\nsight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,\n\n3. \"And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the\nsun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.\n\n4. \"And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired\ndiligently, and behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such\nabomination is wrought in Israel.\n\n5. \"Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have\ncommitted that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that\nwoman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.\"\n\nUnder this law if the woman you loved had said: \"Let us worship the sun;\nI am tired of this jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah; let us worship the\nsun; let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the world\nwith light and love, when the dawn stands jocund on the mountain's misty\ntop; it is the sun whose beams illumine and cover the earth with verdure\nand with beauty; it is the sun that covers the trees with leaves, that\ncarpets the earth with grass and adorns the world with flowers; I adore\nthe sun because in its light I have seen your eyes; it has given to\nme the face of my babe; it has clothed my life with joy; let us in\ngratitude fall down and worship the glorious beams of the sun.\"\n\nFor this offence she deserved not only death, but death at your hands:\n\n\"Thine eye shall not pity her; neither shalt thou spare; neither shalt\nthou conceal her.\n\n\"But thou shalt surely kill her: thy hand shall be the first upon her to\nput her to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.\n\n\"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die.\"\n\nFor my part I had a thousand times rather worship the sun than a God who\nwould make such a law or give such a command. This you may say is the\ndoctrine of the Old Testament--what is the doctrine of the New?\n\n\"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth\nnot shall be damned.\"\n\nThat is the religious liberty of the New Testament. That is the \"tidings\nof great joy.\"\n\nEvery one of these words has been a chain upon the limbs, a whip upon\nthe backs of men. Every one has been a fagot. Every one has been a\nsword. Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack. Every one has\nbeen a fountain of tears. These words have filled the hearts of men with\nhatred. These words invented all the instruments of torture. These words\ncovered the earth with blood.\n\nFor the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible is an inspired book.\nIf then, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws commanding\nreligious intolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this same God\ntook upon himself flesh, and came among the Jews and taught a different\nreligion, and they crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown?\n\n\nDOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY?\n\nXI.\n\nIS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, revengeful, changeable,\nunjust, unreasonable, cruel being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is\nit possible to read the words said to have been spoken by this Deity,\nwithout a shudder? Is it possible to contemplate his character without\nhatred?\n\n\"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my sword shall devour\nflesh.\"--_Deut. xxxii._\n\nIs this the language of an infinitely kind and tender parent to his\nweak, his wandering and suffering children?\n\n\"Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of\nthy dogs in the same.\" _Psalms, lxviii._\n\nIs it possible that a God takes delight in seeing dogs lap the blood of\nhis children?\n\n22. \"And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by\nlittle and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts\nof the field increase upon thee.\n\n23. \"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall\ndestroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.\n\n24. \"And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt\ndestroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to\nstand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.\"--_Deut. vii._\n\nIf these words had proceeded from the mouth of a demon, if they had been\nspoken by some enraged and infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have\nbeen surprised. But these things are attributed to a God of infinite\nmercy.\n\n40. \"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,\nand of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none\nremaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of\nIsrael commanded.\"--_Josh, x._\n\n14. \"And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of\nIsrael took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with\nthe edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they\nany to breathe.\"--_Josh. xi._\n\n19. \"There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,\nsave the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in\nbattle.\n\n20. \"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come\nagainst Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that\nthey might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord\ncommanded Moses.\"--_Josh. xi._\n\nThere are no words in our language with which to express the indignation\nI feel when reading these cruel and heartless words.\n\n\"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim\npeace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and\nopen unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein shall be\ntributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no\npeace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege\nit. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou\nshalt smite every male thereof with the sword. But the women, _and the\nlittle ones_, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the\nspoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the\nspoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.\n\n\"Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from\nthee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of\nthese people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance,\nthou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.\"\n\nThese terrible instructions were given to an army of invasion. The men\nwho were thus ruthlessly murdered were fighting for their homes, their\nfiresides, for their wives and for their little children. Yet these\nthings, by the clergy of San Francisco, are called acts of sublime\nmercy.\n\nAll this is justified by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.\nThe Old Testament is filled with anathemas, with curses, with words of\nvengeance, of revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite\nbrutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart the sweet flower\nof pity and trample it in the bloody dust of superstition. Do not, I\nbeseech you, justify the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled\nbabes. Do not let the gaze of the gorgon of superstition turn your\nhearts to stone.\n\nIs there an intelligent Christian in the world who would not with joy\nand gladness receive conclusive testimony to the effect that all the\npassages in the Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and concubinage,\npolitical tyranny, the subjection of woman, the enslavement of children,\nestablishing domestic and political tyranny, and that all the commands\nto destroy men, women and children, are but interpolations of kings\nand priests, made for the purpose of subjugating mankind through the\ninstrumentality of fear? Is there a Christian in the world who would\nnot think vastly more of the Bible if all these infamous things were\neliminated from it?\n\nSurely the good things in that book are not rendered more sacred from\nthe fact that in the same volume are found the frightful passages I have\nquoted. In my judgment the Bible should be read and studied precisely as\nwe read and study any book whatever. The good in it should be preserved\nand cherished, and that which shocks the human heart should be cast\naside forever.\n\nWhile the Old Testament threatens men, women and children with disease,\nfamine, war, pestilence and death, there are no threatenings of\npunishment beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punishment is a\ndogma of the New Testament. This doctrine, the most cruel, the most\ninfamous of which the human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at\nall, in the Bible--in the New Testament. One cannot imagine what the\nhuman heart has suffered by reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal\ndamnation. It is a doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my blood, so\ninfinitely cruel, that it is impossible for me to respect either the\nhead or heart of any human being who teaches or fears it. This\ndoctrine necessarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite\npunishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes committed by finite\nbeings, is a proposition so monstrous that I am astonished it ever\nfound lodgment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we can be happy in\nheaven while those we loved on earth are suffering infinite torments in\neternal fire, defames and calumniates the human heart.\n\n\nTHE PLAN OF SALVATION.\n\nXII.\n\nWE are told, however, that a way has been provided for the salvation\nof all men, and that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made\nmanifest to the children of men. According to the great scheme of the\natonement, the innocent suffers for the guilty in order to satisfy a\nlaw. What kind of law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of\ninnocence? Who made this law? If God made it he must have known that the\ninnocent would have to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is\nto me a medley of contradictions, impossibilities and theological\nconclusions. We are told that if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the\nGarden of Eden death never would have entered the world. We are further\ninformed that had it not been for the devil, Adam and Eve would not\nhave been led astray; and if they had not, as I said before, death\nnever would have touched with its icy hand the human heart. If our first\nparents had never sinned, and death never had entered the world, you and\nI never would have existed. The earth would have been filled thousands\nof generations before you and I were born. At the feast of life, death\nmade seats vacant for us. According to this doctrine, we are indebted\nto the devil for our existence. Had he not tempted Eve--no sin. If there\nhad been no sin--no death. If there had been no death the world would\nhave been filled ages before you and I were born. Therefore, we owe our\nexistence to the devil. We are further informed that as a consequence of\noriginal sin the scheme called the atonement became necessary; and that\nif the Savior had not taken upon himself flesh and come to this atom\ncalled the earth, and if he had not been crucified for us, we should all\nhave been cast forever into hell. Had it not been for the bigotry of\nthe Jews and the treachery of Judas Iscariot, Christ would not have been\ncrucified; and if he had not been crucified, all of us would have had\nour portion in the lake that burneth with eternal fire.\n\nAccording to this great doctrine, according to this vast and most\nwonderful scheme, we owe, as I said before, our existence to the devil,\nour salvation to Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.\n\nSo far as I am concerned, I fail to see any mercy in the plan of\nsalvation. Is it mercy to reward a man forever in consideration of\nbelieving a certain thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,\nample testimony? Is it mercy to punish a man with eternal fire simply\nbecause there is not testimony enough to satisfy his mind? Can there be\nsuch a thing as mercy in eternal punishment?\n\nAnd yet this same Deity says to me, \"resist not evil; pray for those\nthat despitefully use you; love your enemies, but I will eternally damn\nmine.\" It seems to me that even gods should practice what they preach.\n\nAll atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its\nprovisions, man is allowed the luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever\nhe is guilty of a wicked action he says, \"charge it.\" This kind of\nbookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to breed extravagance in sin.\n\nThe truth is, most Christians are better than their creeds; most creeds\nare better than the Bible, and most men are better than their God.\n\n\nOTHER RELIGIONS.\n\nXIII.\n\nWE must remember that ours is not the only religion. Man has in all ages\nendeavored to answer the great questions Whence? and Whither? He has\nendeavored to read his destiny in the stars, to pluck the secret of\nhis existence from the night. He has questioned the spectres of his own\nimagination. He has explored the mysterious avenues of dreams. He\nhas peopled the heavens with spirits. He has mistaken his visions for\nrealities. In the twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows\nfor gods. In all ages he has been the slave of misery, the dupe of\nsuperstition and the fool of hope. He has suffered and aspired.\n\nReligion is a thing of growth, of development. As we advance we throw\naside the grosser and absurder forms of faith--practically at first by\nceasing to observe them, and lastly, by denying them altogether. Every\nchurch necessarily by its constitution endeavors to prevent this natural\ngrowth or development. What has happened to other religions must happen\nto ours. Ours is not superior to many that have passed, or are passing\naway. Other religions have been lived for and died for by men as noble\nas ours can boast. Their dogmas and doctrines have, to say the least,\nbeen as reasonable, as full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.\n\nMan has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried to solve these questions\nin all the countries of the world, and I respect all such men and women;\nbut let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you that in other\ncountries there is something.\n\nThe Parsee sect of Persia say: A Persian saint ascended the three stairs\nthat lead to heaven's gate, and knocked; a voice said: \"Who is there?\"\n\"Thy servant, O God!\" But the gates would not open. For seven years he\ndid every act of kindness; again he came, and the voice said: \"Who is\nthere?\" And he replied: \"Thy slave, O God!\" Yet the gates were shut. Yet\nseven other years of kindness, and the man again knocked; and the voice\ncried and said: \"Who is there?\" \"Thyself, O God!\" And the gates wide\nopen flew.\n\nI say there is no more beautiful Christian poem than this.\n\nA Persian after having read our religion, with its frightful\ndescriptions of perdition, wrote these words: \"Two angels flying out\nfrom the blissful city of God--the angel of love and the angel of\npity--hovered over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of\nhell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and one tear of pity\nextinguished all the fires.\" Has orthodoxy produced anything as\ngenerously beautiful as this? Let me read you this: Sectarians, hear\nthis: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this: Clergy of America who\nexpect to have your happiness in heaven increased by seeing me burning\nin hell, hear this:\n\nThis is the prayer of the Brahmins--a prayer that has trembled from\nhuman lips toward heaven for more than four thousand years:\n\n\"Never will I seek or receive private individual salvation. Never will\nI enter into final bliss alone. But forever and everywhere will I labor\nand strive for the final redemption of every creature throughout all\nworlds, and until all are redeemed. Never will I wrongly leave this\nworld to sin, sorrow and struggle, but will remain and work and suffer\nwhere I am.\"\n\nHas the orthodox religion produced a prayer like this? See the infinite\ncharity, not only for every soul in this world, but of all the shining\nworlds of the universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine that a\nlarge majority are going to eternal ruin.\n\nCompare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, and compare it with the\nimprecation of Christ: \"Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared\nfor the devil and his angels;\" with the ideas of Jeremy Taylor, with the\ncreeds of Christendom, with all the prayers of all the saints, and in no\nchurch except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like this.\n\n\"When thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain\nfrom it.\"\n\nSince the days of Zoroaster has there been any rule for human conduct\ngiven superior to this?\n\nAre the principles taught by us superior to those of Confucius? He was\nasked if there was any single word comprising the duties of man. He\nreplied: \"Reciprocity.\" Upon being asked what he thought of the\ndoctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he replied: \"That is not\nmy doctrine. If you return benefits for injuries what do you propose\nfor benefits? My doctrine is; For benefits return benefits; for injuries\nreturn justice without any admixture of revenge.\"\n\nTo return good for evil is to pay a premium upon wickedness. I cannot\nput a man under obligation to do me a favor by doing him an injury.\n\nNow, to-day, right now, what is the church doing? What is it doing, I\nask you honestly? Does it satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth\ncentury? Are we satisfied? I am not saying this except from the honesty\nof my heart. Are we satisfied? Is it a consolation to us now? Is it\neven a consolation when those we love die? The dead are so near and the\npromises are so far away. It is covered with the rubbish of the past.\nI ask you, is it all that is demanded by the brain and heart of the\nnineteenth century?\n\nWe want something better; we want something grander; we want\nsomething that has more brain in it, and more heart in it. We want to\nadvance--that is what we want; and you cannot advance without being a\nheretic--you cannot do it.\n\nNearly all these religions have been upheld by persecution and\nbloodshed. They have been rendered stable by putting fetters upon the\nhuman brain. They have all, however, been perfectly natural productions,\nand under similar circumstances would all be reproduced. Only by\nintellectual development are the old superstitions outgrown. As only\nthe few intellectually advance, the majority is left on the side of\nsuperstition, and remains there until the advanced ideas of the few\nthinkers become general; and by that time there are other thinkers still\nin advance.\n\nAnd so the work of development and growth slowly and painfully proceeds\nfrom age to age. The pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the\nheretics denounce their denouncers as the disciples of superstition\nand ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod was orthodox. Socrates was a\nblasphemer. Anytus worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while\nthe sellers of indulgences were the best of Catholics. Roger Williams\nwas a heretic, while the Puritans who drove him from Massachusetts were\nall orthodox. Every step in advance in the religious history of the\nworld has been taken by heretics. No superstition has been destroyed\nexcept by a heretic. No creed has been bettered except by a heretic.\nHeretic is the name that the orthodox laggard hurls at the disappearing\npioneer. It is shouted by the dwellers in swamps to the people upon the\nhills. It is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn. It is\nwhat the rotting says of the growing. Heretic is the name that a stench\ngives to a perfume.\n\nWith this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It is taken from the lips\nof the dead. Orthodoxy is a shroud--heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is\nan epitaph--heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a cloud, a fog, a\nmist--heresy the star shining forever above the child of truth.\n\nI am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do not believe that Want\nwill forever extend its withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for\ncharity. I do not believe that the children will forever be governed by\ncruelty and brute force. I do not believe that poverty will dwell with\nman forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever cover the earth,\nor that the shadow of the gallows will forever fall upon the ground. I\ndo not believe that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that\nmalice and superstition will forever stand in the pulpit.\n\nI believe the time will come when there will be charity in every heart,\nwhen there will be love in every family, and when law and liberty and\njustice, like the atmosphere, will surround this world.\n\nWe have worshiped the ghosts long enough. We have prostrated ourselves\nbefore the ignorance of the past.\n\nLet us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes toward the brightening\nfuture. Let us stand by our convictions. Let us not throw away our idea\nof justice for the sake of any book or of any religion whatever. Let us\nlive according to our highest and noblest and purest ideal.\n\nBy this time we should know that the real Bible has not been written.\n\nThe real Bible is not the work of inspired men, or prophets, or\napostles, or evangelists, or of Christs.\n\nEvery man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great\nbook. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes\nno appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no\npunishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man\nin the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no\nfear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and\nunderstood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims\nto be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader\nto verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed.\nThis book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists\ntestifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and\ncrowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with\nits every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower,\nconfirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite\nabysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.\n\nLadies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank you this evening; you\ncannot tell how I feel toward the intellectual hospitality of this great\ncity by the Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you--I thank you\nagain and again, a thousand times.\n\n\n\n\nMY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.\n\n\n     * Chicago Times, 1879.\n\nTo the Editor:--\n\nNOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas that were received with\nscorn, flourishing in the sunshine of approval. Only a few weeks ago,\nI stated that the Bible was not inspired; that Moses was mistaken; that\nthe \"flood\" was a foolish myth; that the Tower of Babel existed only in\ncredulity; that God did not create the universe from nothing, that he\ndid not start the first woman with a rib; that he never upheld slavery;\nthat he was not a polygamist; that he did not kill people for making\nhair-oil; that he did not order his generals to kill the dimpled babes;\nthat he did not allow the roses of love and the violets of modesty to\nbe trodden under the brutal feet of lust; that the Hebrew language\nwas written without vowels; that the Bible was composed of many books,\nwritten by unknown men; that all translations differed from each other;\nand that this book had filled the world with agony and crime.\n\nAt that time I had not the remotest idea that the most learned clergymen\nin Chicago would substantially agree with me--in public. I have read\nthe replies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi Kohler, Rev.\nBrooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr. Ryder, and will now ask them a few\nquestions, answering them in their own words.\n\nFirst. Rev. Robert Collyer.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible? Answer. \"It is a splendid\nbook. It makes the noblest type of Catholics and the meanest bigots.\nThrough this book men give their hearts for good to God, or for evil to\nthe devil. The best argument for the intrinsic greatness of the book\nis that it can touch such wide extremes, and seem to maintain us in the\nmost unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most tender mercy; that it can\ninspire purity like that of the great saints, and afford arguments in\nfavor of polygamy. The Bible is the text book of ironclad Calvinism and\nsunny Universalism. It makes the Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy.\nIt inspired the Union soldier to live and grandly die for the right, and\nStonewall Jackson to live nobly, and die grandly for the wrong.\"\n\n_Question_. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think that a book with as\nmany passages in favor of wrong as right, is inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"I look upon the Old Testament as a rotting tree. When it\nfalls it will fertilize a bank of violets.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that God upheld slavery and polygamy? Do\nyou believe that he ordered the killing of babes and the violation of\nmaidens?\n\n_Answer._ \"There is threefold inspiration in the Bible, the first,\npeerless and perfect, the word of God to man; _the second, simply and\npurely human, and then below this again, there is an inspiration born of\nan evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as anything well can\nbe_. A threefold inspiration, of heaven first, then of the earth, and\nthen of hell, all in the same book, all sometimes in the same chapter,\nand then, besides, a great many things that need no inspiration.\"\n\n_Question_. Then after all you do not pretend that the Scriptures are\nreally inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves as the\nchurch makes for them. They leave me free to say this is false, or this\nis true. The truth even within the Bible, dies and lives, makes on this\nside and loses on that.\"\n\n_Question_. What do you say to the last verse in the Bible, where a\ncurse is threatened to any man who takes from or adds to the book?\n\n_Answer._ \"I have but one answer to this question, and it is: Let who\nwill have written this, I cannot for an instant believe that it was\nwritten by a divine inspiration. Such dogmas and threats as these are\nnot of God, but of man, and not of any man of a free spirit and heart\neager for the truth, but a narrow man who would cripple and confine the\nhuman soul in its quest after the whole truth of God, and back those who\nhave done the shameful things in the name of the most high.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you not regard such talk as \"slang\"?\n\n(Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the writer of Revelation\nwas narrow and bigoted, I might have denounced his discourse as \"slang,\"\nbut I think that Unitarian ministers can do so with the greatest\npropriety.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in the stories of the Bible, about Jael, and\nthe sun standing still, and the walls falling at the blowing of horns?\n\n_Answer._ \"They may be legends, myths, poems, or what they will, but\nthey are not the word of God. So I say again, it was not the God and\nFather of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that nail crashing\nthrough the king's temple after she had given him that bowl of milk and\nbid him sleep in safety, but a very mean devil of hatred and revenge,\nthat I should hardly expect to find in a squaw on the plains. It was not\nthe ram's horns and the shouting before which the walls fell flat. If\nthey went down at all, it was through good solid pounding. And not for\nan instant did the steady sun stand still or let his planet stand still\nwhile barbarian fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he keeps\nnow. They might believe it who made the record. I do not. And since the\nwhole Christian world might believe it, still we do not who gather in\nthis church. A free and reasonable mind stands right in our way. Newton\nmight believe it as a Christian, and disbelieve it as a philosopher.\nWe stand then with the philosopher against the Christian, for we must\nbelieve what is true to us in the last test, and these things are not\ntrue.\"\n\nSecond. Rev. Dr. Thomas.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the Old Testament?\n\n_Answer._ \"My opinion is that it is not one book, but many--thirty-nine\nbooks bound up in one. The date and authorship of most of these books\nare wholly unknown. The Hebrews wrote without vowels, and without\ndividing the letters into syllables, words, or sentences. The books\nwere gathered up by Ezra. At that time only two of the Jewish tribes\nremained. All progress has ceased. In gathering up the sacred book,\ncopyists exercised great liberty in making changes and additions.\"\n\n_Question_. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old Testament inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"There maybe the inspiration of art, of poetry, or oratory;\nof patriotism--and there are such inspirations. There are moments when\ngreat truths and principles come to men. They seek the man, and not the\nman them.\"\n\n_Question_. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"But still I know of no way to convince anyone of spirit, and\ninspiration, and God, only as his reason may take hold of these things.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you think the Old Testament true?\n\n_Answer._ \"The story of Eden may be an allegory. The history of the\nchildren of Israel may have mistakes.\"\n\n_Question_. Must inspiration claim infallibility? Answer. \"It is a\nmistake to say that if you believe one part of the Bible you must\nbelieve all. Some of the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others not;\nor there may be degrees of inspiration.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that God commanded the soldiers to kill the\nchildren and the married women, and save for themselves, the maidens, as\nrecorded in _Numbers xxxi, 2_,\n\nDo you believe that God upheld slavery?\n\nDo you believe that God upheld polygamy?\n\n_Answer._ \"The Bible may be wrong in some statements. God and right\ncannot be wrong. We must not exalt the Bible above God. It may be that\nwe have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby given not a little\noccasion for such men as Mr. Ingersoll to appear at the other extreme,\ndenying too much.\"\n\n_Question_. What then shall be done?\n\n_Answer._ \"We must take a middle ground. It is not necessary to believe\nthat the bears devoured the forty-two children, nor that Jonah was\nswallowed by the whale.\"\n\nThird. Rev. Dr. Kohler.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion about the Old Testament?\n\n_Answer._ \"I will not make futile attempts of artificially interpreting\nthe letter of the Bible so as to make it reflect the philosophical,\nmoral and scientific views of our time. The Bible is a sacred record of\nhumanity's childhood.\"\n\n_Question_. Are you an orthodox Christian?\n\n_Answer._ \"No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned backward to a ruined\ntemple or a dead Messiah, is fast becoming like Lot's wife, a pillar of\nsalt.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you really believe the Old Testament was inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness to men like Voltaire\nand Thomas Paine, whose bold denial and cutting wit were so instrumental\nin bringing about this glorious era of freedom, so congenial and\nblissful, particularly to the long-abused Jewish race.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible?\n\n_Answer._ \"Of course there is a destructive axe needed to strike down\nthe old building in order to make room for the grander new. The divine\norigin claimed by the Hebrews for their national literature, was claimed\nby all nations for their old records and laws as preserved by the\npriesthood. As Moses, the Hebrew law-giver, is represented as having\nreceived the law from God on the holy mountain, so is Zoroaster the\nPersian, Manu the Hindoo, Minos the Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and\nNuma the Roman.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you believe all the stories in the Bible?\n\n_Answer._ \"All that can and must be said against them is that they have\nbeen too long retained around the arms and limbs of grown-up manhood, to\ncheck the spiritual progress of religion; that by Jewish ritualism and\nChristian dogmatism they became fetters unto the soul, turning the light\nof heaven into a misty haze to blind the eye, and even into a hell-fire\nof fanaticism to consume souls.\"\n\n_Question_. Is the Bible inspired?\n\n_Answer._ \"True, the Bible is not free from errors, nor is any work of\nman and time. It abounds in childish views and offensive matter. I\ntrust that it will in a time not far off be presented for common use in\nfamilies, schools, synagogues and churches, in a refined shape, cleansed\nfrom all dross and chaff, and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer\ndelights to dwell.\"\n\nFourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.\n\n_Question_. Is the Bible true?\n\n_Answer._ \"Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The question is not, is\nthe Bible inspired, but is it true?' That sounds very plausible, but you\nknow as applied to _any ancient book_ it is simply nonsense.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you think the stories in the Bible exaggerated?\n\n_Answer._ \"I dare say the numbers are immensely exaggerated.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you think that God upheld polygamy?\n\n_Answer._ \"The truth of which simply is, that four thousand years ago\npolygamy existed among the Jews, as everywhere else on earth then, and\neven their prophets did not come to the idea of its being wrong. _But\nwhat is there to be indignant_ about in that?\"\n\n_Question_. And so you really wonder why any man should be indignant\nat the idea that God upheld and sanctioned that beastliness called\npolygamy?\n\n_Answer._ \"What is there to be indignant about in that?\"\n\n\nFifth. Prof. Swing.\n\n_Question_. What is your idea of the Bible?\n\n_Answer._ \"I think it is a poem.\"\n\n\nSixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.\n\n_Question_. And what is your idea of the sacred Scriptures?\n\n_Answer._ \"Like other nations, the Hebrews had their patriotic,\ndescriptive, didactic and lyrical poems in the same varieties as other\nnations; but with them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form\nof their poetry, it always possesses the characteristic of religion.\"\n\n_Question_. I suppose you fully appreciate the religious characteristics\nof the Song of Solomon.\n\nNo answer.\n\n_Question_. Does the Bible uphold polygamy?\n\n_Answer._ \"The law of Moses did not forbid it, but contained many\nprovisions against its worst abuses, and such as were intended to\nrestrict it within narrow limits.\"\n\n_Question_. So you think God corrected some of the worst abuses of\npolygamy, but preserved the institution itself?\n\nI might question many others, but have concluded not to consider those\nas members of my Bible Class who deal in calumnies and epithets.\nFrom the so-called \"replies\" of such ministers, it appears that while\nChristianity changes the heart, it does not improve the manners, and\nthat one can get into heaven in the next world without having been a\ngentleman in this.\n\nIt is difficult for me to express the deep and thrilling satisfaction\nI have experienced in reading the admissions of the clergy of Chicago.\nSurely, the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won, when ministers\nadmit that the Bible is filled with ignorant and cruel mistakes;\nthat each man has the right to think for himself, and that it is not\nnecessary to believe the Scriptures in order to be saved. From the\nbottom of my heart I congratulate my pupils on the advance they have\nmade, and hope soon to meet them on the serene heights of perfect\nfreedom.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nWashington, D. C., May 7, 1879.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.\n\n\n     * The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883.\n\nTHE following questions have been submitted to me by the Rev. David\nWalk, Dr. T. B. Taylor, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D.\nO'Donaghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer.\n\n_Question_. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the\nFour Gospels, Fictional or Real?--Rev. David Walk.\n\n_Answer._ In all probability, there was a man by the name of Jesus\nChrist, who was, in his day and generation, a reformer--a man who was\ninfinitely shocked at the religion of Jehovah--who became almost insane\nwith pity as he contemplated the sufferings of the weak, the poor, and\nthe ignorant at the hands of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and\nbloodthirsty church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted the\ndownfall of the temple. In all probability, he hated, at last, every\npillar and stone in it, and despised even the \"Holy of Holies.\" This\nman, of course, like other men, grew. He did not die with the opinion\nhe held in his youth. He changed his views from time to time--fanned the\nspark of reason into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon extended\nand widened, and he became gradually a wiser, greater, and better man.\n\nI find two or three Christs described in the four Gospels. In some\nportions you would imagine that he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he\nsays that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because it is God's holy\ncity, certainly no Pharisee could have gone beyond that expression.\nSo, too, when it is recorded that he drove the money changers from the\ntemple. This, had it happened, would have been the act simply of one who\nhad respect for this temple and not for the religion taught in it.\n\nIt would seem that, at first, Christ believed substantially in the\nreligion of his time; that afterward, seeing its faults, he wished to\nreform it; and finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he devoted\nhis life to its destruction. This view shows that he \"increased in\nstature and grew in knowledge.\"\n\nThis view is also supported by the fact that, at first, according to\nthe account, Christ distinctly stated that his gospel was not for\nthe Gentiles. At that time he had altogether more patriotism than\nphilosophy. In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gentiles by\nthe persecution he endured at home. He found, as every Freethinker now\nfinds, that there are many saints not in churches and many devils not\nout.\n\nThe character of Christ, in many particulars, as described in the\nGospels, depends upon who wrote the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make\na Christ to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth; and\nsince the Gospels were finished, millions of men have been adding to and\nchanging the character of Christ.\n\nThere is another thing that should not be forgotten, and that is that\nthe Gospels were not written until after the Epistles. I take it for\ngranted that Paul never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he\nquotes none of them. There is also this remarkable fact: Paul quotes\nnone of the miracles of the New Testament. He says not one word\nabout the multitude being fed miraculously, not one word about the\nresurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son. He had never heard of\nthe lame, the halt, and the blind that had been cured; or if he had, he\ndid not think these incidents of enough importance to be embalmed in an\nepistle.\n\nSo we find that none of the early fathers ever quoted from the four\nGospels. Nothing can be more certain than that the four Gospels were not\nwritten until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more certain than\nthat the early Christians knew nothing of what we call the Gospels of\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All these things have been growths. At\nfirst it was believed that Christ was a direct descendant from David. At\nthat time the disciples of Christ, of course, were Jews. The Messiah was\nexpected through the blood of David.--For that reason, the genealogy of\nJoseph, a descendant of David, was given. It was not until long after,\nthat the idea came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the\nson of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the genealogy was given,\nbelieved that Christ was in fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they\ngive the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was related to David?\nIn other words, why should the son of God attempt to get glory out of\nthe fact that he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king? There\nis only one answer to this. The Jews expected the Messiah through\nDavid, and in order to prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the\ngenealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea became popularized that\nChrist was the son of God, and then were interpolated the words \"as\nwas supposed\" in the genealogy of Christ. It was a long time before the\ndisciples became great enough to include the world in their scheme, and\nbefore they thought it proper to tell the \"glad tidings of great joy\"\nbeyond the limits of Judea.\n\nMy own opinion is that the man called Christ lived; but whether he\nlived in Palestine, or not, is of no importance. His life is worth its\nexample, its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and heroism.\nIt is of no earthly importance whether he changed water into wine or\nnot. All his miracles are simply dust and darkness compared with what he\nactually said and actually did. We should be kind to each other whether\nLazarus was raised or not. We should be just and forgiving whether\nChrist lived or not. All the miracles in the world are of no use to\nvirtue, morality, or justice. Miracles belong to superstition, to\nignorance, to fear and folly.\n\nNeither does it make any difference who wrote the Gospels. They are\nworth the truth that is in them and no more.\n\nThe words of Paul are often quoted, that \"all scripture is given by\ninspiration of God.\" Of course that could not have applied to anything\nwritten after that time. It could have applied only to the Scriptures\nthen written and then known. It is perfectly clear that the four Gospels\nwere not at that time written, and therefore this statement of Paul's\ndoes not apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply to anything\nwritten after that statement was written. Neither does it apply to that\nstatement. If it applied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not\nthe New.\n\nChrist has been belittled by his worshipers. When stripped of the\nmiraculous; when allowed to be, not divine but divinely human, he will\nhave gained a thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think of him\nas I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of Epictetus, of Bruno. I place\nhim with the great, the generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for\nthe man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I think he was in\nmany things mistaken. His reliance upon the goodness of God was perfect.\nHe seemed to believe that his father in heaven would protect him. He\nthought that if God clothed the lilies of the field in beauty, if he\nprovided for the sparrows, he would surely protect a perfectly just\nand loving man. In this he was mistaken; and in the darkness of death,\noverwhelmed, he cried out: \"Why hast thou forsaken me?\"\n\nI do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be divine; ever claimed to\nbe inspired; ever claimed to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he\nwas an honest man. These claims were all put in his mouth by others--by\nmistaken friends, by ignorant worshipers, by zealous and credulous\nfollowers, and sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This has\nhappened to all the great men of the world. All historical characters\nare, in part, deformed or reformed by fiction. There was a man by the\nname of George Washington, but no such George Washington ever existed\nas we find portrayed in history. The historical Caesar never lived. The\nhistorical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the task of modern criticism\nto rescue these characters, and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to\nfind the actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of the Olympian\ngods and gave them to Christ. To me, Christ the man is far greater than\nChrist the god.\n\nTo me, it has always been a matter of wonder that Christ said nothing as\nto the obligation man is under to his country, nothing as to the rights\nof the people as against the wish and will of kings, nothing against the\nfrightful system of human slavery--almost universal in his time. What\nhe did not say is altogether more wonderful than what he did say. It is\nmarvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of intemperance, nothing\nabout education, nothing about philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing\nabout art. He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer a\nreward to those who would desert their wives and families. Of course,\nI do not believe that he said the words that were attributed to him, in\nwhich a reward is offered to any man who will desert his kindred. But if\nwe take the account given in the four Gospels as the true account, then\nChrist did offer a reward to a father who would desert his children. It\nhas always been contended that he was a perfect example of mankind, and\nyet he never married. As a result of what he did not teach in connection\nwith what he did teach, his followers saw no harm in slavery, no harm\nin polygamy. They belittled this world and exaggerated the importance of\nthe next. They consoled the slave by telling him that in a little while\nhe would exchange his chains for wings. They comforted the captive by\nsaying that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for the bowers\nof Paradise. His followers believed that he had said that \"Whosoever\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\" This passage was the cross upon which\nintellectual liberty was crucified.\n\nIf Christ had given us the laws of health; if he had told us how to\ncure disease by natural means; if he had set the captive free; if he had\ncrowned the people with their rightful power; if he had placed the home\nabove the church; if he had broken all the mental chains; if he had\nflooded all the caves and dens of fear with light, and filled the future\nwith a common joy, he would in truth have been the Savior of this world.\n\n_Question_. How do you account for the difference between the Christian\nand other modern civilizations?\n\n_Answer._ I account for the difference between men by the difference in\ntheir ancestry and surroundings--the difference in soil, climate, food,\nand employment. There would be no civilization in England were it not\nfor the Gulf Stream. There would have been very little here had it not\nbeen for the discovery of Columbus. And even now on this continent there\nwould be but little civilization had the soil been poor. I might ask:\nHow do you account for the civilization of Egypt? At one time that was\nthe greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact prove that the\nEgyptian religion was of divine origin? So, too, there was a time when\nthe civilization of India was beyond all others. Does that prove that\nVishnu was a God? Greece dominated the intellectual world for centuries.\nDoes that fact absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of heaven and\nearth? The same may be said of Rome. There was a time when Rome governed\nthe world, and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth of the\nRoman mythology. As a matter of fact, Rome was far better than any\nChristian nation ever was to the end of the seventeenth century. A\nthousand years of Christian rule produced no fellow for the greatest\nof Rome. There were no poets the equals of Horace or Virgil, no\nphilosophers as great as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors\nlike Marcus Aurelius, no women like the mothers of Rome.\n\nThe civilization of a country may be hindered by a religion, but it\nhas never been increased by any form of superstition. When America was\ndiscovered it had the same effect upon Europe that it would have, for\ninstance, upon the city of Chicago to have Lake Michigan put the other\nside of it. The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of commerce\nbecame deserted. The prow of the world turned westward, and, as a\nresult, France, England, and all countries bordering on the\nAtlantic became prosperous. The world has really been civilized by\ndiscoverers--by thinkers. The man who invented powder, and by that means\nreleased hundreds of thousands of men from the occupations of war, did\nmore for mankind than religion. The inventor of paper--and he was not\na Christian--did more than all the early fathers for mankind. The\ninventors of plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers; the inventors\nof wagons, coaches, locomotives; the inventors of skiffs, sail-vessels,\nsteamships; the men who have made looms--in short, the inventors of\nall useful things--they are the civilizers taken in connection with the\ngreat thinkers, the poets, the musicians, the actors, the painters, the\nsculptors. The men who have invented the useful, and the men who have\nmade the useful beautiful, are the real civilizers of mankind.\n\nThe priests, in all ages, have been hindrances--stumbling-blocks. They\nhave prevented man from using his reason. They have told ghost stories\nto courage until courage became fear. They have done all in their power\nto keep men from growing intellectually, to keep the world in a state of\nchildhood, that they themselves might be deemed great and good and wise.\nThey have always known that their reputation for wisdom depended upon\nthe ignorance of the people.\n\nI account for the civilization of France by such men as Voltaire. He did\ngood by assisting to destroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the\nsame way. He did harm in building another church. I account, in part,\nfor the civilization of England by the fact that she had interests\ngreater than the church could control; and by the further fact that her\ngreatest men cared nothing for the church. I account in part for the\ncivilization of America by the fact that our fathers were wise enough,\nand jealous of each other enough, to absolutely divorce church and\nstate. They regarded the church as a dangerous mistress--one not fit to\ngovern a president. This divorce was obtained because men like Jefferson\nand Paine were at that time prominent in the councils of the people.\nThere is this peculiarity in our country--the only men who can be\ntrusted with human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels\nhereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners have an opportunity to\nbe heard.\n\nNeither must we imagine that our civilization is the only one in the\nworld. They had no locks and keys in Japan until that country was\nvisited by Christians, and they are now used only in those ports where\nChristians are allowed to enter. It has often been claimed that there\nis but one way to make a man temperate, and that is by making him\na Christian; and this is claimed in face of the fact that Christian\nnations are the most intemperate in the world. For nearly thirteen\ncenturies the followers of Mohammed have been absolute teetotalers--not\none drunkard under the flag of the star and crescent. Wherever, in\nTurkey, a man is seen under the influence of liquor, they call him a\nChristian. You must also remember that almost every Christian nation\nhas held slaves. Only a few years ago England was engaged in the slave\ntrade. A little while before that our Puritan ancestors sold white\nQuaker children in the Barbadoes, and traded them for rum, sugar, and\nnegro slaves. Even now the latest champion of Christianity upholds\nslavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.\n\nSometimes I suspect that our own civilization is not altogether perfect.\nWhen I think of the penitentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the\nmany who ought to be in; of the want, the filth, the depravity of the\ngreat cities; of the starvation in the manufacturing centers of Great\nBritain, and, in fact, of all Europe; when I see women working like\nbeasts of burden, and little children deprived, not simply of education,\nbut of air, light and food, there is a suspicion in my mind that\nChristian civilization is not a complete and overwhelming success.\n\nAfter all, I am compelled to account for the advance that we have made,\nby the discoveries and inventions of men of genius. For the future I\nrely upon the sciences; upon the cultivation of the intellect. I rely\nupon labor; upon human interests in this world; upon the love of wife\nand children and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but upon good\nmen and women. I do not rely upon superstition, but upon knowledge; not\nupon miracles, but upon facts; not upon the dead, but upon the living;\nand when we become absolutely civilized, we shall look back upon the\nsuperstitions of the world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.\n\nNeither do I rely upon missionaries to convert those whom we are pleased\nto call \"the heathen.\" Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We\nexchange ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort to force a religion\nupon the people always ends in war. Commerce, founded upon mutual\nadvantage, makes peace. An honest merchant is better than a missionary.\n\nSpain was blessed with what is called Christian civilization, and yet,\nfor hundreds of years, that government was simply an organized crime.\nWhen one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the invasion of\nthe New World, the persecution in the Netherlands, the expulsion of the\nJews, and the Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of Europe\npreserve themselves from each other by bayonet and ball. Prussia has a\nstanding army of six hundred thousand men, France a half million, and\nall their neighbors a like proportion. These countries are civilized.\nThey are in the enjoyment of Christian governments--have their hundreds\nof a thousands of ministers, and the land covered with cathedrals and\nchurches--and yet every nation is nearly beggared by keeping armies in\nthe field. Christian kings have no confidence in the promises of each\nother. What they call peace is the little time necessarily spent in\nreloading their guns. England has hundreds of ships of war to protect\nher commerce from other Christians, and to force China to open her ports\nto the opium trade. Only the other day the Prime Minister of China, in\none of his dispatches to the English government, used substantially the\nfollowing language: \"England regards the opium question simply as one of\ntrade, but to China, it has a moral aspect.\" Think of Christian England\ncarrying death and desolation to hundreds of thousands in the name of\ntrade. Then think of heathen China protesting in the name of morality.\nAt the same time England has the impudence to send missionaries to\nChina.\n\nWhat has been called Christianity has been a disturber of the public\npeace in all countries and at all times. Nothing has so alienated\nnations, nothing has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as\nwhat has been known as religion. The idea that all men must worship the\nsame God, believe the same dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked\nwith bloody hands the flower of pity from the human heart.\n\nOur civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies.\nIt is not a result of \"inspiration.\" It is the child of invention, of\ndiscovery, of applied knowledge--that is to say, of science. When man\nbecomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights;\nwhen thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing\nuseful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our\nfellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized.\n\n_Question_. Since Laplace and other most distinguished astronomers hold\nto the theory that the earth was originally in a gaseous state, and then\na molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable or animal life,\ncould not exist, how do you account for the origin of life on this\nplanet without a \"Creator\"?--Dr. T. B. Taylor.\n\n_Answer._ Whether or not \"the earth was originally in a gaseous state\nand afterwards a molten mass in which the germs of vegetable and animal\nlife could not exist,\" I do not know. My belief is that the earth as it\nis, and as it was, taken in connection with the influence of the sun,\nand of other planets, produced whatever has existed or does exist on\nthe earth. I do not see why gas would not need a \"creator\" as much as\na vegetable. Neither can I imagine that there is any more necessity for\nsome one to start life than to start a molten mass. There may be now\nportions of the world in which there is not one particle of vegetable\nlife. It may be that on the wide waste fields of the Arctic zone\nthere are places where no vegetable life exists, and there may be many\nthousand miles where no animal life can be found. But if the poles of\nthe earth could be changed, and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a\ndifferent relative position to the sun, the snows would melt, the hills\nwould appear, and in a little while even the rocks would be clothed with\nvegetation. After a time vegetation would produce more soil, and in a\nfew thousand years forests would be filled with beasts and birds.\n\nI think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his effort to account for the\norigin of life upon this earth, stated that it might have come from some\nmeteoric stone falling from some other planet having in it the germs of\nlife. What would you think of a farmer who would prepare his land and\nwait to have it planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you think\nof a Deity who would make a world like this, and allow it to whirl\nthousands and millions of years, barren as a gravestone, waiting for\nsome vagrant comet to sow the seeds of life?\n\nI believe that back of animal life is the vegetable, and back of the\nvegetable, it may be, is the mineral. It may be that crystallization is\nthe first step toward what we call life, and yet I believe life is back\nof that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a gaseous state, it\nwas filled with life. These are subjects about which we know but little.\nHow do you account for chemistry? How do you account for the fact that\njust so many particles of one kind seek the society of just so many\nparticles of another, and when they meet they instantly form a glad and\nlasting union? How do you know but atoms have love and hatred? How\ndo you know that the vegetable does not enjoy growing, and that\ncrystallization itself is not an expression of delight? How do you know\nthat a vine bursting into flower does not feel a thrill? We find sex in\nthe meanest weeds--how can you say they have no loves?\n\nAfter all, of what use is it to search for a creator? The difficulty is\nnot thus solved. You leave your creator as much in need of a creator as\nanything your creator is supposed to have created. The bottom of your\nstairs rests on nothing, and the top of your stairs leans upon nothing.\nYou have reached no solution.\n\nThe word \"God\" is simply born of our ignorance. We go as far as we can,\nand we say the rest of the way is \"God.\" We look as far as we can,\nand beyond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we know but\nblindness, we place our Deity. We see an infinitesimal segment of a\ncircle, and we say the rest is \"God.\"\n\nMan must give up searching for the origin of anything. No one knows the\norigin of life, or of matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and\nthe whither are questions that no man can answer. In the presence of\nthese questions all intellects are upon a level. The barbarian knows\nexactly the same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher. Only\nthose who think that they have had some supernatural information pretend\nto answer these questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the\nunfathomable, is the realm wholly occupied by the \"inspired.\"\n\nWe are satisfied that all organized things must have had a beginning,\nbut we cannot conceive that matter commenced to be. Forms change,\nbut substance remains eternally the same. A beginning of substance is\nunthinkable. It is just as easy to conceive of anything commencing to\nexist _without_ a cause as _with_ a cause. There must be something for\ncause to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing--were such a thing\npossible--would produce nothing. There can be no relation between cause\nand nothing. We can understand how things can be arranged, joined or\nseparated--and how relations can be changed or destroyed, but we cannot\nconceive of creation--of nothing being changed into something, nor of\nsomething being made--except from preexisting materials.\n\n_Question_. Since the universal testimony of the ages is in the\naffirmative of phenomena that attest the continued existence of\nman after death--which testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the\nphenomena of the nineteenth century--what further evidence should\nthoughtful people require in order to settle the question, \"Does death\nend all?\"\n\n_Answer._ I admit that in all ages men have believed in spooks and\nghosts and signs and wonders. This, however, proves nothing. Men have\nfor thousands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped the absurd.\nOur ancestors have worshiped snakes and birds and beasts. I do not admit\nthat any ghost ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever performed\nexcept in imagination; and what you are pleased to call the \"phenomena\nof the nineteenth century,\" I fear are on an exact equality with the\nphenomena of the Dark Ages.\n\nWe do not yet understand the action of the brain. No one knows the\norigin of a thought. No one knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any\nmore than one knows why or how his heart beats. People, I imagine, have\nalways had dreams. In dreams they often met persons whom they knew to be\ndead, and it may be that much of the philosophy of the present was born\nof dreams. I cannot admit that anything supernatural ever has happened\nor ever will happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you call the\n\"phenomena of the nineteenth century,\" if by such \"phenomena\" you mean\nthe reappearance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of a future\nstate, because I do not know. Neither do I aver that there is one,\nbecause I do not know. Upon this question I am simply honest. I find\nthat people who believe in immortality--or at least those who say they\ndo--are just as afraid of death as anybody else. I find that the most\ndevout Christian weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who says\nthat death ends all. You see the promises are so far away, and the dead\nare so near. Still, I do not say that man is not immortal; but I do say\nthat there is nothing in the Bible to show that he is. The Old\nTestament has not a word upon the subject--except to show us how we lost\nimmortality. According to that book, man was driven from the Garden of\nEden, lest he should put forth his hand and eat of the fruit of the tree\nof life and live forever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us\nhow we lost immortality. In the New Testament we are told to seek for\nimmortality, and it is also stated that \"God alone hath immortality.\"\n\nThere is this curious thing about Christians and Spiritualists: The\nSpiritualists laugh at the Christians for believing the miracles of\nthe New Testament; they laugh at them for believing the story about the\nwitch of Endor. And then the Christians laugh at the Spiritualists for\nbelieving that the same kind of things happen now. As a matter of fact,\nthe Spiritualists have the best of it, because their witnesses are now\nliving, whereas the Christians take simply the word of the dead--of\nmen they never saw and of men about whom they know nothing. The\nSpiritualist, at least, takes the testimony of men and women that he can\ncross-examine. It would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make\ncommon cause. Then the Christians could prove their miracles by the\nSpiritualists, and the Spiritualists could prove their \"phenomena\" by\nthe Christians.\n\nI believe that thoughtful people require some additional testimony in\norder to settle the question, \"Does death end all?\" If the dead return\nto this world they should bring us information of value.\n\nThere are thousands of questions that studious historians and savants\nare endeavoring to settle--questions of history, of philosophy, of law,\nof art, upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able to shed a\nflood of light. All the questions of the past ought to be settled. Some\nmodern ghosts ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs, and\ngive us an outline of the history of Egypt. They ought to be able to\nread the arrow-headed writing and all the records of the past. The\nhieroglyphics of all ancient peoples should be unlocked, and thoughts\nand facts that have been imprisoned for so many thousand years should be\nreleased and once again allowed to visit brains. The Spiritualists ought\nto be able to give us the history of buried cities. They should clothe\nwith life the dust of all the past. If they could only bring us valuable\ninformation; if they could only tell us about some steamer in distress\nso that succor could be sent; if they could only do something useful,\nthe world would cheerfully accept their theories and admit their\n\"facts.\" I think that thoughtful people have the right to demand such\nevidence. I would like to have the spirits give us the history of\nall the books of the New Testament and tell us who first told of the\nmiracles. If they could give us the history of any religion, or nation,\nor anything, I should have far more confidence in the \"phenomena of the\nnineteenth century.\"\n\nThere is one thing about the Spiritualists I like, and that is, they are\nliberal. They give to others the rights they claim for themselves. They\ndo not pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain. They do\nnot slander and persecute even those who deny their \"phenomena.\" But\nI cannot admit that they have furnished conclusive evidence that death\ndoes not end all. Beyond the horizon of this life we have not seen. From\nthe mysterious beyond no messenger has come to me.\n\nFor the whole world I would not blot from the sky of the future a single\nstar. Arched by the bow of hope let the dead sleep.\n\n_Question_. How, when, where, and by whom was our present calendar\noriginated,--that is \"Anno Domini,\"--and what event in the history of\nthe nations does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of Jesus of\nNazareth?\n\n_Answer._ I have already said, in answer to a question by another\ngentleman, that I believe the man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date\nfrom somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about his having been\nborn on Christmas, because in reading other religions, I find that that\ntime has been celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of it is\nthis:\n\nAbout the 21st or 22d of December is the shortest day. After that the\ndays begin to lengthen and the sun comes back, and for many centuries\nin most nations they had a festival in commemoration of that event. The\nChristians, I presume, adopted this day, and made the birth of Christ\nfit it. Three months afterward--the 21st of March--the days and nights\nagain become equal, and the day then begins to lengthen. For centuries\nthe nations living in the temperate zones have held festivals to\ncommemorate the coming of spring--the yearly miracle of leaf, of bud\nand flower. This is the celebration known as Easter, and the Christians\nadopted that in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that, as a\nmatter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and Easter do not even tend\nto show that they stand for or are in any way connected with the birth\nor resurrection of Christ. In fact the evidence is overwhelmingly the\nother way.\n\nWhile we are on the calendar business it may be well enough to say that\nwe get our numerals from the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas\nof algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from the same source.\nSo from the Arabs we receive chemistry, and our first true notions of\ngeography. They gave us also paper and cotton.\n\nOwing to the fact that the earth does not make its circuit in the exact\ntime of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to\nthe fact that it was a long time before any near approach was made to\nthe actual time, all calendars after awhile became too inaccurate for\ngeneral use, and they were from time to time changed.\n\nRight here, it may be well enough to remark, that all the monuments and\nfestivals in the world are not sufficient to establish an impossible\nevent. No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of living evidence,\ncan substantiate a miracle. The monument only proves the _belief_ of the\nbuilders.\n\nIf we rely upon the evidence of monuments, calendars, dates, and\nfestivals, all the religions on the earth can be substantiated. Turkey\nis filled with such monuments and much of the time wasted in such\nfestivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July, but such celebration does\nnot even tend to prove that God, by his special providence, protected\nWashington from the arrows of an Indian. The Hebrews celebrate what is\ncalled the Passover, but this celebration does not even tend to prove\nthat the angel of the Lord put blood on the door-posts in Egypt. The\nMohammedans celebrate to-day the flight of Mohammed, but that does not\ntend to prove that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of God.\n\nNobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the erection of a monument.\nMonuments simply prove that people endeavor to substantiate truths and\nfalsehoods by the same means.\n\n_Question_. Letting the question as to hell hereafter rest for the\npresent, how do you account for the hell here--namely, the existence\nof pain? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this\npresent time in misery. If for these there is no life to come, their\nexistence is a mistake; but if there is a life to come, it may be that\nthe sequel to the acts of the play to come will justify the pain and\nmisery of this present time?--Rev. Myron W. Reed.\n\n_Answer._ There are four principal theories:\n\n_First_--That there is behind the universe a being of infinite power and\nwisdom, kindness, and justice.\n\n_Second_--That the universe has existed from eternity, and that it is\nthe only eternal existence, and that behind it is no creator.\n\n_Third_--That there is a God who made the universe, but who is not\nall-powerful and who is, under the circumstances, doing the best he can.\n\n_Fourth_--That there is an all-powerful God who made the universe, and\nthat there is also a nearly all-powerful devil, and this devil ravels\nabout as fast as this God knits.\n\nBy the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is extremely easy to account\nfor the misery in this world. If we admit that there is a malevolent\nbeing with power enough, and with cunning enough, to frequently\ncircumvent God, the problem of evil becomes solved so far as this world\nis concerned. But why this being was evil is still unsolved; why the\ndevil is malevolent is still a mystery. Consequently you will have to go\nback of this world, on that theory, to account for the origin of evil.\nIf this devil always existed, then, of course, the universe at one time\nwas inhabited only by this God and this devil.\n\nIf the third theory is correct, we can account for the fact that God\ndoes not see to it that justice is always done.\n\nIf the second theory is true, that the universe has existed from\neternity, and is without a creator, then we must account for the\nexistence of evil and good, not by personalities behind the universe,\nbut by the nature of things.\n\nIf there is an infinitely good and wise being who created all, it seems\nto me that he should have made a world in which innocence should be a\nsufficient shield. He should have made a world where the just man should\nhave nothing to fear.\n\nMy belief is this: We are surrounded by obstacles. We are filled\nwith wants. We must have clothes. We must have food. We must protect\nourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold. In our conflict with\nthese obstacles, with each other, and with what may be called the forces\nof nature, all do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like\nbegets like; that man gives his constitution, at least in part, to his\nchildren; that weakness and strength are in some degree both hereditary.\nThis is a fact in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for this\nfact--filled as it is with pain and joy. But it seems to me that an\ninfinite God should so have arranged matters that the bad would not\npass--that it would die with its possessor--that the good should\nsurvive, and that the man should give to his son, not the result of his\nvices, but the fruit of his virtues.\n\nI cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in\nanother world than he does in this. If he allows injustice to prevail\nhere, why will he not allow the same thing in the world to come? If\nthere is any being with power to prevent it, why is crime permitted? If\na man standing upon the railway should ascertain that a bridge had been\ncarried off by a flood, and if he also knew that the train was coming\nfilled with men, women, and children; with husbands going to their\nwives, and wives rejoining their families; if he made no effort to\nstop that train; if he simply sat down by the roadside to witness the\ncatastrophe, and so remained until the train dashed off the precipice,\nand its load of life became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be\ndenounced by every good man as the most monstrous of human beings. And\nyet this is exactly what the supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees\nthe train rushing to the gulf. He gives no notice. He sees the ship\nrushing for the hidden rock. He makes no sign. And he so constructed\nthe world that assassins lurk in the air--hide even in the sunshine--and\nwhen we imagine that we are breathing the breath of life, we are taking\ninto ourselves the seeds of death.\n\nThere are two facts inconsistent in my mind--a martyr and a God.\nInjustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.\n\nI would not take from those suffering in this world the hope of\nhappiness hereafter. My principal object has been to take away from them\nthe fear of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for me to\nexplain the facts by which I am surrounded, if I admit the existence of\nan infinite Being. I find in this world that physical and mental evils\nafflict the good. It seems to me that I have the same reason to expect\nthe bad to be rewarded hereafter. I have no right to suppose that\ninfinite wisdom will ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence\nwill increase in kindness, or that the justice of the eternal can\nchange. If, then, this eternal being allows the good to suffer pain\nhere, what right have we to say that he will not allow them to suffer\nforever?\n\nSome people have insisted that this life is a kind of school for the\nproduction of self-denying men and women--that is, for the production\nof character. The statistics show that a large majority die under five\nyears of age. What would we think of a schoolmaster who killed the most\nof his pupils the first day? If this doctrine is true, and if manhood\ncannot be produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are infinitely\nunfortunate.\n\nI admit that, although I do not understand the subject, still, all pain,\nall misery may be for the best. I do not know. If there is an infinitely\nwise Being, who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that\nhappens must be for the best. That philosophy of special providence,\ngoing to the extreme, is infinitely better than most of the Christian\ncreeds. There seems to be no half-way house between special providence\nand atheism. You know some of the Buddhists say that when a man commits\nmurder, that is the best thing he could have done, and that to be\nmurdered was the best thing that could have happened to the killed. They\ninsist that every step taken is the necessary step and the best step;\nthat crimes are as necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and\nvirtue is finally the same.\n\nBut whatever theories we have, we have at last to be governed by the\nfacts. We are in a world where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease\nare hereditary. In the presence of this immense and solemn truth rises\nthe religion of the body. Every man should refuse to increase the misery\nof this world. And it may be that the time will come when man will be\ngreat enough and grand enough utterly to refrain from the propagation\nof disease and deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers\nand mothers. We do know that the misery in this world can be lessened;\nconsequently I believe in the religion of this world. And whether there\nis a heaven or hell here, or hereafter, every good man has enough to\ndo to make this world a little better than it is. Millions of lives are\nwasted in the vain effort to find the origin of things, and the destiny\nof man. This world has been neglected. We have been taught that life\nshould be merely a preparation for death.\n\nTo avoid pain we must know the conditions of health. For the\naccomplishment of this end we must rely upon investigation instead\nof faith, upon labor in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by\nignorance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.\n\n_Question_. State with what words you can comfort those who have, by\ntheir own fault, or by the fault of others, found this life not worth\nliving?\n\n_Answer._ If there is no life beyond this, and so believing I come to\nthe bedside of the dying--of one whose life has been a failure--a \"life\nnot worth living,\" I could at least say to such an one, \"Your failure\nends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is nothing for you--neither\npain nor misery, neither grief nor joy.\" But if I were a good orthodox\nChristen, then I would have to say to this man, \"Your life has been a\nfailure; you have not been a Christian, and the failure will be extended\neternally; you have not only been a failure for a time, but you will be\na failure forever.\"\n\nAdmitting that there is another world, and that the man's life had been\na failure in this, then I should say to him, \"If you live again, you\nwill have the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be no time, no\ndate, no matter how many millions and billions of ages may have passed\naway, at which you will not have the opportunity of doing right.\"\n\nUnder no circumstances could I consistently say to this man: \"Although\nyour life has been a failure; although you have made hundreds and\nthousands of others suffer; although you have deceived and betrayed the\nwoman who loved you; although you have murdered your benefactor; still,\nif you will now repent and believe a something that is unreasonable\nor reasonable to your mind, you will, at the moment of death, be\ntransferred to a world of eternal joy.\" This I could not say. I would\ntell him, \"If you die a bad man here, you will commence the life to\ncome with the same character you leave this. Character cannot be made by\nanother for you. You must be the architect of your own.\" There is to me\nunspeakably more comfort in the idea that every failure ends here, than\nthat it is to be perpetuated forever.\n\nHow can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl who has died without\nbelieving in Christ? What doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away\nher tears? What words of comfort can you offer to the mother whose brave\nboy fell in defence of his country, she knowing and you knowing, that\nthe boy was not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible, and\nhad no faith in the blood of the atonement? What words of comfort have\nyou for such fathers and for such mothers?\n\nTo me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd as the idea that this\nlife is a probationary state--that the few moments spent here decide the\nfate of a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived more merciless,\nmore unjust. I am doing all I can to destroy that doctrine. I want, if\npossible, to get the shadow of hell from the human heart.\n\nWhy has any life been a failure here? If God is a being of infinite\nwisdom and kindness, why does he make failures? What excuse has infinite\nwisdom for peopling the world with savages? Why should one feel grateful\nto God for having made him with a poor, weak and diseased brain; for\nhaving allowed him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of\ninsanity? Why should one thank God, who lived and died a slave?\n\nAfter all, is it not of more importance to speak the absolute truth?\nIs it not manlier to tell the fact than to endeavor to convey comfort\nthrough falsehood? People must reap not only what they sow, but what\nothers have sown. The people of the whole world are united in spite of\nthemselves.\n\nNext to telling a man, whose life has been a failure, that he is to\nenjoy an immortality of delight--next to that, is to assure him that a\nplace of eternal punishment does not exist.\n\nAfter all, there are but few lives worth living in any great and\nsplendid sense. Nature seems filled with failure, and she has made no\nexception in favor of man. To the greatest, to the most successful,\nthere comes a time when the fevered lips of life long for the cool,\ndelicious kiss of death--when, tired of the dust and glare of day, they\nhear with joy the rustling garments of the night.\n\nArchibald Armstrong and Jonathan Newgate were fast friends. Their views\nin regard to the question of a future life, and the existence of a God,\nwere in perfect accord. They said:\n\n\"'We know so little about these matters that we are not justified in\ngiving them any serious consideration. Our motto and rule of life shall\nbe for each one to make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy\nevery pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself to be influenced\nat all by thoughts of a future life.'\n\n\"Both had some money. Archibald had a large amount. Once upon a time\nwhen no human eye saw him--and he had no belief in a God--Jonathan stole\nevery dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him penniless. He had no\nfear, no remorse; no one saw him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed\nlife immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until in mellow old\nage he went the way of all flesh. Archibald fared badly. The odds were\nagainst him.\n\n\"His money was gone. He lived in penury and discontent, dissatisfied with\nmankind and with himself, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and\ndepressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest in painless suicide.\"\n\n_Question_. What are we to think of the rule of life laid down by these\nmen? Was either of them inconsistent or illogical? Is there no remedy to\ncorrect such irregularities?--Rev. D. O'Donaghue.\n\n_Answer._ The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to entertain strange ideas as\nto right and wrong. He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan\nNewgate concluded to make themselves as comfortable as they could and\nenjoy every pleasure within their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue\nstates that one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate was to\nsteal what little money Mr. Armstrong had. Does the reverend gentleman\nthink that Mr. Newgate made or could make himself comfortable in that\nway? He tells us that Mr. Newgate \"had no remorse,\"--that he \"became\nrich and enjoyed life immensely,\"--that he \"lived in contentment and\npleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way of all flesh.\"\n\nDoes the reverend gentleman really believe that a man can steal without\nfear, without remorse? Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the\nfruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented and happy life,\nthat one who has robbed his friend can reach a mellow and delightful old\nage? Is this the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue?\n\nAnd right here I may be permitted to ask, Why did the Rev. Mr.\nO'Donaghue's God allow a thief to live without fear, without remorse, to\nenjoy life immensely and to reach a mellow old age? And why did he allow\nMr. Armstrong, who had been robbed, to live in penury and discontent,\nuntil at last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in suicide? Does\nthe Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to say that if there is no future life it\nis wise to steal in this? If the grave is the eternal home, would the\nRev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise people to commit crimes in order that they\nmay enjoy this life? Such is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God\nor not, truth is better than falsehood. Whether there is a heaven or\nhell, honesty is always the best policy. There is no world, and can be\nnone, where vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves of joy.\n\nAccording to my view, Mr. Armstrong was altogether more fortunate than\nMr. Newgate. I had rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had\nrather be of such a disposition that I would be driven to suicide by\nmisfortune than to live in contentment upon the misfortunes of\nothers. The reverend gentleman, however, should have made his question\ncomplete--he should have gone the entire distance. He should have added\nthat Mr. Newgate, after having reached a mellow old age, was suddenly\nconverted, joined the church, and died in the odor of sanctity on the\nvery day that his victim committed suicide.\n\nBut I will answer the fable of the reverend gentleman with a fact.\n\nA young man was in love with a girl. She was young, beautiful, and\ntrustful. She belonged to no church--knew nothing about a future\nworld--basked in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled with\ngentle deeds. The tears of pity had sanctified her cheeks. She\nbelieved in no religion, worshiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved\neverything. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered her. He was\ntried; convicted; a motion for a new trial overruled and a pardon\nrefused. In his cell, in the shadow of death, he was converted--he\nbecame a Catholic. With the white lips of fear he confessed to a priest.\nHe received the sacrament.\n\nHe was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his way to the realms of\nbliss. For months the murdered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs\nof hell.\n\nThe poor girl will endure the agony of the damned forever, while her\nmurderer will be ravished with angelic chant and song. Such is the\njustice of the orthodox God.\n\nAllow me to use the language of the reverend gentleman: \"Is there no\nremedy to correct such irregularities?\"\n\nAs long as the idea of eternal punishment remains a part of the\nChristian system, that system will be opposed by every man of heart and\nbrain. Of all religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous,\nand absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the enemies of human\nhappiness; they are the assassins of natural joy. Every father, every\nmother, every good man, every loving woman, should hold this doctrine in\nabhorrence; they should refuse to pay men for preaching it; they should\nnot build churches in which this infamy is taught; they should teach\ntheir little children that it is a lie; they should take this horror\nfrom childhood's heart--a horror that makes the cradle as terrible as\nthe coffin.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BROOKLYN DIVINES.\n\n\n     * Brooklyn Union, 1883.\n\n\n_Question_. The clergymen who have been interviewed, almost unanimously\nhave declared that the church is suffering very little from the\nskepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers,\nwhose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel, is not great; and\nthat the books of such writers are not read as much as some people think\nthey are. What is your opinion with regard to that subject?\n\n_Answer._ It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by\nhis class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for\nthe ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. By\ncomparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that\nhas been made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite\northodox would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy.\nOnly a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and\nDarwin and Humboldt would have been considered as the most infamous of\nmonsters.\n\nOnly a few years ago science was superstition's hired man. The\nscientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat\nin hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked\nthe forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that\ntime every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was\nauthority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of\nthe world. Now everything has changed, and everybody knows it except\nthe clergy. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is\nfinding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in\nthe language of the common people; that he was not teaching any science;\nthat he allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them\nthere. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question\nof natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way.\nAll, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be\nregarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute\nof fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of\ninspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in\ncontempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of men who combat\nand deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher\nthan all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought\nthan all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel\ntwenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I\nwould be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn\nleaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and\nemployments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply\ndisbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with\nindifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of\nthousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.\nMillions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of\neternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd\nby millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and\nvicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to\nanswer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful\nreason: That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from\nreading the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he\ncannot defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more\ninfidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the\ntheories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who\nfeels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his congregation is\nconcerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the\nyoung people in his church don't know enough to have intelligent doubts,\nand that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr.\nPullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other\ndefence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity\nshould never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been\nsuccessfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the\nimpossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells\ntells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not\nbe spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling\nof security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great\nmajority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current\ninfidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it\nwould be dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position\nof the infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help\nof God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree.\nDr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is\nall smoke.\n\nHe thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks\nthat the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his\nbrothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that\ninfidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in\nhis general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his\nbrethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never had a\ndiscussion. The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the\ncatechism; that there is not now enough of authority; not enough of the\nbrute force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state ought to\nuse the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that the rod is\na divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for their children;\nthat mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the religion of\nuniversal love. The man who cannot raise children without whipping them\nought not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl\nis unfit to have the control of a human being. The father who keeps\na rod in his house keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There\nis nothing reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in fear.\nKindness, guided by intelligence, is the only reforming force. An appeal\nto brute force is an abandonment of love and reason, and puts father and\nchild upon a savage equality; the savageness in the heart of the father\nprompting the use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in the\nvictim; The old idea that a child's spirit must be broken is infamous.\nAll this is passing away, however, with orthodox Christianity. That\nchildren are treated better than formerly shows conclusively the\nincrease of what is called infidelity. Infidelity has always been a\nprotest against tyranny in the state, against intolerance in the church,\nagainst barbarism in the family. It has always been an appeal for light,\nfor justice, for universal kindness and tenderness.\n\n_Question_. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is\nthe greatest foe to the church, and admit that it is on the increase?\n\n_Answer._ I see that all the ministers you have interviewed regard\nworldliness as the great enemy of the church. What is worldliness? I\nsuppose worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs of this\nworld; getting enjoyment out of this life; gratifying the senses, giving\nthe ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food;\ncultivating the imagination; playing games of chance; adorning the\nperson; developing the body; enriching the mind; investigating the facts\nby which we are surrounded; building homes; rocking cradles; thinking;\nworking; inventing; buying; selling; hoping--all this, I suppose, is\nworldliness. These \"worldly\" people have cleared the forests, plowed\nthe land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and\nhave produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the\npreachers denounce them. Were it not for \"worldly\" people how would the\npreachers get along? Who would build the churches? Who would fill the\ncontribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all questions)\nwould pay the salaries? It is the habit of the ministers to belittle men\nwho support them--to slander the spirit by which they live. \"It is as\nthough the mouth should tear the hand that feeds it.\" The nobility of\nthe Old World hold the honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so\ncontemptible themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor.\nAnd so the minister pretending to be spiritual--pretending to be a\nspiritual guide--looks with contempt upon the men who make it possible\nfor him to live. It may be said by \"worldliness\" they only mean\nenjoyment--that is, hearing music, going to the theater and the opera,\ntaking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea. Of course,\nministers look upon theaters as rival attractions, and most of their\nhatred is born of business views. They think people ought to be driven\nto church by having all other places closed. In my judgment the theater\nhas done good, while the church has done harm. The drama never has\ninsisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On\nthe contrary, upon the stage have forever been found impersonations\nof patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and these\nimpersonations have always been applauded, and have been represented\nthat they might be applauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites have been\nworshiped; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and\nexecration. Shakespeare has done far more for the world than the Bible.\nThe ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldliness.\nNothing can be more absurd than this talk of spirituality. As though\nreaders of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were\nengaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher\nthan human love? A man is in love with a girl, and he has determined to\nwork for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is\nthere anything more spiritual than that--anything higher? They marry. He\nclears some land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin; and she, of this\nhovel, makes a happy home. She plants flowers, puts a few simple things\nof beauty upon the walls. This is what the preachers call \"worldliness.\"\nIs there anything more spiritual? In a little while, in this cabin, in\nthis home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle's rock, while\nsoftly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything more\nspiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender than to see husband\nand wife bending, with clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the\ndimpled miracle of love? I say it is spiritual to work for those you\nlove; spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind--for he who\nimproves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the\nplowers instead of the prayers. I believe in the new firm of \"Health &\nHeresy\" rather than the old partnership of \"Disease & Divinity,\" doing\nbusiness at the old sign of the \"Skull & Crossbones.\" Some of the\nministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells\nus the cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and\ncyclones, and things of that character for the purpose of making people\nspiritual; of calling their attention to the fact that everything in\nthis world is of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had great\nfaith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is\na thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for\na banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the average\nChristian that thick soup has, according to Bumble, on the English\npauper: \"It makes 'em impudent.\" The devil made a mistake in not\ndoubling Job's property instead of leaving him a pauper. In prosperity\nthe ministers think that we forget death and are too happy. In the arms\nof those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment forgotten.\nAccording to the ministers, God kills our children in order that we\nmay not forget him. They imagine that the man who goes into Dakota,\ncultivates the soil and rears him a little home, is getting too\n\"worldly.\" And so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs\nof wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers in\nBrooklyn say this is done because we are getting too \"worldly.\" They\nthink we should be more \"spiritual;\" that is to say, willing to live\nupon the labor of others; willing to ask alms, saying, in the meantime,\n\"It is more blessed to give than to receive.\" If this is so, why not\ngive the money back? \"Spiritual\" people are those who eat oatmeal and\nprunes, have great confidence in dried apples, read Cowper's \"Task\" and\nPollok's \"Course of Time,\" laugh at the jokes in _Harper's Monthly_,\nwear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has\nelevated the world \"beggarly elements.\"\n\n_Question_. Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit\nthat the rich and poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the\nestablishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and\nfashionable churches.\n\n_Answer._ The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was\nat hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the\npresence of such a belief what are known as class distinctions could not\neasily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond\nof union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they\nlack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.\nHe took in part the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the\nolder parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the\ntraveler gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As\nthey become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is\nthe same in the church. The church no longer believes the creed, no\nlonger acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the\nsermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister\nto a man just above the falls; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as\na lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If\nhe really believed that the coachman had an immortal soul, capable of\neternal joy, liable to everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make\nthe calling and election of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact\nthe rich man now cares but little for servants. They are not included\nin the scheme of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The church\nhas become a club. It is a social affair, and the rich do not care to\nassociate in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at\nchurch. As they expect to be in heaven together forever, they can afford\nto be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to\nget acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The\nchurch depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of place\nin such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest seat; like\npoor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table\nof Christ they are below the salt.\n\nThey are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they\nfeel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the\nmillionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the\ncontribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the church.\nIt costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary,\nfashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too\nmany jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be\nsuperiority.\n\n_Question_. Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of\nchurches, we had societies of ethical culture? Would not the rich there\npredominate and the poor be just as much out of place?\n\n_Answer._ I think the effect would be precisely the same, no matter what\nthe society is, what object it has, if composed of rich and poor. Class\ndistinctions, to a greater or less extent, will creep in--in fact, they\ndo not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement, and they\nare born of the different conditions of the members.\n\nThese class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For\ninstance, some men obtain money, and are what we call snobs. Others\nobtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according\nto the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on intellectual\ngrounds, for instance.\n\nThere is not only the distinction produced by wealth and power,\nbut there are the distinctions born of intelligence, of culture, of\ncharacter, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest\nmechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any\none blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with arrogant\nwealth. The right to make the distinction is with all classes, and with\nthe individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have any society\nfor any purpose--that is, where they meet together--without certain\nembarrassments being produced by these distinctions. Nowt for instance,\nsuppose there should be a society simply of intelligent and cultured\npeople. There, wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded. But,\nafter all, the distinction that intelligence draws between talent and\ngenius is as marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and\nwealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such\nvast importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are\nforgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and\nintelligent, to act in concert. This happens in political parties, in\ntime of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion has been\nfounded. Whenever the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions\nare forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave liberty to the\nslave during the Civil war, and clad him in the uniform of the nation;\nwe wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly\nwilling to forget the distinction of color. Common peril produces pure\ndemocracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor young man\ncoming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about\nthe old fogies; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of\nthe trade; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly; wants competition;\nshouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed;\nlet him have a palace in Fifth Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and\ncoaches; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for more\npolice. He will then say: \"We want protection; the rabble must be put\ndown.\" We have an aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country an\naristocracy of literature--men and women who imagine themselves writers\nand who hold in contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces in\nthe most elegant diction--people who look upon a mistake in grammar as\nfar worse than a crime. So, in some communities we have an aristocracy\nof muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness.\nIntellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel; as cruel as wealth\nwithout a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle without mercy. So that,\nafter all, the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where the\nintellect is directed by the heart.\n\n_Question_. You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as cruel\nas the aristocracy of wealth--what do you mean by that?\n\n_Answer._ By intellect, I mean simply intellect; that is to say, the\naristocracy of education--of simple brain--expressed in innumerable\nways--in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say\nthat that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth.\nAfter all, why should a man be proud of something given him by\nnature--something that he did not earn, did not produce--something that\nhe could not help? Is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth which\nyou have accumulated than of brain which nature gave you? And, to carry\nthis idea clearly out, why should we be proud of anything? Is there any\nproper occasion on which to crow? If you succeed, your success crows for\nyou; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in the best of taste. And why\nshould a man be proud of brain? Why should he be proud of disposition or\nof good acts?\n\n_Question_. You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of\ncourse, you must recognize the right of every one to select his own\ncompanions. Would it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the\ncompanionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace\nand unintelligent persons?\n\n_Answer._ All men should have the same rights, and one right that\nevery man should have is to associate with congenial people. There are\nthousands of good men whose society I do not covet. They may be stupid,\nor they may be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested,\nand may be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care\nnothing. In either case they are not congenial. They have the right to\nselect congenial company; so have I. And while distinctions are thus\nmade, they are not cruel; they are not heartless. They are for the\ngood of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and\nare consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these\ndistinctions in the church more than we do in the club is that the\nchurch talks one way and acts another; because the church insists that a\ncertain line of conduct is essential to salvation, and that every human\nbeing is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were true, then, in\nthe presence of such an infinite verity, all earthly distinctions should\ninstantly vanish. Every Christian should exert himself for the salvation\nof the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness that he\nwould show to save a king. The accidents of wealth, education, social\nposition, should be esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly\nwork side by side with the poorest. The churches will never reach the\npoor as long as they sell pews; as long as the rich members wear their\nbest clothes on Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-room\nare taken to the table of the last supper, the poor will remain in the\nhighways and hedges. Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So\nlong as the ministers shut up their churches, and allow the poor to go\nto hell in summer; as long as they leave the devil without a competitor\nfor three months in the year, the churches will not materially impede\nthe march of human progress. People often, unconsciously and without any\nmalice, say something or do something that throws an unexpected light\nupon a question. The other day, in one of the New York comic papers,\nthere was a picture representing the foremost preachers of the country\nat the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy\neach others society. These ministers are supposed to be the apostles of\nthe religion of kindness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and\nyet the idea that they could associate happily together is regarded as\na joke! After all, churches are like other institutions, they have to\nbe managed, and they now rely upon music and upon elocution rather than\nupon the gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up\nthe doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their\nhold. The orthodox churches used to tell us there was to be a fire,\nand they offered to insure; and as long as the fire was expected\nthe premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then came the\nUniversalist Church, saying that there would be no fire, and yet\nasking the people to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It\nundoubtedly did good by its influence upon other churches. So with the\nUnitarian. That church has no basis for organization; no reason, because\nno hell is threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the\nchurches have lost their belief in eternal fire, they have lost their\ninfluence, and the reason they have lost their belief is on account\nof the diffusion of knowledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and\ninfamous. Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelligent\npeople can no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the\nchurches must finally abandon it, and when they do, that is the end of\nthe church militant.\n\n_Question_. What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic\nChurch, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in\nany particular, in regard to future punishment?\n\n_Answer._ Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another\nbattle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations\nhave not been converted since then. The time has passed to preach\nwith sword and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no\nmore victories. That church increases in this country mostly from\nimmigration. Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It is at war\nwith the idea of our Government, antagonistic to true republicanism, and\nis in every sense anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control\nits members. That church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of\neducation. It is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used\nas a political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are\nthousands of good Catholics. As a rule they probably believe the creed\nof the church. That church has lost the power to anathematize. It can\nno longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces--upon persuasion,\nsophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity.\n\n_Question_. You have stated your objections to the churches, what would\nyou have to take their place?\n\n_Answer._ There was a time when men had to meet together for the purpose\nof being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds and\nhundreds of years most people depended for their information on what\nthey heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of\ncourse, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not\nonly all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he\nwas a gentleman; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was\nnecessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no\nway of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily\npress gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you\nthe thoughts of the greatest and best. Every man of moderate means can\ncommand the principal sources of information. There is no necessity for\ngoing to the church and hearing the same story forever. Let the minister\nwrite what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,\npeople will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a church in\nthe name of duty and there inflict upon them a sermon that under no\ncircumstances they would read. Of course, there will always be meetings,\noccasions when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear what a\nman has to say upon some questions, but the idea of going fifty-two days\nin a year to hear anybody on the same subject is absurd.\n\n_Question_. Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that\nstatement?\n\n_Answer._ Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not\northodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his\ncreed. He delivered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes\nthe ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, consequently, no\none could be an infidel. Every one believes in kindness, at least\ntheoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes to\nthe conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of\nintellectual convictions upon certain subjects. The more sermons like\nthat are preached, probably the better. What I intended was the eternal\nrepetition of the old story: That God made the world and a man, and\nthen allowed the devil to tempt him, and then thought of a scheme\nof salvation, of vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards; drowned\neverybody except Noah and his family, and afterward, when he failed\nto civilize the Jewish people, came in person and suffered death, and\nannounced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved,\nand those who did not, eternally lost. Now, this story, with occasional\nreferences to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding\nheat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of Paradise, is the average\nsermon, and this story is told again, again, and again, by the same men,\nlistened to by the same people without any effect except to tire the\nspeaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would take their texts from\nShakespeare; if they would read every Sunday a selection from some of\nthe great plays, the result would be infinitely better. They would all\nlearn something; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear\nshort. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness of\nthe pulpit than baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The dignified\ndullness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has never been\nexcelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the ministry were\ngiven no new weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock of a century\nago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than their\nweapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by\nkeeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic by ignoring\nthe facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor\nof education; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a\nProtestant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philosopher. The\nCatholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a\nCatholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his\nbelief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a\ndoubt; a doubt is the threshold of infidelity. The young ministers are\nwarned against inquiry. They are educated like robins; they swallow\nwhatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or shingle-nails, it makes no\ndifference, and they are expected to get their revenge by treating\ntheir flocks precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of\nthe churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing,\nbecause they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden\naunts.\n\nThousands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with\ntrade. Politicians keep quiet for fear of losing influence. But when you\nget at the real opinions of people, a vast majority have outgrown the\ndoctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good\nfor women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep\norder. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of independence.\nThey are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they\nare beginning everywhere to say that they do not regard this life as a\nprobationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad;\nthat the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous; that\nit must have been written by men. And the people at large are beginning\nto find that the ministers have kept back the facts; have not told the\nhistory of the Bible; have not given to their congregations the latest\nadvices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox\nChristianity has outlived its usefulness. The church has a great deal\nto contend with. The scientific men are not religious. Geology laughs at\nGenesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of\nthe motions of heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws\nof Moses; the intellect of the world is on the other side. There is\nsomething besides preaching on Sunday. The newspaper is the rival of the\npulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers\ntake hundreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at\nwork all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so\nuniversal that the preacher is following his example. The flock has\nceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In\na little while all the libraries will be open--all the museums. There\nwill be music in the public parks; the opera, the theater. And what\nwill churches do then? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty\npews, unless the church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands\nof the present.\n\n_Question_. You speak as if the influences working against Christianity\nto-day will tend to crush it out of existence. Do you think that\nChristianity is any worse off now than it was during the French\nRevolution, when the priests were banished from the country and\nreason was worshiped; or in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume,\nBolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it?\n\n_Answer._ You must remember that the French Revolution was produced by\nCatholicism; that it was a reaction; that it went to infinite extremes;\nthat it was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand\nthose times, provided you know the history of the Catholic Church.\nThe seeds of the French Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The\npeople had suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and\nthe French Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs\nno longer. It was something not reasoned; it was felt. Only a few acted\nfrom intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were\ncarried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to\ntear down palaces, to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of\nall the centuries. Catholicism has never recovered--it never will. The\ndagger of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism\nhas staggered from that day to this.\n\nIt has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltaire there\nwere twenty millions less Catholics than when he was born. In the French\nRevolution muscle outran mind; revenge anticipated reason. There\nwas destruction without the genius of construction. They had to use\nmaterials that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.\n\nThe French Revolution was a failure because the French people were a\nfailure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism\nhad made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him.\nProbably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have\nread the works of Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little\nwhile ago, a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one\nhundred dollars to repeat a paragraph, or to give the title, even, of\none of Voltaire's volumes. Most ministers think he was an atheist. The\ntrouble with the infidels in England a hundred years ago was that they\ndid not go far enough. It may be that they could not have gone further\nand been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground that there was\nan infinite, all-wise, beneficent God, creator of the universe, and that\nthis all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of\nthe Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the author of\nnature, and the theologians completely turned the tables by showing\nthat this god of nature was in the pestilence and plague business,\nmanufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of\nnecessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment, the Deists\nwere all successfully answered. The god of nature is certainly as bad as\nthe God of the Old Testament. It is only when we discard the idea of a\ndeity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are able\never to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that I am neither\na favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not\nbelieve in the existence of any personal god. I regard the universe as\nthe one fact, as the one existence--that is, as the absolute thing. I am\na part of this. I do not say that there is no God; I simply say that I\ndo not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say\nthat man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not know,\nand the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that subject\ngive me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on\nthe subject, because I know that they know that they do not know. The\ninfidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, comparatively speaking,\nof geology; nothing of astronomy; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and\nDarwin; nothing of evolution; nothing, comparatively speaking, of other\nreligions; nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other\nwords, the infidels of a hundred years ago knew the creed of orthodox\nChristianity to be false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The\ninfidels of to-day have the facts; that is the difference. A hundred\nyears ago it was a guessing prophecy; to-day it is the fact and\nfulfillment. Everything in nature is working against superstition\nto-day. Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from\ndust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The smallest\npebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of grass, rightly\nunderstood, destroys the orthodox creed.\n\n_Question_. You say that the pews will be empty in the future unless\nthe church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the\nministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than\nthose of a hundred years ago, and are not the \"liberal\" views in regard\nto the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the\nfall of man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in\nmany churches, an indication that the church is meeting the demands of\nmany people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in\nChristianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions?\n\n_Answer._ As to the first part of this question, I do not think the\nministers of to-day are more intellectual than they were a hundred years\nago; that is, I do not think they have greater brain capacity, but\nI think on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The\namelioration of orthodox Christianity is not by the intelligence in the\npulpit, but by the brain in the pews. Another thing: One hundred years\nago the church had intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened\na career. Not so now. There are too many avenues to distinction and\nwealth--too much worldliness. The best minds do not go into the pulpit.\nMartyrs had rather be burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day\nare not naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence.\nThere are some great exceptions, but those exceptions are the ministers\nnearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher\nis a great man--not the most consistent man in the world--but he is\ncertainly a man of mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get rid\nof the idea that Plymouth Church is necessary to him--after that time\nhe would not utter an orthodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might\nmention some others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not remarkable\nfor intelligence. The intelligent men of the world do not believe in\northodox Christianity. It is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The\nconservative ministers are the stupid ones. The conservative professors\nare those upon whose ideas will be found the centuries' moss, old red\nsandstone theories, pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the second part\nof the question: The views of the church are changing, the clergy of\nBrooklyn to the contrary, notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind\nof boa-constrictor; anything it can not dodge it will swallow. The\nchurch is bound to have something for sale that somebody wants to buy.\nAccording to the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the\npulpit dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on\nbusiness principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories insists\non having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and\nthey must supply the market with such religious vegetables as the\ncongregations desire. Thousands have given up belief in the inspiration\nof the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement idea and original\nsin. Millions believe now, that this is not a state of probation; that\na man, provided he is well off and has given liberally to the church, or\nwhose wife has been a regular attendant, will, in the next world, have\nanother chance; that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new\ntrial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it used to be supposed;\nthat, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are\ncool; and that, after all, there is not so much to fear from the future.\nThey regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give\nthem the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their old\nclothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off,\nsomewhat raveled, will, after all, do very well for paupers. There is a\ngreat trade of this kind going on now--selling old theological clothes\nto the colored people in the South. All I have said applies to all\nchurches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not change its\nceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that\nclothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and blood and throb of\nlife and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathedrals, the spirit\nthat emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned in\nanother direction. Of course, the churches are all going to endeavor to\nmeet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for old texts.\nThey will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They will find\nthat \"flat\" meant \"a little rounding;\" that \"six days\" meant \"six long\ntimes;\" that the word \"flood\" should have been translated \"dampness,\"\n\"dew,\" or \"threatened rain;\" that Daniel in the lion's den was an\nhistorical myth; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with\nthis world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to\nharmonize with the facts of modern science. They will not change the\nwords of the creed; they will simply give \"new meanings and the highest\ncriticism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In other words, the\nchurches will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that\nwhich can be sold. Already the old goods are being \"marked down.\" If,\nhowever, the church should fail, why then it must go. I see no reason,\nmyself, for its existence. It apparently does no good; it devours\nwithout producing; it eats without planting, and is a perpetual burden.\nIt teaches nothing of value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents.\nIt threatens without knowledge and promises without power. In my\njudgment, the quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it\ndoes not go in name, it must go in fact, because it must change; and,\ntherefore, it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert from\nuseful channels the blood and muscle of the world.\n\n_Question_. You say that in the baccalaureate sermons delivered lately\nthe theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping out\nof discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years\npreached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosticism, and\ninfidelity, so much so as to lead to their being reprimanded by some of\ntheir more conservative brethren?\n\n_Answer._ Of course there are hundreds of thousands of ministers\nperpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so\nmuch harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them\nto stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most\npart, are like this: Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of\nGenesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement\nis true, because in the French Revolution they worshiped reason. And\nwe know, too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden because\nVoltaire was nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are\nthe usual arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself.\nAnd, in my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer\na man's argument, the next best thing is to attack his character. \"You\nhave no case,\" said an attorney to the plaintiff. \"No matter,\" said the\nplaintiff, \"I want you to give the defendant the devil.\"\n\n_Question_. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker's statement that\nhe generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives them\nto young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are said\nto speak of the Bible?\n\n_Answer._ Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such\nimmense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away\nthe mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that\naccounts for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would\nnot misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly\nindebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and\ntake this occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all\nthe converts to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think\nit honest in young men to play a game like that on the doctor.\n\n_Question_. You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of\nChristianity and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher\npreached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the\npresent time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral,\nsocial, and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke\ncriticism on the part of the secular newspaper press?\n\n_Answer._ I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to\npreach about things happening in this world; in other words, that the\npreachers themselves are beginning to be touched with worldliness.\nThey find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons\ndealing in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are\nlosing interest in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more interest\nin gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find\nthat their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetually of death and\ncoffins; and worms and dust and gravestones and shrouds and epitaphs\nand hearses, biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That they\nprefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in which they have a\npresent interest, and about which something cheerful can be said.\nIn fact, it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art,\nsomething about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it\nnecessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something that\nhas happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that, for\nthe time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the\nfurnace. Of course, I think that most ministers are reasonably honest.\nMaybe they don't tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are\nendeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church members\nthink that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not\ncriticising their motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the\ncharacter or reputation of ministers, but simply giving my ideas,\navoiding anything personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor very\nbad---just fair to middling.\n\n_Question_. You say that Christians will not read for fear that they\nwill unsettle their belief. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in\nthe interview I had with him: \"If you do not allow man to reason you\ncrush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credibility of\nhis faith, and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth,\nand so satisfies his wants.\"\n\n_Answer._ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father\nFransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not\nthink that reason should be guided by faith; I think that faith should\nbe guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith\nwould be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be\nbased on what has not happened, but upon what has; not upon something\nwe know nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are\nacquainted. The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we\nreason, we must have something as a basis, something secular, something\nthat we think we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by\nanalogy, and we say thus and so has happened, therefore thus and so may\nhappen. We do not say thus and so _may_ happen, therefore something else\n_has_ happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from\nthe unknown to the known. This Father admits that if you do not allow a\nman to reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must\ngovern reason. Who makes the faith? The church. And the church tells the\nman that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he\nmay afterward reason, taking the faith as a fact. This makes him an\nintellectual slave, and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right\nto examine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their\nprisoners by insisting that there is nothing beyond the walls.\n\n_Question_. You criticise the church for not encouring the poor to\nmingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose\nhis own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-confessing\nChristians in real life, and will not there always be some greater,\nricher, wiser, than the rest?\n\n_Answer._ I do not blame the church because there are these distinctions\nbased on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the church for\nis pretending to do away with these distinctions. These distinctions in\nmen are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood, in education,\nand they are differences that will eternally exist--that is, as long as\nthe human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some\ngenerous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with\nis the contempt and scorn and hatred existing between rich and poor. I\nwant the democracy of kindness--what you might call the republicanism of\njustice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep from robbing him.\nI can give him his rights without enjoying his company, and he can give\nme my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not poverty have\nrights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in\ncontempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same church\nor not? We cannot judge men by their wealth, or by the position they\nhold in society. I like every kind man; I hate every cruel one. I like\nthe generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I\nlike men that love their families, that are kind to their wives,\ngentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or\nmendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence, of charity, is the\nfairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel, or\nbursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no\nman because he is rich; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor.\n\n_Question_. Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infidelity is\ngreatly exaggerated; that it makes more noise and creates more notice\nthan conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of\nthe accepted line of thought.\n\n_Answer._ There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced, was\na wonder. At that time the church had great power; it could retaliate;\nit could destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when too many men\nobjected to being burned. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in\nnovelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been\nturned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless\ninfluences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion.\nOther religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was\nfound but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our\nown religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great\ncomment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have\nalready about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error.\n\nThousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question,\nbecause they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear\ntheir own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the\nspirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage\nof the world is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox\nminister who believes the Thirty-nine articles with all his might, is\nregarded to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by\nthe galvanic battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those\nof life--not quite.\n\n_Question_. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and\nwhat kind of instruction would you give?\n\n_Answer._ I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is\nChristianity? I do not include in the word \"Christianity\" the average\nmorality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion;\nthat is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and\nresurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ,\nand eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity\nits miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as\nI understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I\nsuppose Christ taught, that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness.\nI do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my\nfriends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep\nthe viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in\nself-defence. Christianity--that is, the miraculous part--must be\nabandoned. As to morality--morality is born, is born of the instinct of\nself-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word \"conscience\" never\nwould have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime.\nMurder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to\nbeing murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of\nhuman want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired\nwork. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of\nthe product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to\ndo it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume\nit was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible\nother things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of\nthe Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a\nmixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without\nmiracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is\nnot a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder\nis not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to\ninvestigate and to reason for themselves, and that there are facts\nenough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two\nfamilies; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians,\nand they teach their children their creed; teach them that they are\nnaturally totally depraved; that they can only hope for happiness in\na future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain\nbelief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his children\nforever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the\nfather and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each\nother because kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle;\nthat they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And\nsuppose this father and mother say to their children: \"If you are happy\nit must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must\nsuffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer\nfor you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you\nplant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant.\" And suppose\nthese parents also say: \"You must find out the conditions of happiness.\nYou must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You\nmust ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act\nin accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and\npeace.\" In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my\njudgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the\nother. The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this\nworld, but not in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the\ndividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they\nmust serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my\ndoctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the\nhighest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is\nwrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here\nand now. It means health; it means intelligence, contentment, success.\nVice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than\njudgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion\nwe are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved\nby faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We must be saved by\nknowledge, by intelligence--the only lever capable of raising mankind.\n\n_Question_. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says \"that\nman's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.\" What is your\nidea of the chief end of man?\n\n_Answer._ It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should\nbe held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal\nreward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy\nhere? Why not go to heaven now--that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the\nsunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad\nenough; so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent\ndeity; but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do\nI believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the\nInfinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no\nsuperiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve\nwhat we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average\nPresbyterian? What good will it do him to know that his course has been\napproved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even,\nfor the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges?\nI do not see how we can help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite\nBeing, certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can\naffect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin\nagainst man. For that reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is\nthe only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with\nthe ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the\nangels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care to\nassociate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such society.\nI suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat touched with\nworldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough\nto say about the Infinite \"I know nothing of eternal joy, I have no\nconception about another world, I know nothing.\" At the same time, I am\nnot attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can\nhope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to\ndrive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out\nthe fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.\n\n\n     * A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon.\n     Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the\n     Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the Metropolitan\n     Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as\n     submitted in advance, were the following propositions:\n\nColonel Ingersoll's Opening.\n\nLadies, Mr. President and Gentlemen:\n\nI AM here to-night for the purpose of defending your right to differ\nwith me. I want to convince you that you are under no compulsion to\naccept my creed; that you are, so far as I am concerned, absolutely free\nto follow the torch of your reason according to your conscience; and I\nbelieve that you are civilized to that degree that you will extend to me\nthe right that you claim for yourselves.\n\n\nFirst. Thought is a necessary natural product--the result of what is\ncalled impressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain,\nnot forgetting the Fact of heredity.\n\nSecond. No human being is accountable to any being-human or divine--for\nhis thoughts.\n\nThird. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each\nother, and one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.\n\nFourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all\nsubjects.\n\nFifth. For one man to say to another, \"I tolerate you,\" is an assumption\nof authority--not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute.\n\nSixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his\nideas, that the rest of the world have to express their thoughts to him.\n\nCourtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing Mr.\nIngersoll, among other things said:\n\n\"The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that of the\ngreat Victor Hugo, who uttered the august saying, 'There shall be no\nslavery of the mind.'\n\n\"When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the tomb of Victor\nHugo. It was placed in a recess in the crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite\nit was the tomb of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another recess, was\nthe memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked at these three\nmonuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been born in France, and had he\npassed in his long life account, the acclaim of the liberal culture of\nFrance would have enlarged that trio into a quartette.\n\n\"Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in print,\nnotably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black formerly Attorney-General of the\nUnited States: lately in the pages of The North American Review with the\nRev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and last but not least the Right Hon. William\nE Gladstone, England's greatest citizen, has taken up the cudgel against\nhim in behalf of his view of Orthodoxy To-night, I believe-for the first\ntime, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial discussion. I\nhave now the honor to introduce this distinguished orator.\"\n\nI admit, at the very threshold, that every human being thinks as he\nmust; and the first proposition really is, whether man has the right to\nthink. It will bear but little discussion, for the reason that no man\ncan control his thought. If you think you can, what are you going to\nthink to-morrow? What are you going to think next year? If you can\nabsolutely control your thought, can you stop thinking?\n\nThe question is, Has the will any power over the thought? What is\nthought? It is the result of nature--of the outer world--first upon the\nsenses--those impressions left upon the brain as pictures of things in\nthe outward world, and these pictures are transformed into, or produce,\nthought; and as long as the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will\nbe produced. Whoever looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears\nany sound--or any symphony--no matter what--thinks. Whoever looks upon\nthe sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the face of a fellow-man,\nthinks, and the result of that look is an absolute necessity. The\nthought produced will depend upon your brain, upon your experience, upon\nthe history of your life.\n\nOne who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one he loved the best had\nbeen devoured by its hungry waves, will have certain thoughts; and he\nwho sees it for the first time, will have different thoughts. In other\nwords, no two brains are alike; no two lives have been or are or ever\nwill be the same. Consequently, nature cannot produce the same effect\nupon any two brains, or upon any two hearts.\n\nThe only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is that we are\ndifferent. If we were all the same, we would die dumb. No thought would\nbe expressed after we found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We\ndiffer--our thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce that we call\nconversation.\n\nBack of language is thought. Back of language is the desire to express\nour thought to another. This desire not only gave us language--this\ndesire has given us the libraries of the world. And not only the\nlibraries; this desire to express thought, to show to others the\nsplendid children of the brain, has written every book, formed every\nlanguage, painted every picture, and chiseled every statue--this desire\nto express our thought to others, to reap the harvest of the brain.\n\nIf, then, thought is a necessity, \"it follows as the night the day\"\nthat there is, there can be, no responsibility for thought to any being,\nhuman or divine.\n\nA camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes upon it, and the\nsensitive plate receives a picture. Is it in fault, is it responsible,\nfor the picture? So with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture\nis imprinted there. The plate may not be perfectly level--it may be too\nconcave, or too convex, and the picture may be a deformity; so with the\nbrain. But the man does not make his own brain, and the consequence is,\nif the picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.\n\nWe take then these two steps: first, thought is a necessity; and second,\nthe thought depends upon the brain.\n\nEach brain is a kind of field where nature sows with careless hands\nthe seeds of thought. Some brains are poor and barren fields, producing\nweeds and thorns, and some are like the tropic world where grow the palm\nand pine--children of the sun and soil.\n\nYou read Shakespeare. What do you get out of Shakespeare? All that your\nbrain is able to hold. It depends upon your brain. If you are great--if\nyou have been cultivated--if the wings of your imagination have been\nspread--if you have had great, free, and splendid thoughts--'r you have\nstood upon the edge of things--if you have had the courage to meet all\nthat can come--you get an immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived\nnobly--if you have loved with every drop of your blood and every fibre\nof your being--if you have suffered--if you have enjoyed--then you get\nan immensity from Shakespeare. But if you have lived a poor, little,\nmean, wasted, barren, weedy life--you get very little from that immortal\nman.\n\nSo it is from every source in nature--what you get depends upon what you\nare.\n\nTake then the second step. If thought is a necessity, there can be\nno responsibility for thought. And why has man ever believed that his\nfellow-man was responsible for his thought?\n\nEverything that is, everything that has been, has been naturally\nproduced. Man has acted as, under the same circumstances, we would have\nacted; because when you say \"under the circumstances,\" it is the same as\nto say that you would do exactly as they have done.\n\nThere has always been in men the instinct of self-preservation. There was\na time when men believed, and honestly believed, that there was above\nthem a God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient\nfor my illustration to say, one. Man believed that there was in the sky\nabove him a God who attended to the affairs of men. He believed that\nthat God, sitting upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He\nbelieved also, that that God held the community responsible for the sins\nof individuals. He honestly believed it. When the flood came, or when\nthe earthquake devoured, he really believed that some God was filled\nwith anger--with holy indignation--at his children. He believed it, and\nso he looked about among his neighbors to see who was in fault, and if\nthere was any man who had failed to bring his sacrifice to the altar,\nhad failed to kneel, it may be to the priest, failed to be present in\nthe temple, or had given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe\nor of that nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God, they\nseized the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance\nand of their fear.\n\nThey believed when the lightning leaped from the cloud and left its\nblackened mark upon the man, that he had done something--that he had\nexcited the wrath of the gods.\n\nAnd while man so believed, while he believed that it was necessary, in\norder to defend himself, to kill his neighbor--he acted simply according\nto the dictates of his nature.\n\nWhat I claim is that we have nov-advanced far enough not only to\nthink, but to know, that the conduct of man has nothing to do with the\nphenomena of nature. We are now advanced far enough to absolutely know\nthat no man can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough to cause an\nearthquake. I think we have got to that point that we absolutely\nknow that no man can be wicked enough to entice one of the bolts from\nheaven--that no man can be cruel enough to cause a drought--and that you\ncould not have infidels enough on the earth to cause another flood.\nI think we have advanced far enough not only to say that, but to\nabsolutely know it--I mean people who have thought, and in whose minds\nthere is something like reasoning.\n\nWe know, if we know anything, that the lightning is just as apt to hit\na good man as a bad man. We know it. We know that the earthquake is just\nas liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as\nwell as I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt to outride\nthe storm as one crowded with missionaries. You know it.\n\nI am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I believe, as much as\nI believe that I live, that the reason a thing is right is because it\ntends to the happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as I be-believe\nthat I live, that on the average the good man is not only the happier\nman, but that no man is happy who is not good.\n\nIf then we have gotten over that frightful, that awful superstition--we\nare ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts of each other.\n\nI do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as saying, that there\nis no God. All I intend to say is, that so far as we can see, no man\nis punished, no nation is punished by lightning, or famine, or storm.\nEverything happens to the one as to the other.\n\nNow, let us admit that there is an infinite God. That has nothing to do\nwith the sinlessness of thought--nothing to do with the fact that no man\nis accountable to any being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And\nlet me tell you why.\n\nIf there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men who sin against\nhim. You can trust him, if you believe in him. He has the power. He has\na heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that\nthe earthquake will not swallow you, or the lightning strike you, simply\nbecause you tell your thoughts, if one of your neighbors differs with\nyou, and acts improperly or thinks or speaks improperly of your God,\nleave him with your God--he can attend to him a thousand times better\nthan you can, He has the time. He lives from eternity to eternity. More\nthan that, he has the means. So that, whether there be this Being or\nnot, you have no right to interfere with your neighbor.\n\nThe next proposition is, that I have the same right to express my\nthought to the whole world, that the whole world has to express its\nthought to me.\n\nI believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy, where\nthe majority rule; it is not a republic. It is a country with one\ninhabitant. This brain is the world in which my mind lives, and my mind\nis the sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances\nthe rest of the world as one drop of water balances the sea. Each soul\nis crowned. Each soul wears the purple and the tiara; and only those are\ngood citizens of the intellectual world who give to every other human\nbeing every right that they claim for themselves, and only those are\ntraitors in the great realm of thought who abandon reason and appeal to\nforce.\n\nIf now I have got out of your minds the idea that you must abuse your\nneighbors to keep on good terms with God, then the question of religion\nis exactly like every question--I mean of thought, of mind--I have\nnothing to say now about action.\n\nIs there authority in the world of art? Can a legislature pass a law\nthat a certain picture is beautiful, and can it pass a law putting in\nthe penitentiary any impudent artistic wretch who says that to him it is\nnot beautiful? Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all\nthe same; we are not touched by the same sounds--the same beautiful\nmemories* do not arise. Suppose you have an authority in music? You may\nmake men, it may be, by offering them office or by threatening them with\npunishment, swear that they all like that tune--but you never will\nknow till the day of your death whether they do or not. The moment you\nintroduce a despotism in the world of thought, you succeed in making\nhypocrites--and you get in such a position that you never know what your\nneighbor thinks.\n\nSo in the great realm of religion, there can be no force. No one can be\ncompelled to pray. No matter how you tie him down, or crush him down on\nhis face or on his knees, it is above the power of the human race to put\nin that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do it. Neither\ncan you compel anybody to worship a God. Worship rises from the heart\nlike perfume from a flower. It cannot obey; it cannot do that which\nsome one else commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its\nown nature. And do you think any God would be satisfied with compulsory\nworship? Would he like to see long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on\ntheir terrified knees repeating words without a soul--giving him what\nyou might call the shucks of sound? Will any God be satisfied with\nthat? And so I say, we must be as free in one department of thought as\nanother.\n\nNow, I take the next step, and that is, that the rights of all are\nabsolutely equal.\n\nI have the same right to give you my opinion that you have to give me\nyours. I have no right to compel you to hear, if you do not want to. I\nhave no right to compel you to speak if you do not want to. If you do\nnot wish to know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.\n\nThe next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this liberty of\nexpression, is of more value than any other thing beneath the stars. Of\nmore value than any religion, of more value than any government, of more\nvalue than all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws\nthat he has passed, is this liberty--the absolute liberty of the human\nmind. Take away that word from language, and all other words become\nmeaningless sounds, and there is then no reason for a man being and\nliving upon the earth.\n\nSo then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality--that is all.\nYou come to me with a new idea. I invite you into the house. Let us see\nwhat you have. Let us talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I\nwill bid it a polite \"good day.\" If I do like it, I will say: \"Sit down;\nstay with me, and become a part of the intellectual wealth of my world.\"\nThat is all.\n\nAnd how any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the\nright to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man\nwho speaks--who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can\nliberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond\nthe liberty to speak against liberty--the real believer in free speech\nallowing others to speak against the right to speak? Is there any\nlimitation beyond that?\n\nSo, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has admitted that he\nviolated his own doctrine. No man can open his mouth against the freedom\nof speech without denying every argument he may put forward. Why? He is\nexercising the right that he denies. How did he get it? Suppose there\nis one man on an island. You will all admit now that he would have the\nright to do his own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right\nto express his thought. Now, will somebody tell me how many men would\nhave to emigrate to that island before the original settler would lose\nhis right to think and his right to express himself?\n\nIf there be an infinite Being--and it is a question that I know nothing\nabout--you would be perfectly astonished to know how little I do know on\nthat subject, and yet I know as much as the aggregated world knows, and\nas little as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy wings the\nsummer air--if there be such a Being, I have the same right to think\nthat he has simply because it is a necessity of my nature--because I\ncannot help it. And the Infinite would be just as responsible to the\nsmallest intelligence living in the infinite spaces--he would be just\nas responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can be to him,\nprovided that intelligence thinks as a necessity of his nature.\n\nThere is another phrase to which I object--\"toleration.\" \"The limits\nof toleration.\" Why say \"toleration\"? I will tell you why. When\nthe thinkers were in the minority--when the philosophers were\nvagabonds--when the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires--when\nthe majority were ignorantly orthodox--when they hated the heretic as a\nlast year's leaf hates a this year's bud--in that delightful time\nthese poor people in the minority had to say to ignorant power, to\nconscientious rascality, to cruelty born of universal love: \"Don't kill\nus; don't be so arrogantly meek as to burn us; tolerate us.\" At that\ntime the minority was too small to talk about rights, and the great big\nignorant majority when tired of shedding blood, said: \"Well, we will\ntolerate you; we can afford to wait; you will not live long, and when\nthe Being of infinite compassion gets hold of you we will glut our\nrevenge through an eternity of joy; we will ask you every now and then,\n'What is your opinion now?'\"\n\nBoth feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness would have his\nrevenge, they \"tolerated\" these thinkers, and that word finally took\nthe place almost of liberty. But I do not like it. When you say \"I\ntolerate,\" you do not say you have no right to punish, no right to\npersecute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for a few\nyears, but you retain the right. I deny it.\n\nAnd let me say here to-night--it is your experience, it is mine--that\nthe bigger a man is the more charitable he is; you know it. The more\nbrain he has, the more excuses he finds for all the world; you know it.\nAnd if there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander than any\nman; he must have a thousand times more charity than the human heart can\nhold, and is it possible that he is going to hold his ignorant children\nresponsible for the impressions made by nature upon their brain? Let us\nhave some sense.\n\nThere is another side to this question, and that is with regard to the\nfreedom of thought and expression in matters pertaining to this world.\n\nNo man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor. He has no right\nto utter slander. He has no right to bear false witness. He has no right\nto be actuated by any motive except for the general good--but the\nthings he does here to his neighbor--these are easily defined and easily\npunished. All that I object to is setting up a standard of authority in\nthe world of art, the world of beauty, the world of poetry, the world\nof worship, the world of religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is\nwhat I object to; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every\nhuman being that has benefited this world would have been destroyed.\nIf the people who believe that a certain belief is necessary to insure\nsalvation had had control of this world, we would have been as ignorant\nto-night as wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in spite of\nthem. There has not been a book of any value printed since the invention\nof that art--and when I say \"of value,\" I mean that contained new\nand splendid truths--that was not anathematized by the gentlemen who\nbelieved that man is responsible for his thought. Every step has been\ntaken in spite of that doctrine.\n\nConsequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of mind. And I have no\nfear about any other world--not the slightest. When I get there, I will\ngive my honest opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought\nthere; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least my\nself-respect.\n\nA man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it. I cannot help\nit. I read a story--no matter whether in the original Hebrew, or whether\nit has been translated. I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter\nwhether it is written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner--I have\nmy idea about its truth. And I insist that each man has the right to\njudge that for himself, and for that reason, as I have already said, I\nam defending your right to differ with me--that is all. And if you do\ndiffer with me, all that it proves is that I do not agree with you.\nThere is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars--there is no\nbeing--that can force my soul upon its knees, unless the reason is\ngiven. I will be no slave. I do not care how big my master is, I am just\nas small, if a slave, as though the master were small. It is not the\ngreatness of the master that can honor the slave. In other words, I\nam going to act according to my right, as I understand it, without\ninterfering with any other human being. And now, if you think--any of\nyou, that you can control your thought, I want you to try it. There is\nnot one here who can by any possibility think, only as he must.\n\nYou remember the story of the Methodist minister who insisted that he\ncould control his thoughts. A man said to him, \"Nobody can control his\nown mind.\" \"Oh, yes, he can,\" the preacher replied. \"My dear sir,\" said\nthe man, \"you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without thinking of\nsomething else.\" \"Oh, yes, I can.\" \"Well, if you will do it, I will give\nyou that horse, the best riding horse in this county.\" \"Well, who is to\njudge?\" said the preacher. \"I will take your own word for it, and if you\nsay the Lord's Prayer through without thinking of anything else, I will\ngive you that horse.\" So the minister shut his eyes and began: \"Our\nFather which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy\nwill be done,\"--\"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?\"\n\nI say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel more interest\nin the freedom of thought and speech than in all other questions,\nknowing, as I do, that it is the condition of great and splendid\nprogress for the race; remembering, as I do, that the opposite idea has\ncovered the cheek of the world with tears; remembering, and knowing, as\nI do, that the enemies of free thought and free speech have covered this\nworld with blood. These men have filled the heavens with an infinite\nmonster; they have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have\nmade the present, when they have had the power, a perdition. These men,\nthese doctrines, have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy. These\nmen, these doctrines, have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day.\nThese men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced and\nkilled every philosopher they could lay their bloody, cruel, ignorant\nhands upon.\n\nAnd for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought, everywhere,\nin every department, domain, and realm of the human mind.\n\n\nREMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.\n\n_Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President_: It is not only \"the sense of\nthe church\" that I am lacking now, I am afraid it is any sense at all;\nand I am only wondering how a reasonably intelligent being--meaning\nmyself--could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr. Kernan, have\nundertaken to speak to-night.\n\nThis is a new experience. I have never sung in any of Verdi's operas--I\nhave never listened to one through--but I think I would prefer to try\nall three of these performances rather than go on with this duty which,\nin a vain moment of deluded vanity, I heedlessly undertook.\n\nI am in a new field here. I feel very much like the master of a ship\nwho thinks that he can safely guide his bark. (I am not alluding to the\ntraditional bark of St. Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always\nbe, but the ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a\nguide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which we generally\ntake for granted, and which are as necessary to our safety as the air\nwhich we breathe, or the sunshine that we enjoy, have been quietly,\npleasantly, and smilingly thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just\npreceded me.\n\nCarlyle once said--and the thought came to me as the gentleman was\nspeaking--\"A Comic History of England!\"--for some wretch had just\nwritten such a book--(talk of free thought and free speech when men do\nsuch things!)--\"A Comic History of England!\" The next thing we shall\nhear of will be \"A Comic History of the Bible!\" I think we have heard\nthe first chapter of that comic history to-night; and the only comfort\nthat I have--and possibly some other antiquated and superannuated\npersons of either sex, if such there be within my hearing--is that\nsuch things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the order of\nblasphemy, have been uttered with such charming bonhomie, and received\nwith such enthusiastic admiration, that I have wondered whether we are\nin a Christian audience of the nineteenth century, or in a possible\nIngersollian audience of the twenty-third.\n\nAnd let me first, before I enter upon the very few and desultory\nremarks, which are the only ones that I can make now and with which I\nmay claim your polite attention--let me say a word about the comparison\nwith which your worthy President opened these proceedings.\n\nThere are two or three things upon which I am a little sensitive: One,\naspersions upon the land of my birth--the city of New York; the next,\nthe land of my fathers; and the next, the bark that I was just speaking\nof.\n\nNow your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to exhibit in the\nbest possible style the new actor upon his stage, said that he had seen\nVictor Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques Rousseau's, and\nthat he thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll.\nIf that had been merely the expression of a natural desire to see him\nspeedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the interests of the Christian\ncommunity have thought, but not said, \"Amen!\" (Here you will at once\nobserve the distinction I make between free thought and free speech!)\n\nI do not think, and I beg that none of you, and particularly the\neloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will think, that in anything I may\nsay I intend any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent\nin freedom of speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as this\nrises entirely above and beyond the plane of personalities.\n\nI suppose that your President intended to compare Colonel Ingersoll to\nVoltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau. I have no retainer from either of\nthose gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave you, I wish to\ndefend their memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I do not\nthink--with all respect to the eloquent and learned gentleman--that he\nis entitled to a place in that niche. Voltaire did many wrong things.\nHe did them for many reasons, and chiefly because he was human.\nBut Voltaire did a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble\ntragedies, which charmed and delighted his audiences, and dignified the\nstage, throughout his work was some effort to ameliorate the condition\nof the human race. He fought against torture; he fought against\npersecution; he fought against bigotry; he clamored and wrote against\nlittleness and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed when he\nentered upon his domains at Fernay, to erect a church to the God of\nwhom the most our friend can say is, \"I do not know whether he exists or\nnot.\"\n\nRousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman, and in our\nday would probably have been locked up in an asylum and treated by\nintelligent doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a religious\neducation, and if there be in his works or sayings anything to parallel\nwhat we have heard tonight--whether a parody on divine revelation, or a\nparody upon the prayer of prayers--I have not seen it.\n\nVictor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with prose and poetry\nthat have made him the Shakespeare of the nineteenth century--poems as\ndeeply imbued with a devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as\nthe writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left the traces\nof his beneficent action all over the literature of his day, of his\ncountry, and of his race.\n\nAll these men, then, have built up something. Will anyone, the most\nardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell me what he has built up?\n\nTo go now to the argument. The learned gentleman says that freedom of\nthought is a grand thing. Unfortunately, freedom of thought exists. What\none of us would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts, if he\nonly could? What persecution have any of us suffered to compare with the\ninvoluntary recurrence of these demons that enter our brain--that bring\nback past events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even with\nour blood--and make us slaves of a power unseen but uncontrollable and\nuncontrolled? Is it not unworthy of so eloquent and intelligent a man to\npreach before you here to-night that thought must always be free?\n\nWhen in the history of the world has thought ever been fettered? If\nthere be a page in history upon which such an absurdity is written, I\nhave failed to find it.\n\nThought is beyond the domain of man. The most cruel and arbitrary ruler\ncan no more penetrate into your bosom and mine and extract the inner\nworkings of our brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun\nfrom its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is unseen, unhandled and\nuntouched, and no despot has yet been able to reach it, except when the\nthoughts burst into words. And therefore, may we not consider now, and\nsay, that liberty of word is what he wants, and not liberty of thought,\nwhich no one has ever gainsaid, or disputed?\n\nLiberty of speech!--and the gentleman generously tells us, \"Why, I only\nask for myself what I would cheerfully extend to you. I wish you to be\nfree; and you can even entertain those old delusions which your mothers\ntaught, and look with envious admiration upon me while I scale the giddy\nheights of Olympus, gather the honey and approach the stars and tell\nyou how pure the air is in those upper regions which you are unable to\nreach.\"\n\nThanks for his kindness! But I think that it is one thing for us to\nextend to him that liberty that he asks for--the liberty to destroy--and\nanother thing for him to give us the liberty which we claim--the liberty\nto conserve.\n\nOh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so pleasant! It marks the\nfootsteps all through our life. The baby begins by destroying his bib;\nthe older child by destroying his horse, and when the man is grown up\nand he joins the regiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a\nchance he will destroy human life.\n\nThis building cost many thousand days' work. It was planned by more or\nless skillful architects (ignorant of ventilation, but well-meaning).\nMen lavished their thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance,\nupon this building. It took months and possibly years to build it and to\nadorn it and to beautify it. And yet, as it stands complete tonight with\nall of you here in the vigor of your life and in the enjoyment of such\nentertainment as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen\nmen who with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all of us to\ninstant destruction.\n\nThe dynamite man may say to me, \"I give you full liberty to build and\noccupy and insure, if you will give me liberty to blow up.\" Is that a\nfair bargain? Am I bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it?\nLiberty of speech! Tell me where liberty of speech has ever existed.\nThere have been free societies, England was a free country. France has\nstruggled through crisis after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We\nthink we have liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would\nundertake to say that our society could live with liberty of speech?\nWe have gone through many crises in our short history, and we know that\nthought is nothing before the law, but the word is an act--as guilty at\ntimes as the act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes\nthat disgrace humanity and require the police.\n\nA word is an act--an act of the tongue; and why should my tongue go\nunpunished, and I who wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker\nthan I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously?\nWhom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona--is it Iago, or\nOthello? Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who deserved the\nscaffold--who but free speech? Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned\nthe ear of Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer--but\nIago went scot free. That was a word.\n\n\"Oh,\" says the counsel, \"but that does not apply to individuals; be\ntender and charitable to individuals.\" Tender and charitable to men if\nthey endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate and respect!\n\nAre you tender and charitable to me if you enter my house, my castle,\nand debauch my children from the faith that they have been taught? Are\nyou tender and charitable to them and to me when you teach them that I\nhave instructed them in falsehood, that their mother has rocked them in\nblasphemy, and that they are now among the fools and the witlings of the\nworld because they believe in my precepts? Is that the charity that you\nspeak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such as that, should ever\ninvade my home or yours!\n\nWe all understand, and the learned gentleman will admit, that his\ndiscourse is but an eloquent apology for blasphemy. And when I say this,\nI beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice\nof strong words to give point to a pointless argument, or to offend\na courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he would, with\ncharacteristic candor, say, \"Yes, that is what I claim--the liberty to\nblaspheme; the world has outgrown these things; and I claim to-day, as I\nclaimed a few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of New\nJersey, that while you cannot slander man, your tongue is free to revile\nand insult man's maker.\" New Jersey was behind in the race for progress,\nand did not accept his argument. His unfortunate client was convicted\nand had to pay the fine which the press--which is seldom mistaken--says\ncame from the pocket of his generous counsel.\n\nThe argument was a strong one; the argument was brilliant, and was able;\nand I say now, with all my predilections for the church of my fathers,\nand for your church (because it is not a question of our differences,\nbut it is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the roots, not\nwhat branches may bear richer fruit or deserve to be lopped off)--I say,\nwhy has every Christian State passed these statutes against blasphemy?\nTurning into ridicule sacred things--firing off the Lord's Prayer as\nyou would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem--that is what I mean by\nblasphemy. If there is any other or better definition, give it me, and I\nwill use it.\n\nNow understand. All these States of ours care not one fig what our\nreligion is. Behave yourselves properly, obey the laws, do not require\nthe intervention of the police, and the majesty of your conscience will\nbe as exalted as the sun. But the wisest men and the best men--possibly\nnot so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without offence to\nhim--other names that shine brightly in the galaxy of our best men, have\ninsisted and maintained that the Christian faith was the ligament that\nkept our modern society together, and our laws have said, and the laws\nof most of our States say, to this day, \"Think what you like, but do\nnot, like Samson, pull the pillars down upon us all.\"\n\nIf I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that I should\nsay it now. My exordium has been very long, but it was no longer than\nthe dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.\n\nFree speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech we never had. Did we\nhave it before the war? Many of us here remember that if you crossed an\nimaginary line and went among some of the noblest and best men that ever\nadorned this continent, one word against slavery meant death. And if you\nsay that that was the influence of slavery, I will carry you to Boston,\nthat city which numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to\nthe acre as any city on the globe--was it different there?\n\nWhy, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he got there, was\nseized and turned back; and when a few good and brave men, in defence\nof free speech, undertook to defend the slave and to try and give him\nliberty, they were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city. You\nmay say, \"That proves there was no liberty of speech.\" No; it proves\nthis: that wherever, and wheresoever, and whenever, liberty of speech is\nincompatible with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall\nback and give way, in order that the State may be preserved.\n\nFirst, above everything, above all things, the safety of the people is\nthe supreme law. And if rhetoricians, anxious to tear down, anxious to\npluck the faith from the young ones who are unable to defend it, come\nforward with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces clothed in\nsecond-hand purple and tinsel, and try to tear down the temple, then\nit is time, I shall not say for good men--for I know so few they make a\nsmall battalion--but for good women, to come to the rescue.\n\n\nGENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.\n\nMr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen>: At this late hour, I could not\nattempt--even if I would--the eloquence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll;\nnor the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend Mr.\nCoudert. But there are some things so serious about this subject that\nwe discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if, without preface, and\nwithout rhetoric, I get at once to what from my Protestant standpoint\nseems the fatal logical error of Mr. Inger-soll's position.\n\nMr. Ingersoll starts with the statement--and that I may not, for I could\nnot, do him injustice, nor myself injustice, in the quotation, I will\ngive it as he stated it--he starts with this statement: that thought is\na necessary natural product, the result of what we call impressions made\nthrough the medium of the senses upon the brain.\n\nDo you think that is thought? Now stop--turn right into your own\nminds--is that thought? Does not will power take hold? Does not reason\ntake hold? Does not memory take hold, and is not thought the action of\nthe brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed by manifold\nand varying influences?\n\nSecondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human being is\naccountable to any being, human or divine, for his thought.\n\nHe starts with the assumption that thought is the inevitable impression\nburnt upon the mind at once, and then jumps to the conclusion that there\nis no responsibility. Now, is not that a fair logical analysis of what\nhe has said?\n\nMy senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then my mind, out\nof that impression, works good or evil. The glass of brandy, being\npresented to my physical sense, inspires thirst--inspires the thought\nof thirst--inspires the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for\nthe result of the mind given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise\nto the dignity of self-control?\n\nEvery thing of sense leaves its impression upon the mind. If there be no\nresponsibility anywhere, then is this world blind chance. If there be\nno responsibility anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he\nbe guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve no censure if I be\ncarrying you back into the path of superstition. Why, admit for a moment\nthat a man has no control over his thought, and you destroy absolutely\nthe power of regenerating the world, the power of improving the world.\nThe world swings one way, or it swings the other. If it be true that in\nall these ages we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that\nis true simply and alone because the mind of man through reason, through\nmemory, through a thousand inspirations and desires and hopes, has ever\ntended toward better results and higher achievements.\n\nNo accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I recognize that I\nam accountable to myself; I recognize that whether I rise or fall, that\nwhether my life goes upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And\nso, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in spite\nof all eloquence, each woman, each man within this audience is\nresponsible--first of all to herself and himself--whether when bad\nthoughts, when passion, when murder, when evil come into the heart or\nbrain he harbors them there or he casts them out.\n\nI am responsible further--I am responsible to my neighbor. I know that I\nam my neighbor's keeper, I know that as I touch your life, as you touch\nmine, I am responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my\ninfluence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am dragging you\ndown; you are either helping me up or you are dragging me down--and you\nknow it. Sophistry cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us\nfrom it. You know that if you look back through the record of your life,\nthere are lives that you have helped and lives that you have hurt. You\nknow that there are lives on the downward plane that went down because\nin an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with blessing, lives\nthat have gone up because you have reached out to them a helping\nhand. That responsibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an\naccountability that you and I cannot avoid or evade.\n\nI believe one thing further: that because there is a creation there is a\nCreator. I believe that because there is force, there is a Projector of\nforce; because there is matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe\nthese things. I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not; it\nmay be that he is right, that I am wrong; but if there be a Power\nthat sent me into this world, so far as that Power has given me wrong\ndirection, or permitted wrong direction, that Power will judge me\njustly. So far as I disregard the light that I have, whatever it\nmay be--whether it br light of reason, light of conscience, light of\nhistory--so far as I do that which my judgment tells me is wrong, I am\nresponsible and I am accountable.\n\nNow the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply this: It would\nvary from the theory as taught by the mother church--it certainly swings\nfar away from the theory as suggested by my friend; I understand the\nProtestant theory to be this: That every man is responsible to himself,\nto his neighbor, and to his God, for his thought. Not for the first\nimpression--but for that impression, for that direction and result which\nhe intelligently gives to the first impression or deduces from it. I\nunderstand that the Protestant idea is this: that man may think--we know\nhe will think--for himself; but that he is responsible for it. That a\nman may speak his thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He\nmust use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the well-being of\nany other one--so that when using this liberty, when exercising this\nfreedom, he is accountable at the last to his God. And so Protestantism\nsends me into the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.\n\nIt leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the bar of his\nconscience, before the bar of his fellow-man, but it holds him in the\ninevitable grip of absolute responsibility for every light word idly\nspoken.\n\nGod grant that he may use that power so that he can face that\nresponsibility at the last!\n\nIt leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and stand by his church\naccording to his own conviction.\n\nIt stands for this; the absolute liberty of each individual man to\nthink, to write, to speak, to act, according to the best light within\nhim; limited as to his fellows, by the condition that he shall not use\nthat liberty so as to injure them; limited in the other direction, by\nthose tremendous laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in\nspite of all logic.\n\nIf I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If I do a wrong, that\nwrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If\nI would try to escape what you call judgment, what you call penalty, I\ncannot escape the working of the inevitable-law that follows a cause by\neffect; I cannot escape that inevitable law--not the creation of\nsome dark monster flashing through the skies--but, as I believe, the\nbeneficent creation which puts into the spiritual life the same control\nof law that guides the material life, which wisely makes me responsible,\nthat in the solemnity of that responsibility I am bound to lift my\nbrother up and never to drag my brother down.\n\n\nREPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.\n\nThe first gentleman who replied to me took the ground boldly that\nexpression is not free--that no man has the right to express his real\nthoughts--and I suppose that he acted in accordance with that idea. How\nare you to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he said, or\nnot? How is it possible for us to ascertain whether he is simply the\nmouthpiece of some other? Whether he is a free man, or whether he says\nthat which he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.\n\nHe tells you that I am about to take away the religion of your mothers.\nI have heard that said a great many times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has\nthe religion of his mother, and judging from the argument he made, his\nmother knew at least as much about these questions as her son. I believe\nthat every good father and good mother wants to see the son and the\ndaughter climb higher upon the great and splendid mount of thought than\nthey reached.\n\nYou never can honor your father by going around swearing to his\nmistakes. You never can honor your mother by saying that ignorance is\nblessed because she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents\nby finding out more than they did.\n\nThere is another thing that I was a little astonished at--that Mr.\nCoudert, knowing that he would be in eternal felicity with his harp in\nhis hand, seeing me in the world of the damned, could yet grow envious\nhere to-night at my imaginary monument.\n\nAnd he tells you--this Catholic--that Voltaire was an exceedingly good\nChristian compared with me. Do you know I am glad that I have compelled\na Catholic--one who does not believe he has the right to express his\nhonest thoughts--to pay a compliment to Voltaire simply because he\nthought it was at my expense?\n\nI have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and when I hear that\nname pronounced, I think of a plume floating over a mailed knight--I\nthink of a man that rode to the beleaguered City of Catholicism and\ndemanded a surrender--I think of a great man who thrust the dagger of\nassassination into your Mother Church, and from that wound she never\nwill recover.\n\nOne word more. This gentleman says that children are destructive--that\nthe first thing they do is to destroy their bibs. The gentleman, I\nshould think from his talk, has preserved his!\n\nThey talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy? Let us be honest with each\nother. Whoever lives upon the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.\nWhoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. Whoever denies\nto others the rights that he claims for himself is a blasphemer.\n\nWho is a worshiper? One who makes a happy home--one who fills the\nlives of wife and children with sunlight--one who has a heart where\nthe flowers of kindness burst into blossom and fill the air with\nperfume--the man who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted,\nand holds her thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately and\nloves her as truly and as rapturously as when she was a bride--he is a\nworshiper--that is worship.\n\nAnd the gentleman brought forward as a reason why we should not have\nfree speech, that only a few years ago some of the best men in the\nworld, if you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you down.\nWhat an argument was that! They were not good men. They were\nthe whippers of women and the stealers of babes--robbers of the\ntrundlebed--assassins of human liberty. They knew no better, but I do\nnot propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly\na barbarian.\n\nSo much for debauching his family by telling them that his precepts\nare false. If he has taught them as he has taught us to-night, he has\ndebauched their minds. I would be honest at the cradle. I would not\ntell a child anything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be\nabsolutely honest.\n\nBut he says that thought is absolutely free--nobody can control thought.\nLet me tell him: Superstition is the jailer of the mind. You can so\nstuff a child with superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile\nand its poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind, and\nsuperstition is the assassin of liberty.\n\nSo when anybody goes into his family and tells these great and shining\ntruths, instead of debauching his children they will kill the snakes\nthat crawl in their cradles. Let us be honest and free.\n\nAnd now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a Protestant. The\nCatholic Church says: \"Don't think; pay your fare; this is a through\nticket, and we will look out for your baggage.\" The Protestant Church\nsays: \"Read that Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves; but if you\ndo not come to a right conclusion you will be eternally damned.\" Any\nsensible man will say, \"Then I won't read it--I'll believe it without\nreading it.\" And that is the only way you can be sure you will believe\nit; don't read it.\n\nGovernor Woodford says that we are responsible for our thoughts. Why?\nCould you help thinking as you did on this subject? No, Could you help\nbelieving the Bible? I suppose not. Could you help believing that story\nof Jonah? Certainly not--it looks reasonable in Brooklyn.\n\nI stated that thought was the result of the impressions of nature upon\nthe mind through the medium of the senses. He says you cannot have\nthought without memory. How did you get the first one?\n\nOf course I intended to be understood--and the language is clear--that\nthere could be no thought except through the impressions made upon the\nbrain by nature through the avenues called the senses. Take away the\nsenses, how would you think then? If you thought at all, I think you\nwould agree with Mr. Coudert.\n\nNow, I admit--so we need never have a contradiction about it--I admit\nthat every human being is responsible to the person he injures. If he\ninjures any man, woman, or child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that\ncrawls, he is responsible to that animal, to that being--in other words,\nhe is responsible to any being that he has injured.\n\nBut you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one. I will tell\nyou why. You cannot help him, and you cannot hurt him. If there be an\ninfinite Being, he is conditionless--he does not want anything--he has\nit. You cannot help anybody that does not want something--you cannot\nhelp him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a conditioned being\nand you change his condition so as to inflict a harm. But if God be\nconditionless, you cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do\nnot trouble yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within\nreach--all our duties are right here; and my religion is simply this:\n\n_First_. Give to every other human being every right that you claim for\nyourself.\n\n_Second_. If you tell your thought at all, tell your honest thought. Do\nnot be a parrot--do not be an instrumentality for an organization. Tell\nyour own thought, honor bright, what you think.\n\nMy next idea is, that the only possible good in the universe is\nhappiness. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here.\nThe way to be happy is to try and make somebody else so.\n\nMy good friend General Woodford--and he is a good man telling the best\nhe knows--says that I will be accountable at the bar up yonder. I am\nready to settle that account now, and expect to be, every moment of my\nlife--and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I do not believe\nthat a solitary being can rise and say that I ever injured him or her.\n\nBut no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story, how we will settle\nif we do get there.\n\nYou remember the story told about the Mexican who believed that his\ncountry was the only one in the world, and said so. The priest told\nhim that there was another country where a man lived who was eleven or\ntwelve feet high, that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when\nthat man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone in his body.\nBut he denied it. He was one of those men who would not believe further\nthan his vision extended.\n\nSo one day in his boat, he was rocking away when the wind suddenly arose\nand he was blown out of sight of his home. After several days he was\nblown so far that he saw the shores of another country. Then he said,\n\"My Lord; I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that there was no\nother country, and here it is!\" So he did his best--paddled with what\nlittle strength he had left, reached the shore, and got out of his boat.\nSure enough, there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet high.\nThe poor little wretch was frightened almost to death, so he said to the\ntall man as he saw him coming down: \"Mister, whoever you are, I denied\nyour existence--I did not believe you lived; I swore there was no such\ncountry as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are going\nto kill me, and the quicker you do it the better and get me out of my\nmisery. Do it now!\"\n\nThe great man just looked at the little fellow, and said nothing, till\nhe asked, \"What are you going to do with me, because over in that other\ncountry I denied your existence?\" \"What am I going to do with you?\" said\nthe supposed God. \"Now that you have got here, if you behave yourself I\nam going to treat you well.\"\n\n\n\n\nA CHRISTMAS SERMON.\n\n\n     * This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel\n     Ingersoll and printed in the Evening Telegram, on December\n     19,1891.\n\n\nI.\n\nTHE good part of Christmas is not always Christian--it is generally\nPagan; that is to say, human, natural.\n\nChristianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message\nof eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its\nlips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.\n\nIt taught some good things--the beauty of love and kindness in man. But\nas a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has\ngiven infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the\nsoul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled\nthe future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal\npenitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not\nsatisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.\n\nIn answer to this \"Christmas Sermon\" the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor\nof the Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist\nChurch, wrote an article, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening\nTelegram for publishing such a \"sermon.\"\n\nThis attack was headed \"Lies That Are Mountainous.\" The Telegram\npromptly accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do\nhis utmost. On the very same day it published an answer from Colonel\nIngersoll that echoed throughout America.'\n\nAnd yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the\nold festival called Christmas.\n\nLong before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers\nof Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin\nperceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the\nsun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a\nfestival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is\nthe worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed\nfrom the Pagans the best it has.\n\nI believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy.\nWe in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much\nlike the English.\n\nI think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming\nFrenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman.\nWe take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days--the\nmore the better.\n\nChristmas is a good day to forgive and forget--a good day to throw away\nprejudices and hatreds--a good day to fill your heart and your house,\nand the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.\n\nR. G Ingersoll.\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO Dr. BUCKLEY.\n\nII.\n\nWHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an unbeliever, look out for\nkindness, charity and love.\n\nThe gentle editor of the _Christian Advocate_ charges me with having\nwritten three \"gigantic falsehoods,\" and he points them out as follows:\n_First_--\"Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy? but with\na message of eternal grief.\"\n\n_Second_--\"It [Christianity] has filled the future with fear and flame,\nand made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the\nhome of nearly all the sons of men.\"\n\n_Third_--\"Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity] has deprived God of\nthe pardoning power.\"\n\nNow, let us take up these \"gigantic falsehoods\" in their order and see\nwhether they are in accord with the New Testament or not--whether they\nare supported by the creed of the Methodist Church.\n\nI insist that Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but\nwith a message of eternal grief.\n\nAccording to the orthodox creeds, Christianity came with the tidings\nthat the human race was totally depraved, and that all men were in a\nlost condition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe the new\nreligion, would be tormented in eternal fire.\n\nThese were not \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nIf the passengers on some great ship were told that the ship was to be\nwrecked, that a few would be saved and that nearly all would go to\nthe bottom, would they talk about \"tidings of great joy\"? It is to be\npresumed that Christ knew what his mission was, and what he came for.\nHe says: \"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to\nsend peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against\nhis father, and the daughter against her mother.\" In my judgment, these\nare not \"tidings of great joy.\"\n\nNow, as to the message of eternal grief:\n\n\"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye\ncursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.\"\n\n\"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous\n[meaning the Methodists] into life eternal.\"\n\n\"He that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\n\"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God\nabideth on him.\"\n\n\"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;\nbut rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in\nhell.\"\n\n\"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.\"\n\nKnowing, as we do, that but few people have been believers, that during\nthe last eighteen hundred years not one in a hundred has died in the\nfaith, and that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it can\ntruthfully be said that Christianity came with a message of eternal\ngrief.\n\nNow, as to the second \"gigantic falsehood,\" to the effect that\nChristianity filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the\nkeeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all\nthe sons of men.\n\nIn the Old Testament there is nothing about punishment in some other\nworld, nothing about the flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah\nkilled one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge was glutted\nwhen the victim was dead. The Old Testament gave the future to sleep and\noblivion. But in the New Testament we are told that the punishment\nin another world is everlasting, and that \"the smoke of their torment\nascendeth up forever and ever.\"\n\nThis awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled the future with\nfear and flame. Building on these passages, the orthodox churches have\nconstructed a penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are\nto be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this prison God is the\nkeeper. The doors are opened only to receive.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy of infamies. As I have\noften said, the man who believes in eternal torment, in the justice of\nendless pain, is suffering from at least two diseases--petrifaction of\nthe heart and putrefaction of the brain.\n\nThe next question is whether Christianity has deprived God of the\npardoning power.\n\nThe Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life\nis a period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation\nafter death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.\n\nThis is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then\nGod will never release a soul from hell--the pardoning power will never\nbe exercised.\n\nHow happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing\nthat billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers,\nbrothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal\ndungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!\n\nYet this is in accordance with the promise contained in the New\nTestament, of happiness here and eternal joy hereafter, to those who\nwould desert brethren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or\nchildren.\n\nIt seems to me clear that Christianity did not bring \"tidings of great\njoy,\" but that it came with a \"message of eternal grief\"--that it did\n\"fill the future with fear and flame,\" that it did make God \"the keeper\nof an eternal penitentiary,\" that the penitentiary \"was destined to be\nthe home of nearly all the sons of men,\" and that \"it deprived God of\nthe pardoning power.\"\n\nOf course you can find passages full of peace, in the Bible, others of\nwar--some filled with mercy, and others cruel as the fangs of a wild\nbeast.\n\nAccording to the Methodists, God has an eternal prison--an everlasting\nSiberia. There is to be an eternity of grief, of agony and shame.\n\nWhat do I think of what the Doctor says about the _Telegram_ for having\npublished my Christmas sermon?\n\nThe editor of the _Christian Advocate_ has no idea of what intellectual\nliberty means. He ought to know that a man should not be insulted\nbecause another man disagrees with him.\n\nWhat right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with Cardinal Gibbons, and what\nright has Cardinal Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley? The same right\nthat I have to disagree with them both.\n\nI do not warn people against reading Catholic or Methodist papers or\nbooks. But I do tell them to investigate for themselves--to stand by\nwhat they believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all things,\nto preserve their mental manhood. The good Doctor wants the _Telegram_\ndestroyed--wants all religious people to unite for the purpose of\npunishing the _Telegram_--because it published something with which the\nreverend Doctor does not agree, or rather that does not agree with the\nDoctor.\n\nIt is too late. That day has faded in the West of the past. The doctor\nof theology has lost his power. Theological thunder has lost its\nlightning--it is nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it and\namusing those who hear.\n\nThe _Telegram_ has nothing to fear. It is, in the highest sense, a\nnewspaper--wide-awake, alive, always on time, good to its friends, fair\nwith its enemies, and true to the public.\n\nWhat have I to say to the Doctor's personal abuse?\n\nNothing. A man may call me a devil, or the devil, or he may say that I\nam incapable of telling the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this\nproves nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.\n\nI cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names, I have good mental manners.\nThe cause I represent (in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained\nby an ignorant or a malicious personality.\n\nI know that men do as they must with the light they have, and so I\nsay--More light!\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE Rev. James M. King--who seems to have taken this occasion to become\nknown--finds fault because \"blasphemous utterances concerning Christmas\"\nwere published in the _Telegram_, and were allowed \"to greet the eyes of\ninnocent children and pure women.\"\n\nHow is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,\nholier than another--that is to say, two equal spaces of time are\nsubstantially alike. We call a day \"good\" or \"bad\" according to what\nhappens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with\nnoble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and\nmisery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?\n\nA man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of\nDecember, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned,\nwith good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe\nthat Christ was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all\nhis friends unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called \"clean\nfamilies\" be violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to\nwhether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor\nof the triumph of the sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian\nfamilies so weak intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other\nside? Or is their case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows\nit? Why do all these ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise\na question as to the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability\nof the impossible?\n\nA minister says to me that I am going to hell--that I am bound to be\npunished forever and ever--and thereupon I say to him: \"There is no\nhell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to\nsuffer agony forever;\" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me\nthis question: \"Why do you hurt my feelings?\" It does not occur to him\nthat I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal\ngrief.\n\nDoes the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ\nwith him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the\nmemory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his\ndivine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other\nthan a good and heroic man. And there are thousands of people who\nadmire the character of Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever\nexisted--who admire the character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or\nPer-dita, not believing that any of the characters mentioned actually\nlived.\n\nAnd it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any\nreally good man or good woman--that is, no human being hates a man known\nto be good--a woman known to be pure and good. No human being hates a\nlovable character.\n\nIt is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to\nunderstand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad\nmotive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a\nman is a Christian or a Mohammedan \"for revenue only.\" I do not say that\na man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches\nwith the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his\nreasons--with his motives I have nothing to do.\n\nMr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity \"for revenue\nonly.\" Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox\nreligion that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can\nhardly believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far.\nI regret exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his\nremark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for\nany human being to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his\nfellow-men. Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read, even\nin this ignorant present, that there is one man, and that man myself,\nwho advocates human liberty--the absolute enfranchisement of the\nsoul--and does it \"for revenue\"--because this charge is such a splendid\ncompliment to my fellow-men.\n\nPossibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the\n_Telegram_ and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is\nin harmony with the intelligence of the age.\n\nMy opinion is that the _Telegram_ will receive the praise of enlightened\nand generous people.\n\nPersonally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,\nand I would much rather meet on the desert--were I about to perish for\nwant of water--a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a Christian\nwho would not; because, after all is said and done, we are compelled to\njudge people by their actions.\n\nI do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,\ninhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes\nplace there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,\nmasked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we\ncan possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the\nactions of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the\ncharacter, of the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good\nor bad, not by his theories, but by his actions.\n\nUnder no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched\nin becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well\nenough to inquire: What is blasphemy?\n\nA man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain\nthe pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A\nman who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He\nwho runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a\nblasphemer.\n\nIn the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there\nis one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In\nthe presence of this statue the good man worships--the bad man\nblasphemes--that is to say, he is not true to the ideal.\n\nA man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So,\ntoo, a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is\na blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as\nportrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as\nbad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes that the character of\nJehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it\ngood, he is a blasphemer and a coward.\n\nAll laws against \"blasphemy\" have been passed by the numerically strong\nand intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who,\nfinding no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.\n\nBack of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do\nnot say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests\nhad not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to\nGod. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not\nuse, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.\n\nNow, I will not say that all priests have been priests \"for revenue\nonly,\" but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that\nthe sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without\nrevenue.\n\nI am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel\nhas a right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost\ncheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have\never objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of\nothers.\n\nI cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as\nthe Christmas Sermon are \"revolting to a vast majority of the people who\ngive character to the community in which we live.\" I suppose that a\nvery large majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly\nsatisfied that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not\ndisagree with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me.\nAnd I also imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are\nperfectly willing to hear the other side.\n\nI do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that\nhave to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense\nor the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth\npreserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate\nof free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.\n\nI do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words\npublished by, the _Telegram_. The most that can possibly be said against\nthem, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that they\nwere true--that they cannot be answered except by abuse.\n\nIt is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood\nof intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print.\nThe church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most\nof this time it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many\ncenturies it controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had\nwithin its gift wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world\nis concerned, of heaven and hell--that is to say, of prosperity and\nmisfortune. It pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the\nscaffold with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet\nfor many centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.\nMillions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has made\nmillions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this world,\nbut it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under this\npretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal flames.\n\nAt last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous\nassumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many\nyears gradually losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now\nto the people. The partnership between altar and throne has in many\ncountries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of church and state\nhas ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their honest thoughts.\nIn the arena where speech is free, superstition is driven to the wall.\nMan relies more and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest is\nthe interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its power. In a little\nwhile religion will take its place with astrology, with the black art,\nand its ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand\nperformers.\n\nWith regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but\nlittle to say.\n\nI am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press--that he,\nlike Lucretia Mott, believes in \"truth for authority, and not authority\nfor truth.\" At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am not a\nscientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there is\nany fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be\npointed out. I admit also, that I am a \"sentimentalist\"--that is, that I\nam governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment--that my mind is so that\ncruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and admiration. I\nadmit that I am so much of \"a sentimentalist\" that I have no love for\nthe Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for me\nto believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless\nbillions of men, women and children.\n\nI am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have \"stabbed\nto the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies,\" and I hope to stab\nmany, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the\nheart there will be no foundation left for what I called \"orthodox\"\nChristianity--but goodness will survive, justice will live, and the\nflower of mercy will shed its perfume forever.\n\nWhen we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a\nminister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a\ndivine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion:\n\"If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not\nsee why he could not utilize the Colonel.\" It is natural for a man to\njustify himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however,\nwill remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and\nthat the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that\nthe spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet.\nIt was the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I\nsuggest to the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he\nwill find:--\n\n_First_, that the ass _first_ saw the angel of the Lord; _second_, that\nthe prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; _third_, that\nthe prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent\nass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and\ndemonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In\naddition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the\nprophet--in other words, had to work a miracle--in order to make the\nprophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his\ncruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever\nthe ass saw him--the angel--showing that the spiritual discernment of\nthe ass in those days was far superior to that of the prophet.\n\nI regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.\nDixon is not quite polite.\n\nAll of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he\nwho seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.\n\nAnd there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the\njustice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the\nfoundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument\nfails passion comes to the rescue.\n\nLet us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each\nother.\n\nThe course pursued by the _Telegram_ is worthy of all praise. It has not\nonly been just to both sides, but it has been--as is its custom--true to\nthe public.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\nINGERSOLL AGAIN ANSWERS HIS CRITICS.\n\nIV.\n\n_To the Editor of the Evening Telegram _:\n\nSOME of the gentlemen who have given their ideas through the columns of\nthe _Telegram_ have wandered from the questions under discussion. It may\nbe well enough to state what is really in dispute.\n\nI was called to account for having stated that Christianity did not\nbring \"tidings of great joy,\" but a message of eternal grief--that it\nfilled the future with fear and flame--made God the keeper of an eternal\npenitentiary, in which most of the children of men were to be imprisoned\nforever, and that, not satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the\npardoning power.\n\nThese statements were called \"mountainous lies\" by the Rev. Dr.\nBuckley, and because the _Telegram_ had published the \"Christmas Sermon\"\ncontaining these statements, he insisted that such a paper should not be\nallowed in the families of Christians or of Jews--in other words, that\nthe _Telegram_ should be punished, and that good people should refuse to\nallow that sheet to come into their homes.\n\nIt will probably be admitted by all fair-minded people that if the\northodox creeds be true, then Christianity was and is the bearer of a\nmessage of eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race are to\nbecome eternal convicts, and God has deprived himself of the pardoning\npower. According to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost\ncan ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.\n\nThe Universalists deny that such was or is the real message of\nChristianity. They insist that all are finally to be saved. If that\ndoctrine be true, then I admit that Christianity came with \"tidings of\ngreat joy.\"\n\nPersonally I have no quarrel with the Univer-salist Church. I have no\nquarrel with any creed that expresses hope for all of the human race.\nI find fault with no one for filling the future with joy--for dreaming\nsplendid dreams and for uttering splendid prophecies. I do not object\nto Christianity because it promises heaven to a few, but because it\nthreatens the many with perdition.\n\nIt does not seem possible to me that a God who loved men to that degree\nthat he died that they might be saved, abandons his children the moment\nthey are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God might do something\nfor a soul after it has reached the other world.\n\nIs it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more than is done for a\nmajority of souls in this world?\n\nThink of the millions born in ignorance and filth, raised in poverty and\ncrime. Think of the millions who are only partially developed in this\nworld. Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of passion. Think\nof the temptations innumerable. Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of\nthe arrogance of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak--and\ncan we then say that an infinite God has done, in this world, all\nthat could be done for the salvation of his children? Is it not barely\npossible that something may be done in another world? Is there nothing\nleft for God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal human soul after it\nleaves this world? Can God do nothing except to pronounce the sentence\nof eternal pain?\n\nI insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christianity did not come\nwith \"tidings of great joy,\" but that its message was and is one of\neternal grief.\n\nIf the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a vast blunder--an\ninfinite crime. Better, a thousand times, that every pulse of life\nshould cease--better that all the gods should fall palsied from their\nthrones, than that the creed of Christendom should be true.\n\nThere is another question and that involves the freedom of the press.\n\nThe _Telegram_ has acted with the utmost fairness and with the highest\ncourage. After all, the American people admire the man who takes\nhis stand and bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality of\nprogress, the press must be free. Only the free can carry a torch.\nLiberty sheds light.\n\nThe editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a public position, and\nhe must not treat his patrons as though they were weak and ignorant\nchildren. He must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, suppress the\ntruth--neither must he be dictated to by any church or any society of\nbelievers or unbelievers. The _Telegram_, by its course, has given\na certificate of its manliness, and the public, by its course, has\ncertified that it appreciates true courage.\n\nAll Christians should remember that facts are not sectarian, and that\nthe sciences are not bound by the creeds. We should remember that there\nare no such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany, or\nCatholic chemistry. The sciences are secular. .\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the issues--and yet, in some\nthings, I agree with him. He is certainly right when he says that \"Mr.\nBuckley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-American,\" but I\nam not certain that he is right when he says that it is un-Christian.\n\nThe church has not been in the habit of pursuing enemies with kind\nwords and charitable deeds. To tell the truth, it has always been rather\nrelentless. It has preached forgiveness, but it has never forgiven.\nThere is in the history of Christendom no instance where the church has\nextended the hand of friendship to a man who denied the truth of its\ncreed.\n\nThere is in the church no spirit--no climate--of compromise. In the\nnature of things there can be none, because the church claims that it\nis absolutely right--that there is only one road leading to heaven.\nIt demands unconditional surrender. It will not bear contradiction.\nIt claims to have the absolute truth. For these reasons it cannot\nconsistently compromise, any more than a mathematician could change the\nmultiplication table to meet the view of some one who should deny that\nfive times five are twenty-five.\n\nThe church does not give its opinion--it claims to know--it demands\nbelief. Honesty, industry, generosity count for nothing in the absence\nof belief. It has taught and still teaches that no man can reach heaven\nsimply through good and honest deeds. It believes and teaches that the\nman who relies upon himself will be eternally punished--and why should\nthe church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is waiting somewhat\nimpatiently to damn?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters asks--and probably honestly thinks that the\nquestions are pertinent to the issues involved--\"What has infidelity\ndone for the world? What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it\nfounded? What has it done for the elevation of public morals?\" And he\ninquires what science or art has been originated by infidelity. He asks\nhow many slaves it has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed,\nhow many fallen women it has restored, and what it did for the relief\nof the wounded and dying soldiers; and concludes by asking what life it\never assisted to higher holiness, and what death it has ever cheered.\n\nAlthough these questions have nothing whatever to do with the matters\nunder discussion, still it may be well enough to answer them.\n\nIt is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asylums have been built\nby Christians in Christian countries, and it is also admitted that\nhospitals and asylums have been built in countries not Christian; that\nthere were such institutions in China thousands of years before Christ\nwas born, and that many centuries before the establishment of any\northodox church there were asylums on the banks of the Nile--asylums for\nthe old, the poor, the infirm--asylums for the blind and for the insane,\nand that the Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure insanity\nwith kindness and affection. The same is true of India and probably of\nmost ancient nations.\n\nThere has always been more or less humanity in man--more or less\ngoodness in the human heart. So far as we know, mothers have always\nloved their children. There must always have been more good than evil,\notherwise the human race would have perished. The best things in the\nChristian religion came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered\nthe sublimest of truths, and all ages have been redeemed by honesty,\nheroism, and love.\n\nBut let me answer these questions in their order.\n\n_First_--As to the schools.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics have always been\nin favor of education--that is to say, of education enough to make a\nCatholic out of a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have\nalways been in favor of enough education to make a Protestant out of a\nCatholic. Many schools and many colleges have been established for the\nspread of what is called the Gospel and for the education of the clergy.\nPresbyterians have founded schools for the benefit of their creed.\nThe Methodists have established colleges for the purpose of making\nMethodists. The same is true of nearly all the sects. As a matter of\nfact, these schools have in many important directions hindered rather\nthan helped the cause of real education. The pupils were not taught to\ninvestigate for themselves. They were not allowed to think. They were\ntold that thought is dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with\ncreeds--with the ideas of others. Their credulity was applauded and\ntheir curiosity condemned. If all the people had been educated in these\nsectarian schools, all the people would have been far more ignorant\nthan they are. These schools have been, and most of them still are, the\nenemies of higher education, and just to the extent that they are under\nthe control of theologians they are hindrances, and just to the extent\nthat they have become secularized they have been and are a benefit.\n\nOur public-school system is not Christian. It is secular. Yet I admit\nthat it never could have been established without the assistance of\nChristians--neither could it have been supported without the assistance\nof others. But such is the value placed upon education that people of\nnearly all denominations, and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all\nopinions, for the most part agree that the children of a nation should\nbe educated by the nation. Some religious people are opposed to these\nschools because they are not religious--because they do not teach some\ncreed--but a large majority of the people stand by the public schools\nas they are. These schools are growing better and better, simply because\nthey are growing less and less theological, more and more secular.\n\nInfidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has insisted that only that\nshould be taught in schools which somebody knows or has good reason to\nbelieve.\n\nThe greatest professors in our colleges to-day are those who have the\nleast confidence in the supernatural, and the schools that stand highest\nin the estimation of the most intelligent are those that have drifted\nfarthest from the orthodox creeds. Free thought has always been and ever\nmust be the friend of education. Without free thought there can be no\nsuch thing--in the highest sense--as a school. Unless the mind is free,\nthere are no teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and splendid\nsense.\n\nThe church has been and still is the enemy of education, because it has\nbeen in favor of intellectual slavery, and the theological schools have\nbeen what might be called the deformatories of the human mind.\n\nFor instance: A man is graduated from an orthodox university. In this\nuniversity he has studied astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua\nstopped the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts the truth\nof the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied chemistry, and yet believes that\nwater was turned into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory of\ncause and effect, and at the same time he thoroughly believes in the\nmiraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes. Can such an institution,\nwith any propriety, be called a seat of learning? Can we not say of such\na university what Bruno said of Oxford: \"Learning is dead and Oxford is\nits widow.\"\n\nYear after year the religious colleges are improving--simply because\nthey are becoming more and more secular, less and less theological.\nWhether infidelity has founded universities or not, it can truthfully be\nsaid that the spirit of investigation, the spirit of free thought, the\nattitude of mental independence, contended for by those who are called\ninfidels, have made schools useful instead of hurtful.\n\nCan it be shown that any infidel has ever raised his voice against\neducation? Can there be found in the literature of free thought one\nline against the enlightenment of the human race? Has free thought ever\nendeavored to hide or distort, a fact? Has it not always appealed to the\nsenses--to demonstration? It has not said, \"He that hath ears to hear,\nlet him hear,\" but it has said, \"He that hath brains to think, let him\nthink.\"\n\nThe object of a school should be to ascertain truth in every direction,\nto the end that man may know the conditions of happiness--and every\nschool should be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by anything\nexcept a perceived fact. He should not be the slave of a creed, engaged\nin the business of enslaving others.\n\nSo much for schools.\n\n\nSecond--As to public morals.\n\nChristianity teaches that all offences can be forgiven. Every church\nunconsciously allows people to commit crimes on a credit. I do not\nmean by this that any church consciously advocates immorality. I\nmost cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of ministers are\nendeavoring to do good--that they are pure, self-denying men, trying\nto make this world better. But there is a frightful defect in their\nphilosophy. They say to the bank cashier: You must not steal, you must\nnot take a dollar--larceny is wrong, it is contrary to all law, human\nand divine--but if you do steal every cent in the bank, God will as\ngladly, quickly forgive you in Canada as he will in the United States.\nOn the other hand, what is called infidelity says: There is no being in\nthe universe who rewards, and there is no being who punishes--every act\nhas its consequences. If the act is good, the consequences are good; if\nthe act is bad, the consequences are bad; and these consequences must be\nborne by the actor. It says to every human being: You must reap what\nyou sow. There is no reward, there is no punishment, but there are\nconsequences, and these consequences are the invisible and implacable\npolice of nature. They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No\npower can awe them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make\nthem pause. Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant\ntheir victim.\n\nThis great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of morality. If all\nmen knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of their own\nactions--if they absolutely knew that they could not injure another\nwithout injuring themselves, the world, in my judgment, would be far\nbetter than it is.\n\nFree thought has attacked the morality of what is called the atonement.\nThe innocent should not suffer for the guilty, and if the innocent\ndoes suffer for the guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the\nguilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it, in some way, causes\nthe innocent to suffer. This being the very essence of wrong, how can\nthe suffering of innocence justify the guilty? If there be a world of\njoy, he who is worthy to enter that world must be willing to carry his\nown burdens in this.\n\nSo much for morality.\n\n\nThird--As to sciences and art.\n\nI do not believe that we are indebted to Christianity for any science.\nI do not remember that one science is mentioned in the New Testament.\nThere is not one word, so far as I remember, about education--nothing\nabout any science, nothing about art. The writers of the New Testament\nseem to have thought that the world was about coming to an end. This\nworld was to be sacrificed absolutely to the next. The affairs of this\nlife were not worth speaking of. All people were exhorted to prepare at\nonce for the other life.\n\nThe sciences have advanced in the proportion that they did not interfere\nwith orthodox theology. To the extent that they were supposed to\ninterfere with theology they have been obstructed and denounced.\nAstronomy was found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the\nastronomers were imprisoned and despised. Geology contradicted the\nMosaic account, and the geologists were denounced and persecuted. Every\nstep taken in astronomy was taken in spite of the church, and every fact\nin geology had to fight its way. The same is true as to the science of\nmedicine. The church wished to cure disease by necromancy, by charm and\nprayer, and with the bones of the saints. The church wished man to\nrely entirely upon God--that is to say, upon the church--and not upon\nhimself. The physician interfered with the power and prosperity of the\npriest, and those who appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking\nfaith in God. This state of things existed even in the Old Testament\ntimes. A king failed to send for the prophets, but sent for a physician,\nand then comes this piece of grim humor: \"And Asa slept with his\nfathers.\"\n\nThe great names in science are not those of recognized saints.\n\nBruno--one of the greatest and bravest of men--greatest of all\nmartyrs--perished at the stake, because he insisted on the existence of\nother worlds and taught the astronomy of Galileo.\n\nHumboldt--in some respects the wisest man known to the scientific\nworld--denied the existence of the supernatural and \"the truths of\nrevealed religion,\" and yet he revolutionized the thought of his day and\nleft a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.\n\nDarwin--greatest of scientists--so great that our time will probably\nbe known as \"Darwin's Century\"--had not the slightest confidence in any\npossible phase of the so-called supernatural. This great man left the\ncreed of Christendom without a foundation. He brought as witnesses\nagainst the inspiration of the Scriptures such a multitude of facts,\nsuch an overwhelming amount of testimony, that it seems impossible to\nme that any unprejudiced man can, after hearing the testimony, remain\na believer in evangelical religion. He accomplished more than all the\nschools, colleges, and universities that Christianity has founded. He\nrevolutionized the philosophy of the civilized world.\n\nThe writers who have done most for science have been the most bitterly\nopposed by the church. There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries\nof the world that cannot be found on the \"Index Expurgatorius.\" Kant\nand Fichte and Spinoza were far above and beyond the orthodox-world.\nVoltaire did more for freedom than any other man, and yet the church\ndenounced him with a fury amounting to insanity--called him an atheist,\nalthough he believed not only in God, but in special providence. He was\nopposed to the church--that is to say, opposed to slavery, and for that\nreason he was despised.\n\nAnd what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of Buckle, of Draper,\nof Haeckel, of Buechner, of Tyndall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and\nhundreds and thousands of others who have filled the scientific world\nwith light and the heart of man with love and kindness?\n\nIt may be well enough, in regard to art, to say that Christianity is\nindebted to Greece and Rome for its highest conceptions, and it may be\nwell to add that for many centuries Christianity did the best it could\nto destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and Rome. A few were buried,\nand in that way were saved from Christian fury.\n\nThe same is true of the literature of the classic world. A few fragments\nwere rescued, and these became the seeds of modern literature. A few\nstatues were preserved, and they are to-day models for all the world.\n\nOf course it will be admitted that there is much art in Christian lands,\nbecause, in spite of the creeds, Christians, so-called, have turned\ntheir attention to this world. They have beautified their homes, they\nhave endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and fine linen. They have\nbeen forced from banquets or from luxury by the difficulty of camels\ngoing through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of carrying water\nto the rich man. They have cultivated this world, and the arts have\nlived. Did they obey the precepts that they find in their sacred\nwritings there would be no art, they would \"take no thought for the\nmorrow,\" they would \"consider the lilies of the field.\"\n\n\nFourth--As to the liberation of slaves.\n\nIt was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr. Peters that he spoke of\nslavery. The Bible upholds human slavery--white slavery. The Bible was\nquoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The man who went to Africa\nto steal women and children took the Bible with him. He planted himself\nfirmly on the Word of God. As Whittier says of Whitefield:\n\n     \"He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,\n     Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nSo when the poor wretches were sold to the planters, the planters\ndefended their action by reading the Bible. When a poor woman was sold,\nher children torn from her breast, the auction block on which she stood\nwas the Bible; the auctioneer who sold her quoted the Scriptures; the\nman who bought her repeated the quotations, and the ministers from\nthe pulpit said to the weeping woman, as her child was carried away:\n\"Servants, be obedient unto your masters.\"\n\nFreethinkers in all ages have been opposed to slavery. Thomas Paine\ndid more for human liberty than any other man who ever stood upon the\nwestern world. The first article he ever wrote in this country was one\nagainst the institution of slavery. Freethinkers have also been in favor\nof free bodies. Freethinkers have always said \"free hands,\" and the\ninfidels, the wide world over, have been friends of freedom.\n\n\nFifth--As to the reclamation of inebriates.\n\nMuch has been said, and for many years, on the subject of\ntemperance--much has been uttered by priests and laymen--and yet there\nseems to be a subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland is\nextremely orthodox, yet it is not extremely temperate. England is\nnothing if not religious, and London is, par excellence, the\nChristian city of the world, and yet it is the most intemperate. The\nMohammedans--followers of a false prophet--do not drink.\n\n\nSixth--As to the humanity of infidelity.\n\nCan it be said that people have cared for the wounded and dying only\nbecause they were orthodox?\n\nIs it not true that religion, in its efforts to propagate the creed of\nforgiveness by the sword, has caused the death of more than one hundred\nand fifty millions of human beings? Is it not true that where the church\nhas cared for one orphan it has created hundreds? Can Christianity\nafford to speak of war?\n\nThe Christian nations of the world to-day are armed against each\nother. In Europe, all that can be gathered by taxation--all that can be\nborrowed by pledging the prosperity of the future--the labor of those\nyet unborn--is used for the purpose of keeping Christians in the field,\nto the end that they may destroy other Christians, or at least prevent\nother Christians from destroying them. Europe is covered with churches\nand fortifications, with temples and with forts--hundreds of thousands\nof priests, millions of soldiers, countless Bibles and countless\nbayonets--and that whole country is oppressed and impoverished for the\npurpose of carrying on war. The people have become deformed by labor,\nand yet Christianity boasts of peace.\n\n\nSeventh--\"And what death has infidelity ever cheered?\"\n\nIs it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer the dying when the\ndying is told that there is a world of eternal pain, and that he, unless\nhe has been forgiven, is to be an eternal convict? Will it cheer him to\nknow that, even if he is to be saved, countless millions are to be lost?\nIs it possible for the Christian religion to put a smile upon the face\nof death?\n\nOn the other hand, what is called infidelity says to the dying: What\nhappens to you will happen to all. If there be another world of joy, it\nis for all. If there is another life, every human being will have the\neternal opportunity of doing right--the eternal opportunity to live, to\nreform, to enjoy. There is no monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who\ndelights in the agony of his children. These frightful things are savage\ndreams.\n\nInfidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of pity.\n\nInfidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over every grave.\n\nLet us then, gentlemen, come back to the real questions under\ndiscussion. Let us not wander away.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nJan'y 9, 1891.\n\n\nINGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.\n\nV.\n\nNO one objects to the morality of Christianity.\n\nThe industrious people of the world--those who have anything--are, as\na rule, opposed to larceny; a very large majority of people object to\nbeing murdered, and so we have laws against larceny and murder. A large\nmajority of people believe in what they call, or what they understand\nto be, justice--at least as between others. There is no very great\ndifference of opinion among civilized people as to what is or is not\nmoral.\n\nIt cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks Buddhism attacks\nall morality. He does not attack goodness, justice, mercy, or anything\nthat tends in his judgment to the welfare of mankind; but he attacks\nBuddhism. So one attacking what is called Christianity does not attack\nkindness, charity, or any virtue. He attacks something that has been\nadded to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but what he\nbelieves to be the parasite.\n\nIf people, when they speak of Christianity, include the virtues common\nto all religions, they should not give Christianity credit for all the\ngood that has been done. There were millions of virtuous men and women,\nmillions of heroic and self-denying souls before Christianity was known.\n\nIt does not seen possible to me that love, kindness, justice, or\ncharity ever caused any one who possessed and practiced these virtues\nto persecute his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief. If\nChristianity has persecuted, some reason must exist outside of the\nvirtues it has inculcated. If this reason--this cause--is inherent in\nthat something else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues, then\nChristianity can properly be held accountable for the persecution. Of\ncourse back of Christianity is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may\nbe responsible.\n\nIs there anything in Christianity that will account for such\npersecutions--for the Inquisition? It certainly was taught by the church\nthat belief was necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same\ntime that the fate of man was eternal punishment; that the state of man\nwas that of depravity, and that there was but one way by which he could\nbe saved, and that was through belief--through faith. As long as this\nwas honestly believed, Christians would not allow heretics or infidels\nto preach a doctrine to their wives, to their children, or to themselves\nwhich, in their judgment, would result in the damnation of souls.\n\nThe law gives a father the right to kill one who is about to do great\nbodily harm to his son. Now, if a father has the right to take the life\nof a man simply because he is attacking the body of his son, how much\nmore would he have the right to take the life of one who was about to\nassassinate the soul of his son!\n\nChristians reasoned in this way. In addition to this, they felt that\nGod would hold the community responsible if the community allowed\na blasphemer to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed the\nfreethinker, or rather the free talker, in self-defence.\n\nAt the bottom of religious persecution is the doctrine of self-defence;\nthat is to say, the defence of the soul. If the founder of Christianity\nhad plainly said: \"It is not necessary to believe in order to be saved;\nit is only necessary to do, and he who really loves his fellow-men, who\nis kind, honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest\"--if he had\nonly said that, there would probably have been but little persecution.\n\nIf he had added to this: \"You must not persecute in my name. The\nreligion I teach is the Religion of Love--not the Religion of Force and\nHatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men. You must not stretch them\nupon racks, or crush their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them\nalive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour molten lead into\ntheir ears. You must treat all with absolute kindness. If you cannot\nconvert your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument, that is the end.\nYou must never resort to force, and, whether he believes as you do or\nnot, treat him always with kindness\"--his followers then would not have\nmurdered their fellows in his name.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be\ncarried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death\nthrough torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what\nhe must have known, if he were God, would happen.\n\nAll that Christianity has added to morality is worthless and useless.\nNot only so--it has been hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and\nthe useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and the useless\nremains.\n\nNow, falling back on the old assertion, \"By its fruits we may know\nChristianity,\" then I think we are justified in saying that, as\nChristianity consists of a mixture of morality and _something else_, and\nas morality never has persecuted a human being, and as Christianity has\npersecuted millions, the cause of the persecution must be the _something\nelse_ that was added to morality.\n\nI cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that\n\"Christianity has taught mankind the priceless value and dignity of\nhuman nature.\" On the other hand, Christianity has taught that the\nwhole human race is by nature depraved, and that if God should act\nin accordance with his sense of justice, all the sons of men would be\ndoomed to eternal pain. Human nature has been derided, has been held up\nto contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions denounced as wicked\nand filthy.\n\nDr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught mankind the value of\nfreedom. It certainly has not been the advocate of free thought; and\nwhat is freedom worth if the mind is to be enslaved?\n\nDr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacrificed in their efforts\nto be free; that is, millions have been sacrificed for exercising their\nfreedom as against the church.\n\nIt is not true that the church \"has taught and established the fact of\nhuman brotherhood.\" This has been the result of a civilization to which\nChristianity itself has been hostile.\n\nCan we prove that \"the church established human brotherhood\" by\nbanishing the Jews from Spain; by driving out the Moors; by the tortures\nof the Inquisition; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland; by the\nburning of Bruno and Servetus; by the persecution of the Irish; by\nwhipping and hanging Quakers in New England; by the slave trade; and by\nthe hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ?\n\nWe all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its very worst and most\ncruel form; and how it can be said that a religion founded upon a Bible\nthat upholds the institution of slavery has taught and established the\nfact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagination to conceive.\n\nNeither do I think it true that \"we are indebted to Christianity for the\nadvancement of science, art, philosophy, letters and learning.\"\n\nI cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Christianity for some\nlearning, and that the human mind has been developed by the discussion\nof the absurdities of superstition. Certainly millions and millions have\nhad what might be called mental exercise, and their minds may have\nbeen somewhat broadened by the examination, even, of these absurdities,\ncontradictions, and impossibilities. The church was not the friend of\nscience or learning when it burned Vanini for writing his \"Dialogues\nConcerning Nature.\" What shall we say of the \"Index Expurgatorius\"? For\nhundreds of years all books of any particular value were placed on the\n\"Index,\" and good Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor of\nscience and learning?\n\nThat we are indebted to Christianity for the advancement of science\nseems absurd. What science? Christianity was certainly the enemy of\nastronomy, and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that astronomy\ntook her revenge, so that not a star that glitters in all the heavens\nbears a Christian name.\n\nCan it be said that the church has been the friend of geology, or of any\ntrue philosophy? Let me show how this is impossible.\n\nThe church accepts the Bible as an inspired book. Then the only object\nis to find its meaning, and if that meaning is opposed to any result\nthat the human mind may have reached, the meaning stands and the result\nreached by the mind must be abandoned.\n\nFor hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever\nanything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church\nimmediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been\nchanged, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science\ndoes not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.\n\nCertainly Christianity has done little for art. The early Christians\ndestroyed all the marbles of Greece and Rome upon which they could lay\ntheir violent hands; and nothing has been produced by the Christian\nworld equal to the fragments that were accidentally preserved. There\nhave been many artists who were Christians; but they were not artists\nbecause they were Christians; because there have been many Christians\nwho were not artists. It cannot be said that art is born of any creed.\nThe mode of expression may be determined, and probably is to a certain\ndegree, by the belief of the artist; but not his artistic perception and\nfeeling.\n\nSo, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he was a Christian,\nbut in spite of it. His Bible was the other way, and so was his creed.\nConsequently, they could not by any possibility have assisted him.\nKepler did not discover or announce what are known as the \"Three Laws\"\nbecause he was a Christian; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of\nhis creed.\n\nEvery Christian who has really found out and demonstrated and clung to\na fact inconsistent with the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has\ndone so certainly without the assistance of his creed.\n\nLet me illustrate this: When our ancestors were burning each other to\nplease God; when they were ready to destroy a man with sword and\nflame for teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in Spain were\nteaching geography to their children with brass globes. So, too, they\nhad observatories and knew something of the orbits of the stars.\n\nThey did not find out these things because they were Mohammedans, or\non account of their belief in the impossible. They were far beyond the\nChristians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically said by Mrs.\nBrowning, that \"Science was thrust into the brain of Europe on the point\nof a Moorish lance.\"\n\nFrom the Arabs we got our numerals, making mathematics of the higher\nbranches practical. We also got from them the art of making cotton\npaper, which is almost at the foundation of modern intelligence. We\nlearned from them to make cotton cloth, making cleanliness possible in\nChristendom.\n\nSo from among people of different religions we have learned many useful\nthings; but they did not discover them on account of their religion.\n\nIt will not do to say that the religion of Greece was true because the\nGreeks were the greatest sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor\nof monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men, was born and lived in\na monarchy.\n\nDr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general cause, or of a vast\nnumber of causes, and makes it the cause, not only of other effects,\nbut of the general cause. He seems to think that all events for\nmany centuries, and especially all the good ones, were caused by\nChristianity.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is the result of\ncountless causes with which Christianity had little to do, except by way\nof hindrance.\n\nDoes the Doctor think that the material progress of the world was caused\nby this passage: \"Take no thought for the morrow\"?\n\nDoes he seriously insist that the wealth of Christendom rests on this\ninspired declaration: \"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye\nof a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven\"?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground that the Bible has\nproduced the richest and most varied literature the world has ever seen.\n\nThis, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of modern literature\nbeen produced in spite of the Bible? Did not Christians, for many\ngenerations, take the ground that the Bible was the only important book,\nand that books differing from the Bible should be destroyed?\n\nIf Christianity--Catholic and Protestant--could have had its way, the\nworks of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin, Haeckel,\nSpencer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gibbon, Buckle and\nBuechner would not have been published. In short, the philosophy that\nenlightens and the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.\n\nThe greatest literature the world has ever seen is, in my judgment, the\npoetic--the dramatic; that is to say, the literature of fiction in its\nwidest sense. Certainly if the church could have had control, the plays\nof Shakespeare never would have been written; the literature of the\nstage could not have existed; most works of fiction, and nearly all\npoetry, would have perished in the brain. So I think it hardly fair to\nsay that \"the Bible has produced the richest and most varied literature\nthe world has ever seen.\"\n\nThousands of theological books have been written on thousands of\nquestions of no possible importance. Libraries have been printed on\nsubjects not worth discussing--not worth thinking about--and that will,\nin a few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole world.\n\nMr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question:\n\n\"Who raised our great institutions of learning? Infidels never a stone\nof them!\"\n\nStephen Girard founded the best institution of learning, the best\ncharity, the noblest ever founded in this or any other land; and under\nthe roof built by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of orphans\nhave been reared, clothed, fed and educated, not only in books, but in\navocations, and become happy and useful citizens. Under his will\nthere has been distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more than\n$500,000; and this distribution goes on year after year.\n\nOne of the best observatories in the world was built by the generosity\nof James Lick, an infidel. I call attention to these two cases simply\nto show that the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was somewhat carried\naway by his zeal.\n\nSo, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that \"we are indebted to\nChristianity for our chronology.\"\n\nAccording to Christianity this world has been peopled about six thousand\nyears. Christian chronology gives the age of the first man, and then\ngives the line from father to son down to the flood, and from the flood\ndown to the coming of Christ, showing that men have been upon the earth\nonly about six thousand years. This chronology is infinitely absurd, and\nI do not believe that there is an intelligent, well-educated Christian\nin the world, having examined the subject, who will say that the\nChristian chronology is correct.\n\nNeither can it, I think, truthfully be said that \"we are indebted\nto Christianity for the continuation of history.\" The best modern\nhistorians of whom I have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,\nBuckle and Draper.\n\nNeither can I admit that \"we are indebted to Christianity for natural\nphilosophy.\"\n\nI do not deny that some natural philosophers have also been Christians,\nor, rather, that some Christians have been natural philosophers to the\nextent that their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Humboldt and\nDarwin and Spencer and Haeckel and Huxley and Tyndall have done far more\nfor natural philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.\n\nWhoever believes in the miraculous must be the enemy of natural\nphilosophy. To him there is something above nature, liable to interfere\nwith nature. Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind, each\ninconsistent with the other. To the extent that he believes in the\nsupernatural he is incapacitated for dealing with the natural, and to\nthat extent fails to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include the\ncaprice of the Infinite. It is founded on the absolute integrity and\ninvariability of nature.\n\nNeither do I agree with the reverend gentleman when he says that \"we are\nindebted to Christianity for our knowledge of philology.\"\n\nThe church taught for a long time that Hebrew was the first language and\nthat other languages had been derived from that; and for hundreds and\nhundreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested simply\nbecause they started with that absurd assumption and believed in the\nTower of Babel.\n\nChristianity cannot now take the credit for \"metaphysical research.\" It\nhas always been the enemy of metaphysical research. It never has said\nto any human being, \"Think!\" It has always said, \"Hear!\" It does not\nask anybody to investigate. It lays down certain doctrines as absolutely\ntrue, and, instead of asking investigation, it threatens every\ninvestigator with eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroying what\nhas been called Christianity, and Christians have always feared it.\n\nThis gentleman makes another mistake, and a very common one. This is his\nargument: Christian countries are the most intelligent; therefore they\nowe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next step is taken.\nChristianity, being the best, having produced these results, must have\nbeen of divine origin.\n\nLet us see what this proves. There was a time when Egypt was the first\nnation in the world. Could not an Egyptian, at that time have used the\nsame arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that the religion\nof Egypt was divine? Could he not then have said: \"Egypt is the most\nintelligent, the most civilized and the richest of all nations; it has\nbeen made so by its religion; its religion is, therefore, divine\"?\n\nSo there was a time when a Hindoo could have made the same argument.\nCertainly this argument could have been made by a Greek. It could have\nbeen repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters will not admit that the\nreligion of Egypt was divine, or that the mythology of Greece was true,\nor that Jupiter was in fact a god.\n\nIs it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe had been\ninstitutions of learning; if the domes of cathedrals had been\nobservatories; if priests had been teachers of the facts in nature, the\nworld would have been far in advance of what it is to-day?\n\nCountries depend on something besides their religion for progress.\nNations with a good soil can get along quite well with an exceedingly\npoor religion; and no religion yet has been good enough to give wealth\nor happiness to human beings where the climate and soil were bad and\nbarren.\n\nReligion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat,\nno corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual\nmendicant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has the arrogance\nto pretend that it supports the giver.\n\nMr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange statement: \"Every discovery in\nscience, invention and art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels\nhave contributed their share, but never one of them has reached the\ngrandeur of originality.\"\n\nThis, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can be answered with\none name--John Ericsson, one of the profoundest agnostics I ever met.\n\nI am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe were original. Darwin was\ncertainly regarded as such.\n\nI do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr. Peters, but I have some\ndoubts about Morse having been the inventor of the telegraph.\n\nNeither can I admit that Christianity abolished slavery. Many of\nthe abolitionists in this country were infidels; many of them were\nChristians. But the church itself did not stand for liberty. The\nQuakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of freedom. But the\nChristians of New England persecuted these Quakers, whipped them from\ntown to town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their bodied, not\nonly, but took their lives.\n\nMr. Peters asks: \"What name is there among the world's emancipators\nafter which you cannot write the name 'Christian?'\" Well, let me give\nhim a few--Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Darwin.\n\nMr. Peters asks: \"Why is it that in Christian countries you find the\ngreatest amount of physical and intellectual liberty, the greatest\nfreedom of thought, speech, and action?\"\n\nIs this true of all? How about Spain and Portugal? There is more\ninfidelity in France than in Spain, and there is far more liberty in\nFrance than in Spain.\n\nThere is far more infidelity in England than there was a century ago,\nand there is far more liberty than there was a century ago. There is far\nmore infidelity in the United States than there was fifty years ago, and\na hundred infidels to-day where there was one fifty years ago; and there\nis far more intellectual liberty, far greater freedom of speech and\naction, than ever before.\n\nA few years ago Italy was a Christian country to the fullest extent.\nNow there are a thousand times more liberty and a thousand times less\nreligion.\n\nOrthodoxy is dying; Liberty is growing.\n\nMr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea Ballou, seems to have\nwandered from the faith. As a rule, Christians insist that when one\ndenies the religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly bad man,\nbut when he denies the religion of parents not Christians, and becomes a\nChristian, that he is a very faithful, good and loving son.\n\nMr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to punish us that Nature\nhas, or that the State has. I do not think he understands what I have\nsaid. The State ought not to punish for the sake of punishment. The\nState may imprison, or inflict what is called punishment, first, for its\nown protection, and, secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If\nno one could do the State any injury, certainly the State would have\nno right to punish under the plea of protection; and if no human being\ncould by any possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reformation\ncould not be given.\n\nLet us apply this: If God be infinite, no one can injure him. Therefore\nhe need not punish anybody or damn anybody or burn anybody for his\nprotection.\n\nLet us take another step. Punishment being justified only on two\ngrounds--that is, the protection of society and the reformation of the\npunished--how can eternal punishment be justified? In the first place,\nGod does not punish to protect himself, and, in the second place, if the\npunishment is to be forever, he does not punish to reform the punished.\nWhat excuse then is left?\n\nLet us take still another step. If, instead of punishment, we say\n\"consequences,\" and that every good man has the right to reap the good\nconsequences of good actions, and that every bad man must bear the\nconsequences of bad actions, then you must say to the good: If you stop\ndoing good you will lose the harvest. You must say to the bad: If you\nstop doing bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it be a fact\nin Nature that all must reap what they sow, there is neither mercy nor\ncruelty in this fact, and I hold no God responsible for it. The trouble\nwith the Christian creed is that God is described as the one who gives\nrewards and the one who inflicts eternal pain.\n\nThere is still another trouble. This God, if infinite, must have known\nwhen he created man, exactly who would be eternally damned. What right\nhad he to create men, knowing that they were to be damned?\n\nSo much for Mr. Ballou.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of circle. He takes the\nground, in the first place, that \"infidelity, Christianity, science, and\nexperience all agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty, in\nthe inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.\"\nHe then takes the ground that, \"if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we\nmust not sow the seed; if we would avoid the result, we must remove the\ncause; the only way to be rid of hell is to stop doing evil; that this,\nand this only, is the way to abolish an eternal penitentiary.\"\n\nVery good; but that is not the point. The real thing under discussion\nis this: Is this life a state of probation, and if a man fails to live\na good life here, will he have no opportunity for reformation in\nanother world, if there be one? Can he cease to do evil in the eternal\npenitentiary? and if he does, can he be pardoned--can he be released?\n\nIt is admitted that man must bear the consequences of his acts. If the\nconsequences are good, then the acts are good. If the consequences are\nbad, the acts are bad. Through experience we find that certain acts tend\nto unhappiness and others to happiness.\n\nNow, the only question is whether we have wisdom enough to live in\nharmony with our conditions here; and if we fail here, will we have an\nopportunity of reforming in another world? If not, then the few years\nthat we live here determine whether we shall be angels or devils\nforever.\n\nIt seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life men may do\ngood, and men may do evil; and if they may do good it seems to me that\nthey may reform.\n\nI do not see why God, if there be one, should lose all interest in his\nchildren, simply because they leave this world and go where he is. Is\nit possible that an infinite God does all for his children here, in this\npoor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to do, and that if he\nfails to reform them here, nothing is left to do except to make them\neternal convicts?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I do not admit that \"an\ninfinite God, as revealed in Nature, has allowed men to grow up\nunder conditions which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their\nconcentrated agony and not break his heart.\"\n\nI do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature as an infinite God,\nwithout mercy. I do not admit that there is an infinite Being anywhere\nresponsible for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and horrors\nof this life. I cannot believe that there is in the universe a Being\nwith power to prevent these things. I hold no God responsible. I\nattribute neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither weeps\nnor rejoices. I cannot believe that this world, as it now is, as it has\nbeen, was created by an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent\nGod. But it is far better that we should all go down \"with souls\nunsatisfied\" to the dreamless grave, to the tongueless silence of the\nvoiceless dust, than that countless millions of human souls should\nsuffer forever.\n\nEternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal punishment is eternal\nrevenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.\n\nMr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in an extremely small\ncompass, and satisfies himself with really one question, and that is:\n\"If a man in good health is stricken with disease, is assured that a\nphysician can cure him, but refuses to take the medicine and dies, ought\nthere to be any escape?\"\n\nHe concludes that the physician has done his duty; that the patient was\nobdurate and suffered the penalty.\n\nThe application he makes is this:\n\n\"The Christian's 'tidings of great joy' is the message that the Great\nPhysician tendered freely. Its acceptance is a cure certain, and a\nlife of eternal happiness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not\ntidings of great joy; and if the soul rejects, is it not unreasonable on\nthe part of Colonel Ingersoll to try and sneak out and throw the blame\non God?\"\n\nThe answer to this seems easy. The cases are not parallel. If an\ninfinite God created us all, he knew exactly what we would do. If he\ngave us free will it does not change the result, because he knew how we\nwould use the free will.\n\nNow, if he knew that billions upon billions would refuse to take the\nremedy, and consequently would suffer eternal pain, why create them?\nThere would have been much less misery in the world had he left them\ndust.\n\nWhat right has a God to make a failure? Why should he change dust into\na sentient being, knowing that that being was to be the heir of endless\nagony?\n\nIf the supposed physician had created the patient who refused to take\nthe medicine, and had so created him that he knew he would refuse to\ntake it, the cases might be parallel.\n\nAccording to the orthodox creed, millions are to be damned who never\nheard of the medicine or of the \"Great Physician.\"\n\nThere is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage that I hardly think\nhe could have intended. Possibly there has been a misprint. It is the\nfollowing paragraph:\n\n\"Who\" (speaking of Jesus) \"has such an eye to our need; such a lip to\nkiss away our sorrow; such a hand to snatch us out of the fire; _such\na foot to trample our enemies_; such a heart to embrace all our\nnecessities?\"\n\nWhat does the reverend gentleman mean by \"_such a foot to trample our\nenemies_\"?\n\nThis, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accordance with the\nhistory of the church. In the name of its founder it has \"trampled on\nits enemies,\" and beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of\nthe world.\n\nThe Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes into this discussion\nwith a great deal of heat and considerable fury. He states that\n\"Infidelity is the creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or\nsorrow comes he\" (meaning the infidel) \"does not paw nor mock nor cry\n'Ha! ha!' He sneaks and cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and\nwhines and howls.\"\n\nThe spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether admirable. He seems to\nthink that a man establishes the truth of his religion by being brave,\nor demonstrates its falsity by trembling in the presence of death.\n\nThousands of people have died for false religions and in honor of false\ngods. Their heroism did not prove the truth of the religion, but it did\nprove the sincerity of their convictions.\n\nA great many murderers have been hanged who exhibited on the scaffold\nthe utmost contempt of death; and yet this courage exhibited by dying\nmurderers has never been appealed to in justification of murder.\n\nThe reverend gentleman tells again the story of the agonies endured by\nThomas Paine when dying; tells us that he then said that he wished his\nwork had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil ever had any\nagency in any work he had in the writing of that book (meaning \"The Age\nof Reason,\") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus to have mercy\nupon him.\n\nOf course there is not a word of truth in this story. Its falsity has\nbeen demonstrated thousands and thousands of times, and yet ministers of\nthe Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.\n\nSo this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accustomed to close his\nletters with the words, \"Crush the wretch!\" (meaning Christ). This is\nnot so. He referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.\n\nThis gentleman also says that \"Voltaire was the prey of anguish and\ndread, alternately supplicating and blaspheming God; that he complained\nthat he was abandoned by God; that when he died his friends fled from\nthe room, declaring the sight too terrible to be endured.\"\n\nThere is not one word of truth in this. Everybody who has read the life\nof Voltaire knows that he died with the utmost serenity.\n\nLet me tell you how Voltaire died.\n\nHe was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded by the comforts\nof life. He was a man of wealth--of genius. Among the literary men of\nthe world he stood first. God had allowed him to have the appearance of\nsuccess. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery.\nHe stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They\nbegan to fear that God would forget, in a multiplicity of business, to\nmake a terrible example of Voltaire.\n\nToward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire\nwas dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of\nsuperstition, impatiently waiting for their prey.\n\n\"Two days before his death his nephew went to seek the Cure of St.\nSulpice and the Abbe Gautier, and brought them into his uncle's\nsick-chamber, who was informed that they were there.\n\n\"'Ah, well,' said Voltaire; 'give them my compliments and my thanks.'\n\n\"The abbe spoke some words to Voltaire, exhorting him to patience. The\nCure of St. Sulpice then came forward, having announced himself, and\nasked Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of\nour Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man pushed one of his hands against the\ncure's coif shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other\nside:\n\n\"'Let me die in peace!'\n\n\"The cure seemingly considered his person soiled and his coif dishonored\nby the touch of the philosopher. He made the nurse give him a little\nbrushing and went out with the Abbe Gautier.\n\n\"He expired,\" says Wagniere, \"on the 30th of May, 1788, at about a\nquarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity.\n\n\"Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his\n_valet-de-chambre_, who was watching by him, pressed it and said:\n'Adieu, my dear Morand. I am gone!'\n\n\"These were his last words.\"\n\nFrom this death, so simple and serene, so natural and peaceful--from\nthese words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch--all the\nfrightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and\nmade. From these materials, and from these alone, have been constructed\nall the shameless calumnies about the death of this great and wonderful\nman.\n\nVoltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time. From his throne at\nthe foot of the Alps he pointed the finger of scorn at every hypocrite\nin Europe. He was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin\nof superstition. Through the shadows of faith and fable; through the\ndarkness of myth and miracle; through the midnight of Christianity;\nthrough the blackness of bigotry; past cathedral and dungeon; past rack\nand stake; past altar and throne, he carried, with chivalric hands, the\nsacred torch of Reason.\n\nLet me also tell you about the death of Thomas Paine. After the\npublication of his \"Rights of Man\" and \"The Age of Reason\", every\nfalsehood that malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to the\nworld. On his return to America, although Thomas Jefferson, another\ninfidel, was President, it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the\npublic streets.\n\nUnder the very flag he had helped to put in heaven, his rights were not\nrespected. Under the Constitution that he had first suggested, his life\nwas insecure. He had helped to give liberty to more than three millions\nof his fellow-citizens, and they were willing to deny it unto him.\n\nHe was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned and cursed. But he\nmaintained his integrity. He stood by the convictions of his mind, and\nnever for one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died almost alone.\n\nThe moment he died the pious commenced manufacturing horrors for his\ndeath-bed. They had his chamber filled with devils rattling chains,\nand these ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even of the\npresent day.\n\nThe truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had lived. Some ministers\nwere impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he\nordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness\nof arrogance, called that they might enjoy the agonies of the dying\nfriend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments of\nexpiring life fanned into flame by the breath of indignation, had the\ngoodness to curse them both.\n\nHis physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold\nhand of Death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled\near of the dying man: \"Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that\nJesus Christ is the Son of God?\"\n\nAnd the reply was: \"I have no wish to believe on that subject.\"\n\nThese were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine. He died as\nserenely as ever mortal passed away. He died in the full possession of\nhis mind, and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the doctrines of\nhis life.\n\nEvery philanthropist, every believer in human liberty, every lover of\nthe great Republic, should feel under obligation to Thomas Paine for the\nsplendid services rendered by him in the darkest days of the American\nRevolution. In the midnight of Valley Forge, \"The Crisis\" was the first\nstar that glittered in the wide horizon of despair.\n\nWe should remember that Thomas Paine was the first man to write these\nwords: \"The United States of America.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of joy in imagining what\ninfidels will suffer when they come to die, and he writes as though he\nwould like to be present.\n\nFor my part I hope that all the sons and daughters of men will die in\npeace; that they will pass away as easily as twilight fades to night.\n\nOf course when I said that \"Christianity did not bring tidings of great\njoy, but a message of eternal grief,\" I meant orthodox Christianity; and\nwhen I said that \"Christianity fills the future with fire and flame,\nand made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, in which most of\nthe children of men were to be imprisoned forever,\" I was giving what I\nunderstood to be the Evangelical belief on that subject.\n\nIf the churches have given up the doctrine of eternal punishment, then\nfor one I am delighted, and I shall feel that what little I have done\ntoward that end has not been done in vain.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony in imagination, says:\n\"Let the world wait but for a few years at the most, when Death's icy\nfingers feel for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of his\nlike who have gone before him have done, he will sing another strain.\"\n\nHow shall I characterize the spirit that could prompt the writing of\nsuch a sentence?\n\nThe reverend gentleman \"loves his enemies,\" and yet he is filled with\nglee when he thinks of the agonies I shall endure when Death's icy\nfingers feel for the strings of my heart! Yet I have done him no harm.\n\nHe then quotes, as being applicable to me, a passage from the prophet\nIsaiah, commencing: \"The vile person will speak villainy.\"\n\nIs this passage applicable only to me?\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the \"Christmas Sermon.\"\nFor his benefit I repeat, in another form, what the \"Christmas Sermon\"\ncontains:\n\nIf orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a period of\nprobation, that we settle here our eternal destiny, and that all who\nhave heard the Gospel and who have failed to believe it are to be\neternally lost, then I say that Christianity did not \"bring tidings of\ngreat joy,\" but a Message of Eternal Grief. And if the orthodox churches\nare still preaching the doctrine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be\nfar better if every church crumbled into dust than that such preaching\nand such teaching should be continued.\n\nIt would be far better yet, however, if the ministers could be converted\nand their congregations enlightened.\n\nI admit that the orthodox churches preach some things beside hell; but\nif they do not believe in the eternity of punishment they ought publicly\nto change their creeds.\n\nI admit, also, that the average minister advises his congregation to be\nhonest and to treat all with kindness, and I admit that many of these\nministers fail to follow their own advice when they make what they call\n\"replies\" to me.\n\nOf course there are many good things about the church. To the extent\nthat it is charitable, or rather to the extent that it causes charity,\nit is good. To the extent that it causes men and women to lead moral\nlives it is good. But to the extent that it fills the future with fear\nit is bad. To the extent that it convinces any human being that there is\nany God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal torments on his own\nchildren, it is bad.\n\nAnd such teaching does tend to blight humanity. Such teaching does\npollute the imagination of childhood. Such teaching does furrow the\ncheeks of the best and tenderest with tears..Such teaching does rob old\nage of all its joy, and covers every cradle with a curse!\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely familiar with God. He says:\n\"God seems to have delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto\nthe world the fullest opportunity to do all that the human mind could\nsuggest for the weal of the race.\"\n\nAccording to this gentleman, God just delayed his advent for the purpose\nof seeing what the world would do, _knowing all the time exactly what\nwould be done_.\n\nLet us make a suggestion: If the orthodox creed be true, then all people\nbecame tainted or corrupted or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what\nis known as \"Original Sin.\"\n\nAccording to the Old Testament, these people kept getting worse and\nworse. It does not seem that Jehovah made any effort to improve them,\nbut he patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years without having\nestablished any church, without having given them a Bible, and then he\ndrowned all but eight persons.\n\nNow, those eight persons were also depraved. The taint of Original Sin\nwas also in their blood.\n\nIt seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He should also have killed\nthe remaining eight, and started new, kept the serpent out of his\ngarden, and furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presbyterian\nConfession of Faith.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all charity and goodness\nare the children of Christianity. This is a mistake. All the virtues\nwere in the world long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will be\nconvinced by the words of Christ himself. He will probably remember\nthe story of the Good Samaritan, and if he does he will see that it is\nexactly in point. The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He was not one\nof \"the chosen people.\" He was a poor, \"miserable heathen,\" who knew\nnothing about the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never heard\nof the \"scheme of salvation.\" And yet, according to Christ, he was far\nmore charitable than the Levites--the priests of Jehovah, the highest\nof \"the chosen people.\" Is it not perfectly plain from this story that\ncharity was in the world before Christianity was established?\n\nA great deal has been said about asylums and hospitals, as though the\nChristians are entitled to great credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler\nwill read what is said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of\n\"Mental Diseases,\" he will find that the Egyptians treated the insane\nwith the utmost kindness, and that they called reason back to its throne\nby the voice of music; that the temples were resorted to by crowds of\nthe insane; and that \"whatever gifts of nature or productions of art\nwere calculated to impress the imagination were there united. Games\nand recreations were instituted in the temples. Groves and gardens\nsurrounded these holy retreats. Gayly decorated boats sometimes\ntransported patients to breathe the pure breezes of the Nile.\"\n\nSo in ancient Greece it is said that \"from the hands of the priest the\ncure of the disordered mind first passed into the domain of medicine,\nwith the philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed music for the\ncure of mental diseases. The order of the day for his disciples exhibits\na profound knowledge of the relations of body and mind. The early\nmorning was divided between gentle exercise, conversation and music.\nThen came conversation, followed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate\ndiet. Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allowance of wine;\nthen reading, music and conversation concluded the day.\"\n\nSo \"Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment of mental disorders.\nHe recommended that bodily restraint should be avoided as much as\npossible.\" It is also stated that \"the philosophy and arts of Greece\nspread to Rome, and the first special treatise on insanity is that\nof Celsus, which distinguishes varieties of insanity and their proper\ntreatment.\"\n\n\"Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome the errors and ignorance\nof the Middle Ages gradually crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud\nworse than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again consigned to the\nmiracle-working-ordinances of o o priests or else totally neglected.\nIdiots and imbeciles were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The\nfrantic and furious were chained in lonesome dungeons and exhibited\nfor money, like wild beasts. The monomaniacs became, according to\ncircumstance, the objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They\nwere regarded as possessed with demons and subjected either to priestly\nexorcism, or cruelly destroyed as wizards and witches. This cruel\ntreatment of the insane continued with little or no alleviation down to\nthe end of the last century in all the civilized countries of Europe.\"\n\nLet me quote a description of these Christian asylums.\n\n\"Public asylums indeed existed in most of the metropolitan cities of\nEurope, but the insane were more generally, if at all troublesome,\nconfined in jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons or\nmade the butts and menials of the most debased criminals. In public\nasylums the inmates were confined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained\nto floors or walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the public like\nwild beasts. They were often killed by the ignorance and brutality of\ntheir keepers.\"\n\nI call particular attention to the following paragraph: \"Such was the\nstate of the insane generally throughout Europe at the commencement of\nthis century. Such it continued to be in England so late as 1815 and\nin Ireland as 1817, as revealed by the inquiries of parliamentary\ncommissions in those years respectively.\"\n\nDr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort these facts can give.\n\nNot only were the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians far in advance of\nthe Christians in the treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the\nMohammedans were in advance of the Christians about 700 years, and in\naddition to this they treated their lunatics with great kindness.\n\nThe temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for insolvent debtors, and\nthe Thesium was a refuge for slaves.\n\nAgain, I say that hundreds of years before the establishment of\nChristianity there were in India not only hospitals and asylums for\npeople, but even for animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy\nis that they attribute all goodness to Christianity. They have always\nbeen engaged in maligning human nature--in attacking the human heart--in\nefforts to destroy all natural passions.\n\nPerfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered and repeated in\nIndia and China hundreds and hundreds of years before the Christian\nera. Every virtue was lauded and every vice denounced. All the good that\nChristianity has in it came from the human heart. Everything in that\nsystem of religion came from this world; and in it you will find not\nonly the goodness of man, but the imperfections of man--not only the\nlove of man, but the malice of man.\n\nLet me tell you why the Christians for so many centuries neglected\nor abused the insane. They believed the New Testament, and honestly\nsupposed that the insane were filled with devils.\n\nIn regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley, who, as I understand it,\nis a doctor of theology--and I should think such theology stood in need\nof a doctor--and the _Telegram_, I have nothing to say. There is only\none side to that contest; and so far as the Doctor heretofore criticised\nwhat is known as the \"Christmas Sermon,\" I have answered him, leaving\nbut very little to which I care to reply in his last article.\n\nDr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward names instead of\nreasons--instead of arguments. Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John\nHoward, and Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only names;\nand, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buckley should give the reasons\nadvanced by those whose names he pronounces.\n\nJonathan Edwards may have been a good man, but certainly his theology\nwas infamous. So Father Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible\nfor him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of the doctrine of the\n\"Real Presence.\"\n\nMilton was a very good man, and he described God as a kind of\nbrigadier-general, put the angels in uniform and had regular battles;\nbut Milton's goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of his\npoetical and absurd vagaries.\n\nAll the self-denial and goodness in the world do not even tend to prove\nthe existence of the supernatural or of the miraculous. Millions\nand millions of the most devoted men could not, by their devotion,\nsubstantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.\n\nThere are, however, some misstatements in Dr. Buckley's article that\nought not to be passed over in silence.\n\nThe first is to the effect that I was invited to write an article for\nthe _North American Review_, Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that\nJudge Black was improperly treated.\n\nNow, it is true that I was invited to write an article, and did write\none; but I did not know at the time who was to reply. It is also true\nthat Judge Black did reply, and that my article and his reply appeared\nin the same number of the _Review._\n\nDr. Buckley alleges that the _North American Review_ gave me an\nopportunity to review the Judge, but denied to Judge Black an\nopportunity to respond. This is without the slightest foundation in\nfact. Mr. Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the _Review_, is\nstill living and will tell the facts. Personally I had nothing to do\nwith it, one way or the other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as\nformidable, and was not only willing that he should be heard again, but\nanxious that he should.\n\nSo much for that.\n\nAs to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone, I leave them to say\nwhether they were or were not fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor,\nby his fairness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my respect and\nlove.\n\nMost ministers imagine that any man who differs from them is a\nblasphemer. This word seems to leap unconsciously from their lips.\nThey cannot imagine that another man loves liberty as much and with\nas sincere devotion as they love God. They cannot imagine that another\nprizes liberty above all gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine\nthat any mind is so that it places Justice above all persons, a mind\nthat cannot conceive even of a God who is not bound to do justice.\n\nIf God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the figure of Justice.\n\nNeither can some ministers understand a man who regards Jehovah and\nJupiter as substantially the same, with this exception--that he thinks\nfar more of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human feelings.\n\nI do not understand that a man can be guilty of blasphemy who states his\nhonest thoughts in proper language, his object being, not to torture\nthe feelings of others, but simply to give his thought--to find and\nestablish the truth.\n\nDr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have known to be without\nfoundation. Speaking of myself, he said: \"In him the laws to prevent the\ncirculation of obscene publications through the mails have found their\nmost vigorous opponent.\"\n\nIt is hardly necessary for me to say that this is untrue. The facts are\nthat an effort was made to classify obscene literature with what the\npious call \"blasphemous and immoral works.\" A petition was forwarded to\nCongress to amend the law so that the literature of Freethought could\nnot be thrown from the mails, asking that, if no separation could be\nmade, the law should be repealed.\n\nIt was said that I had signed this petition, and I certainly should have\ndone so had it been presented to me. The petition was absolutely proper.\n\nA few years ago I found the petition, and discovered that while it bore\nmy name it had never been signed by me. But for the purposes of this\nanswer I am perfectly willing that the signature should be regarded as\ngenuine, as there is nothing in the petition that should not have been\ngranted.\n\nThe law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal League--but not a member\nof that society was in favor of the circulation of obscene literature;\nbut they did think that the privacy of the mails had been violated, and\nthat it was of the utmost importance to maintain the inviolability of\nthe postal service.\n\nI disagreed with these people, and favored the destruction of obscene\nliterature not only, but that it be made a criminal offence to send it\nthrough the mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to that\neffect that were passed. Afterward they were changed, or some others\nwere passed, and I resigned from the League on that account.\n\nNothing can be more absurd than that I was, directly or indirectly, or\ncould have been, interested in the circulation of obscene publications\nthrough the mails; and I will pay a premium of $1,000 a word for\neach and every word I ever said or wrote in favor of sending obscene\npublications through the mails.\n\nI might use much stronger language. I might follow the example of\nDr. Buckley himself. But I think I have said enough to satisfy all\nunprejudiced people that the charge is absurdly false.\n\nNow, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a certain pleasure to read\nthat even now, and I believe the readers of the _Telegram_ would like to\nread it once more; so here it is:\n\n\"I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey that ever drove the\nskeleton from a feast or painted landscapes in the brain of man. It is\nthe mingled souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the sunshine\nand the shadow that chased each other over the billowy fields; the\nbreath of June; the carol of the lark; the dews of night; the wealth\nof summer and autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned light.\nDrink it and you will hear the voices of men and maidens singing the\n'Harvest Home,' mingled with the laughter of children. Drink it and you\nwill feel within your blood the star-lit dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks\nof many perfect days. For forty years this liquid joy has been within\nthe happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips of men.\"\n\nI re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley, who is not very\naccurate, made some mistakes in his version.\n\nNow, in order to show the depth of degradation to which I have sunk in\nthis direction, I will confess that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco,\nand here it is:\n\n\"Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adventurous, in the blessed\nisland of Cuba, saw happy people with rolled leaves between their lips.\nAbove their heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were serene,\nand in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of content. These people were\nkind, innocent, gentle and loving.\n\n\"The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth and air, and of this\nclimate the sacred leaves were born--the leaves that breed in the mind\nof him who uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they grew.\n\n\"These leaves make friends, and celebrate with gentle rites the vows of\npeace. They have given consolation to the world. They are the companions\nof the lonely--the friends of the imprisoned, of the exile, of workers\nin mines, of fellers of forests, of sailors on the desolate seas. They\nare the givers of strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds of\nthose who build with thought and dream the temples of the soul.\n\n\"They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the wrinkled brows of\npain--drive fears and strange misshapen dreads from out the mind and\nfill the heart with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and woof\nsome potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that, when released by fire,\ndoth softly steal within the fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the\ncaptured sentinels of care and grief.\n\n\"These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and their smoke, like\nincense, rises from myriads of happy homes. Cuba is the smile of the\nsea.\"\n\nThere are some people so constituted that there is no room in the heaven\nof their minds for the butterflies and moths of fancy to spread their\nwings. Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest. Such men would\nhold Shakespeare responsible for what Falstaff said about \"sack,\" and\nfor Mrs. Quickly's notions of propriety.\n\nThere is an old Greek saying which is applicable here: \"In the presence\nof human stupidity, even the gods stand helpless.\"\n\nJohn Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, lacked all sense of humor.\nHe preached a sermon on \"The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes.\" He insisted\nthat they were caused by the wickedness of man, and that the only way to\ncure them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nThe man who does not carry the torch of Humor is always in danger of\nfalling into the pit of Absurdity.\n\nThe Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church of the Strangers,\ncontributes his part to the discussion.\n\nHe took a text from John, as follows: \"He that committeth sin is of the\ndevil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose\nthe Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the\ndevil.\"\n\nAccording to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr. Deems all have committed\nsin, and consequently all are of the devil. The Doctor is not a\nmetaphysician. He does not care to play at sleight of hand with words.\nHe stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that the devil is no Persian myth,\nbut a personality, who works unhindered by the limitations of a physical\nbody, and gets human personalities to aid him in his works.\n\nAccording to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the\nbeginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the\nbeginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the\nCreator of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of\nthe devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies,\nand Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil--that is to say, the\ngrandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost \"blasphemous.\"\n\nThe Doctor also tells us \"that Jesus believed as much in the personality\nof the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter.\"\n\nThat I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be\ntrue, that Christ believed in a personal devil--a devil with whom he had\nconversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and\nendeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below.\n\nOf course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed\nin thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary\nMagdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or,\nrather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might\ngo into a drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man.\n\nI not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that\nsome devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared.\n\nDr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the\nintegrity of the New Testament.\n\nThe Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New\nTestament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says:\n\n\"The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp,\nshrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the\nauthority of God's law.\"\n\nHow does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial\nintellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd\nand persevering?\n\nIf the devil has an \"imperial intellect,\" why does he attempt the\nimpossible?\n\nRobert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the\ndevil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and\nmend.\n\nDr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems\nto be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the \"Arch Enemy of God\"--of\nthat \"organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the\nchurch\"--the Doctor says:\n\n\"The devil may be conceded to be sincere.\"\n\nIt has been said:\n\n\"An honest God is the noblest work of man,\" and it may now be added: A\nsincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems.\n\nBut, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the\nDoctor says that he \"cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver\nlectures\" (like myself, I suppose), \"edit a newspaper\" (like the editor\nof the _Telegram_), \"or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his\nservants to do these things for him.\"\n\nThere is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting\n(I quote from the _Telegram's_ report):\n\n\"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God, the Christ of the\nBible--_not the Christ of the lecture platform caricatures_--is\noperating to overcome all these works.\"\n\nI take it for granted that he refers to what he supposes I have said\nabout Christ, and, for fear that he may not have read it, I give it\nhere:\n\n\"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ I have\ninfinite respect. Let me say, once for all, that the place where man has\ndied for man, is holy ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that\ngreat and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my admiration and my\ntears. He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. He\nwas regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypocrites,\nwho have, in all ages, done what they could to trample freedom and\nmanhood out of the human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have\nbeen his friend, and should he come again he will not find a better\nfriend than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation\nI have a different feeling.\"\n\nI have not answered each one who has attacked by name. Neither have I\nmentioned those who have agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to\nthank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have manfully advocated the\nright of free speech, and who have upheld the _Telegram_ in the course\nit has taken.\n\nI thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I also feel quite\ngrateful to those who have failed to say unkind words. Epithets are\nnot arguments. To abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice\nillogical.\n\nAnd, after all that has appeared by way of reply, I still insist that\northodox Christianity did not come with \"tidings of great joy,\" but with\na message of eternal grief.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nNew York, February 5, 1892.\n\n\n\n\nSUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.\n\n\n     *A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis\n     Globe Democrat, Sept. 1, 1892.\n\n_Question_. Have you read an article in the _Western Watchman_, entitled\n\"Suicide of Judge Normile\"? If so, what is your opinion of it?\n\n_Answer._ I have read the article, and I think the spirit in which it\nis written is in exact accord with the creed, with the belief, that\nprompted it.\n\nIn this article the writer speaks not only of Judge Normile, but of\nHenry D'Arcy, and begins by saying that a Catholic community had been\nshocked, but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no right \"to\nfeel special concern in the life or death of either,\" for the reason,\n\"that both had ceased to be Catholics, and had lived as infidels and\nscoffers.\"\n\nAccording to the Catholic creed all infidels and scoffers are on\nthe direct road to eternal pain; and yet, if the _Watchman_ is to be\nbelieved, Catholics have no right to have special concern for the fate\nof such people, even after their death.\n\nThe church has always proclaimed that it was seeking the lost--that\nit was trying in every way to convert the infidels and save the\nscoffers--that it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the fold\nthan for the one that had strayed. We have been told that God so loved\ninfidels and scoffers, that he came to this poor world and gave his life\nthat they might be saved. But now we are told by the _Western Watchman_\nthat the church, said to have been founded by Christ, has no right to\nfeel any special concern about the fate of infidels and scoffers.\n\nPossibly the _Watchman_ only refers to the infidels and scoffers who\nwere once Catholics.\n\nIf the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at one time a Christian;\nthat is to say, a good Catholic, and yet he fell from grace and not only\ndenied his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that he did not\nknow him; that he never had made his acquaintance. And yet, this same\nPeter was taken back and became the rock on which the Catholic Church is\nsupposed to rest.\n\nAre the Catholics of St. Louis following the example of Christ, when\nthey publicly declare that they care nothing for the fate of one who\nleft the church and who died in his sins?\n\nThe _Watchman_, in order to show that it was simply doing its duty, and\nwas not actuated by hatred or malice, assures us as follows: \"A warm\npersonal friendship existed between D'Arcy and Normile and the managers\nof this paper.\" What would the _Watchman_ have said if these men had\nbeen the personal enemies of the managers of that paper? Two warm\npersonal friends, once Catholics, had gone to hell; but the managers\nof the _Watchman_, \"warm personal friends\" of the dead, had no right to\nfeel any special concern about these friends in the flames of perdition.\nOne would think that pity had changed to piety.\n\nAnother wonderful statement is that \"both of these men determined to go\nto hell, if there was a hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there\nwas a heaven.\"\n\nAdmitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven is a good place, and\nthat hell, to say the least, is, and eternally will be, unpleasant, why\nshould any sane man unalterably determine to go to hell? It is hard to\nthink of any reason, unless he was afraid of meeting those Catholics in\nheaven who had been his \"warm personal friends\" in this world. The truth\nis that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or any other country. The\ntruth is that Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile both became convinced that\nthe Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is not true, that\nit is the enemy of progress, and the foe of freedom. It may be that\nthey were in part led to these conclusions by the conduct of their \"warm\npersonal friends.\"\n\nIt is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and Judge Normile \"studied\"\nto convince themselves \"that there was no God, that they went back to\nPaganism and lived among the ancients,\" and \"that they soon revelled\nin the grossness of Paganism.\" If they went back to Paganism, they\ncertainly found plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and earth with\ndeities. The Catholics have only three, while the Pagans had hundreds.\nAnd yet there were some very good Pagans. By associating with Socrates\nand Plato one would not necessarily become a groveling wretch. Zeno was\nnot altogether abominable. He would compare favorably, at least, with\nthe average pope. Aristotle was not entirely despicable, although wrong,\nit may be, in many things. Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He\nperceived the beauty of use, and celebrated the marriage of virtue and\njoy. He did not teach his disciples to revel in grossness, although his\nmaligners have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and yet he uttered\nsome very sublime and generous sentiments. Among other things, he said\nthis: \"When we say that we should love Romans, but not foreigners, we\ndestroy the bond of universal brotherhood and drive from our hearts\ncharity and justice.\"\n\nSuppose a Pagan had written about \"two warm personal friends\" of his,\nwho had joined the Catholic Church, and suppose he had said this:\n\"Although our two warm personal friends have both died by their own\nhands, and although both have gone to the lowest hell, and are now\nsuffering inconceivable agonies, we have no right to feel any special\nconcern about them or about their sufferings; and, to speak frankly, we\ncare nothing for their agonies, nothing for their tears, and we mention\nthem only to keep other Pagans from joining that blasphemous and\nignorant church. Both of our friends were raised as Pagans, both were\neducated in our holy religion, and both had read the works of our\ngreatest and wisest authors, and yet they fell into apostasy, and\nstudied day and night, in season and out of season, to convince\nthemselves that a young carpenter of Palestine was in fact, Jupiter,\nwhom we call Stator, the creator, the sustainer and governor of all.\"\n\nIt is probable that the editor of the _Watchman_ was perfectly\nconscientious in his attack on the dead. Nothing but a sense of\nreligious duty could induce any man to attack the character of a \"warm\npersonal friend,\" and to say that although the friend was in hell, he\nfelt no special concern as to his fate.\n\nThe _Watchman_ seems to think that it is hardly probable or possible\nthat a sane Catholic should become an infidel. People of every religion\nfeel substantially in this way. It is probable that the Mohammedan is\nof the opinion that no sane believer in the religion of Islam could\npossibly become a Catholic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I do\nnot know.\n\nNow, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic reads the history of\nhis church, of the Inquisition, of centuries of flame and sword, of\nphilosophers and thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the \"Bride of\nGod,\" and of all the cruelties of Christian years, he may reasonably\ncome to the conclusion that the Church of Rome is not the best possible\nchurch in this, the best possible of all worlds.\n\nIt would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading the history of\nsuperstition, he should denounce the Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The\ntruth is, the real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no matter\nwhether they are for or against the Catholic creed. All intelligent\npeople are intellectually hospitable. Every man who knows something of\nthe operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that his wish has\nnot, to his knowledge, influenced his judgment. He may admit that his\nwish has influenced his speech, but he must certainly know that it has\nnot affected his judgment.\n\nIn other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a game of solitaire and\nreally believe that he has won the game. No matter what the appearance\nof the cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost or won. So, men\nmay say that their judgment is a certain way, and they may so affirm in\naccordance with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the declaration\ncan affect the real judgment. So, a man must know whether he believes a\ncertain creed or not, or, at least, what the real state of his mind\nis. When a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural, in the\nmiraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures, I take it for\ngranted that he is telling the truth, although it seems impossible to me\nthat the man could reach that conclusion. When another tells me that he\ndoes not know whether there is a Supreme Being or not, but that he does\nnot believe in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied that the\nScriptures are for the most part false and barbarous, I implicitly\nbelieve every word he says.\n\nI admit cheerfully that there are many millions of men and women who\nbelieve what to me seems impossible and infinitely absurd; and,\nundoubtedly, what I believe seems to them equally impossible.\n\nLet us give to others the liberty which we claim for ourselves.\n\nThe _Watchman_ seems to think that unbelief, especially when coupled\nwith what they call \"the sins of the flesh,\" is the lowest possible\ndepth, and tells us that \"robbers may be devout,\" \"murderers penitent,\"\nand \"drunkards reverential.\"\n\nIn some of these statements the _Watchman_ is probably correct. There\nhave been \"devout robbers.\" There have been gentlemen of the highway,\nagents of the road, who carried sacred images, who bowed, at holy\nshrines for the purpose of securing success. For many centuries the\ndevout Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand and Isabella\nwere great robbers. A great many popes have indulged in this theological\npastime, not to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the _Watchman_ is\nright. There is nothing in robbery that necessarily interferes with\ndevotion.\n\nThere have been penitent murderers, and most murderers, unless impelled\nby a religious sense of duty to God, have been penitent. David, with\ndying breath, advised his son to murder the old friends of his father.\nHe certainly was not penitent. Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without\nremorse, and Calvin burned his \"warm personal friend\" to gain the\napplause of God. Philip the Second was a murderer, not penitent, because\nhe deemed it his duty. The same may be said of the Duke of Alva, and of\nthousands of others.\n\nRobert Burns was not, according to his own account, strictly virtuous,\nand yet I like him better than I do those who planned and carried into\nbloody execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\n\nUndoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A man in California cut the\nthroat of a woman, although she begged for mercy, saying at the same\ntime that she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for her prayers.\nHe was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. He made a motion for\na new trial. This was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the\nexecutive refused to interfere. Then he became penitent and experienced\nreligion. On the scaffold he remarked that he was going to heaven; that\nhis only regret was that he would not meet the woman he had murdered,\nas she was not a Christian when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be\npenitent.\n\nAn old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest to administer the last\nsacraments of the church. The priest told him that he must forgive all\nhis enemies. \"I have no enemies,\" said the dying man, \"I killed the last\none three weeks ago.\" Undoubtedly murderers can be penitent.\n\nSo, I admit that drunkards have been pious and reverential, and I might\nadd, honest and generous.\n\nSome good Catholics and some good Protestants have enjoyed a hospitable\nglass, and there have been priests who used the blood of the grape for\nother than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good Catholic in his\nday, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity, gave to the world this couplet:\n\n     \"Who loves not woman, wine and song,\n     Will live a fool his whole life long.\"\n\nThe _Watchman_, in effect, says that a devout robber is better than an\ninfidel; that a penitent murderer is superior to a freethinker, in the\nsight of God.\n\nAnother curious thing in this article is that after sending both men to\nhell, the _Watchman_ says: \"As to their moral habits we know nothing.\"\n\nIt may then be taken for granted, if these \"warm personal friends\" knew\nnothing against the dead, that their lives were, at least, what the\nchurch calls moral. We know, if we know anything, that there is no\nnecessary connection between what is called religion and morality.\nCertainly there were millions of moral people, those who loved mercy\nand dealt honestly, before the Catholic Church existed. The virtues were\nwell known, and practiced, before a triple crown surrounded the cunning\nbrain of an Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the _Auto da\nfe_ delighted the hearts of a Christian mob. Thousands of people died\nfor the right, before the wrong organized the infallible church.\n\nBut why should any man deem it his duty or feel it a pleasure to say\nharsh and cruel things of the dead? Why pierce the brow of death with\nthe thorns of hatred? Suppose the editor of the _Watchman_ had died, and\nJudge Normile had been the survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have\nattacked the unreplying dead?\n\nHenry D'Arcy I did not know; but Judge Normile was my friend and I\nwas his. Although we met but a few times, he excited my admiration and\nrespect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly intelligent man, well\ninformed on many subjects, of varied reading, possessed of a clear and\nlogical mind, a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things in\nliterature and art, and the noble things in life. He gave his opinions\nfreely, but without the least arrogance, and seemed perfectly willing\nthat others should enjoy the privilege of differing with him. He was, so\nfar as I could perceive, a gentleman, tender of the feelings of others,\nfree and manly in his bearing, \"of most excellent fancy,\" and a most\ncharming and agreeable companion.\n\nAccording, however, to the _Watchman_, such a man is far below a \"devout\nrobber\" or a \"penitent murderer.\" Is it possible that an assassin like\nRavillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire; and that all\nthe Catholic robbers and murderers who retain their faith, give greater\ndelight to God than the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have filled\nthe world with intellectual light?\n\nPossibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possibly the _Watchman_ is in\nerror, and possibly there may be for the erring, even in another world,\nsome asylum besides hell.\n\nJudge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly he was not afraid of\nthe future. He was not appalled by death. He died by his own hand. Can\nanything be more pitiful--more terrible? How can a man in the flowing\ntide and noon of life destroy himself? What storms there must have\nbeen within the brain; what tempests must have raved and wrecked; what\nlightnings blinded and revealed; what hurrying clouds obscured and hid\nthe stars; what monstrous shapes emerged from gloom; what darkness fell\nupon the day; what visions filled the night; how the light failed; how\npaths were lost; how highways disappeared; how chasms yawned; until one\nthought--the thought of death--swift, compassionate and endless--became\nthe insane monarch of the mind.\n\nStanding by the prostrate form of one who thus found death, it is far\nbetter to pity than to revile--to kiss the clay than curse the man.\n\nThe editor of the _Watchman_ has done himself injustice. He has not\ninjured the dead, but the living.\n\nI am an infidel--an unbeliever--and yet I hope that all the children of\nmen may find peace and joy. No matter how they leave this world, from\naltar or from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with crime, I\nhope that good may come to all.\n\nR. G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nIS SUICIDE A SIN?\n\n\n     * These letters were published in the New York World, 1894.\n\nCol. Ingersoll's First Letter.\n\nI DO not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it\nis, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow,\nmore failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In\ncivilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many\nfail. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the\ncountry a man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help,\nbut in the city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In\nthe roar of the streets, his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only\nfriend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so\nthe poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and\nfalls asleep.\n\nTo me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and\nsuffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts\nand prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want;\nsupport it by beggary, by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to\nwhom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why\nshould the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones\ndead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the\nfuture have for him?\n\nUnder many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life\nis of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others,\nwhy should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden\nto those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that God made\nus and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our duty to remain\nuntil he called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What\npleasure can it give God to see a man devoured by a cancer; to see the\nquivering flesh slowly eaten; to see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is\nthis a festival for God? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A\nlittle morphine would give him sleep--the agony would be forgotten and\nhe would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.\n\nIf God determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine and why\nshould doctors defy with pills and powders, the decrees of God? No one,\nexcept a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition.\nWhy should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning\nbuilding, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet\nthrough his brain or a dagger in his heart? Would it give God pleasure\nto see him burn? When did the man lose the right of self-defence?\n\nSo, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and\nruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should\nhe live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others,\nwith grief and pain, with agony and tears?\n\nWhy should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still\nhis heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the\nache of toil. The dead have no masters.\n\nSo the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against\nher, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that\nwill soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes\nof dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds\nbroken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying\nfrom horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door\nof death.\n\nUndoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide--cases\nin which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.\n\nAs to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man\nhonestly decides that death is best--best for him and others--and acts\nupon the decision, why should he be blamed?\n\nCertainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may\nhave lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some\nmen fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two\nfires--the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take\nthe chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their\nbelief, between two fires--the flames of the fagot that could burn but\nfor a few moments, and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they\nchose the flames of the fagot.\n\nMen who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and\npangs that nerves can feel, rather than die, cannot afford to call the\nsuicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or\nthat Seneca was. Surely Antony had nothing left to live for. Cato was\nnot a craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who\nfelt that they had reached the end---that the journey was done, the\nvoyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man\nwho commits suicide, who \"does the thing that ends all other deeds,\nthat shackles accident and bolts up change\" is not lacking in physical\ncourage.\n\nIf men had the courage, they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses,\nin hospitals; they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the\nstains of dishonor; they would not live in filth and want, in poverty\nand hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can\nbe accounted for only by the fear of death or \"of something after.\"\n\nSeneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He\nknew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that \"at the bottom of\nevery river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger,\nLiberty sat and smiled.\" He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed\nhimself to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said: \"There is\nthis blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits\ninnumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in\nwhich I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death.\"\n\nTo me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble. Under the Roman law\npersons found guilty of certain offences were not only destroyed,\nbut their blood was polluted and their children became outcasts. If,\nhowever, they died before conviction their children were saved. Many\ncommitted suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards.\nAlthough guilty of great crimes they had enough of honor, of manhood,\nleft to save their innocent children. This was not cowardice.\n\nWithout doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their\nproperty. The fear of the future overpowers them. Things lose\nproportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of\nfrenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart--the\nlight fading from their lives--seek the refuge of death.\n\nThose who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways--who mangle their\nthroats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take\npoisons that torture like the rack--such persons must be insane. But\nthose who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and\nagainst, and who decide that death is best--the only good--and then\nresort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full\npossession of their minds.\n\nLife is not the same to all--to some a blessing, to some a curse, to\nsome not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some\nwith the keenest joy and some with indifference.\n\nReligion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number\nof suicides. The fear of God, of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the\nhand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural\ndeath. A belief in eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such\nbelievers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the\nfuture, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have\nless hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox\nreligion has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to\nmurder their children and many thousands to destroy themselves and\nothers.\n\nIt seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill\nthemselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is\nforgotten. God and hell are out of their minds.\n\nI am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the\ntwilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.\n\nThe law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is\ncruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful\nsuicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so\npersecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of\ndeath, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man\nseeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take\nextra pains and precautions to make death certain.\n\nThis law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and\nenforced by ignorance and cruelty.\n\nWhen the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and\nnarrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death,\nwhy should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?\n\nOf course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take\ngods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my\nestimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world.\nPeople should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for\nother worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our\nsufferings and our duties are here.\n\nThe law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law\nas to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent\nsuicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and\nits penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.\n\nWe should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every\nsuicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient\ncause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each\nother. There is no space between--no room for chance. Given a certain\nheart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary\nresult. If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must\nby education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value\nof the average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart--do away with\nfalse pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help\nour fellows without degrading them. We must make industry--useful work\nof all kinds--honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our\ncharity--a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned to\nreally reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done,\nbut we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the\nsick. Why should they despise the mentally weak--the diseased in brain?\n\nOur actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances--of\nconditions--and we do as we must.\n\nThis great truth should fill the heart with pity for the failures of our\nrace.\n\nSometimes I have wondered that Christians denounced the suicide; that\nin olden times they buried him where the roads crossed, drove a stake\nthrough his body, and then took his property from his children and gave\nit to the State.\n\nIf Christians would only think, they would see that orthodox religion\nrests upon suicide--that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without\nsuicide the whole world would have been lost.\n\nIf Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the\nJews without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed\nthem to take his life.\n\nIf a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death\nwith knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not\nsay that he committed suicide?\n\nThere is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God, and allowed the\nJews to kill him, then he consented to his own death--refused, though\nperfectly able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in fact, a\nsuicide.\n\nWe cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there\nshall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and\nwomen will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.\n\nTo the hopelessly imprisoned--to the dishonored and despised--to those\nwho have failed, who have no future, no hope--to the abandoned, the\nbrokenhearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and\nwomen--how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!\n\nAnd even to the most fortunate, death at last is a welcome deliverer.\nDeath is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed\nlong--when we are weary--when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk,\nfor the cool kisses of the night--when the senses are dull--when\nthe pulse is faint and low--when the mists gather on the mirror\nof memory--when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly\nperceived--when the future has but empty hands--death is as welcome as a\nstrain of music.\n\nAfter all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal\nhappiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by\nno dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and\nforever.\n\nThe wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in\nspite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they, limp and stagger\nand crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is\nthat so few of the miserable are brave enough to die--that so many are\nterrified by the \"something after death\"--by the spectres and phantoms\nof superstition.\n\nMost people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic\nsnows--how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea--how they\nlinger in famine--how they fight disaster and despair! On the crumbling\nedge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full of hope\nand courage.\n\nBut many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are\ndisheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and\ngive the earth their blood.\n\nThey are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or\nblame--we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.\n\nOne of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming\nand loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous\nimpulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and\nso sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he\nthought was wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be\nmerciful in our judgments.\n\nAll we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the\nmalignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the\nignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances\nand conditions--sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in\npassion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of\ninsanity--raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out\nthe light of life.\n\nThose who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane\nthey should if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be\nreasoned with, calmed and assisted.\n\nR. G. Ingersoll.\n\n\nCOL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.\n\nIN the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that\n\"under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself.\"\n\nThis has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and\nthe writers of letters. These people contend that the right of\nself-destruction does not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the\ngift of God, and that he only has the right to end the days of men; that\nit is our duty to bear the sorrows that he sends with grateful patience.\nSome have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes--worse than the\nmurder of another.\n\nThe first question, then, is:\n\nHas a man under any circumstances the right to kill himself?\n\nA man is being slowly devoured by a cancer--his agony is intense--his\nsuffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken.\nIs this the work of the good God? Did the compassionate God create the\ncancer so that it might feed on the quiverering flesh of this victim?\n\nThis man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no\nuse to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use\nto his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is\nrendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to\nsleep.\n\nHas he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to\ntake refuge in sleep?\n\nIf there be a good God I cannot believe that he takes pleasure in the\nsufferings of men--that he gloats over the agonies of his children. If\nthere be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power, lessen the\nevils of life.\n\nSo I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer--a burden to himself\nand others, useless in every way--has the right to end his pain and pass\nthrough happy sleep to dreamless rest.\n\nBut those who have answered me would say to this man: \"It is your duty\nto be devoured. The good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift\nof God. You hold it in trust and you have no right to end it. The cancer\nis the creation of God and it is your duty to furnish it with food.\"\n\nTake another case: A man is on a burning ship, the crew and the rest\nof the passengers have escaped--gone in the lifeboats--and he is left\nalone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He cannot\nswim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the ship he\nburns. In any event he can live but a few moments.\n\nThose who have answered me, those who insist that under no circumstances\na man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,\n\"Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly Father\nthat you be clothed in flame--that you slowly roast--that your eyes be\nscorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is\nnot your own, only the agony is yours.\"\n\nI would say to this man: Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to\nburning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right\nof choice. You can help no one, not even God, by allowing yourself to be\nburned, and you can injure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier\ndeath.\n\nLet us suppose another case:\n\nA man has been captured by savages in Central Africa. He is about to\nbe tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pine\ninto his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make\nthe preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is\nabout to suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of\npoison. He knows that he can take it and in one moment pass beyond their\npower, leaving to them only the dead body.\n\nIs this man under obligation to keep his life because God gave it, until\nthe savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good\nGod? Are they the servants of the Infinite? Is it the duty of this man\nto allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to\ndefend himself? Is it the will of God that he die by torture? What would\nany man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room\nfor discussion?\n\nIf the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped\nthe tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another\nworld be tortured forever by an infinite savage?\n\nSuppose another case: In the good old days, when the Inquisition\nflourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends,\nmany frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of\npain.\n\nThose who loved God, who had been \"born twice,\" would take a fellow-man\nwho had been convicted of \"heresy,\" lay him upon the floor of a dungeon,\nsecure his arms and legs with chains, fasten him to the earth so that\nhe could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his\nstomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his\nbody. Then these worshipers of God would wait until the rats, seeking\nfood and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.\n\nNow, if a man about to be subjected to this torture, had within his hand\na dagger, would it excite the wrath of the \"good God,\" if with one quick\nstroke he found the protection of death?\n\nTo this question there can be but one answer.\n\nIn the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have\nthe right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was\nunder obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the ship and\nperish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by\nsavages; to drop the dagger and endure the \"mercies\" of the church.\n\nIf, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their\nlives, then I was right when I said that \"under many circumstances a man\nhas a right to kill himself.\"\n\n_Second_.--I denied that persons who killed themselves were physical\ncowards. They may lack moral courage; they may exaggerate their\nmisfortunes, lose the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges the\ndagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through his brain, who leaps\nfrom some roof and dashes himself against the stones beneath, is not and\ncannot be a physical coward.\n\nThe basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the fear of death, and\nwhen that fear is not only gone, but in its place is the desire to die,\nno matter by what means, it is impossible that cowardice should exist.\nThe suicide wants the very thing that a coward fears. He seeks the very\nthing that cowardice endeavors to escape.\n\nSo, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing the less is not a\ncoward, but a reasonable man.\n\nIt must be admitted that the suicide is honest with himself. He is to\nbear the injury; if it be one. Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just\nas certainly there is no physical cowardice.\n\nIs the man who takes morphine rather than be eaten to death by a cancer\na coward?\n\nIs the man who leaps into the sea rather than be burned a coward? Is\nthe man that takes poison rather than be tortured to death by savages or\n\"Christians\" a coward?\n\n_Third_.--I also took the position that some suicides were sane; that\nthey acted on their best judgment, and that they were in full possession\nof their minds. Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the right to\ntake his life, and, if, under such circumstances, he does take his life,\nthen it cannot be said that he was insane.\n\nMost of the persons who have tried to answer me have taken the ground\nthat suicide is not only a crime, but some of them have said that it\nis the greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the suicide must\nhave been sane. So all persons who denounce the suicide as a criminal\nadmit that he was sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapable of\ncommitting a crime. All the clergymen who have answered me, and who have\npassionately asserted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion\nadmitted that those who killed themselves were sane.\n\nThey agree with me, and not only admit, but assert that \"some who have\ncommitted suicide were sane and in the full possession of their minds.\"\n\nIt seems to me that these three propositions have been demonstrated to\nbe true: _First_, that under some circumstances a man has the right\nto take his life; _second_, that the man who commits suicide is not a\nphysical coward, and, _third_, that some who have committed suicide were\nat the time sane and in full possession of their minds.\n\n_Fourth_.--I insisted, and still insist, that suicide was and is the\nfoundation of the Christian religion.\n\nI still insist that if Christ were God he had the power to protect\nhimself without injuring his assailants--that having that power it was\nhis duty to use it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own\ndeath and was guilty of suicide.\n\nTo this the clergy answer that it was self-sacrifice for the redemption\nof man, that he made an atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas\nabout redemption and atonement are born of a belief in the \"fall\nof man,\" on account of the sins of our first \"parents,\" and of the\ndeclaration that \"without the shedding of blood there is no remission of\nsin.\" The foundation has crumbled. No intelligent person now believes in\nthe \"fall of man\"--that our first parents were perfect, and that their\ndescendants grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of Christ.\n\nIntelligent men now believe that ages and ages before the dawn of\nhistory, man was a poor, naked, cruel, ignorant and degraded savage,\nwhose language consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred and\ndelight; that he devoured his fellow-man, having all the vices, but\nnot all the virtues of the beasts; that the journey from the den to the\nhome, the palace, has been long and painful, through many centuries\nof suffering, of cruelty and war; through many ages of discovery,\ninvention, self-sacrifice and thought.\n\nRedemption and atonement are left without a fact on which to rest. The\nidea that an infinite God, creator of all worlds, came to this grain\nof sand, learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with Pharisees and\nscribes, and allowed a few infuriated Hebrews to put him to death that\nhe might atone for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from\nthe consequences of his own wrath, can find no lodgment in a good and\nnatural brain.\n\nIn no mythology can anything more monstrously unbelievable be found.\n\nBut if Christ were a man and attacked the religion of his times because\nit was cruel and absurd; if he endeavored to found a religion of\nkindness, of good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and\nceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he believed to be right and\ntrue, he suffered death, then he was a noble man--a benefactor of his\nrace. But if he were God there was no need of this. The Jews did not\nwish to kill God. If he had only made himself known all knees would have\ntouched the ground. If he were God it required no heroism to die. He\nknew that what we call death is but the opening of the gates of eternal\nlife. If he were God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need to\nsuffer pain. He could have changed the crucifixion to a joy.\n\nEven the editors of religious weeklies see that there is no escape from\nthese conclusions--from these arguments--and so, instead of attacking\nthe arguments, they attack the man who makes them.\n\n_Fifth_.--I denounced the law of New York that makes an attempt to\ncommit suicide a crime.\n\nIt seems to me that one who has suffered so much that he passionately\nlongs for death should be pitied, instead of punished--helped rather\nthan imprisoned.\n\nA despairing woman who had vainly sought for leave to toil, a woman\nwithout home, without friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with\ntear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in the darkness of night\nleaps from the dock, hoping, longing for the tearless sleep of\ndeath. She is rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over to the\nauthorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed in a convict's garb and\nlocked in a felon's cell.\n\nTo me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a law that only savages would\nenforce.\n\n_Sixth_.--In this discussion a curious thing has happened. For several\ncenturies the clergy have declared that while infidelity is a very good\nthing to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consolation, in the\nhour of death. They have in spite of the truth, declared that all\nthe great unbelievers died trembling with fear, asking God for mercy,\nsurrounded by fiends, in the torments of despair. Think of the thousands\nand thousands of clergymen who have described the last agonies of\nVoltaire, who died as peacefully as a happy child smilingly passes from\nplay to slumber; the final anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep\nas serenely as a river, running between green and shaded banks, reaches\nthe sea; the despair of Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the\nnoblest men, who met the night of death untroubled as a star that meets\nthe morning.\n\nAt the same time these ministers admitted that the average murderer\ncould meet death on the scaffold with perfect serenity, and could\nsmilingly ask the people who had gathered to see him killed to meet him\nin heaven.\n\nBut the honest man who had expressed his honest thoughts against the\ncreed of the church in power could not die in peace. God would see to it\nthat his last moments should be filled with the insanity of fear--that\nwith his last breath he should utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for\npardon.\n\nThis has all changed, and now the clergy, in their sermons answering me,\ndeclare that the atheists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death--that\nto avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconvenience, they gladly\nand cheerfully put out the light of life. It is now said that infidels\nbelieve that death is the end--that it is a dreamless sleep--that it is\nwithout pain--that therefore they have no fear, care nothing for gods,\nor heavens or hells, nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing for\nthe day of judgment, and that when life becomes a burden they carelessly\nthrow it down.\n\nThe infidels are so afraid of death that they commit suicide.\n\nThis certainly is a great change, and I congratulate myself on having\nforced the clergy to contradict themselves.\n\n_Seventh_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the\nunbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real\nconception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is\nimpossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being\nfar above himself.\n\nIn this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he\nbelieves in some Being superior to himself?\n\nWhat is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.\nWhat is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will\nincrease the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness\nin its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases\nor preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or\nputs it in peril, is immoral.\n\nIt is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands\nout of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his\nwell-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.\n\nSo it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so\nfar as what he considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is\nswayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really\nintelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for\nhim. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for\nhim is good for others--for all the world.\n\nIt is impossible for me to see' why any belief in the supernatural is\nnecessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who\nhas the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give\nthe same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of\nall morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the\nexperience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural\norigin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in\nthe supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural\nheavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed\nby the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not\ngoverned by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are\nobedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by\nalms.\n\nRight and wrong exist in the nature of things. Murder was just as\ncriminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments.\n\n_Eighth_.--The clergy take the position that the atheist, the\nunbeliever, has no standard of morality--that he can have no real\nconception of right and wrong. They are of the opinion that it is\nimpossible for one to be moral or good unless he believes in some Being\nfar above himself.\n\nIn this connection we might ask how God can be moral or good unless he\nbelieves in some Being superior to himself?\n\nWhat is morality? It is the best thing to do under the circumstances.\nWhat is the best thing to do under the circumstances? That which will\nincrease the sum of human happiness--or lessen it the least. Happiness\nin its highest, noblest form, is the only good; that which increases\nor preserves or creates happiness is moral--that which decreases it, or\nputs it in peril, is immoral.\n\nIt is not hard for an atheist--for an unbeliever--to keep his hands\nout of the fire. He knows that burning his hands will not increase his\nwell-being, and he is moral enough to keep them out of the flames.\n\nSo it may be said that each man acts according to his intelligence--so\nfar as what he Considers his own good is concerned. Sometimes he is\nswayed by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance--but when he is really\nintelligent, master of himself, he does what he believes is best for\nhim. If he is intelligent enough he knows that what is really good for\nhim is food for others--for all the world.\n\nIt is impossible for me to see why any belief in the supernatural is\nnecessary to have a keen perception of right and wrong. Every man who\nhas the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagination enough to give\nthe same capacity to others, has within himself the natural basis of\nall morality. The idea of morality was born here, in this world, of the\nexperience, the intelligence of mankind. Morality is not of supernatural\norigin. It did not fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in\nthe supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats, no supernatural\nheavens or hells to give it force and life. Subjects who are governed\nby the threats and promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not\ngoverned by the ideal, by noble views of right and wrong. They are\nobedient cowards, controlled by fear, or beggars governed by rewards--by\nalms.\n\nRight and wrong exist in the nature of things.\n\nMurder was just as criminal before as after the promulgation of the Ten\nCommandments.\n\n_Eighth_.--Many of the clergy, some editors and some writers of\nletters who have answered me, have said that suicide is the worst of\ncrimes--that a man had better murder somebody else than himself. One\nclergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the suicide dies in\nan act of sin, and therefore he had better kill another person. Probably\nhe would commit a less crime if he would murder his wife or mother.\n\nI do not see that it is any worse to die than to live in sin. To say\nthat it is not as wicked to murder another as yourself seems absurd.\nThe man about to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for him to\nkill another man, who wishes to live?\n\nTo my mind it seems clear that you had better injure yourself than\nanother. Better be a spendthrift than a thief. Better throw away your\nown money than steal the money of another--better kill yourself if you\nwish to die than murder one whose life is full of joy.\n\nThe clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and that it is one of the\ngreatest possible crimes to rush into his presence. It is wonderful\nhow much they know about God and how little about their fellow-men.\nWonderful the amount of their information about other worlds and how\nlimited their knowledge is of this.\n\nThere may or may not be an infinite Being. I neither affirm nor deny. I\nam honest enough to say that I do not know. I am candid enough to admit\nthat the question is beyond the limitations of my mind. Yet I think I\nknow as much on that subject as any human being knows or ever knew, and\nthat is--nothing. I do not say that there is not another world, another\nlife; neither do I say that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems\nto me that every sane and honest man must say the same. But if there is\nan infinitely good God and another world, then the infinitely good\nGod will be just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If this\ninfinitely good God loves his children in this world, he will love them\nin another. If he loves a man when he is alive, he will not hate him the\ninstant he is dead.\n\nIf we are the children of an infinitely wise and powerful God, he knew\nexactly what we would do--the temptations that we could and could not\nwithstand--knew exactly the effect that everything would have upon us,\nknew under what circumstances we would take our lives--and produced\nsuch circumstances himself. It is perfectly apparent that there are many\npeople incapable by nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable of\npreserving their mental poise in stress and strain of disaster, disease\nand loss, and who by failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to\ndespair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there comes like a flash\nof lightning in the night, the thought of death, a thought so strong,\nso vivid, that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all\nobligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains except a fierce and\nwild desire to die. Thousands and thousands become moody, melancholy,\nbrood upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until reason\nabdicates and frenzy takes possession of the soul. If there be an\ninfinitely wise and powerful God, all this was known to him from the\nbeginning, and he so created things, established relations, put in\noperation causes and effects, that all that has happened was the\nnecessary result of his own acts.\n\n_Ninth_.--Nearly all who have tried to answer what I said have been\nexceedingly careful to misquote me, and then answer something that I\nnever uttered. They have declared that I have advised people who were in\ntrouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill themselves; that I have told men who\nhave lost their money, who had failed in business, who were not good in\nhealth, to kill themselves at once, without taking into consideration\nany duty that they owed to wives, children, friends, or society.\n\nNo man has a right to leave his wife to fight the battle alone if he\nis able to help. No man has a right to desert his children if he can\npossibly be of use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those he\nloves, as long as he can stand between wife and misery, between child\nand want, as long as he can be of any use, it is his duty to remain.\n\nI believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the sunny side of things,\nin bearing with fortitude the evils of life, in struggling against\nadversity, in finding the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having\nconfidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy among the flints\nand shards, and in changing by the alchemy of patience even evil things\nto good. I believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and good\nnature.\n\nOf the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate of the world--of\nall that live. My anxieties are about this life, this world. About the\nphantoms called gods and their impossible hells, I have no care, no\nfear.\n\nThe existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality\nof the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope--hope for all of the\nchildren of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor\nthe immortality of the soul. For many years I have said that the idea\nof immortality, 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\nWhat I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.\n\nAfter all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong. People do not\nkill themselves on the advice of friends or enemies. All wish to be\nhappy, to enjoy life; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for\nfriends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of self-destruction\nnever enters the human mind.\n\nThe oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample on the rights of others,\nthe robbers of the poor, those who put wages below the living point, the\nministers who make people insane by preaching the dogma of eternal pain;\nthese are the men who drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless\ndown to death.\n\nIt will not do to say that God has appointed a time for each to die. Of\nthis there is, and there can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that\nany god takes any interest in the affairs of men--that any sides with\nthe right or helps the weak, protects the innocent or rescues the\noppressed. Even the clergy admit that their God, through all ages, has\nallowed his friends, his worshipers, to be imprisoned, tortured and\nmurdered by his enemies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of\nprayers have been uttered; has one been answered? Who sends plague,\npestilence and famine? Who bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to\noverwhelm?\n\n_Tenth_.--Again, I say that it is wonderful to me that so many men, so\nmany women endure and carry their burdens to the natural end; that so\nmany, in spite of \"age, ache and penury,\" guard with trembling hands the\nspark of life; that prisoners for life toil and suffer to the last; that\nthe helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling to life; that the\nexiles in Siberia, loaded with chains, scarred with the knout, live\non; that the incurables, whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the\nfuture has only pain, should fear the merciful touch and clasp of death.\n\nIt is but a few steps at most from the cradle to the grave; a short\njourney. The suicide hastens, shortens the path, loses the afternoon,\nthe twilight, the dusk of life's day; loses what he does not want, what\nhe cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in the blind fury of madness,\nor in the calm of thought and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the\nserenity of death.\n\nLet us leave the dead where nature leaves them. We know nothing of any\nrealm that lies beyond the horizon of the known, beyond the end of life.\nLet us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us pity the suffering,\nthe despairing, the men and women hunted and pursued by grief and shame,\nby misery and want, by chance and fate until their only friend is death.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\nSUICIDE A SIN.\n\n     * New York Journal, 1805. An Interview.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that what you have written about suicide has\ncaused people to take their lives?\n\n_Answer._ No, I do not. People do not kill themselves because of the\nideas of others. They are the victims of misfortune.\n\n_Question_. What do you consider the chief cause of suicide?\n\n_Answer._ There are many causes. Some individuals are crossed in love,\nothers are bankrupt in estate or reputation, still others are diseased\nin body and frequently in mind. There are a thousand and one causes that\nlead up to the final act.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider that nationality plays a part in these\ntragedies?\n\n_Answer._ No, it is a question of individuals. There are those whose\nsorrows are greater than they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace\nof death.\n\n_Question_. Do you, then, advise suicide?\n\n_Answer._ No, I have never done so, but I have said, and still say, that\nthere are circumstances under which it is justifiable for a person to\ntake his life.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the law which prohibits\nself-destruction?\n\n_Answer._ That it is absurd and ridiculous. The other day a man was\ntried before Judge Goff for having tried to kill himself. I think he\npleaded guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible crime of\nthe poor wretch, sentenced him to the penitentiary for two years.\nThis was an outrage; infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our\ncivilization.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that such a law will prevent the frequency of\nsuicides?\n\n_Answer._ By no means. After this, persons in New York who have made up\ntheir minds to commit suicide will see to it that they succeed.\n\n_Question_. Have your opinions been in any way modified since your first\nannouncement of them?\n\n_Answer._ No, I feel now as I have felt for many years. No one can\nanswer my articles on suicide, because no one can satisfactorily refute\nthem. Every man of sense knows that a person being devoured by a cancer\nhas the right to take morphine, and pass from agony to dreamless sleep.\nSo, too, there are circumstances under which a man has the right to end\nhis pain of mind.\n\n_Question_. Have you seen in the papers that many who have killed\nthemselves have had on their persons some article of yours on suicide?\n\n_Answer._ Yes, I have read such accounts, but I repeat that I do not\nthink these persons were led to kill themselves by reading the articles.\nMany people who have killed themselves were found to have Bibles or\ntracts in their pockets.\n\n_Question_. How do you account for the presence of the latter?\n\n_Answer._ The reason of this is that the theologians know nothing.\nThe pious imagine that their God has placed us here for some wise and\ninscrutable purpose, and that he will call for us when he wants us. All\nthis is idiotic. When a man is of no use to himself or to others, when\nhis days and nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should he\nremain to endure them longer?\n\n\nSUICIDE A SIN.\n\n     * New York Herald, 1897. An Interview.\n\nCOL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at his house and asked if he had read\nthe Rev. Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.\n\n_Answer._ Yes. I have read the sermon, and also an interview had with\nthe reverend gentleman.\n\nLong ago I gave my views about suicide, and I entertain the same views\nstill. Mr. Wright's sermon has stirred up quite a commotion among the\northodox ministers. This commotion may always be expected when anything\nsensible comes from a pulpit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common\nsense with his theology, and, of course this has displeased the truly\northodox.\n\nSense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No system of supernatural\nreligion can outlive a good dose of real good sense. The orthodox\nministers take the ground that an infinite Being created man, put him\non the earth and determined his days. They say that God desires every\nperson to live until he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that\nwe are all on guard and must remain so until relieved by a higher\npower--the superior officer.\n\nThe trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too much. It proves\nthat God kills every person who dies as we say, \"according to nature.\"\nIt proves that we ought to say, \"according to God.\" It proves that God\nsends the earthquake, the cyclone, the pestilence, for the purpose of\nkilling people. It proves that all diseases and all accidents are his\nmessengers, and that all who do not kill themselves, die by the act,\nand in accordance with the will of God. It also shows that when a man is\nmurdered, it is in harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When God\ncreated the man who was murdered, he knew that he would be murdered, and\nwhen he made the man who committed the murder, he knew exactly what he\nwould do. So that the murder was the act of God.\n\nCan it be said that God intended that thousands should die of famine and\nthat he, to accomplish his purpose, withheld the rain? Can we say that\nhe intended that thousands of innocent men should die in dungeons and on\nscaffolds?\n\nIs it possible that a man, \"slowly being devoured by a cancer,\" whose\ndays and nights are filled with torture, who is useless to himself and\na burden to others, is carrying out the will of God? Does God enjoy\nhis agony? Is God thrilled by the music of his moans--the melody of his\nshrieks?\n\nThis frightful doctrine makes God an infinite monster, and every human\nbeing a slave; a victim. This doctrine is not only infamous but it is\nidiotic. It makes God the only criminal in the universe.\n\nNow, if we are governed by reason, if we use our senses and our minds,\nand have courage enough to be honest; if we know a little of the world's\nhistory, then we know--if we know anything--that man has taken his\nchances, precisely the same as other animals. He has been destroyed\nby heat and cold, by flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless\ndiseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelligence, his cunning, his\nstrength, his foresight, he has managed to escape utter destruction. He\nhas defended himself. He has received no supernatural aid. Neither has\nhe been attacked by any supernatural power. Nothing has ever happened in\nnature as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure the human race.\n\nConsequently the question of the right or wrong of suicide is not in any\nway affected by a supposed obligation to the Infinite.\n\nAll theological considerations must be thrown aside because we see and\nknow that the laws of life are the same for all living things--that when\nthe conditions are favorable, the living multiply and life lengthens,\nand when the conditions are unfavorable, the living decrease and life\nshortens. We have no evidence of any interference of any power superior\nto nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all the duties and\nobligations of man must be to his fellows, to sentient beings, here in\nthis world, and that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to any\nphantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine whether a man under\ncertain circumstances has the right to end his life.\n\nIf he can be of no use to others--if he is of no use to himself--if\nhe is a burden to others--a curse to himself--why should he remain? By\nending his life he ends his sufferings and adds to the well-being\nof others. He lessens misery and increases happiness. Under such\ncircumstances undoubtedly a man has the right to stop the pulse of pain\nand woo the sleep that has no dream.\n\nI do not think that the discussion of this question is of much\nimportance, but I am glad that a clergyman has taken a natural and a\nsensible position, and that he has reasoned not like a minister, but\nlike a man.\n\nWhen wisdom comes from the pulpit I am delighted and surprised. I feel\nthen that there is a little light in the East, possibly the dawn of a\nbetter day.\n\nI congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him for his brave and\nphilosophic words.\n\nThere is still another thing. Certainly a man has the right to avoid\ndeath, to save himself from accident and disease. If he has this right,\nthen the theologians must admit that God, in making his decrees, took\ninto consideration the result of such actions. Now, if God knew that\nwhile most men would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his decrees\nwere so made that they would harmonize with the acts of those who would\navoid death, can we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take\ninto consideration the acts of those who would seek death? Let us\nremember that all actions, good, bad and indifferent, are the necessary\nchildren of conditions--that there is no chance in the natural world in\nwhich we live.\n\nSo, we must keep in mind that all real opinions are honest, and that all\nhave the same right to express their thoughts. Let us be charitable.\n\nWhen some suffering wretch, wild with pain, crazed with regret, frenzied\nwith fear, with desperate hand unties the knot of life, let us have\npity--Let us be generous.\n\n\nSUICIDE AND SANITY.\n\n     * New York Press, 1897. An Interview.\n\n_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily insane? was the first question, to\nwhich Colonel Ingersoll replied:\n\n_Answer._ No. At the same time I believe that a great majority of\nsuicides are insane. There are circumstances under which suicide is\nnatural, sensible and right. When a man is of no use to himself, when he\ncan be of no use to others, when his life is filled with agony, when the\nfuture has no promise of relief, then I think he has the right to cast\nthe burden of life away and seek the repose of death.\n\n_Question_. Is a suicide necessarily a coward?\n\n_Answer._ I cannot conceive of cowardice in connection with suicide. Of\nnearly all things death is the most feared. And the man who voluntarily\nenters the realm of death cannot properly be called a coward. Many men\nwho kill themselves forget the duties they owe to others--forget their\nwives and children. Such men are heartless, wicked, brutal; but they are\nnot cowards.\n\n_Question_. When is the suicide of the sane justifiable?\n\n_Answer._ To escape death by torture; to avoid being devoured by a\ncancer; to prevent being a burden on those you love; when you can be of\nno use to others or to yourself; when life is unbearable; when in all\nthe horizon of the future there is no star of hope.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that any suicides have been caused or\nencouraged by your declaration three years ago that suicide sometimes\nwas justifiable?\n\n_Answer._ Many preachers talk as though I had inaugurated, invented,\nsuicide, as though no one who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever\ntaken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts, you cannot induce\na man to kill himself. The man who takes his own life does not go to\nothers to find reasons or excuses.\n\n_Question_. On the whole is the world made better or worse by suicides?\n\n_Answer._ Better by some and poorer by others.\n\n_Question_. Why is it that Germany, said to be the most educated of\ncivilized nations, leads the world in suicides?\n\n_Answer._ I do not know that Germany is the most educated; neither do I\nknow that suicide is more frequent there than in all other countries. I\nknow that the struggle for life is severe in Germany, that the laws\nare unjust, that the government is oppressive, that the people are\nsentimental, that they brood over their troubles and easily become\nhopeless.\n\n_Question_. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is not killing of born\nidiots and infants hopelessly handicapped at birth equally so?\n\n_Answer._ There is no relation between the questions--between suicides\nand killing idiots. Suicide may, under certain circumstances, be right\nand killing idiots may be wrong; killing idiots may be right and suicide\nmay be wrong. When we look about us, when we read interviews with\npreachers about Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been killed.\n\n_Question_. Should suicide be forbidden by law?\n\n_Answer._ No. A law that provides for the punishment of those who\nattempt to commit suicide is idiotic. Those who are willing to meet\ndeath are not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law would be to\nmake the person who had concluded to kill himself a little more careful\nto succeed.\n\n_Question_. What is your belief about virtue, morality and religion?\n\n_Answer._ I believe that all actions that tend to the well-being of\nsentient beings are virtuous and moral. I believe that real religion\nconsists in doing good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in\nthe uniformity of nature; that matter will forever attract matter in\nproportion to mass and distance; that, under the same circumstances,\nfalling bodies will attain the same speed, increasing in exact\nproportion to distance; that light will always, under the same\ncircumstances, be reflected at the same angle; that it will always\ntravel with the same velocity; that air will forever be lighter than\nwater, and gold heavier than iron; that all substances will be true\nto their natures; that a certain degree of heat will always expand the\nmetals and change water into steam; that a certain degree of cold will\ncause the metals to shrink and change water into ice; that all atoms\nwill forever be in motion; that like causes will forever produce like\neffects, that force will be overcome only by force; that no atom\nof matter will ever be created or destroyed; that the energy in the\nuniverse will forever remain the same, nothing lost, nothing gained;\nthat all that has been possible has happened, and that all that will be\npossible will happen; that the seeds and causes of all thoughts, dreams,\nfancies and actions, of all virtues and all vices, of all successes\nand all failures, are in nature; that there is in the universe no power\nsuperior to nature; that man is under no obligation to the imaginary\ngods; that all his obligations and duties are to be discharged and done\nin this world; that right and wrong do not depend on the will of an\ninfinite Being, but on the consequences of actions, and that these\nconsequences necessarily flow from the nature of things. I believe that\nthe universe is natural.\n\n\n\n\nIS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?\n\n\n     *A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, \"Brutality and\n     Avarice Triumphant,\" published in the North American Review,\n     June, 1891.\n\nTHERE are many people, in all countries, who seem to enjoy individual\nand national decay. They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They\nmistake the afternoon of their own lives for the evening of the world.\nTo them everything has changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and\nwomen have ceased to be beautiful. They are dyspeptic, and it gives them\nthe greatest pleasure to say that the art of cooking has been lost.\n\nFor many generations many of these people occupied the pulpits. They\nlifted the hand of warning whenever the human race took a step in\nadvance. As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and goodness\nand self-denial and charity were vanishing from the earth. They doubted\nthe morality of well-dressed people--considered it impossible that the\nprosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on the limbs of a dead\ntree, they hooted the obsequies of spring, believing it would come no\nmore.\n\nThere are some patriots who think it their duty to malign and slander\nthe land of their birth. They feel that they have a kind of Cassandra\nmission, and they really seem to enjoy their work. They honestly believe\nthat every kind of crime is on the increase, that the courts are\nall corrupt, that the legislators are bribed, that the witnesses are\nsuborned, that all holders of office are dishonest; and they feel like a\nmodern Marius sitting amid the ruins of all the virtues.\n\nIt is useless to endeavor to persuade these people that they are wrong.\nThey do not want arguments, because they will not heed them. They need\nmedicine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a physician.\n\nGeneral Hawkins is probably right when he says that some fraudulent\nshoes, some useless muskets, and some worn-out vessels were sold to the\nGovernment during the war; but we must remember that there were millions\nand millions of as good shoes as art and honesty could make, millions of\nthe best muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most magnificent\nships ever built, sold to the Government during the same period. We must\nnot mistake an eddy for the main stream. We must also remember another\nthing: there were millions of good, brave, and patriotic men to wear the\nshoes, to use the muskets, and to man the ships.\n\nSo it is probably true that Congress was extravagant in land subsidies\nvoted to railroads; but that this legislation was secured by bribery\nis preposterous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is not the\nslightest evidence tending to show that the general policy of hastening\nthe construction of railways through the Territories of the United\nStates was corruptly adopted--not the slightest. At the same time,\nit may be that some members of Congress were induced by personal\nconsiderations to vote for such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the\npolicy was wise, and through the granting of the subsidies thousands\nof miles of railways were built, and these railways have given to\ncivilization vast territories which otherwise would have remained\nsubstantially useless to the world. Where at that time was a wilderness,\nnow are some of the most thriving cities in the United States--a\ngreat, an industrious, and a happy population. The results have\njustified the action of Congress.\n\nIt is also true that some railroads have been \"wrecked\" in the United\nStates, but most of these wrecks have been the result of competition. It\nis the same with corporations as with individuals--the powerful combine\nagainst the weak. In the world of commerce and business is the great\nlaw of the survival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosynary\ninstitutions. They have but little regard for the rights of one another.\nSome fortunes have been made by the criminal \"wrecking\" of roads, but\neven in the business of corporations honesty is the best policy, and the\ncompanies that have acted in accordance with the highest standard, other\nthings being equal, have reaped the richest harvest.\n\nMany railways were built in advance of a demand; they had to develop the\ncountry through which they passed. While they waited for immigration,\ninterest accumulated; as a result foreclosure took place; then\nreorganization. By that time the country had been populated; towns were\nspringing up along the line; increased business was the result. On the\nnew bonds and the new stock the company paid interest and dividends.\nThen the ones who first invested and lost their money felt that they had\nbeen defrauded.\n\nSo it is easy to say that certain men are guilty of crimes--easy\nto indict the entire nation, and at the same time impossible to\nsubstantiate one of the charges. Everyone who knows the history of\nthe Star-Route trials knows that nothing was established against the\ndefendants, knows that every effort was made by the Government to\nconvict them, and also knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men,\nnever suspected of being improperly influenced, after having heard\nthe entire case, pronounced the defendants not guilty. After this, of\ncourse, any one can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who cares\nnothing for the facts, that the defendants were all guilty.\n\nIt may also be true that some settlers in the far West have taken timber\nfrom the public lands, and it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws\nand regulations were such that where a settler was entitled to take up a\ncertain amount of land he had to take it all in one place; he could not\ntake a certain number of acres on the plains and a certain number of\nacres in the timber. The consequence was that when he settled upon\nthe land--the land that he could cultivate--he took the timber that he\nneeded from the Government land, and this has been called stealing. So I\nsuppose it may be said that the cattle stole the Government's grass and\npossibly drank the Government's water.\n\nIt will also be admitted with pleasure that stock has been \"watered\" in\nthis country. And what is the crime or practice known as watering stock?\n\nFor instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles long, worth, we will\nsay, $3,000,000--able to pay interest on that sum at the rate of six per\ncent. Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued has nothing to do\nwith the value of the thing represented by the stock. If there was\none share of stock representing this railroad, it would be worth three\nmillion dollars, whether it said on its face it was one dollar or one\nhundred dollars. If there were three million shares of stock issued on\nthis property, they would be worth one dollar apiece, and, no matter\nwhether it said on this stock that each share was a hundred dollars or a\nthousand dollars, the share would be worth one dollar--no more, no less.\nIf any one wishes to find the value of stock, he should find the value\nof the thing represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that, if a\npie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four pieces, each piece is\nworth twenty-five cents; and if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do\nnot increase the value of the pie.\n\nIf, then, you wish to find the value of a share of stock, find its\nrelation to the thing represented by all the stock.\n\nIt can also be safely admitted that trusts have been formed. The reason\nis perfectly clear. Corporations are like individuals--they combine.\nUnfortunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic, and cry out\nagainst the abuses of trusts. It is natural for corporations to defend\nthemselves--natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a profitable\npool; and when strong corporations combine, little corporations suffer.\nIt is with corporations as with fishes--the large eat the little; and it\nmay be that this will prove a public benefit in the end. When the large\ncorporations have taken possession of the little ones, it may be that\nthe Government will take possession of them--the Government being the\nlargest corporation of them all.\n\nIt is to be regretted that all houses are not fireproof; but certainly\nno one imagines that the people of this country build houses for the\npurpose of having them burned, or that they erect hotels having in view\nthe broiling of guests. Men act as they must; that is to say, according\nto wants and necessities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper\nthan in an old one, money is scarcer, interest higher, and consequently\npeople build cheaply and take the risks of fire. They do not do this\non account of the Constitution of the United States, or the action of\npolitical parties, or the general idea that man is entitled to be free.\nIn the hotels of Europe it may be that there is not as great danger of\nfire as of famine.\n\nThe destruction of game and of the singing birds is to be greatly\nregretted, not only in this country, but in all others. The people\nof America have been too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and\nbuilding houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the aesthetic side\nof their natures. Nature has been somewhat ruthless with us. The storms\nof winter breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of summer,\nhave tended, it may be, to harden somewhat the sensibilities; in\nconsequence of which they have allowed their horses and cattle to bear\nthe rigors of the same climate.\n\nIt is also true that the seal-fisheries are being destroyed, in the\ninterest of the present, by those who care nothing for the future. All\nthese things are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against; but we\nmust not hint, provided we are lovers of the Republic, that such things\nare caused by free institutions.\n\nGeneral Hawkins asserts that \"Christianity has neither preached nor\npracticed humanity towards animals,\" while at the same time \"Sunday\nschool children by hundreds of thousands are taught what a terrible\nthing it is to break the Sabbath;\" that \"museum trustees tremble with\npious horror at the suggestion of opening the doors leading to the\ncollections on that day,\" and that no protests have come \"from lawmakers\nor the Christian clergy.\" Few people will suspect me of going out of my\nway to take care of Christianity or of the clergy. At the same time, I\ncan afford to state the truth. While there is not much in the Bible with\nregard to practicing humanity toward animals, there is at least this:\n\"The merciful man is merciful to his beast.\" Of course, I am not\nalluding now to the example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the cattle\nof the Egyptians with hailstones and diseases on account of the sins of\ntheir owners.\n\nIn regard to the treatment of animals Christians have been much like\nother people.\n\nSo, hundreds of lawmakers have not only protested against cruelty to\nanimals, but enough have protested against it to secure the enactment of\nlaws making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry Bergh, who did as much\ngood as any man who has lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded\nin his efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but by hundreds\nand thousands of professing Christians--probably millions. Let us be\nhonest.\n\nIt is true that the clergy are apt to lose the distinction between\noffences and virtues, to regard the little as the important--that is to\nsay, to invert the pyramid.\n\nIt is true that the Indians have been badly treated. It is true that the\nfringe of civilization has been composed of many low and cruel men. It\nis true that the red man has been demoralized by the vices of the white.\nIt is a frightful fact that, when a superior race meets an inferior, the\ninferior imitates only the vices of the superior, and the superior those\nof the inferior. They exchange faults and failings. This is one of the\nmost terrible facts in the history of the human race.\n\nNothing can be said to justify our treatment of the Indians. There is,\nhowever, this shadow of an excuse: In the old times, when we lived along\nthe Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our ancestors that they could ever\ngo beyond the Ohio; so the first treaty with the Indians drove them back\nbut a few miles. In a little while, through immigration, the white race\npassed the line, and another treaty was made, forcing the Indians still\nfurther west; yet the tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while\nagain the line was passed, the treaty violated. Another treaty was\nmade, pushing the Indians still farther toward the Pacific, across the\nIllinois, across the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at\nevery step some treaty made; and each treaty born of the incapacity of\nthe white men who made it to foretell the growth of the Republic.\n\nBut the author of \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\" made a great\nmistake when he selected the last thirty years of our national life as\nthe period within which the Americans have made a change of the national\nmotto appropriate, and asserted that now there should be in place of the\nold motto the words, \"Plundering Made Easy.\"\n\nMost men believe in a sensible and manly patriotism. No one should be\nblind to the defects in the laws and institutions of his country. He\nshould call attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing his\ncountry into disrepute, but that the abuses may cease and the defects\nbe corrected. He should do what he can to make his country great,\nprosperous, just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate the\nfaults of your country for the purpose of calling attention to your own\nvirtues, or to earn the praise of a nation that hates your own. This is\nwhat might be called wallowing in the gutter of reform.\n\nThe thirty years chosen as the time in which we as a nation have passed\nfrom virtue to the lowest depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact,\nthe most glorious years in the life of this or of any other nation.\n\nIn 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a national institution.\nIt was firmly imbedded in the Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave\nLaw was in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in nearly all\nof the Northern States it was a crime to give food, shelter, or raiment\nto a man or woman seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal,\nhospitality a misdemeanor, and charity a crime. Men and women were sold\nlike beasts. Mothers were robbed of their babes while they stood under\nour flag. All the sacred relations of life were trampled beneath the\nbloody feet of brutality and avarice. Besides, so firmly was slavery\nfixed in law and creed, in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of\nhonest men were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the slave were mobbed by\nNorthern lovers of the \"Union.\"\n\nNow, it seems to me that those were the days when the motto could\nproperly have been, \"Plundering Made Easy.\" Those were the days of\nbrutality, and the brutality was practiced to the end that we might make\nmoney out of the unpaid labor of others.\n\nIt is not necessary to go into details as to the cause of the then\ncondition; it is enough to say that the whole nation, North and South,\nwas responsible. There were many years of compromise, and thousands of\nstatesmen, so-called, through conventions and platforms, did what they\ncould to preserve slavery and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted\npolitics, demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and poisoned\nour literature. The Websters, Bentons, and Clays mistook temporary\nexpedients for principles, and really thought that the progress of\nthe world could be stopped by the resolutions of a packed political\nconvention. Yet these men, mistaken as they really were, worked and\nwrought unconsciously in the cause of human freedom. They believed that\nthe preservation of the Union was the one important thing, and that it\ncould not be preserved unless slavery was protected--unless the North\nwould be faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution. For\nthe purpose of keeping the nation true to the Union and false to itself,\nthese men exerted every faculty and all their strength. They exhausted\ntheir genius in showing that slavery was not, after all, very bad,\nand that disunion was the most terrible calamity that could by any\npossibility befall the nation, and that the Union, even at the price of\nslavery, was the greatest possible blessing. They did not suspect that\nslavery would finally strike the blow for disunion. But when the time\ncame and the South unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as\nto the infinite value of the Union gave to our flag millions of brave\ndefenders.\n\nNow, let us see what has been accomplished during the thirty years of\n\"Brutality and Avarice.\"\n\nThe Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and we shall remain one\npeople for many centuries to come. The Mississippi is nature's protest\nagainst disunion. The Constitution of the United States is now the\ncharter of human freedom, and all laws inconsistent with the idea that\nall men are entitled to liberty have been repealed. The black man knows\nthat the Constitution is his shield, that the laws protect him, that our\nflag is his, and the black mother feels that her babe belongs to her.\nWhere the slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse. The dealer\nin human flesh is now a teacher; instead of lacerating the back of a\nchild, he develops and illumines the mind of a pupil.\n\nThere is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed to utter their thoughts.\nLips are no longer sealed by mobs. Never before in the history of our\nworld has so much been done for education.\n\nThe amount of business done in a country on credit is the measure of\nconfidence, and confidence is based upon honesty. So it may truthfully\nbe said that, where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an\nexceedingly large per cent. of the people are regarded as honest. In our\ncountry a very large per cent. of contracts are faithfully fulfilled.\nProbably there is no nation in the world where so much business is\ndone on credit as in the United States. The fact that the credit of the\nRepublic is second to that of no other nation on the globe would seem to\nbe at least an indication of a somewhat general diffusion of honesty.\n\nThe author of \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\" seems to be of the\nopinion that our country was demoralized by the war. They who fight for\nthe right are not degraded--they are ennobled. When men face death and\nmarch to the mouths of the guns for a principle, they grow great; and if\nthey come out of the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur; they\nbecome better men, better citizens, and they love more intensely than\never the great cause for the success of which they put their lives in\npawn.\n\nThe period of the Revolution produced great men. After the great victory\nthe sons of the heroes degenerated, and some of the greatest principles\ninvolved in the Revolution were almost forgotten.\n\nDuring the Civil war the North grew great and the South was educated.\nNever before in the history of mankind was there such a period of moral\nexaltation. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest light on\nthe pages of our history became famous then. Against the few who were\nactuated by base and unworthy motives let us set the great army that\nfought for the Republic, the millions who bared their breasts to\nthe storm, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who did their duty\nhonestly, nobly, and went back to their wives and children with no\nthought except to preserve the liberties of themselves and their\nfellow-men.\n\nOf course there were some men who did not do their duty--some men false\nto themselves and to their country. No one expects to find sixty-five\nmillions of saints in America. A few years ago a lady complained to the\npresident of a Western railroad that a brakeman had spoken to her with\ngreat rudeness. The president expressed his regret at the incident, and\nsaid among other things: \"Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is\nfor us to get gentlemen to fill all those places.\"\n\nIt is hardly to be expected that the American people should excel all\nothers in the arts, in poetry, and in fiction. We have been very busy\ntaking possession of the Republic. It is hard to overestimate the\ncourage, the industry, the self-denial it has required to fell the\nforests, to subdue the fields, to construct the roads, and to build the\ncountless homes. What has been done is a certificate of the honesty and\nindustry of our people.\n\nIt is not true that \"one of the unwritten mottoes of our business morals\nseem to say in the plainest phraseology possible: 'Successful wrong is\nright.'\" Men in this country are not esteemed simply because they are\nrich; inquiries are made as to how they made their money, as to how\nthey use it. The American people do not fall upon their knees before the\ngolden calf; the worst that can be said is that they think too much\nof the gold of the calf--and this distinction is seen by the calves\nthemselves.\n\nNowhere in the world is honesty in business esteemed more highly than\nhere. There are millions of business men--merchants, bankers, and men\nengaged in all trades and professions--to whom reputation is as dear as\nlife.\n\nThere is one thing in the article \"Brutality and Avarice Triumphant\"\nthat seems even more objectionable than the rest, and that is the\nstatement, or, rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the\nshortcomings of the American people can be accounted for by the fact\nthat our Government is a Republic. We are told that not long ago a\nFrench official complained to a friend that he was compelled to employ\ntwenty clerks to do the work done by four under the empire, and on being\nasked the reason answered: \"It is the Republic.\" He was told that, as\nhe was the head of the bureau, he could prevent the abuse, to which he\nreplied: \"I know I have the power; but I have been in this position for\nmore than thirty years, and am now too old to learn another occupation,\nand I _must_ make places for the friends of the deputies.\" And then it\nis added by General Hawkins: \"_And so it is here_.\"\n\nIt seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that we have abused the\nIndians because we contend that all men have equal rights before the\nlaw, or because we insist that governments derive their just powers from\nthe consent of the governed. The probability is that a careful reading\nof the history of the world will show that nations under the control of\nkings and emperors have been guilty of some cruelty. To account for the\nbad we do by the good we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should\nnot be made responsible for our vices.\n\nIs it possible that free institutions tend to the demoralization of men?\nIs a man dishonest because he is a man and maintains the rights of men?\nIn order to be a moral nation must we be controlled by king or emperor?\nIs human liberty a mistake? Is it possible that a citizen of the great\nRepublic attacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens? Is he willing to\nabdicate? Is he willing to admit that his rights are not equal to the\nrights of others? Is he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing\nto become a serf, a servant or a slave?\n\nIs it possible that \"high character is impracticable\" in this Republic?\nIs this the experience of the author of \"Brutality and Avarice\nTriumphant\"? Is it true that \"intellectual achievement pays no\ndividends\"? Is it not a fact that America is to-day the best market in\nthe world for books, for music, and for art?\n\nThere is in our country no real foundation for these wide and sweeping\nslanders. This, in my judgment, is the best Government, the best\ncountry, in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on the\naverage, better clothed and fed and educated than any other people. They\nare fuller of life, more progressive, quicker to take advantage of\nthe forces of nature, than any other of the children of men. Here\nthe burdens of government are lightest, the responsibilities of the\nindividual greatest, and here, in my judgment, are to be worked out the\nmost important problems of social science.\n\nHere in America is a finer sense of what is due from man to man than\nyou will find in other lands. We do not cringe to those whom chance has\ncrowned; we stand erect.\n\nOur sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity is almost a national\nfailing. The hand of honest want is rarely left unfilled. Great\ncalamities open the hearts and hands of all.\n\nHere you will find democracy in the family--republicanism by the\nfireside. Say what you will, the family is apt to be patterned after the\ngovernment. If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband imagines\nhimself the monarch of the home. In this country we have carried into\nthe family the idea on which the Government is based. Here husbands and\nwives are beginning to be equals.\n\nThe highest test of civilization is the treatment of women and children.\nBy this standard America stands first among nations.\n\nThere is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about this country--an\namplitude--that satisfies the heart and the imagination. We have our\nfaults, we have our virtues, but our country is the best.\n\nNo American should ever write a line that can be sneeringly quoted by an\nenemy of the great Republic.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.\n\n     * The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.\n\n\n_Question_. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your\nlectures by the _Cincinnati Gazette_ and the _Catholic Telegraph_?\n\n_Answer._ I have read portions of the articles.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of them?\n\n_Answer._ Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a distinct\nsubject of thought.\n\n_Question_. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the\n_Gazette_ against your lecture on Moses?\n\n_Answer._ The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance\nprevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one could\nreasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the advantage\nof telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a\nfew mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also shows that,\nalthough God was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms; but\nwhether the reforms were intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the\nslave is not stated. The article has nothing to do with my position. I\nam perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called Egypt; that\nthe Jews were once slaves; that they got away and started a little\ncountry of their own. All this may be true without proving that they\nwere miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or\nthat God went into partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have\nbeen a man by the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned\ninto snakes.\n\nA while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of\nhis remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought\na stone from the mountain. He requested the children to pass in line\nbefore him so that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone.\nAfter they had all seen it he said: \"You will as you grow up meet people\nwho will deny that there ever was a flood, or that God saved Noah and\nthe animals in the ark, and then you can tell them that you know better,\nbecause you saw a stone from the very mountain where the ark rested.\"\n\nThat is precisely the kind of argument used in the _Gazette_. The\narticle was written by some one who does not quite believe in the\ninspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of\nhell, would probably say so.\n\nI admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca,\nsuch a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made known his will\nto Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the _Gazette_ would\nanswer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore\nGod must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general\nas Washington, but I do not admit that God kept him from being shot. I\nadmit that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not\nadmit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses,\nbut I do not admit that God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I\nadmit that there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit\nthat he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the\nriver, and put his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit\nthat the article appeared in the _Gazette_, but I do not admit that it\namounted to anything whatever.\n\n_Question_. Did you notice what the _Catholic Telegraph_ said about your\nlecture being ungrammatical?\n\n_Answer._ Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the _Catholic Telegraph_\noccurs the following: \"The lecture was a failure as brilliant as\nIngersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric.\" After making this\nstatement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault\nwith my \"ungrammatical rhetoric\" he then writes the following sentence:\n\"It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive\nlanguage.\" After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman\nsays on the subject of grammar.\n\nIn this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more\nremarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one\nexception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except\nin an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the\nusual amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile,\nignorant and malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a\ngentleman who worships a God who will damn dimpled babes to an eternity\nof fire, simply because they were not baptized.\n\n_Question_. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history\nand the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the\nMosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and\nhas been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in\nscience. What do you think of that statement?\n\n_Answer._ I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is\nsubstantially like the gentleman's theology, depending simply upon\npersistent assertion.\n\nI see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil\nanimals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed\nthat God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then\nproduced other forms. Agassiz was the last scientist of any standing who\nventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.\n\n_Question_. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists\nregard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?\n\n_Answer._ I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look\nupon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the\nsame relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this\nopinion. The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley,\nTyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others\nin the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened\northodox gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a\nrule, both are exceedingly small.\n\n_Question_. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that\nGod went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no\nsuch passage in the Bible.\n\n_Answer._ Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the\ntwenty-third chapter of Exodus, \"And I will send hornets before thee,\nwhich shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from\nbefore thee.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your ideas\nare generally received with favor?\n\n_Answer._ Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers\nas there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the\nmajority.\n\n_Question_. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make\nstrong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going\nto hear you?\n\n_Answer._ Yes; in many places ministers have advised their congregations\nto keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The\nresult has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever failed to\npublicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance agents.\n\n_Question_. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?\n\n_Answer._ Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters,\nthreatening me with the wrath of God, and calling my attention to the\nuncertainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These letters are\nnearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say,\nfull of hatred and impertinence.\n\n_Question_. Don't you think it remarkable that the _Telegraph_, a\nCatholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from\nsuch an orthodox sheet as the _Gazette_?\n\n_Answer._ I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All\nsuperstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few\nyears all the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of\nliberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of arrogance,\nof theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic\nquoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the same men would have\ntaken great pleasure in swearing that the Catholic Church was the\nworst possible organization. That church should forever hold its peace.\nWherever it has had authority it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced\nItaly to a hand organ, Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to\ncontempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of\nman has withered. The recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew\nshould make a priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre\nshould make a Protestant careful.\n\nI can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces\nGaribaldi, the hero of Italy, as a \"pet tiger\" to Victor Emmanuel. I\ncould not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the point that no one is able to judge\nof these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?\n\n_Answer._ I do not think it is necessary to understand Hebrew to decide\nas to the probability of springs gushing out of dead bones, or of\nthe dead getting out of their graves, or of the probability of ravens\nkeeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I hardly think it is necessary\neven to be a Greek scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils\nactually left a person and took refuge in the bodies of swine. Besides,\nif the Bible is not properly translated, the circulation ought to stop\nuntil the corrections are made. I am not accountable if God made a\nrevelation to me in a language that he knew I never would understand. If\nhe wishes to convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do\nit in English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to\nit.\n\n_Question_. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible owing to\nmistranslations?\n\n_Answer._ No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to help\nout the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it\nbeen correctly translated. Nearly all of the _mistakes_, as Mr. Weller\nwould say, have been made for the purposes of harmony.\n\n_Question_. How many errors do you suppose there are?\n\n_Answer._ Well, I do not know. It has been reported that the American\nBible Society appointed a committee to hunt for errors, and the said\ncommittee returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand. And\nthereupon the leading men said, to correct so many errors will destroy\nthe confidence of the common people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.\nThereupon it was decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other\nday that a very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that\nthey knew they were publishing a book full of errors.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?\n\n_Answer._ My first objection is, it is not true.\n\nSecond.--It is not inspired.\n\nThird.--It upholds human slavery.\n\nFourth.--It sanctions concubinage.\n\nFifth.--It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as the\nutter destruction of old men and little children.\n\nSixth.--After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it commands the\ngenerals to divide the girls among the soldiers and priests. Beyond\nthis, infamy has never gone. If any God made this order I am opposed to\nhim.\n\nSeventh.--It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems to, from the\nfollowing:\n\n\"Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord\nof all that he hath, both of _man_ and _beast_, and of the field of his\npossession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy\nunto the Lord.\"\n\n\"None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be redeemed; but\nshall surely be put to death.\" (Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus,\n28th and 29th verses.)\n\nEighth.--Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and unjust.\nThink of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of killing a man for\npicking up sticks on Sunday!\n\nNinth.--It upholds polygamy.\n\nTenth.--It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of\nany science whatever.\n\nEleventh.--It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches a man to kill\nhis own wife if she differs with him on religion; that is to say, if he\nis orthodox. There is no book in the world in which can be found so much\nthat is thoroughly despicable and infamous. Of course there are some\ngood passages, some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old\nTestament, few and far between.\n\nTwelfth.--It treats woman like a beast, and man like a slave. It fills\nheaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and grief.\n\n_Question_. Do you think any book inspired?\n\n_Answer._ No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if it had been\nthe intention of this God to give to man an inspired book, he should\nhave waited until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare as the\ninstrument. Then there never would have been any doubt as to the\ninspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more goodness, more\nintelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of this world.\n\n_Question_. What do you think as a freethinker of the Sunday question in\nCincinnati?\n\n_Answer._ I think that it is a good thing to have a day of recreation, a\nday of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and theology. I am\nin favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness on Sunday. I am\nopposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy will take half\nthe pains to make the people intelligent that they do to make them\nsuperstitious, the world will soon have advanced so far that it can\nenjoy itself without excess. The ministers want Sunday for themselves.\nThey want everybody to come to church because they can go no where\nelse. It is like the story of a man coming home at three o'clock in the\nmorning, who, upon being asked by his wife how he could come at such a\ntime of night, replied, \"The fact is, every other place is shut up.\" The\northodox clergy know that their churches will remain empty if any other\nplace remains open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,\northodox clergy, because I have great respect for Unitarians and\nUniversalists.\n\n\n\n\nAN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.\n\n\n     * Brooklyn Eagle, 1881.\n\n_Question_. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you have been indicted\nin the State of Delaware for the crime of blasphemy?\n\n_Answer._ Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge, who, I believe, is the\nChief Justice of the State, dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington\nto the service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury, in which he\nalmost commanded them to bring in a bill of indictment against me, for\nwhat he was pleased to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter\nof fact, there can be no crime committed by man against God, provided\nalways that a correct definition of the Deity has been given by\nthe orthodox churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he is\nconditionless. I can injure a man by changing his conditions. Take\nfrom a man water, and he perishes of thirst; take from him air, and\nhe suffocates; he may die from too much, or too little heat. That is\nbecause he is a conditioned being. But if God is conditionless,\nhe cannot in any way be affected by what anybody else may do; and,\nconsequently, a sin against God is as impossible as a sin against the\nprinciple of the lever or inclined plane. This crime called blasphemy\nwas invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able\nto take care of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork behind\nwhich hypocrisy has crouched for thousands of years. Injustice is the\nonly blasphemy that can be committed, and justice is the only true\nworship. Man can sin against man, but not against God. But even if man\ncould sin against God, it has always struck me that an infinite being\nwould be entirely able to take care of himself without the assistance of\na Chief Justice. Men have always been violating the rights of men, under\nthe plea of defending the rights of God, and nothing, for ages, was so\nperfectly delightful to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,\nand get God in his debt at the same time. Chief Justice Comegys has\ntaken this occasion to lay up for himself what he calls treasures in\nheaven, and on the last great day he will probably rely on a certified\ncopy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the Lord needs help\nsatisfies me that in that particular neighborhood I am a little ahead.\n\nThe fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in Delaware. That\nlecture, however, had been preceded by a Republican stump speech; and,\nto tell you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is what a Yankee\nwould call the heft of the offence. It is really hard for me to tell\nwhether I have blasphemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I have\nno personal feeling whatever against the Judge. In fact he has done me\na favor. He has called the attention of the civilized world to certain\nbarbarian laws that disfigure and disgrace the statute books of most\nof the States. These laws were passed when our honest ancestors were\nburning witches, trading Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and\nmolasses, branding people upon the forehead, boring their tongues with\nhot irons, putting one another in the pillory, and, generally, in the\nname of God, making their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible. We\nhave outgrown these laws without repealing them. They are, as a matter\nof fact, in most communities actually dead; but in some of the States,\nlike Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced, though there might be\ntrouble in selecting twelve men, even in Delaware, without getting one\nman broad enough, sensible enough, and honest enough, to do justice. I\nhardly think it would be possible in any State to select a jury in the\nordinary way that would convict any person charged with what is commonly\nknown as blasphemy.\n\nAll the so-called Christian churches have accused each other of being\nblasphemers, in turn. The Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as\nblasphemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists; the Baptists, the\nPresbyterians, and the Catholics all united in denouncing the Quakers,\nand they all together denounced the Unitarians--called them blasphemers\nbecause they did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ--the\nUnitarians only insisting that three infinite beings were not necessary,\nthat one infinite being could do all the business, and that the other\ntwo were absolutely useless. This was called blasphemy.\n\nThen all the churches united to call the Universalists blasphemers.\nI can remember when a Uni-versalist was regarded with a thousand times\nmore horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this strange thing about\nthe history of theology--nobody has ever been charged with blasphemy\nwho thought God bad. For instance, it never would have excited any\ntheological hatred if a man had insisted that God would finally damn\neverybody. Nearly all heresy has consisted in making God better than the\nmajority in the churches thought him to be. The orthodox Christian never\nwill forgive the Univer-salist for saying that God is too good to damn\nanybody eternally. Now, all these sects have charged each other with\nblasphemy, without anyone of them knowing really what blasphemy is. I\nsuppose they have occasionally been honest, because they have mostly\nbeen ignorant. It is said that Torquemada used to shed tears over the\nagonies of his victims and that he recommended slow burning, not because\nhe wished to inflict pain, but because he really desired to give the\ngentleman or lady he was burning a chance to repent of his or her sins,\nand make his or her peace with God previous to becoming a cinder.\n\nThe root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all religious persecution\nis the idea that some certain belief is necessary to salvation. If\northodox Christians are right in this idea, then persecution of all\nheretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right to defend my body\nfrom attack, surely I should have a like right to defend my soul. Under\nour laws I could kill any man who was endeavoring, for example, to take\nthe life of my child. How much more would I be justified in killing\nany wretch who was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth of a\ndoctrine which, if believed, would result in the eternal damnation of\nthat child's soul?\n\nIf the Christian religion, as it is commonly understood, is true, no\ninfidel should be allowed to live; every heretic should be hunted\nfrom the wide world as you would hunt a wild beast. They should not\nbe allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to poison the minds of\nwomen and children; in other words, they should not be allowed to empty\nheaven and fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this country is\nbecause the Christians of this country do not believe their doctrine.\nThe passage from the Bible, \"Go ye into all the world and preach the\nGospel to every creature,\" coupled with the assurance that, \"Whosoever\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall\nbe damned,\" is the foundation of most religious persecution. Every\nword in that passage has been fire and fagot, whip and sword, chain\nand dungeon. That one passage has probably caused more agony among men,\nwomen and children, than all the passages of all other books that\nwere ever printed. Now, this passage was not in the book of Mark when\noriginally written, but was put there many years after the gentleman who\nevolved the book of Mark from his inner consciousness, had passed\naway. It was put there by the church--that is to say, by hypocrisy and\npriestly craft, to bind the consciences of men and force them to come\nunder ecclesiastical and spiritual power; and that passage has been\nreceived and believed, and been made binding by law in most countries\never since.\n\nWhat would you think of a law compelling a man to admire Shakespeare, or\ncalling it blasphemy to laugh at Hamlet? Why is not a statute necessary\nto uphold the reputation of Raphael or of Michael Angelo? Is it possible\nthat God cannot write a book good enough and great enough and grand\nenough not to excite the laughter of his children? Is it possible that\nhe is compelled to have his literary reputation supported by the State\nof Delaware?\n\nThere is another very strange thing about this business. Admitting that\nthe Bible is the work of God, it is not any more his work than are the\nsun, the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for disbelieving this\nBible we are to be damned forever, we ought to be equally damned for\na mistake in geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man to go\nto heaven who swears that the earth is flat, and damning a fellow who\nthinks it is round, but who-has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to\nme to be perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this view of it, it\nis just as necessary to be right on the subject of the equator as on the\ndoctrine of infant baptism.\n\n_Question_. What was in your judgment the motive of Judge Comegys? Is he\na personal enemy of yours? Have you ever met him? Have you any idea what\nreason he had for attacking you?\n\n_Answer._ I do not know the gentleman, personally. Outside of the\npolitical reason I have intimated, I do not know why he attacked me. I\nonce delivered a lecture entitled \"What must we do to be Saved?\" in the\ncity of Wilmington, and in that lecture I proceeded to show, or at\nleast tried to show, that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about\nChristianity, as it is understood in Delaware; and I also endeavored to\nshow that all men have an equal right to think, and that a man is only\nunder obligations to be honest with himself, and with all men, and that\nhe is not accountable for the amount of mind that he has been endowed\nwith--otherwise it might be Judge Comegys himself would be damned--but\nthat he is only accountable for the use he makes of what little mind\nhe has received. I held that the safest thing for every man was to be\nabsolutely honest, and to express his honest thought. After the delivery\nof this lecture various ministers in Wilmington began replying, and\nafter the preaching of twenty or thirty sermons, not one of which,\nconsidered as a reply, was a success, I presume it occurred to these\nministers that the shortest and easiest way would be to have me indicted\nand imprisoned.\n\nIn this I entirely agree with them. It is the old and time-honored way.\nI believe it is, as it always has been, easier to kill two infidels than\nto answer one; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that is\nnow slowly rising over the intellectual world, it must be done by brute\nforce, and by brute force alone. And it must be done pretty soon,\nor they will not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they have a\nmajority of the civilized world on their side to-day. No heretic ever\nwould have been burned if he could have been answered. No theologian\never called for the help of the law until his logic gave out.\n\nI suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian. Where did he get his right\nto be a Presbyterian? Where did he get his right to decide which creed\nis the correct one? How did he dare to pit his little brain against the\nword of God? He may say that his father was a Presbyterian. But what\nwas his grandfather? If he will only go back far enough he will, in all\nprobability, find that his ancestors were Catholics, and if he will go\nback a little farther still, that they were barbarians; that at one time\nthey were naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What right\nhad they to change? Does he not perceive that had the savages passed the\nsame kind of laws that now exist in Delaware, they could have prevented\nany change in belief? They would have had a whipping-post, too, and they\nwould have said: \"Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon his\nbody shall be held guilty of blasphemy;\" and all the ancestors of this\nJudge, and of these ministers, would have said, Amen!\n\nWhat right had the first Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian? He must have\nbeen a blasphemer first. A small dose of pillory might have changed\nhis religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is incapable of\nany improvement in a religious point of view? Does he think that the\nPresbyterians of Delaware are not only the best now, but that they will\nforever be the best that God can make? Is there to be no advancement?\nHas there been no advancement? Are the pillory and the whipping-post to\nbe used to prevent an excess of thought in the county of New Castle? Has\nthe county ever been troubled that way? Has this Judge ever had symptoms\nof any such disease? Now, I want it understood that I like this Judge,\nand my principal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his\nrace. He will be so inundated with the ridicule of mankind that no\nother Chief Justice in Delaware, or anywhere else, will ever follow his\nillustrious example. The next Judge will say: \"So far as I am concerned,\nthe Lord may attend to his own business, and deal with infidels as he\nmay see proper.\" Thus great good has been accomplished by this Judge,\nwhich shows, as Burns puts it, \"that a pot can be boiled, even if the\ndevil tries to prevent it.\"\n\n_Question_. How will this action of Delaware, in your opinion, affect\nthe other States?\n\n_Answer._ Probably a few other States needed an example exactly of this\nkind. New Jersey, in all probability, will say: \"Delaware is perfectly\nridiculous,\" and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New Jersey might have\ndone the same thing. Maryland will exclaim: \"Did you ever see such a\nfool!\" And yet I was threatened in that State. The average American\ncitizen, taking into consideration the fact that we are blest, or\ncursed, with about one hundred thousand preachers, and that these\npreachers preach on the average one hundred thousand sermons a\nweek--some of which are heard clear through--will unquestionably hold\nthat a man who happens to differ with all these parsons, ought to have\nand shall have the privilege of expressing his mind; and that the one\nhundred thousand clergymen ought to be able to put down the one man who\nhappens to disagree with them, without calling on the army or navy to do\nit, especially when it is taken into consideration that an infinite\nGod is already on their side. Under these circumstances, the average\nAmerican will say: \"Let him talk, and let the hundred thousand preachers\nanswer him to their hearts' content.\" So that in my judgment the result\nof the action of Delaware will be: First, to liberalize all other\nStates, and second, finally to liberalize Delaware itself. In many of\nthe States they have the same idiotic kind of laws as those found in\nDelaware--with the exception of those blessed institutions for the\nspread of the Gospel, known as the pillory and the whipping-post. There\nis a law in Maine by which a man can be put into the penitentiary\nfor denying the providence of God, and the day of judgment. There are\nsimilar laws in most of the New England States. One can be imprisoned in\nMaryland for a like offence.\n\nIn North Carolina no man can hold office that has not a certain\nreligious belief; and so in several other of the Southern States.\nIn half the States of this Union, if my wife and children should be\nmurdered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a court of justice\nto tell who the murderer was. You see that, for hundreds of years,\nChristianity has endeavored to put the brand of infamy on every\nintellectual brow.\n\n_Question_. I see that one objection to your lectures urged by Judge\nComegys on the grand jury is, that they tend to a breach of the\npeace--to riot and bloodshed.\n\n_Answer._ Yes; Judge Comegys seems to be afraid that people who love\ntheir enemies will mob their friends. He is afraid that those disciples\nwho, when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be smitten also, will\nget up a riot. He seems to imagine that good Christians feel called upon\nto violate the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's reputation.\nIf Christianity produces people who cannot hear their doctrines\ndiscussed without raising mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is\nstopped being preached the better.\n\nThere is not the slightest danger of any infidel attacking a Christian\nfor His belief, and there never will be an infidel mob for such a\npurpose. Christians can teach and preach their views to their hearts'\ncontent. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal hell, if it gives\nthem the least pleasure, and they may bang their Bibles as long as their\nfists last, but no infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop\nthem, or put them down by brute force, or even by an appeal to the\nlaw, and I would advise Judge Comegys, if he wishes to compliment\nChristianity, to change his language and say that he feared a breach of\nthe peace might be committed by the infidels--not by the Christians. He\nmay possibly have thought that it was my intention to attack his State.\nBut I can assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,\nI shall take some State of my size. There is no glory to be won in\nwringing the neck of a \"Blue Hen!\"\n\n_Question_. I should judge, Colonel, that you are prejudiced against the\nState of Delaware?\n\n_Answer._ Not by any means. Oh, no! I know a great many splendid people\nin Delaware, and since I have known more of their surroundings, my\nadmiration for them has increased. They are, on the whole, a very good\npeople in that State. I heard a story the other day: An old fellow in\nDelaware has been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering peaches\nthere in their season--a kind of peach tramp. One day last fall, just as\nthe season closed, he was leaning sadly against a tree, \"Boys!\" said he,\n\"I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years from now.\" The boys\nasked, \"What for?\" The old fellow replied: \"Just to see how damned\nlittle they'd get the baskets by that time.\" And it occurred to me that\npeople who insist that twenty-two quarts make a bushel, should be as\nquiet as possible on the subject of blasphemy.\n\n\nAN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.\n\n\n     * Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881.\n\n_Question_. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys' compliments to you\nbefore the Delaware grand jury?\n\n_Answer._ Yes, I have read his charge, in which he relies upon the law\npassed in 1740. After reading his charge it seemed to me as though he\nhad died about the date of the law, had risen from the dead, and had\ngone right on where he had left off. I presume he is a good man, but\ncompared with other men, is something like his State when compared with\nother States.\n\nA great many people will probably regard the charge of Judge Comegys\nas unchristian, but I do not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in\nexact accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip-ping-post,\nand the suppression of free speech are the natural fruit of the Old and\nNew Testament.\n\nDelaware is right. Christianity can not succeed, can not exist, without\nthe protection of law. Take from orthodox Christianity the protection\nof law, and all church property would be taxed like other property. The\nSabbath would be no longer a day devoted to superstition. Everyone\ncould express his honest thought upon every possible subject. Everyone,\nnotwithstanding his belief, could testify in a court of justice. In\nother words, honesty would be on an equality with hypocrisy.\nScience would stand on a level, so far as the law is concerned, with\nsuperstition. Whenever this happens the end of orthodox Christianity\nwill be near.\n\nBy Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy, kindness, forgiveness. I\nmean no natural virtue, because all the natural virtues existed and had\nbeen practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions before Christ was\nborn. There certainly were some good men even in the days of Christ in\nJerusalem, before his death.\n\nBy Christianity I mean the ideas of redemption, atonement, a good man\ndying for a bad man, and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By\nChristianity I mean that system that insists that in the next world a\nfew will be forever happy, while the many will be eternally miserable.\nChristianity, as I have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and\nsustained by law. It was founded by the sword that is to say, by physical\nforce,--and must be preserved by like means.\n\nIn many of the States of the Union an infidel is not allowed to testify.\nIn the State of Delaware, if Alexander von Humboldt were living, he\ncould not be a witness, although he had more brains than the State of\nDelaware has ever produced, or is likely to produce as long as the laws\nof 1740 remain in force. Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could\nbe fined and imprisoned in the State of Delaware, and, in fact, in many\nStates of this Union.\n\nChristianity, in order to defend itself, puts the brand of infamy on\nthe brow of honesty. Christianity marks with a letter \"C,\" standing for\n\"convict\" every brain that is great enough to discover the frauds. I\nhave no doubt that Judge Comegys is a good and sincere Christian. I\nbelieve that he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the Jewish\nJehovah. I believe that every word he said was in exact accord with\nthe spirit of orthodox Christianity. Against this man personally I have\nnothing to say. I know nothing of his character except as I gather it\nfrom this charge, and after reading the charge I am forced simply to\nsay, Judge Comegys is a Christian.\n\nIt seems, however, that the grand jury dared to take no action,\nnotwithstanding they had been counseled to do so by the Judge. Although\nthe Judge had quoted to them the words of George I. of blessed memory;\nalthough he had quoted to them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became\na Judge simply because of his hatred of the English colonists, simply\nbecause he despised liberty in the new world; notwithstanding the fact\nthat I could have been punished with insult, with imprisonment, and with\nstripes, and with every form of degradation; notwithstanding that only a\nfew years ago I could have been branded upon the forehead, bored through\nthe tongue, maimed and disfigured, still, such has been the advance even\nin the State of Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one\nlecture delivered by me, that the grand jury absolutely refused to\nindict me.\n\nThe grand jury satisfied themselves and their consciences simply by\nmaking a report in which they declared that my lecture had \"no parallel\nin the habits of respectable vagabondism\" that I was \"an arch-blasphemer\nand reviler of God and religion,\" and recommended that should I ever\nattempt to lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware blasphemy\nis a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. I have no doubt that\nevery member of the grand jury signing this report was entirely honest;\nthat he acted in exact accord with what he understood to be the demand\nof the Christian religion. I must admit that for Christians, the report\nis exceedingly mild and gentle.\n\nI have now in the house, letters that passed between certain bishops in\nthe fifteenth century, in which they discussed the propriety of cutting\nout the tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some of the bishops\nwere in favor of and some against it. One argument for cutting out their\ntongues which seemed to have settled the question was, that unless the\ntongues of heretics were cut out they might scandalize the gentlemen\nwho were burning them, by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would\ncommend these letters to Judge Comegys and the members of the grand\njury.\n\nI want it distinctly understood that I have nothing against Judge\nComegys or the grand jury. They act as 'most anybody would, raised in\nDelaware, in the shadow of the whipping-post and the pillory. We\nmust remember that Delaware was a slave State; that the Bible\nbecame extremely dear to the people because it upheld that peculiar\ninstitution. We must remember that the Bible was the block on which\nmother and child stood for sale when they were separated by the\nChristians of Delaware. The Bible was regarded as the title-pages to\nslavery, and as the book of all books that gave the right to masters to\nwhip mothers and to sell children.\n\nThere are many offences now for which the punishment is whipping and\nstanding in the pillory; where persons are convicted of certain crimes\nand sent to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from the\npenitentiary are furnished by the State with a dark jacket plainly\nmarked on the back with a large Roman \"C,\" the letter to be of a light\ncolor. This they are to wear for six months after being discharged,\nand if they are found at any time without the dark jacket and the\nilluminated \"C\" they are to be punished with twenty lashes upon the bare\nback. The object, I presume, of this law, is to drive from the State all\nthe discharged convicts for the benefit of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and\nMaryland--that is to say, other Christian communities. A cruel people\nmake cruel laws.\n\nThe objection I have to the whipping-post is that it is a punishment\nwhich cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. The person who administers the\npunishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded as the person who\nreceives it. I am opposed to any kind of punishment that cannot be\nadministered by a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment\neverywhere. It should be taken from the asylums and penitentiaries, and\nany man who would apply the lash to the naked back of another is beneath\nthe contempt of honest people.\n\n_Question_. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has introduced in the New\nYork Legislature a bill providing for whipping as a punishment for\nwife-beating?\n\n_Answer._ The objection I have mentioned is fatal to Mr. Bergh's bill.\nHe will be able to get persons to beat wife-beaters, who, under the\nsame circumstances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they are not\nwife-beaters when they commence the business of beating others, they\nsoon will be. I think that wife-beating in great cities could be stopped\nby putting all the wife-beaters at work at some government employment,\nthe value of the work, however, to go to the wives and children. The\ntrouble now is that most of the wife-beating is among the extremely\npoor, so that the wife by informing against her husband, takes the last\ncrust out of her own mouth. If you substitute whipping or flogging for\nthe prison here, you will in the first place prevent thousands of wives\nfrom informing, and in many cases, where the wife would inform, she\nwould afterward be murdered by the flogged brute. This brute would\nnaturally resort to the same means to reform his wife that the State\nhad resorted to for the purpose of reforming him. Flogging would beget\nflogging. Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness of heart. When he reads\nthat a wife has been beaten, he says the husband deserves to be beaten\nhimself. But if Mr. Bergh was to be the executioner, I imagine you could\nnot prove by the back of the man that the punishment had been inflicted.\n\nAnother good remedy for wife-beating is the abolition of the Catholic\nChurch. We should also do away with the idea that a marriage is a\nsacrament, and that there is any God who is rendered happy by seeing a\nhusband and wife live together, although the husband gets most of his\nearthly enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman should live with\na man a moment after he has struck her. Just as the idea of liberty\nenlarges, confidence in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will\ndiminish. Delaware occupies toward freethinkers precisely the same\nposition that a wife-beater does toward the wife. Delaware knows that\nthere are no reasons sufficient to uphold Christianity, consequently\nthese reasons are supplemented with the pillory and the whipping-post.\nThe whipping-post is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory\nis a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills heaven with a kind\nof holy and serene delight. I am opposed to the religion of brute force,\nbut all these frightful things have grown principally out of a belief in\neternal punishment and out of the further idea that a certain belief is\nnecessary to avoid eternal pain.\n\nIf Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If God will damn every body\nforever simply for being intellectually honest, surely he ought to\nallow the good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentleman for two\nmonths. Of course there are thousands and thousands of good people in\nDelaware, people who have been in other States, people who have listened\nto Republican speeches, people who have read the works of scientists,\nwho hold the laws of 1740 in utter abhorrence; people who pity Judge\nComegys and who have a kind of sympathy for the grand jury.\n\nYou will see that at the last election Delaware lacked only six or seven\nhundred of being a civilized State, and probably in 1884 will stand\nredeemed and regenerated, with the laws of 1740 expunged from the\nstatute book. Delaware has not had the best of opportunities. You must\nremember that it is next to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle\nin the path of progress. It is just beyond Maryland, which is another\nobstacle. I heard the other day that God originally made oysters with\nlegs, and afterward took them off, knowing that the people of Delaware\nwould starve to death before they would run to catch anything. Judge\nComegys is the last judge who will make such a charge in the United\nStates. He has immortalized himself as the last mile-stone on that road.\nHe is the last of his race. No more can be born. Outside of this he\nprobably was a very clever man, and it may be, he does not believe\na word he utters. The probability is that he has underestimated the\nintelligence of the people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that he is\nentirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate him intellectually,\nand overestimate him morally. Nothing could tempt me to do this man\ninjustice, though I could hardly add to the injury he has done himself.\nHe has called attention to laws that ought to be repealed, and to\nlectures that ought to be repeated. I feel in my heart that he has done\nme a great service, second only to that for which I am indebted to the\ngrand jury. Had the Judge known me personally he probably would have\nsaid nothing. Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in his State\nand sentenced to two months of solitary confinement, the Judge having\nbecome acquainted with me during the trial, would probably insist on\nspending most of his time in my cell. At the end of the two months he\nwould, I think, lay himself liable to the charge of blasphemy, providing\nhe had honor enough to express his honest thought. After all, it is\nall a question of honesty. Every man is right. I cannot convince myself\nthere is any God who will ever damn a man for having been honest. This\ngives me a certain hope for the Judge and the grand jury.\n\nFor two or three days I have been thinking what joy there must have been\nin heaven when Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and remarked\nto the angels in the language of the late Adjt. Gen. Thomas: \"The eyes\nof all Delaware are upon you.\"\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.\n\n\n     * Col. Ingersoll filled McVickor's Theatre again yesterday\n     afternoon, when he answered the question \"What Must We Do to\n     Be Saved?\" But before doing so he replied to the recent\n     criticisms of city clergymen on his \"Talmagian Theology\"--\n     Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882.\n\n_Ladies and Gentlemen_:\n\nWHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some ministers think it their duty to\nreply for the purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that I am\nblasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing has always been considered\nby theologians as a crime. Ministers have always said you will have no\nrespect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solemnity is a condition\nprecedent to believing anything without evidence. And if you can only\nget a man solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe anything.\n\nIn this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few remarks, and I may say\nby way of preface that I have always held him in the highest esteem. He\nstruggles, according to his statement, with the problem of my sincerity,\nand he about half concludes that I am not sincere. There is a little\nof the minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always account for a\ndifference of opinion by attacking the motive. Now, to him, it makes no\ndifference whether I am sincere or insincere; the question is, Can my\nargument be answered? Suppose you could prove that the maker of the\nmultiplication table held mathematics in contempt; what of it? Ten times\nten would be a hundred still.\n\nMy sincerity has nothing to do with the force of the argument--not the\nslightest. But this gentleman begins to suspect that I am doing what\nI do for the sake of applause. What a commentary on the Christian\nreligion, that, after they have been preaching it for sixteen or\neighteen hundred years, a man attacks it for the sake of popularity--a\nman attacks it for the purpose of winning applause! When I commenced to\nspeak upon this subject there was no appreciable applause; most of my\nfellow-citizens differed with me; and I was denounced as though I had\nbeen a wild beast. But I have lived to see the majority of the men and\nwomen of intellect in the United States on my side; I have lived to see\nthe church deny her creed; I have lived to see ministers apologize in\npublic for what they preached; and a great and glorious work is going\non until, in a little while, you will not find one of them, unless it\nis some old petrifaction of the red-stone period, who will admit that\nhe ever believed in the Trinity, in the Atonement, or in the doctrine of\nEternal Agony. The religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy the\nintellect of America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes to know why people go\nto hear infidelity it is this: Because they are not satisfied with the\northodox Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They are beginning\nto hold it in contempt.\n\nBut this gentleman imagines that I am insincere because I attacked\ncertain doctrines of the Bible. I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain.\nI hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in\nthis universe who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who\ndenies to any human being the right of reformation, then that God is not\ngood, that God is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I\ndespise that doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that\nhorror from the cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that\nhorror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers,\nand sisters. It is a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of\nlife and all the hopes of mankind. I despise it.\n\nAnd the gentleman also charges that I am wanting in reverence. I admit\nhere to-day that I have no reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how\nold it is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men were inspired\nor not. I have no reverence for what I believe to be false, and in\ndetermining what is false I go by my reason. And whenever another man\ngives me an argument I examine it. If it is good I follow it. If it is\nbad I throw it away. I have no reverence for any book that upholds human\nslavery. I despise such a book. I have no reverence for any book that\nupholds or palliates the infamous institution of polygamy. I have no\nreverence for any book that tells a husband to kill his wife if she\ndiffers with him upon the subject of religion. I have no reverence for\nany book that defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have\nno reverence for a God that orders his legions to slay the old and\nhelpless, and to whet the edge of the sword with the blood of mothers\nand babes. I have no reverence for such a book; neither have I any\nreverence for the author of that book. No matter whether he be God or\nman, I have no reverence. I have no reverence for the miracles of the\nBible. I have no reverence for the story that God allowed bears to tear\nchildren in pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but I have\nreverence for the truth, for justice, for charity, for humanity, for\nintellectual liberty, and for human progress.\n\nI have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it. I have\nnever met any minister that I thought had brain enough to think for\nhimself and for me too. I do my own. I have no reverence for barbarism,\nno matter how ancient it may be, and no reverence for the savagery of\nthe Old Testament; no reverence for the malice of the New. And let me\ntell you here to-night that the Old Testament is a thousand times better\nthan the New. The Old Testament threatened no vengeance beyond the\ngrave. God was satisfied when his enemy was? dead. It was reserved for\nthe New Testament--it was reserved for universal benevolence--to rend\nthe veil between time and eternity and fix the horrified gaze of man\nupon the abyss of hell. The New Testament is just as much worse than the\nOld, as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the fashion to say that\nthe Old Testament is bad and that the New Testament is good. I have no\nreverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my reason;\nno reverence for any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my heart;\nand, no matter how old it is, no matter how many have believed it, no\nmatter how many have died on account of it, no matter how many live for\nit, I have no reverence for that book, and I am glad of it.\n\nDr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach these things with\ninfinite care, that I should not attack slavery, or polygamy,\nor religious persecution, but that I should \"mildly\nsuggest\"--mildly,--should not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to\nchurch the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When I meet one I tell\nhim, \"There is no hell,\" and he says: \"What do you want to hurt our\nfeelings for?\" He wishes me mildly to suggest that the sun and moon did\nnot stop, that may be the bears only frightened the children, and that,\nafter all, Lot's wife was only scared. Why, there was a minister in this\ncity of Chicago who imagined that his congregation were progressive,\nand, in his pulpit, he said that he did not believe the story of Lot's\nwife--said that he did not think that any sensible man would believe\nthat a woman was changed into salt; and they tried him, and the\ncongregation thought he was entirely too fresh. And finally he went\nbefore that church and admitted that he was mistaken, and owned up to\nthe chloride of sodium, and said: \"I not only take the Bible _cum grano\nsalis_, but with a whole barrelful.\"\n\nMy doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say so, say so; no need\nof going away around the bush and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly,\nperadventure. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.\n\nI am also charged with making an onslaught upon the good as well as the\nbad. I say here today that never in my life have I said one word against\nhonesty, one word against liberty, one word against charity, one word\nagainst any institution that is good. I attack the bad, not the good,\nand I would like to have some minister point out in some lecture or\nspeech that I have delivered, one word against the good, against the\nhighest happiness of the human race.\n\nI have said all I was able to say in favor of justice, in favor of\nliberty, in favor of home, in favor of wife and children, in favor of\nprogress, and in favor of universal kindness; but not one word in favor\nof the bad, and I never expect to.\n\nDr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the brain thinks in spite of\nus.\n\nDoesn't it? Can any man tell what he is going to think to-morrow? You\nsee, you hear, you taste, you feel, you smell--these are the avenues by\nwhich Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of this is thought,\nand you cannot by any possibility help thinking.\n\nNeither can you determine what you will think. These impressions are\nmade independently of your will. \"But,\" says this reverend doctor,\n\"Whence comes this conception of space?\" I can tell him. There is such\na thing as matter. We conceive that matter occupies room--space--and,\nin our minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And it comes\nnaturally--not supernaturally.\n\nDoes the gentleman contend there had to be a revelation of God for us to\nconceive of a place where there is nothing? We know there is something.\nWe can think of the opposite of something, and therefore we say space.\n\"But,\" says this gentleman, \"Where do we get the idea of good and bad?\"\nI can tell him; no trouble about that. Every man has the capacity to\nenjoy and the capacity to suffer--every man. Whenever a man enjoys\nhimself he calls that good; whenever he suffers he calls that bad.\nThe animals that are useful to him he calls good; the poisonous, the\nhurtful, he calls bad. The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls\ngood; those that are of no use except to choke the growth of the good\nones, he calls bad. When the sun shines, when everything in nature is\nout that ministers to him, he says \"this is good;\" when the storm comes\nand blows down his hut, when the frost comes and lays down his crop,\nhe says \"this is bad.\" And all phenomena that affect men well he calls\ngood; all that affect him ill he calls bad.\n\nNow, then, the foundation of the idea of right and wrong is the effect\nin nature that we are capable of enjoying or capable of suffering. That\nis the foundation of conscience; and if man could not suffer, if man\ncould not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the word conscience; and\nthe words right and wrong never could have passed human lips. There are\nno supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experience--some of them\nfrom our forefathers, many from experience. A man works--food does not\ncome of itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has worked in\nthe sun and heat, do you think it is necessary that he should have a\nrevelation from heaven before he thinks that he has a better right to it\nthan the man who did not work? And yet, according to these gentlemen,\nwe never would have known it was wrong to steal had not the Ten\nCommandments been given from Mount Sinai.\n\nYou go into a savage country where they never heard of the Bible, and\nlet a man hunt all day for game, and finally get one little bird, and\nthe hungry man that staid at home endeavor to take it from him, and you\nwould see whether he would need a direct revelation from God in order\nto make up his mind who had the better right to that bird. Our ideas of\nright and wrong are born of our surroundings, and if a man will think\nfor a moment he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks in spite\nof us. I heard a story of a man who said, \"No man can think of one thing\na minute, he will think of something else.\" Well, there was a little\nMethodist preacher. He said he could think of a thing a minute--that he\ncould say the Lord's Prayer and never think of another thing. \"Well,\"\nsaid the man, \"I'll tell you what I will do. There is the best\nroad-horse in the country. I will give you that horse if you will just\nsay the Lord's Prayer, and not think of another thing.\" And the little\nfellow shut up his eyes: \"Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be\nthy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done--I suppose you will throw\nin the saddle and bridle?\"\n\nI have always insisted, and I shall always insist, until I find some\nfact in Nature correcting the statement, that Nature sows the seeds of\nthought--that every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are sown,\nand that some are very poor, and some are very barren, and some are very\nrich. That is my opinion.\n\nAgain he asks: \"If one is not responsible for his thought, why is any\none blamed for thinking as he does?\" It is not a question of blame, it\nis a question of who is right--a question of who is wrong. Admit that\nevery one thinks exactly as he must, that does not show that his thought\nis right; that does not show that his thought is the highest thought.\nAdmit that every piece of land in the world produces what it must; that\ndoes not prove that the land covered with barren rocks and a little moss\nis just as good as the land covered with wheat or corn; neither does it\nprove that the mind has to act as the wheat or the corn; neither does it\nprove that the land had any choice as to what it would produce. I hold\nmen responsible not for their thoughts; I hold men responsible for their\nactions. And I have said a thousand times: Physical liberty is this--the\nright to do anything that does not interfere with another--in other\nwords, to act right; and intellectual liberty is this--the right to\nthink right, and the right to think wrong, provided you do your best to\nthink right. I have always said it, and I expect to say it always.\n\nThe reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the gradual theory. I\nbelieve in that theory.\n\nIf you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave out the direct\ninterference of an infinite God, the gradual theory is right. It is a\ntheory of evolution.\n\nI admit that astronomy has been born of astrology, that chemistry came\nfrom the black art; and I also contend that religion will be lost in\nscience. I believe in evolution. I believe in the budding of the seed,\nthe shining of the sun, the dropping of the rain; I believe in the\nspreading and the growing; and that is as true in every other department\nof the world as it is in vegetation. I believe it; but that does not\naccount for the Bible doctrine. We are told we have a book absolutely\ninspired, and it will not do to say God gradually grows. If he is\ninfinite now, he knows as much as he ever will. If he has been always\ninfinite, he knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible as he knows\nto-day; and, consequently, whatever he said then must be as true now\nas it was then. You see they mix up now a little bit of philosophy with\nreligion--a little bit of science with the shreds and patches of the\nsupernatural.\n\nHear this: I said in my lecture the other day that all the clergymen in\nthe world could not get one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it.\nAll the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of rain. I also said\nall the clergymen of the world could not save one human life. They tried\nit last year. They tried it in the United States. The Christian world\nupon its knees implored God to save one life, and the man died. The man\ndied! Had the man recovered the whole church would have claimed that it\nwas in answer to prayer. The man having died, what does the church say\nnow? What is the answer to this? The Rev. Dr. Thomas says: \"There is\nprayer and there is rain.\" Good. \"Can he that is himself or any one else\nsay there is no possible relation between one and the other?\" I do. Let\nus put it another way. There is rain and there is infidelity; can any\none say there is no possible relation between the two? How does Dr.\nThomas know that he is not indebted to me for this year's crops? And yet\nthis gentleman really throws out the idea that there is some possible\nrelation between prayer and rain, between rain and health; and he tells\nus that he would have died twenty-five years ago had it not been for\nprayer. I doubt it. Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon certain\nfacts--not upon prayer. All the prayer in the world cannot take the\nplace of the circulation of the blood. All the prayer in the world is\nno substitute for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot take the\nplace of food; and whenever a man lives by prayer you will find that he\neats considerable besides. It will not do. Again: This reverend Doctor\nsays: \"Shall we say that all the love of the unseen world\"--how does he\nknow there is any love in the unseen world? \"and the love of God\"--how\ndoes he know there is any love in God? \"heed not the cries and tears of\nearth?\"\n\nI do not know; but let the gentleman read the history of religious\npersecution. Let him read the history of those who were put in dungeons,\nof those who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled prayer with\nthe clank of fetters; men that were in the dungeons simply for loving\nthis God, simply for worshiping this God. And what did God do? Nothing.\nThe chains remained upon the limbs of his worshipers. They remained in\nthe dungeons built by theology, by malice, and hatred; and what did God\ndo? Nothing. Thousands of men were taken from their homes, fagots were\npiled around their bodies; they were consumed to ashes, and what did\nGod do? Nothing. The sword of extermination was unsheathed, hundreds and\nthousands of men, women and children perished. Women lifted their hands\nto God and implored him to protect their children, their daughters; and\nwhat did God do?\n\nNothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the cruel lash was put upon the\nnaked back of toil. What did God do? Nothing. Children were sold from\nthe arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities of life were trodden\nbeneath the brutal foot of creed; and what did God do? Nothing. Human\nbeings, his children, were tracked through swamps by bloodhounds; and\nwhat did God do? Nothing. Wild storms sweep over the earth and the\nshipwrecked go down in the billows; and what does God do? Nothing. There\ncome plague and pestilence and famine. What does God do? Thousands\nand thousands perish. Little children die upon the withered breasts of\nmothers; and what does God do? Nothing.\n\nWhat evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and tears of man have ever\ntouched the heart of God? Let us be honest. I appeal to the history\nof the world; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony, and\nimprisonment, and death of hundreds and millions of the bravest and\nbest. Have they ever touched the heart of the Infinite? Has the hand of\nhelp ever been reached from heaven? I do not know; but I do not believe\nit.\n\nDr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity. What right has he\nto tell what is orthodox Christianity? He is a heretic. He had too much\nbrain to remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt--and a doubt is\nborn of an idea. And his doctrine has been declared by his own church\nto be unorthodox. They have passed on his case and they have found him\nunconstitutional. What right has he to state what is orthodox? And here\nis what he says: \"Christianity\"--orthodox Christianity I suppose\nhe means--\"teaches, concerning the future world, that rewards and\npunishments are carried over from time to eternity; that the principles\nof the government of God are the same there as here; that character, and\nnot profession determines destiny; and that Humboldt, and Dickens, and\nall others who have gone and shall go to that world shall receive their\njust rewards; that souls will always be in the place in which for the\ntime, be it now or a million years hence, they are fitted. That is what\nChristianity teaches.\"\n\nIf it does, never will I have another word to say against Christianity.\nIt never has taught it. Christianity--orthodox Christianity--teaches\nthat when you draw your last breath you have lost the last opportunity\nfor reformation. Christianity teaches that this little world is the\neternal line between time and eternity, and if you do not get religion\nin this life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That is\nChristianity. They say: \"Now is the accepted time.\" If you put it off\nuntil you die, that is too late; and the doctrine of the Christian world\nis that there is no opportunity for reformation in another world. The\ndoctrine of orthodox Christianity is that you must believe on the Lord\nJesus Christ here in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in\nthe next world. You must believe on him here and that if you fail here,\nGod in his infinite wisdom will never give you another chance. That\nis orthodox Christianity; and according to orthodox Christianity, the\ngreatest, the best and the sublimest of the world are now in hell. And\nwhy is it that they say it is not orthodox Christianity? I have made\nthem ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to their attention the\nfact that such men as Darwin, such men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow,\nLaplace, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in hell, it struck them all at\nonce that the company in heaven would not be very interesting with such\nmen left out.\n\nAnd now they begin to say: \"We think the Lord will give those men\nanother chance.\" I have succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine\nexpectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny their creeds; I have\nmade them ashamed of their doctrine--and that is glory enough. They will\nlet me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that the doctrine that\nGod will treat us as we treat others--I admit that is taught by Matthew,\nMark, and Luke; but it is not taught by the Orthodox church. I want that\nunderstood. I admit also that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he\nwas driven out of the church because he thought God too good to damn\nmen forever without giving them the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic\nChurch is a thousand times better than your Protestant Church upon that\nquestion. The Catholic Church believes in purgatory--that is, a place\nwhere a fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new trial.\n\nDr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you think. Tell\nyour congregation whether you believe the Bible was written by divine\ninspiration. Have the courage and the grandeur to tell your people\nwhether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.\n\nDo not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people whether God ever upheld\npolygamy. Do not shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor of\nreligious persecution. Stand right to it. Then tell your people whether\nyou honestly believe that a good man can suffer for a bad one and the\nbad one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what you really think\nand there will not be as much difference between you and myself as you\nimagine.\n\nThe next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr. Lorimer. He comes to the\nrescue, and I have an idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he\nis a Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a choice as to the\nmanner in which a man or babe shall be dampened. This gentleman\nregards modern infidelity as \"pitifully shallow\" as to its intellectual\nconceptions and as to its philosophical views of the universe and of\nthe problems regarding man's place in it and of his destiny. \"Pitifully\nshallow!\"\n\nWhat is the modern conception of the universe? The modern conception\nis that the universe always has been and forever will be. The modern\nconception of the universe is that it embraces within its infinite arms\nall matter, all spirit, all forms of force, all that is, all that has\nbeen, all that can be. That is the modern conception of this universe.\nAnd this is called \"pitiful.\"\n\nWhat is the Christian conception? It is that all the matter in the\nuniverse is dead, inert, and that back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who\nmade it, and who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this world.\nAnd they even go so far as to say that that Being made experiments in\nwhich he signally failed. That Being made man and woman and put them in\na garden and allowed them to become totally depraved. That Being of\ninfinite wisdom made hundreds and millions of people when he knew he\nwould have to drown them. That Being peopled a planet like this with\nmen, women and children, knowing that he would have to consign most of\nthem to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the universe. That\nis an infamous conception of the universe. Give me rather the conception\nof Spinoza, the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley, of Tyndall\nand of every other man who has thought. I love to think of the whole\nuniverse together as one eternal fact. I love to think that everything\nis alive; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy. I love to\nthink that when a bud bursts into blossom it feels a thrill. I love to\nhave the universe full of feeling and full of joy, and not full of\nsimple dead, inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all eternity.\n\nAnother thing to which this gentleman objects is that I propose\nto banish such awful thoughts as the mystery of our origin and our\nrelations to the present and to the possible future from human thought.\n\nI have never said so. Never. I have said, One world at a time. Why? Do\nnot make yourself miserable about another. Why? Because I do not know\nanything about it, and it may be good. So do not worry. That is all. Y\nor do not know where you are going to land. It may be the happy port of\nheaven. Wait until you get there. It will be time enough to make trouble\nthen. This is what I have said. I have said that the golden bridge of\nlife from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I do not know. I admit it.\nLife is a shadowy strange and winding road on which we travel for a few\nshort steps, just a little way from the cradle with its lullaby of love,\nto the low and quiet wayside inn where all at last must sleep, and where\nthe only salutation is \"Good-Night!\" Whether there is a good morning I\ndo not know, but I am willing to wait.\n\nLet us think these high and splendid thoughts. Let us build palaces for\nthe future, but do not let us spend time making dungeons for men who\nhappen to differ from us. I am willing to take the conceptions of\nHumboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and Spinoza, and I am willing to compare\ntheir splendid conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the Baptist\ncreed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a variety of questions, and he\ntells me that, \"No one has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and\nDarwin are castaways!\" Why not? They were not Christians. They did\nnot believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the\ninspiration of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion be true, they\nare castaways. But he says: \"No one has the right to say that orthodoxy\ncondemns to perdition any man who has struggled toward the right, and\nwho has tried to bless the earth he is raised on.\" That is what I say,\nbut that is not what orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man\nin the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of God, or in the\ndivinity of Christ, will be eternally lost. Does it not say it? Is there\nan orthodox minister in this town now who will stand up and say that an\nhonest atheist can be saved? He will not. Let any preacher say it, and\nhe will be tried for heresy.\n\nI will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes to the day of judgment,\nand they cross-examine him, and they say to him:\n\n\"Did you believe the Bible?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"Did you belong to the church?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"Did you take care of your wife and children?\"\n\n\"Yes?\"\n\n\"Pay your debts?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Love your country?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Love the whole world?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"Never made anybody unhappy?\"\n\n\"Not that I know of. If there is any man or woman that I ever wronged\nlet them stand up and say so. That is the kind of man I am; but,\" said\nhe, \"I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe in the divinity\nof Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the truth, I did not believe in the\nexistence of God. I now find I was mistaken; but that was my doctrine.\"\nNow, I want to know what, according to the orthodox church, is done with\nthat man?\n\nHe is sent to hell.\n\nThat is their doctrine.\n\nThen the next fellow comes. He says:\n\n\"Where did you come from?\"\n\nAnd he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on one side and he says:\n\n\"I came from the gallows. I was just hung.\"\n\n\"What were you hung for?\"\n\n\"Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian either, she got left. The day\nI was hung I was washed in the blood of the Lamb.\"\n\nThat is Christianity. And they say to him: \"Come in! Let the band play!\"\n\nThat is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is hanged--there is a\nminister there, and the minister tells him he is all right. All he has\nto do is just to believe on the Lord.\n\nAnother objection this gentleman has, and that is that I am scurrilous.\nScurrilous! And the gentleman, in order to show that he is not\nscurrilous, calls infidels, \"donkeys, serpents, buzzards.\" That is\nsimply to show that he is not scurrilous.\n\nDr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind thinks independently of\nthe will; and I propose to prove by him that it does. He is the last\nman in the world to controvert that doctrine--the last man. In spite of\nhimself his mind absorbed the sermon of another man, and he repeated it\nas his own. I am satisfied he is an honest man; consequently his mind\nacted independently of his will, and he furnishes the strongest evidence\nin favor of my position that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely\nobliged to him for the testimony he has unconsciously offered.\n\nHe also takes the ground that infidelity debases a man and renders him\nunfit for the discharge of the highest duties pertaining to life, and\nthat we show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor to overthrow\nCalvinism. What is Calvinism? It is the doctrine that an infinite God\nmade millions of people, knowing that they would be damned. I have\nanswered that a thousand times. I answer it again. No God has a right to\nmake a mistake, and then damn the mistake. No God has a right to make\na failure, and a man who is to be eternally damned is not a conspicuous\nsuccess. No God has a right to make an investment that will not finally\npay a dividend.\n\nThe world is getting better, and the ministers, all your life and all\nmine, have been crying out from the pulpit that we are all going wrong,\nthat immorality was stalking through the land, that crime was about to\nengulf the world, and yet, in spite of all their prophecies, the world\nhas steadily grown better, and there is more justice, more charity, more\nkindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the world to-day than\never before. And there is more infidelity in the world to-day than ever\nbefore.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.\n\n\n     * The attention of the Morning Advertiser readers was, in the\n     issue of February 27th, called to two sets of facts\n     transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the\n     starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had\n     struck because they could not live on reduced wages.\n     Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the number, seeing\n     starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up\n     the fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle\n     for higher wages\n\n     While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of\n     destitution, millionaires were engaged in subscribing to a\n     fund \"for the extension of the church.\" The extension\n     committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with\n     such signal success as to cause comment throughout the city.\n     The host subscribed ten thousand dollars, his daughter\n     twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging\n     between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning\n     Advertiser made inquiry as to whether any of the money\n     contributed for the extension of the church would find its\n     way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.\n\n     Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the\n     matter of aiding the needy poor, as there were so many other\n     things that demanded his immediate attention.\n\n     Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension\n     Committee, was seen at his office in the North American\n     Bank, of which institution he is President.\n\n     He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their\n     trouble upon themselves, and it was not the duty of the\n     charitable to extend to them direct aid.\n\n     Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor\n     and needy of the city, save in the way employed by the\n     church.\n\n     \"The experience of centuries, said he, \"teaches us that the\n     giving of alms to the poor only encourage them in their\n     idleness and their crimes. The duty of the church is to save\n     men's a souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.\n\n     \"It is best to teach people to rely upon their own\n     resources. If the poor felt that they could get material\n     help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or\n     woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my\n     typewriter. She was brought up in a tenement house. Now she\n     gets two dollars a day, and dresses better than did the\n     lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where\n     people are poor, it's their own fault.\n\n     \"After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of\n     material things--it is the soul that makes life worth\n     living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see\n     this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have\n     been working all day, singing hymns and following the leader\n     in prayer.\"\n\n     Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who\n     need material help?\" was asked.\n\n     \"No, sir; I do not,\" said Mr. Van Norden. \"If a man or woman\n     wants money, they should work for It.\"\n\n     \"But is employment always to be had?\"\n\n     \"I think it is by Americans. You'll find that most of the\n     people out of work are those who are not adapted to the\n     conditions of this country.\n\nColonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such\nphilosophy.--New York Morning Advertiser, March 10,1892.\n\n_Question_. Have you read the article in the Morning Advertiser entitled\n\"Workers Starving\"?\n\n_Answer._ I have read it, and was greatly surprised at the answers made\nto the reporter of the Advertiser.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the remarks of the Rev. John Hall and\nby Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the \"Church Extension Committee\"?\n\n_Answer._ My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have answered under some\nirritation, or that the reporter did not happen to take down all he\nsaid. It hardly seems probable that Dr. Hall should have said that he\nhad no time to discuss the matter of aiding the needy poor, giving as a\nreason that there were so many other things that demanded his immediate\nattention. The church is always insisting that it is, above all things,\na charitable institution; that it collects and distributes many millions\nevery year for the relief of the needy, and it is always quoting: \"Sell\nthat thou hast and give to the poor.\" It is hard to imagine anything of\nmore importance than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppressed.\nOf course, I know that the church itself produces nothing, and that it\nlives on contributions; but its claim is that it receives from those who\nare able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent need.\n\nI have sometimes thought, that the most uncharitable thing in the\nworld is an organized charity. It seems to have the peculiarities of a\ncorporation, and becomes as soulless as its kindred. To use a very old\nphrase, it generally acts like \"a beggar on horseback.\"\n\nProbably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for the poor, and I\nimagine that he must have been irritated or annoyed when he made the\nanswer attributed to him in the _Advertiser_. The good Samaritan may\nhave been in a hurry, but he said nothing about it. The Levites\nthat passed by on the other side seemed to have had other business.\nUnderstand me, I am saying nothing against Dr. Hall, but it does seem\nto me that there are few other matters more important than assisting our\nneedy fellow-men.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Warner Van Norden's sentiments as\nexpressed to the reporter?\n\n_Answer._ In the first place, I think he is entirely mistaken. I do not\nthink the cloakmakers brought their trouble upon themselves. The wages\nthey receive were and are insufficient to support reasonable human\nbeings. They work for almost nothing, and it is hard for me to\nunderstand why they live at all, when life is so expensive and death so\ncheap. All they can possibly do is to earn enough one day to buy food\nto enable them to work the next. Life with them is a perpetual struggle.\nThey live on the edge of death. Under their feet they must feel the side\nof the grave crumbling, and thus they go through, day by day, month by\nmonth, year by year. They are, I presume, sustained by a hope that is\nnever realized.\n\nMr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of helping the poor and\nneedy of the city, save in the way employed by the church, and that the\nexperience of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms to the poor\nonly encourages them in their idleness and their crimes.\n\nIs Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground that when Christ said: \"Sell\nthat thou hast and give to the poor,\" he intended to encourage idleness\nand crime?\n\nIs it possible that when it was said, \"It is better to give than to\nreceive,\" the real meaning was, It is better to encourage idleness and\ncrime than to receive assistance?\n\nFor instance, a man falls into the water. Why should one standing on the\nshore attempt to rescue him? Could he not properly say: \"If all who fall\ninto the water are rescued, it will only encourage people to fall into\nthe water; it will make sailors careless, and persons who stand on\nwharves, will care very little whether they fall in or not. Therefore,\nin order to make people careful who have not fallen into the water,\nlet those in the water drown.\" In other words, why should anybody\nbe assisted, if assistance encourages carelessness, or idleness, or\nnegligence?\n\nAccording to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of place in this world,\nkindness is a mistake, and hospitality springs from a lack of\nphilosophy. In other words, all should take the consequences of their\nacts, not only, but the consequences of the acts of others.\n\nIf I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still insist that men\nshould be charitable on their own account. A man without pity, no matter\nhow intelligent he may be, is at best only an intellectual beast, and\nif by withholding all assistance we could finally people the world\nwith those who are actually self-supporting, we would have a population\nwithout sympathy, without charity--that is to say, without goodness. In\nmy judgment, it would be far better that none should exist.\n\nMr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty of the church is to save\nmen's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally. I think that\nconditions have a vast deal to do with morality and goodness. If you\nwish to change the conduct of your fellow-men, the first thing to do is\nto change their conditions, their surroundings; in other words, to help\nthem to help themselves--help them to get away from bad influences, away\nfrom the darkness of ignorance, away from the temptations of poverty and\nwant, not only into the light intellectually, but into the climate of\nprosperity. It is useless to give a hungry man a religious tract, and it\nis almost useless to preach morality to those who are so situated that\nthe necessity of the present, the hunger of the moment, overrides every\nother consideration. There is a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a\ngood deal of persuasion in necessity.\n\nProsperity is apt to make men selfish. They imagine that because they\nhave succeeded, others and all others, might or may succeed. If any man\nwill go over his own life honestly, he will find that he has not always\nsucceeded because he was good, or that he has always failed because\nhe was bad. He will find that many things happened with which he had\nnothing to do, for his benefit, and that, after all is said and done, he\ncannot account for all of his successes by his absolute goodness. So,\nif a man will think of all the bad things he has done--of all the bad\nthings he wanted to do--of all the bad things he would have done had he\nhad the chance, and had he known that detection was impossible, he will\nfind but little foundation for egotism.\n\n_Question_. What do you say to this language of Mr. Van Norden. \"It is\nbest to teach people to rely upon their own resources. If the poor felt\nthat they could get material help they would want it always, and in this\nday, if a man and woman cannot get along, it is their own fault\"?\n\n_Answer._ All I can say is that I do not agree with him. Often there are\nmany more men in a certain trade than there is work for such men. Often\ngreat factories shut down, leaving many thousands out of employment. You\nmay say that it was the fault of these men that they learned that trade;\nthat they might have known it would be overcrowded; so you may say it\nwas the fault of the capitalist to start a factory in that particular\nline, because he should have known that it was to be overdone.\n\nAs no man can look very far into the future, the truth is it was\nnobody's fault, and without fault thousands and thousands are thrown out\nof employment. Competition is so sharp, wages are so small, that to be\nout of employment for a few weeks means want. You cannot say that this\nis the fault of the man who wants bread. He certainly did not wish to go\nhungry; neither did he deliberately plan a failure. He did the best he\ncould. There are plenty of bankers who fail in business, not because\nthey wish to fail; so there are plenty of professional men who cannot\nmake a living, yet it may not be their fault; and there are others who\nget rich, and it may not be by reason of their virtues.\n\nWithout doubt, there are many people in the city of New York who\ncannot make a living. Competition is too sharp; life is too complex;\nconsequently the percentage of failures is large. In savage life there\nare few failures, but in civilized life there are many. There are many\nthousands out of work and out of food in Berlin to-day. It can hardly be\nsaid to be their fault. So there are many thousands in London, and every\nother great city of the world. You cannot account for all this want by\nsaying that the people who want are entirely to blame.\n\nA man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough to think that his\nwealth was the result of his own unaided efforts; and he is sometimes\nheartless enough to say that others should get rich by following his\nexample.\n\nMr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter who gets two dollars a\nday, and that she dresses better than the lords and ladies did of olden\ntimes. He must refer to the times of the Garden of Eden. Out of two\ndollars a day one must live, and there is very little left for gorgeous\nrobes. I hardly think a lady is to be envied because she receives two\ndollars a day, and the probability is that the manner in which she\ndresses on that sum--having first deducted the expenses of living--is\nnot calculated to excite envy.\n\nThe philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to be concentrated into this\nline: \"Where people are poor it is their own fault.\" Of course this is\nthe death of all charity.\n\nWe are then informed by this gentleman that \"happiness does not lie in\nthe enjoyment of material things--that it is the soul that makes life\nworth living.\"\n\nIs it the soul without pity that makes life worth living? Is it the soul\nin which the blossom of charity has never shed its perfume that makes\nlife so desirable? Is it the soul, having all material things, wrapped\nin the robes of prosperity, and that says to all the poor: It is your\nown fault; die of hunger if you must--that makes life worth living?\n\nIt may be asked whether it is worth while for such a soul to live.\n\nIf this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I do not wish to visit his\nworking girls' club, or to \"hear girls who have been working all day\nsinging hymns and following the leader in prayer.\" Why should a soul\nwithout pity pray? Why should any one ask God to be merciful to the poor\nif he is not merciful himself? For my own part, I would rather see\npoor people eat than to hear them pray. I would rather see them clothed\ncomfortably than to see them shivering, and at the same time hear them\nsing hymns.\n\nIt does not seem possible that any man can say that there are no worthy\npoor in this city who need material help. Neither does it seem possible\nthat any man can say to one who is starving that if he wants money he\nmust work for it. There are hundreds and thousands in this city willing\nto work who can find no employment. There are good and pure women\nstanding between their children and starvation, living in rooms\nworse than cells in penitentiaries--giving their own lives to their\nchildren--hundreds and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross of every\nsuffering, worthy of the reverence and love of mankind. So there are men\nwandering about these streets in search of work, willing to do anything\nto feed the ones they love.\n\nMr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I do not believe that he\nexpresses his real sentiments. But, after all, why should we expect\ncharity in a church that believes in the dogma of eternal pain? Why\ncannot the rich be happy here in their palaces, while the poor suffer\nand starve in huts, when these same rich expect to enjoy heaven forever,\nwith all the unbelievers in hell? Why should the agony of time interfere\nwith their happiness, when the agonies of eternity will not and cannot\naffect their joy? But I have nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr. Van\nNorden--only against their ideas.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.\n\n\n     * Boston, 1898.\n\n_Question_. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some attention to the\nlecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a\nreport of it, and what have you to say?\n\n_Answer._ Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. Mr. Mills. I\ndo not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr.\nPlumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with his\nreligion and some science with his superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to\nhave successfully avoided both. His manners do not appear to me to be of\nthe best. Why should he call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply\nbecause he does not happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to\nsay that this \"poor\" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven,\na majestic being--unique--peculiar--who \"trod the sea and hushed the\nstorm and raised the dead\"? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world a \"poor\"\nworld? According to his creed, it was created by infinite wisdom,\ninfinite goodness and infinite power. How dare he call the work of such\na being \"poor\"?\n\nIs it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work of the\nInfinite and say to God that he made a \"poor\" world? If I believed\nthis world had been made by an infinitely wise and good Being, I should\ncertainly insist that this is not a poor world, but, on the contrary,\na perfect world. I would insist that everything that happens is for the\nbest. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I would insist that the\nfault we thought we saw, lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and\nbenevolent Creator.\n\nDr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor mechanic\nand a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious\npreachers, takes several things for granted; things that have not been\nestablished by evidence, and things which in their nature cannot be\nestablished.\n\nHe tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty Redeemer from\nHeaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven is? Does he know\nthat any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure that an infinite God\nwould be foolish enough to make people who needed a redeemer?\n\nHe also says that this Being \"trod the sea, hushed the storm and raised\nthe dead.\" Is there any evidence that this Being trod the sea? Any more\nevidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the ocean? Any evidence\nthat he hushed the storm any more than there is that the storm comes\nfrom the cave of AEolus? Is there any evidence that he raised the dead?\nHow would it be possible to prove that the dead were raised? How\ncould we prove such a thing if it happened now? Who would believe\nthe evidence? As a matter of fact, the witnesses themselves would\nnot believe and could not believe until raising of the dead became so\ngeneral as to be regarded as natural.\n\nDr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the only\nevidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the\nstorm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows anything, that\nthese stories were not written until Christ himself had been dead for at\nleast four generations. He knows also that these accounts were written\nat a time when the belief in miracles was almost universal, and\nwhen everything that actually happened was regarded of no particular\nimportance, and only the things that did not happen were carefully\nwritten out with all the details.\n\nSo Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm \"spake as never man\nspake.\" Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who denounced human slavery\nmany years before Christ was born? Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the\ngreatest of the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha? Has he read\nthe dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna? If he has, he knows that every\ngreat and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he\nlived. Did he ever read Lao-tsze? If he did--and this man lived many\ncenturies before the coming of our Lord--he knows that Lao-tsze said \"we\nshould render benefits for injuries. We should love our enemies, and\nwe should not resist evil.\" So it will hardly do now to say that Christ\nspake as never man spake, because he repeated the very things that other\nmen had said.\n\nSo he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly groping\nSocrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius? Only a\nlittle while ago a book was published by Mr. For-long showing the origin\nof the principal religion and the creeds that have been taught. In this\nbook you will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you\nwill also find a few pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and\nafter you have read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you\nwill find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,\nwhile the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of stone or\npiles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply\na sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by feeling, but he had\nintelligence--a great brain in which burned the torch of reason. Read\nConfucius, and you will think that he must have known the sciences of\nto-day; that is to say, the conclusions that have been reached by modern\nthinkers. It could have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he\nspake as never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him\nyou will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the\nintelligence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.\n\nDr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct theology.\nWhether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I do know that I\nam not trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring to destroy it.\nI have no more confidence in theology than I have in astrology or in\nthe black art. Theology is a science that exists wholly independent of\nfacts, and that reaches conclusions without the assistance of evidence.\nIt also scorns experience and does what little it can to do away with\nthought.\n\nI make a very great distinction between theology and real religion. I\ncan conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now, here we are, men\nand women in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain senses.\nThere are things that we can ascertain, and by developing our brain we\ncan avoid mistakes, keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles\nout of our hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we\nshould use all our senses, gathering information from every possible\nquarter, and this information should be only used for the purpose of\nascertaining the facts, for finding out the conditions of well-being, to\nthe end that we may add to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.\n\nIn other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in mental\nhospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I say reason,\nI mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the flame small and\nflickering, but, after all, it is the only light I have, and never with\nmy consent shall any preacher blow it out.\n\nNow, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men of their\ngreatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why do you call\nChrist good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do you put him\nabove mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because he was just? Why\ndo you put him before justice? Suppose it should turn out that no such\nperson as Christ ever lived. What harm would that do justice or mercy?\nWouldn't the tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't justice,\nholding aloft her scales, from which she blows even the dust of\nprejudice, be as noble, as admirable as now? Is it not better to love,\njustice and mercy than to love a name, and when you put a name above\njustice, above mercy, are you sure that you are benefiting your\nfellow-men?\n\nIf Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my argument\ninstead of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness instead\nof telling the consequences that would follow from my action? We have\nnothing to do with the consequences. I said that to believe without\nevidence, or in spite of evidence, was superstition. If that definition\nis correct, Dr. Plumb is a superstitious man, because he believes at\nleast without evidence. What evidence has he that Christ was God? In\nthe nature of things, how could he have evidence? The only evidence\nhe pretends to have is the dream of Joseph, and he does not know that\nJoseph ever dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not write an account\nof his dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only hearsay for the dream, and the\ndream is the foundation of his creed.\n\nNow, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me with\nbeing a burglar--a coarse, blasphemous burglar--who wishes to rob\nsomebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesitate to tell a\nMohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He would tell a Mormon in\nUtah that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham Young was\nno better. In other words, if in Turkey, he would be a coarse and\nblasphemous burglar, and he would follow the same profession in Utah. So\nprobably he would tell the Chinese that Confucius was an ignorant\nwretch and that their religion was idiotic, and the Chinese priest would\ndenounce Dr. Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr.\nPlumb would be perfectly astonished that a priest could be so low, so\nimpudent and malicious.\n\nOf course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to it.\n\nIf Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a\nlittle and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in all\nprobability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb,\nand yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a little\nsuperstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his many virtues,\nthere may be a little righteous malice.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I suppose\nhe has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So I believe\nhim to be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am concerned, I\nhave no objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he can to get all the\nchurches to act together. He may never succeed, but I am not responsible\nfor that.\n\nSo I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes to be the\ngospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an infinitely good\nGod made a poor world; that he made man and woman and put them in the\nGarden of Eden, and that this same God before that time had manufactured\na devil, and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew that he would\ncorrupt the man and woman that he had determined to make; that he could\nhave defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he allowed his\nSatanic Majesty to succeed; that at the time he allowed him to succeed,\nhe knew that in consequence of his success that he (God) in about\nfifteen or sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole\nworld with the exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for\nseed. At the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were totally\ndepraved, that they were saturated with the sin of Adam and Eve, and\nthat their children would be their natural heirs. He also knew at the\ntime he allowed the devil to succeed, that he (God), some four thousand\nyears afterward, would be compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe,\nto learn the carpenter's trade, and to go about the country for three\nyears preaching to the people and discussing with the rabbis of his\nchosen people, and he also knew that these chosen people--these people\nwho had been governed and educated by him, to whom he had sent a\nmultitude of prophets, would at that time be so savage that they would\ncrucify him, although he would be at that time the only sinless being\nwho had ever stood upon the earth. This he knew would be the effect of\nhis government, of his education of his chosen people. He also knew at\nthe time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in consequence of that\nsuccess a vast majority of the human race would become eternal convicts\nin the prison of hell.\n\nAll this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is\ninfinitely wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What would\nthis God have done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or goodness?\n\nOf all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of\nsavagery, there is none more perfectly absurd than Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.\n\n\n     * New York Journal, 1898. An Interview.\n\n_Question_. Have you followed the controversy, or rather, the interest\nmanifested in the letters to the _Journal_ which have followed your\nlecture of Sunday, and what do you think of them?\n\n_Answer._ I have read the letters and reports that have been published\nin the _Journal_. Some of them seem to be very sincere, some not quite\nhonest, and some a little of both.\n\nThe Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground that very many Christians\ndo not believe in a personal devil, but are still Christians. He states\nthat they hold that the references in the New Testament to the devil\nare simply to personifications of evil, and do not apply to any personal\nexistence. He says that he could give the names of a number of pastors\nwho hold such views. He does not state what his view is. Consequently, I\ndo not know whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.\n\nThe statement that the references in the New Testament to a devil\nare simply to personifications of evil, not applying to any personal\nexistence, seems to me utterly absurd.\n\nThe references to devils in the New Testament are certainly as good and\nsatisfactory as the references to angels. Now, are the angels referred\nto in the New Testament simply personifications of good, and are there\nno such personal existences? If devils are only personifications of\nevil, how is it that these personifications of evil could hold arguments\nwith Jesus Christ? How could they talk back? How could they publicly\nacknowledge the divinity of Christ? As a matter of fact, the best\nevidences of Christ's divinity in the New Testament are the declarations\nof devils. These devils were supposed to be acquainted with supernatural\nthings, and consequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas the\naverage Jew, not having been a citizen of the celestial world, was\nunable to recognize a deity when he met him.\n\nNow, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-Arthur calls them, were\nof various kinds. Some of them were dumb, while others could talk, and\nChrist said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they were very difficult\nto expel from the bodies of men; that it required fasting and prayer to\nget them out. Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did not exist?\nThat they were only \"personifications of evil\"?\n\nNow, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted\nby the devil; that is, by a \"personification of evil,\" and that this\npersonification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to\ninduce him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come\nfrom? Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not\nhave been. Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it\nexisted it came from the inside of Christ, so that, according to\nMacArthur, Christ was the creator of his own devil.\n\nI do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur's\nopinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some\ntime he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or\nwhether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New\nTestament can be explained away by calling the devils \"personifications\nof evil.\" Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a\n\"personification of evil\" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the\nworld, and whether Christ expelled seven \"personifications of evil\" from\nMary Magdalene, and how did they come to count these \"personifications\nof evil\"? If the devils, after all, are only \"personifications of evil,\"\nthen, of course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may\nbe different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet\nMary Magdalene had seven.\n\nDr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously\nbeat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take\nit for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in\ntheir creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word\nof God; that they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in\nsalvation by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I\ntake it for granted that they believe these things. Of course, the only\nevidence I have is what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon.\nThey may be dealing only in the \"personification of truth.\"\n\nWhen I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am\ntold that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after\nall, this \"man of straw\" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this\n\"man of straw,\" and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A\npreacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio,\nchallenged this \"man of straw,\" and the straw man put him out.\n\nBoth these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the\nRev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain\nwhat he calls the \"religious thinking of the hour,\" the \"straw man\" will\nput him out too.\n\nDr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of\nrepresentative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which\nleading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have\nthe goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds\nof representative thinkers--that is, of orthodox thinkers--that any\northodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the\nkindness to give just one?\n\nIn my lecture on \"Superstition\" I did say that to deny the existence\nof evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the\ntruth of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps\nof darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that\nif we give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of\nthe Old and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ.\nUpon that declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then\nJesus Christ was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true\naccount of what he said and of what he pretended to do. If the New\nTestament gives a true account of his words and pretended actions, then\nhe did claim to cast out devils. That was his principal business. That\nwas his certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated\nhis mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.\n\nNow, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the\nveracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that\ndivinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the\ngreat fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.\n\nNow, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister,\nbut like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have\na little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become\nspiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious\nand pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into\na corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry\n\"_Blasphemy!_\" I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply\nmean that they are illogical.\n\nDr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of\nprogressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive\nreligious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If\nreligion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress.\nIt may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but\nif it is not understood when given, why is it called a \"revelation\"?\nThere is no progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better\nmathematicians than others, but the old multiplication table remains the\nsame. So there can be no progress in a revelation from God.\n\nNow, Spain--and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune--has\nremained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to\ntheir superstition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that\nCatholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly\nadmit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with\nSpain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of\nthem has progressed to any great extent.\n\nNow, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man\ngrows better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man\nis, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized,\nwill be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has\nprogressed, it is a demonstration that it was not originally founded on\na revelation from God.\n\nIn my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction\nbetween the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if God\ncreated and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him\nat all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily\nfor famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if\nPresident McKinley thanked God for the victory at Santiago, he also\nshould have thanked him for sending the yellow fever.\n\nI stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any\ndistinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If God\ngoverns this world, then everything that happens is the very best that\ncould happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is\nto be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was\nto be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by\ninfinite wisdom and goodness.\n\nIt will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This God who\nmade man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom,\nand consequently this God cannot escape the responsibility for the\nactions of men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is\nresponsible.\n\nIf I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he\nwould murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would\nthink as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with\nme.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss\nIngersoll's address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of\ncourse I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the\naddress. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without\nbeing dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis\nParks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants,\ndenounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity\nis not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that\nwe do not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know\nthat there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head\nunder the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.\n\nNow, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the\ndevil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that\nthe devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say\nit honestly?\n\nBut the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go\nalong with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it\nvisited our soldiers, came from God, and that we should thank God for\nit. He does not say the soldiers should thank God for it, or that those\nwho had it should thank God for it, but that we should thank God for it,\nand there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us\nto bear with great fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the\nmisfortunes of others.\n\nHe says that this yellow fever works out God's purposes. Of course I am\nnot as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to\nbe. I have not the faintest idea of what God's purposes are. He works,\neven according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with\nthe little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why God\nshould have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or\ncholera, or why he should ever ask the assistance of tapeworms, or go in\npartnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an assistant, I have\nnever been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my\nignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be\nthat everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not\nbelieve it.\n\nThere is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on\nthe workings of the average orthodox mind.\n\nOne morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father,\n\"One of the ewe lambs is dead.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said the father; \"that is all for the best. Twins never do very\nwell, any how.\"\n\nThe next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the\nold man said, \"Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have\nmore wool.\"\n\nThe next morning the son said, \"The old ewe is dead.\"\n\n\"Well,\" replied the old man; \"that may be for the best, but I don't see\nit this morning.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on\nthe wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly\nobliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily\nrefuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation\nmight be an advertisement for me.\n\nNow, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are\nsome things in the lecture on \"Superstition\" worth the while even of a\nMethodist minister to answer.\n\nDoes Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will\nhe Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that God\ncreated him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this\nquestion: Why did God create a successful rival? When God created the\ndevil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That\nhe was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and\ndid he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That\nin consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that\nhe would have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in\nconsequence of that he himself would have to be born into this world as\na Judean peasant? That he would have to be crucified and suffer for\nthe sins of these people who had been misled by this devil that he\ndeliberately created, and that after all he would be able only to save a\nfew Methodists?\n\nWill the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can\nanswer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no\nadvertisement for him.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I\nnow return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, \"Ingersoll in many\nrespects is like Voltaire.\" I think no finer compliment has been paid me\nby any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank\nthe Rev. Mr. Belcher.\n\nThe Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that\nevery utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that\nevery argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in\nringing the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over\nagain for hundreds of years.\n\nNow, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives;\nthat you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it.\nYou must answer not the man, but the argument.\n\nAnother thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that\nno argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not\nbeen answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is\nstill as fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old\nuntil it has been answered.\n\nIt is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have\nbeen answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course\nit will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.\n\nNow, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you\nbelieve in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and\nwomen become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you\nbelieve that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe\nthe stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?\n\nNow, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.\nAnswer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is\na person, that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you another\nquestion: Why should this devil punish souls in hell for rebelling\nagainst God? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish\nGod's enemies? This may have been answered many times, but one more\nrepetition will do but little harm.\n\nAnother thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you\nbelieve that God is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which\nopen only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment\nis the highest expression of justice and mercy?\n\nIf you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you\nknew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to hell and\nsuffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing\nthis, you changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend?\nNow, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the\nPresbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.\n\nI say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for\nany of the children of men--I say to you that your God is a wild beast,\nan insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.\n\nAt the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac\nArthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.\n\nThe Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely\nsincere. He is orthodox--true blue. He believes in a devil; in an\nacting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think\nthis devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but\na little more cunning.\n\nAccording to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the\nuniverse--king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will\nnot admit that if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all\ncrumble, but I think he will admit that if the devil does not exist,\nthen Christ was mistaken, or that the writers of the New Testament did\nnot truthfully give us his utterances.\n\nNow, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he\nwas mistaken about the existence of God. In other words, if Christ\nmade a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine,\nalthough ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see\nexactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the\nChristian creeds do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean\northodox creeds. Is there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil\nin it?\n\nNow, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall\nof man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the\nkeystone. Remove him, the arch falls.\n\nNow, how can you say that an orthodox Christian creed remains intact\nwithout crumbling when original sin, the fall of man, the atonement and\nthe existence of the devil are all thrown aside?\n\nOf course if you mean by Christianity, acting like Christ, being\ngood, forgiving, that is another matter, but that is not Christianity.\nOrthodox Christians say that a man must believe on Christ, must have\nfaith, and that to act as Christ did, is not enough; that a man who acts\nexactly as Christ did, dying without faith, would go to hell. So when\nMr. Campbell speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox\nChristian.\n\nNow, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil exists, but he knows\na good deal about him. He knows that he can assume every conceivable\ndisguise or shape; that he can go about like a roaring lion; that at\nanother time he is a god of this world; on another occasion a dragon,\nand in the afternoon of the same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light,\nand all the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often assumes the\ndisguise of the serpent.\n\nSo the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited Christ into the\nwilderness to tempt him, that he adopted some disguise that made him\nmore than usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ could\nnot see through the disguise? Was it possible for the devil with a mask\nto fool God, his creator? Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ\nby offering him the kingdoms of the earth when they already belonged to\nChrist, and when Christ knew that the devil had no title, and when the\ndevil knew that Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil\nknew that Christ knew that he was the devil, and when the devil knew\nthat he was Christ? Does the reverend gentleman still think that it was\nthe disguise of the devil that tempted Christ?\n\nI would like some of these questions answered, because I have a very\ninquiring mind.\n\nSo Mr. Campbell tells us--and it is very good and comforting of\nhim--that there is a time coming when the devil shall deceive the\nnations no more. He also tells us that God is more powerful than the\ndevil, and that he is going to put an end to him.\n\nWill Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me why God made the devil?\nIf he is going to put an end to him why did he start him? Was it not a\nwaste of raw material to make him? Was it not unfair to let this devil,\nso powerful, so cunning, so attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put\nAdam and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his power, and not\nonly Adam and Eve within his power, but their descendants, so that the\nslime of the serpent has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence\nof what happened in the Garden of Eden, flames will surround countless\nmillions in the presence of the most merciful God?\n\nNow, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can explain all these things.\nHe may not care to do it for my benefit, but let him think of his own\ncongregation; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves of doubt and\nthought.\n\nThe Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of exceedingly good sense; one\nwho thinks for himself, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of\ncourse I am sorry that he does not agree with me, but I have become used\nto that, and so I thank him for the truths he utters.\n\nHe does not believe in the existence of a personal devil, and I guess by\nfollowing him up we would find that he did not believe in the existence\nof a personal God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In fact,\nhe tells us that he has given up the infallibility of the Bible. At the\nsame time, he says it is the most perfect compendium of religious and\nmoral thought. In that I think he is a little mistaken. There is a vast\ndeal of irreligion in the Bible, and there is a good deal of immoral\nthought in the Bible; but I agree with him that it is neither inspired\nnor infallible.\n\nThe Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion Lutheran Church, declares\nthat those who do not believe in a personal God do not believe in a\npersonal Satan, and _vice versa_. The one, he says, necessitates the\nother. In this I do not think he is quite correct. I think many people\nbelieve in a personal God who do not believe in a personal devil, but I\nknow of none who do believe in a personal devil who do not also believe\nin a personal God. The orthodox generally believe in both of them, and\nfor many centuries Christians spoke with great respect of the devil.\nThey were afraid of him.\n\nBut I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he says that to deny a\npersonal Satan is to deny the infallibility of God's word. I agree with\nthis because I suppose by \"God's word\" he means the Bible.\n\nHe further says, and I agree with him, that a \"Christian\" needs no\nscientific argument on which to base his belief in the personality of\nSatan. That certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a scientific\nargument it is equally true that he never will have one.\n\nYou see this word \"Science\" means something that somebody knows; not\nsomething that somebody guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but\nsomething that somebody knows.\n\nOf course there cannot be any scientific argument proving the existence\nof the devil. At the same time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says,\nand I thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove the existence\nof the devil from Genesis to the. Apocalypse, and I do agree with him\nthat the \"revealed word\" teaches the existence of a personal devil,\nand that all truly orthodox Christians believe that there is a personal\ndevil, and the Rev. Mr. Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he\nproves that without this devil there could be no redemption for the\nevil spirits; so he brings forward the temptation of Christ in the\nwilderness. At the same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to what\nthe Bible says, he insists that I bring no arguments, that I blaspheme,\nand then he drops into humor and says that if any further arguments are\nneeded to prove the existence of the devil, that I furnish them.\n\nHow a man believing the creed of the orthodox Mr. Kraeling can have\nanything like a sense of humor is beyond even my imagination.\n\nNow, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions, and I will ask him\nthe same questions that I ask all orthodox people in my lecture on\n\"Superstition.\"\n\nNow, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was created by a being of\ninfinite wisdom, power and goodness, and that the world he created has\nbeen governed by him.\n\nNow, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few plain questions, with\nthe request that he answer them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr.\nKraeling, had the power to make a world, would you make an exact copy of\nthis? Would you make a man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing that\nthey would be deceived, knowing that they would fall? Knowing that all\nthe consequences believed in by orthodox Christians would follow from\nthat fall? Would you do it? And would you make your world so as to\nprovide for earthquakes and cyclones? Would you create the seeds of\ndisease and scatter them in the air and water? Would you so arrange\nmatters as to produce cancers? Would you provide for plague and\npestilence? Would you so make your world that life should feed on life,\nthat the quivering flesh should be torn by tooth and beak and claw?\nWould you?\n\nNow, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture; just answer, and be honest.\n\nWould you make different races of men? Would you make them of different\ncolors, and would you so make them that they would persecute and enslave\neach other? Would you so arrange matters that millions and millions\nshould toil through many generations, paid only by the lash on the back?\nWould you have it so that millions and millions of babes would be sold\nfrom the breasts of mothers? Be honest, would you provide for religious\npersecution? For the invention and use of instruments of torture? Would\nyou see to it that the rack was not forgotten, and that the fagot was\nnot overlooked or unlighted? Would you make a world in which the wrong\nwould triumph? Would you make a world in which innocence would not be\na shield? Would you make a world where the best would be loaded with\nchains? Where the best would die in the darkness of dungeons? Where the\nbest would make scaffolds sacred with their blood?\n\nWould you make a world where hypocrisy and cunning and fraud should\nrepresent God, and where meanness would suck the blood of honest\ncredulity?\n\nWould you provide for the settlement of all difficulties by war? Would\nyou so make your world that the weak would bear the burdens, so that\nwoman would be a slave, so that children would be trampled upon as\nthough they were poisonous reptiles? Would you fill the woods with wild\nbeasts? Would you make a few volcanoes to overwhelm your children? Would\nyou provide for earthquakes that would swallow them? Would you make them\nignorant, savage, and fill their minds with all the phantoms of horror?\nWould you?\n\nNow, it will only take you a few moments to answer these questions, and\nif you say you would, then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the\northodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If you say you would not, I\nwill admit that there is a little dawn of intelligence in your brain.\n\nAt the same time I want it understood with regard to all these\nministers that I am a friend of theirs. I am trying to civilize their\ncongregations, so that the congregations may allow the ministers to\ndevelop, to grow, to become really and truly intelligent. The process is\nslow, but it is sure.","title":"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 07 (of 12): Dresden Edition\u2014Discussions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":115132}